1986 Legislative Session: 4th 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, APRIL 21, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7865 ]

CONTENTS

Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 7865

Oral Questions

Hotel evictions. Mr. Blencoe –– 7865

Hopwood report. Mr. Williams –– 7866

Log exports. Mr. Parks –– 7866

Northeast coal. Hon. Mr. Curtis replies –– 7867

Permit to use cyanide issued to Grand Forks mine. Hon. Mr. Pelton replies –– 7867

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 7867

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke Mr. Michael Ms. Brown Mr. Reid

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 7881

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe Mr. Rose

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PASSARELL: Visiting us today, Mr. Speaker, is a friend of

mine from West Germany, Ruth Lonkai. She's sitting behind you, for

probably a good reason. I wanted my friend Paul Loong in here today,

because he mentioned in an

article a while ago that I was married.

Today I can say that Paul is pretty close, because Ruth and I will be

getting married in the next few weeks.

Introduction of Bills.

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Commercial Arbitration Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would advise the House that this bill

modernizes and streamlines all local commercial arbitration: that is,

it does not deal with the international arbitration, on which we

already had a bill, nor does it deal with matrimonial matters or labour

matters; it deals with the other body of commercial arbitrations in

British Columbia, which have been under our old Arbitration Act, which

was put in its present form roughly in 1893 and is quite out of touch

with contemporary needs. This new act will provide a modern, simpler

and more certain process to encourage people to resolve their disputes

through arbitration. In doing that, it should relieve the courts of

some of their backlog in commercial cases. The streamlining will be

important; it will provide a simpler, faster, less expensive and less

formal process for arbitration, and it will also limit judicial review

to those cases in which there is an important point of law or

jurisdictional matter. So costly and time-consuming procedures will be

abolished.

I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.

Bill 22, introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

HOTEL EVICTIONS

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

of Housing. The city of Vancouver has budgeted $40,000 to assist with

the cost of relocating Expo evictees. In view of the provincial

responsibility for this project, the city is seeking to recover those

costs from the provincial government. A question to the minister: has

the government decided to pay those costs?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, to the member, of what he speaks

this is the first I've heard, so I really can't answer that question at

this time. But as far as the province's commitment to finding

alternative accommodation for those who are "being evicted" is

concerned, we're already, I believe, doing a fantastic job, in that the

B.C. Housing Management Commission has put a single person from staff

on that question. As I said in this House last week, anyone requiring

such accommodation need only go to the B.C. Housing Management

Commission, and I've given my undertaking that that accommodation will

be found.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Not only do we have

a responsibility to follow the question guidelines, we also have a

responsibility on answer guidelines. Answers should not generally

exceed the scope of the question.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's a sad day when the minister and the government seem to want to reject the fact that people are being evicted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: The numbers are there. Supplementary to the

minister, Mr. Speaker. The Fraser hotel, owned by B.C. Hydro, has

evicted its tenants and is currently sitting empty. What consideration

has the minister given on behalf of the government to ordering Hydro to

reopen the facility to accommodate persons in need of housing as a

result of Expo evictions?

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the situation. I'll take that question on notice and bring an answer back.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering when the minister will become aware of what's happening in Vancouver and take some action.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary question to the minister. How many people have to be evicted before this government will take action?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: That's the question. How many people have to be evicted?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Supplemental questions are not in

order for questions taken on notice, and questions must be questions.

The member continues.

[2:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question about the Fraser hotel was taken on notice, Mr. Speaker. This is a new question.

To what proportion does this crisis have to reach, how many people

have to be evicted, and how much international scandal must we attract

before attention and action is taken by this government?

[ Page 7866 ]

HON. MR. KEMPF: I guess the member isn't aware, after the

discussion that's taken place in this House and elsewhere, of what is

being done by this government, and I said it in a statement in the

House last week. The B.C. Housing Management Commission is looking

after those people who are evicted and don't have accommodation. You

need only approach them. As well — and the member should be aware, but

if he's not I'll tell him again — there has been a task force set up,

which includes people from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the B.C.

Housing Management Commission, the city of Vancouver, the Greater

Vancouver Housing Corporation and DERA, for the specific reason of

finding accommodation for those who don't have any.

So there are two avenues, Mr. Member, that those people can go.

Again, I undertake to this House that if anyone is looking for that

kind of accommodation, he or she need only go to the B.C. Housing

Management Commission, and I'll give my undertaking that that

accommodation will be found.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware of the international and

world attention and international media attention on these Expo

evictions, and therefore the damage it is causing Expo, and the costs

to the taxpayer in terms of the image? Is the minister aware of that?

I am wondering if the minister can tell us what is the current

vacancy rate for those units managed by the B.C. Housing Management

Commission.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member didn't hear.

Again, I'll repeat: for anyone requiring accommodation in Vancouver,

they need only go to the B.C. Housing Management Commission and request

that kind of accommodation. Again, I give my undertaking that

accommodation will be found.

HOPWOOD REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Forests. He has received a report from a professional forester, Mr.

Allen Hopwood, on matters related to excessive amounts received by

contractors and private companies with respect to what his ministry has

allowed in terms of actual costs for such projects. Can the minister

confirm he has received that report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have

received a copy of the report. I cannot recall whether it was delivered

by the author; I don't think so.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise the House, Mr. Speaker,

if there is a significant difference between the allowances allowed

contractors and private corporations in this province, with respect to

their real costs for projects that his ministry approved?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the member has obviously read

the report as well. It was commissioned by a number of truck loggers

and, I presume, market loggers as well. The concern which was expressed

by both of those groups — and it's been a concern which has apparently

been in existence for a number of years, involving the amount which is

paid by the licence-holder to the contractor.... I gather that these

amounts.... There is a differential. The member raised that matter in

the House within the last three weeks — that in fact there is a

differential and that there was some concern as to whether or not the

contractors were receiving what they felt was their just due.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House what the overall differential is?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This particular report came to me, as I

recall, in confidence. It has not been made public, to my knowledge, by

either the author or the association that commissioned the report. If

they wish to make it public, that's fine. When it was passed to me, it

was given to me on a confidential basis, and I have no intention

whatsoever of breaching that confidence.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister

confirm that this represents, whatever the differential is, a loss to

the Crown in terms of revenue because of the benefit of pocketing the

difference?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't intend to give particulars of the

report. Suffice to say that the authors of the report, as well as those

for whom the report was commissioned, were somewhat concerned about the

amount of money they were receiving and that amount which is within the

stumpage and appraisal system. We can argue numbers; there's obviously

a spread, and it works both ways. But I am not going to make that

document public when it was passed to me on a confidential basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Finance. What this report

indicates is that millions and millions of dollars were not received by

the Crown, funds that were properly due from public timber in British

Columbia. The minister can very well speak about this being a

confidential report. This is lost money to the people of British

Columbia that could have met social needs in a time of great need. The

question is: has the Minister of Finance concerned himself with these

issues, and has he reviewed this report?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I have not reviewed this report at this time.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. PARKS: I have a question to the Minister of Forests. It

has become, as we're now well aware, very clear that the lack of log

exportation has taken its toll on jobs. I'm wondering if, in your

capacity as the government minister responsible for perhaps reviewing

and establishing policy in that regard, you are in receipt of any

indication from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that, contrary to their

party's written policy with respect to being against log exportation

and contrary to their caucus's position of being against log

exportation, they are now in favour of log exportation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, one thing that I have always

understood is that when a question comes from a member on the

government side I would like to have had some forewarning, but I can

see that I'm not entitled to that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Shame, right.

[ Page 7867 ]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I know about this is what I've read in the

paper — as far as the opposition is concerned. I know that this question was

put to the Leader of the Opposition, who said: "No, I cannot subscribe

totally to the resolution of the IWA, because it would mean displacing jobs."

I read that in the press, and I presume the Leader of the Opposition was accurately

quoted.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of

Forests, I wasn't referring to a comment of the Leader of the

Opposition but of the forestry critic for that party. Last Sunday on

Channel 6 there was a program aired on which, if my recollection is

correct, the forestry critic stated that his party was in favour of

some log exportation. I wonder if that policy had been made known to

him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not see

the program to which the member refers. Nothing has been communicated

to me by the members of the opposition, but of course, if they have

anything to support the concept — any other ideas — I'd like to receive

them.

MR LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order — I think it may be a point

of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker — the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam, as usual, has his facts completely wrong. If

he had watched that particular program — which went very, very well —

he would know exactly what was said. He obviously didn't see the

program and doesn't know what the heck he's talking about — as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. That's a point of order, hon.

members, that might be raised on numerous occasions in this House — and

each time the substance of the actual point of order has some question

as to its merit. That is the purpose of debate.

NORTHEAST COAL

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer a question put

to me earlier in question period. The second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Williams) earlier this month — I'm sorry I don't have the precise

date — asked with respect to the rail line to Tumbler Ridge.... I think

I quote him correctly when I say the question was: the $501-million

rail line to Tumbler Ridge in the northeast coalfields was to have been

paid for by a surcharge of $3 a tonne from Quintette and $2.50 from

Teck, the two operating corporations up there. Can the minister advise

if those amounts have been discounted?

In response, I can advise him and the House that the rail surcharges

referred to in his question have not been discounted or reduced. The

rail surcharges continue to be billed to the operating corporations in

the northeast...

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Continue to be billed, Mr. Member. Read Hansard if you are having trouble.

And there are no arrears of payments.

PERMIT TO USE CYANIDE ISSUED

TO GRAND FORKS MINE

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague the Minister

of Finance, I rise to respond to a question — placed by the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) with respect to the issue of a permit

for the use of cyanide to extract gold from mine tailings in Grand

Forks and the alleged cancellation of a public hearing. The

Environmental Appeal Board has not yet held an appeal hearing on this

matter. A hearing was held, however, by the director of the waste

management branch on an appeal of the issuance of a permit by the

regional waste manager, and the director made a decision at that time

that the permit should be amended to provide for more stringent

controls on the operation. It is this permit that was to be appealed,

and he decided it should be appealed by the watershed coalition

appellants to the Environmental Appeal Board.

Just to make sure that everyone is completely aware of what went on

in this instance, I would like to read into the record a letter that

was written by the chairman of the Environmental Appeal Board to the

watershed coalition, explaining the initial reasons for the proposals

to deal with the appeal by a written submission and the later decision

to deal with the appeal by the public hearing.

"I refer to my letter of April 2, 1986, in which I

stated that there would be no hearing on this appeal. It now appears

that both parties have alleged a lack of openness by the other. I am

not accepting that these allegations are well founded. However, in the

circumstances it appears to be necessary for the board to have the

opportunity to observe the witness. Accordingly I have requested the

secretary of the board to arrange for a hearing in Grand Forks as soon

as it can be arranged. The hearing will start at 9 a.m. The parties

will be expected to confine their evidence strictly to whether the

permit, as amended by the director, will prevent pollution as defined

in the Waste Management Act.

"The director of the waste management branch is

granted full party status to take such

part in the hearings as he may

deem advisable. All evidence will be given on oath.

H.D.C. Hunter, Panel chairman"

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, as we finished up on Friday the

minister was attempting to make the argument that the province did not

have jurisdiction in respect of workers' compensation regulations in

the fishing industry. He said the advice he had received was that

despite the fact that premiums are collected and awards paid out by the

Workers' Compensation Board, the board does not have the jurisdiction

in respect of the regulations themselves.

[ Page 7868 ]

I just want to pursue that for a moment or two, because the province

does have jurisdiction in other federally governed areas in British

Columbia. The one I want to cite, of course, is British Columbia

Ferries. A few weeks ago the minister tried to make the argument that

British Columbia has jurisdiction over regulations on the ferry fleet

because it is a Crown corporation, and that we don't have jurisdiction

over the fishing fleet because it is not a Crown corporation.

The minister should know that the constitution of Canada, in

determining what is provincial and what is federal, does not make any

reference to the ownership of a particular industry or corporation. The

fact is that the federal government has jurisdiction over saltwater

activities, but in several instances they have ceded jurisdiction to

the province. In respect of regulations on the ferry fleet, that

responsibility has been allowed to be taken by the province.

The same principle applies in respect of the fishing fleet. The

ownership of the particular vessel is not in any way a factor in

determining jurisdiction between federal and provincial authorities in

this country. That's one argument in favour of the province taking the

right to draft and impose regulations in the fishing industry; another

— and this point has been made by the member for New Westminster — is

that in large measure we are talking not about matters that are

governed by the federal transport department in respect of marine

regulations, but about actual safety issues on board ship which have

nothing to do with federal Ministry of Transport regulations.

Mr. Chairman, in case the minister isn't aware — I'm certain he is

aware, but so that everyone else is aware — this is a long-time

process. I have in one hand the first draft of the Workers'

Compensation Board industrial health and safety regulations for fishing

vessels, dated December 1975. All kinds of people in the industry

raised specific objections to those regulations as inappropriate; as a

result, a second draft was presented. The second draft is, I should

say, about half the thickness of the first draft, one that takes into

account concerns by people who work directly in the industry. No one is

suggesting that this second draft is necessarily appropriate either,

but some work should take place — and take place soon — on capturing

our rightful jurisdiction in this area so that we do not continue to

lose the number of lives that we lose every year in British Columbia,

some of that loss no doubt attributable to the fact that there are no

regulations in place in respect of workers' compensation.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed to some other issues, I'd welcome the minister's response on that question.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island

again brings up the matter of regulations in the fishing industry. I

have had a number of meetings — and some good discussion — with

representatives of the unions representing the employees in the fishing

industry, and the objectives on both sides are the same: that is, to

reduce the number of unnecessary deaths in the industry, and the

accidents brought on by a variety of different circumstances.

The matter dealing with the British Columbia Ferry Corporation is

one that the member points out as an example whereby the province does

have the authority to deal with regulating the fishing industry. The

British Columbia Ferry Corporation is a Crown corporation, and I would

expect it to comply with the industrial health and safety standards of

a sister Crown corporation, namely the Workers' Compensation Board. In

all of the discussions with representatives of the fishing industry,

without question the federal Department of Transport and Labour Canada

have the jurisdiction to regulate the fishing industry. The Workers'

Compensation Board does not get involved in regulating. It is true that

they established a set of regulations for the industry, going back to

1975, but if you don't have the legal authority to impose regulations,

hon. member, then you could not proceed in that area.

I did ask the fishermen's union to sit down with their members of

Parliament from British Columbia and ask them to encourage the

ownership of regulating the industry. If they could persuade the

means we would assist them in developing good safety standards

and regulations for their industry. In the meantime, I

suggested to them that they come up with a program whereby the Workers'

Compensation Board would be able to assist them in providing strong

educational programs for their members, strong guidelines that they

could use in dealing with safety standards in their particular

industry. If they came forward with a set of recommendations that

required funding for their membership, or other areas we could assist

them with in the meantime, we would be pleased to assist them in any

way we could.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if there is no legal authority

for implementing regulations in the fishing industry, what legal

authority does the minister have for implementing regulations on the

ferry fleet?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the goodwill of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation and a policy of the government of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, now we're getting somewhere, Mr.

Chairman. The reason we have regulations in the ferry industry is

twofold. Firstly, it is the policy of the government that there should

be regulation, which was the second reason that the minister gave and,

secondly, the goodwill of the Ferry Corporation.

So let's deal now with the fishing industry. Why is it the policy of

the government that there should be regulations on the ferry fleet but

not the policy of the government for regulations where people are

losing their lives in too many numbers every year in the fishing

industry? Why would the government make that policy distinction?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The British Columbia Ferry Corporation is

owned by the people of British Columbia and is subject to the directive

of the government to comply with regulations and safety standards of a

British Columbia Crown corporation, the Workers' Compensation Board. I

could go out and talk to the private owners of fishing fleets in

British Columbia and nicely ask them to comply with the regulations set

out by the government of British Columbia, but they most likely would

not comply. They would just do like they did in 1975: tell you where to

go.

MR. GABELMANN: So as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, what the

minister is basically saying is that because it is the policy of the

government, and therefore as a result the policy of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, they will comply with Workers' Compensation Board

regulations in the ferry fleet. Presumably it is because it is that

policy that the minister is

[ Page 7869 ]

telling us about that they won't launch a court

challenge against having regulations in that particular area. Because

when you put it together, the first comment the minister made was in

respect of the goodwill of the employer.

So what we are getting from the government is that the government

does not want to have a policy in favour of regulation in the fishing

industry because they don't have "the goodwill of the employer." Now he

shakes his head.

All I can do here is attempt to listen to what the minister says. He

says there are no regulations in the fishing industry, in effect,

because — if you reverse what he said — there is neither the goodwill

nor the government policy in place.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, if the Minister of Agriculture and Food

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) would listen to the debate, he would know that the

minister....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Just shut up and go away, will you, please?

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Also, could we have order, please.

The other members will come to order. Would the member address the

Chair? If the Minister of Agriculture and Food wishes to participate in

debate, he has every opportunity to do so.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, let's just go through this again

slowly, because I think for some members it is important that I do go

through it slowly.

The minister said that it is possible to have Workers' Compensation

Board regulations on the ferry fleet because it is government policy

that the B.C. Ferry Corporation should adhere to Workers' Compensation

Board regulations, and, secondly, because of the goodwill of the

directors of the corporation. I interpret "goodwill of the corporation

and board of directors" to mean that they won't challenge the legality

of the question.

Now if that is not what the minister means — and I see he is being

told that that is not what he meant — I'd like to know what he did

mean. Clearly the minister cannot have it both ways. Either it is legal

to have workers' compensation regulations imposed in areas of federal

jurisdiction or it is not. The ferry fleet is under federal

jurisdiction. Every time you ride the ferry, you hear the federal

Department of Transport regulations referred to. The federal government

administers and is responsible for the jurisdiction, in respect of

marine law, of the ferry fleet.

So too are they in respect of the fishing fleet. The province has,

one way or another, taken the responsibility to apply regulations on

the ferry fleet. One way or the other they have told the directors to

do it, or they've said "please do it," or the directors have said "we

want to do it; do you object?" Whatever has happened, it is being done.

Why can't the government, as a matter of policy, say the same thing to

the fishing industry, and if the fishing industry wants to take it to

court to say that it is ultra vires provincial jurisdiction, then we

lose that and then we have to deal with the issue in another way. But

in the meantime, let's get on with the job of trying to save some lives

on the coast of British Columbia.

[2:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how I can say it

more clearly. The government of British Columbia has directed the Crown

corporation, B.C. Ferries Corporation, to comply with the health and

safety standards of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Yes, the federal government has authority in that area as well, but

we have asked them to comply with the health and safety standards of

the Workers' Compensation Board because it is owned by the people of

British Columbia. The federal government has clearly exercised their

authority. The owners in the fishing industry know full well that the

don't have to listen to the standards set by the government of British

Columbia's Crown corporation, the Workers' Compensation Board. If the

jurisdiction in that area and change its laws and its acts, then the

provincial government's Workers' Compensation Board will look at

dealing with regulations in the fishing industry.

All of the legal information and advice that I have today is that

the matter clearly comes under the jurisdiction of the government of

Canada. That is the advice I've gotten to date. Anything that the

and give up its jurisdiction in that area would be appreciated by all

concerned. Indeed, I'm surprised that the member would not have asked

his federal MPs, who are members of the same party, to bring the matter

up in the House of Commons in question period. But my research tells me

that that hasn't been the case.

MR. GABELMANN: The B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union were

never asked to go to Ottawa to try to get jurisdiction for safety

regulations on the ferry fleet, but the minister expects the UFAWU to

go to Ottawa to try to get jurisdiction in the fishing fleet? That's

what he said. He suggested that the United Fishermen and Allied

Workers' Union should go to Ottawa to try to get jurisdiction — "change

its laws," he said. Well, Mr. Chairman, the same laws apply in the

ferry fleet as apply in the fishing fleet. If it's illegal to have

regulations — or extralegal, or whatever word the minister might want

to use — on the fishing fleet, then, too, it is illegal or extralegal

on the ferry fleet. You can't have it both ways. Just because it's a

matter of policy that the board of directors of the ferry fleet has

been directed to comply doesn't affect the laws of Canada. The

government of British Columbia can't issue a directive or have a policy

that's against the law. The minister wants us to believe it's against

the law of Canada for the fishing fleet to be protected. Then it must

be against the law of Canada for the ferry fleet to be protected. It's

an absurd situation, Mr. Chairman.

You know what the truth is here? It's that the government is

prepared to do what the owners of the fishing fleet want. They could

care less; they don't give a damn about the workers and their own

lives. That's what's going on in this issue. The big owners of the

fishing fleet have said: "We don't want regulations. Will you protect

us from Workers' Compensation regulations? We think the cost of doing

business in this province shouldn't include regulations. It may

[ Page 7870 ]

include a few more deaths, but we're prepared to

live with that." And the government says: "Yes, we, too, are prepared

to live with a few more deaths every year, because we're going to do

what the employers want in this particular instance." That's the short

story in respect of the failure of this government to take the

jurisdiction that it has already taken in the question of the ferry

fleet.

You can get all the legal advice you want, but you'll get differing

legal opinions. I've had differing legal opinions. You can take one or

the other. But when it's a question of people's lives, which it is, you

should say, "Damn the lawyers," and get on with trying to protect those

lives. Take the jurisdiction and impose those regulations in this

industry. When I say "impose," I don't mean doing it without

consultation. Consult with the people, in every aspect of the business,

and develop a set of regulations that are appropriate to that peculiar

and particular industry. But get them in place. You might save a few

women and a few children from the fate of widowhood. I can't think of

anything that the Minister of Labour might like to do more than save

the odd life here on the coast of this province.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I sit here absolutely amazed. I

recognize that this is a minister of relatively short tenure who maybe

doesn't quite understand the responsibility of a minister. But he

indicates that MPs from British Columbia or trade unions from British

Columbia should be going on their hands and knees to the government of

Canada to give up jurisdiction so that he can maintain the jurisdiction

on behalf of the fishermen of this province. Well, for crying out loud.

We've got a Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a Minister of Labour

and a Premier. Is he telling us that they're all absolutely useless,

that they're not going to do their jobs?

In 1976 when Allan Williams, the then Minister of Labour,

surrendered the jurisdiction in this particular area — and don't tell

me any different — he said that if the federal government and the

Department of Transport did not in fact live up to the standards, he

would seize the jurisdiction. Now this minister is saying: "Oh, no, let

the trade unions go out." The fact of the matter is that people are

needlessly dying out there.

Imagine the case of the people who were welded into that coffin

called a pilot house on a fishing boat just a couple of years ago. You

know, we don't need this kind of behaviour from this government. We

recognize that it's as incompetent as blazes, but can it be so

incompetent that it's dehumanized to the extent that they will not do

the duty of a government for the people of this province? Because

that's what I'm hearing. It's just absolutely ridiculous. What rubbish!

If the Department of Transport has that jurisdiction, show me where

there has been one inspection. They check the very large vessels for

seaworthiness, and that's all — no worry about safety. You could have

gaff hooks all over the place, and all the other things that could very

well be unsafe. They do not check for safety.

We accept the jurisdiction in this province to provide compensation.

The minister didn't even know that at the beginning. I heard him

interviewed on the radio, and he said: "How can we do that? It's not in

our jurisdiction." And we were doing it and have been doing it since

the 1970s when the NDP were government. And then we did seize the

jurisdiction and there were some regulations brought in that were….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: This is saving lives, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). You wouldn't understand that, would you?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, you just wouldn't understand that. Yes,

we took — or seized, whatever you like — the jurisdiction. We

unfortunately brought in regulations that were too severe, and both

sides understood that. Those regulations needed to be amended. They

actually weren't even proclaimed. They were given to both sides to have

a look at, and they could very easily have been modified, but the

minister, Allan Williams, came along and decided to give up

jurisdiction again to the feds, who have done absolutely nothing about

safety. Now why the blazes should we let our fishing fleet go out like

that? I think it's up to this government. Give the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations a job. What has he done lately? What has he

ever done? Give him a job, for heaven's sake. Get him down to Ottawa to

start fighting for the rights of our people here.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of

the member for New Westminster. I'm as concerned about safety as he is,

and so is every member on this side of the House, as I know every

member on that side of the House is. If there's an opportunity to save

a life, we're all going to try to do that, hon. member.

does have responsibility in this area. That's the legal opinion that

we've got to date. There is a court case currently being heard before

the Supreme Court with respect to federal-provincial jurisdiction, an

argument before the courts. Once that is heard we may be in a better

position to do something about it. In the meantime what I've done is

ask the representatives of the fishermen's union to come up with some

proposals for the development of a safety program in their industry. If

they do that, then the Workers' Compensation Board could fund that

safety program for them, or assist them in funding it somewhat. That's

what we can do in the meantime.

You're right, we have a job to do in getting that jurisdiction from

is that they objected in the strongest terms to what the government was

doing back in the mid-1970s, and those arguments are continuing to

date. That doesn't help the fishermen, but it is continuing to date. If

there's a legal way that we can do it, it will be done. But I'm not

going to go out there to raise false hopes and expectations with the

fishermen that the government of British Columbia is going to impose

regulations in an industry where we don't have the authority to do so.

It will be done in an orderly way, in a legal way, and in a way that

will without question have the respect of all the parties in the

development of those regulations once we have the authority to do so.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder when the last time was

that the Minister of Labour talked to either the federal Minister of

Transport or the federal Minister of Labour on this issue.

[ Page 7871 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: We've had discussions with other provinces

in the Maritimes, and they're in the same situation we are. We've had

correspondence with the federal minister on the matter as well, and we

hope we'll be able to get that on the agenda for a minister's

conference in the near future.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the minister to state

clearly what his position will be at that ministerial conference in

respect of his jurisdiction? Will he be asking the federal government

to cede the jurisdiction to British Columbia?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the

from the Workers' Compensation Board and its Crown corporations in

terms of imposing safety standards. If they are to give up the

regulations, we expect some help from them in assisting in preparing

Workers' Compensation Board — with fleets and other matters dealing

with safety and inspections.

MR. GABELMANN: If I understood the minister correctly, he's

talking about attempting to negotiate with Ottawa the same arrangement

that I understand exists on the docks, for example, in British

Columbia, where the WCB acts as the regulatory agency and handles the

whole compensation question. That's the position that the government of

British Columbia will take to Ottawa, or wherever the meeting will take

place, to seek that the same arrangement as exists on the federally

governed docks of this province will then happen, if they agree, in the

fishing industry. Have I understood that correctly?

[3:00]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, we want the government of

Canada to either make a decision to do it themselves or provide

opportunity for jurisdiction, the Workers' Compensation Board, to do it

for them with some compensation from them to carry out those

regulations and inspections.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I must echo some of the remarks of

the Minister of Labour. It's interesting to sit and listen to the

questions of members opposite and then to look at Hansard

from Ottawa and see the questions being asked by the NDP members

representing a large portion, hundreds of thousands of constituents, of

British Columbia, and the quality and types of questions being asked

back in Ottawa. I have a lot of difficulty recognizing that it's the

same political party. I don't see those questions asked of our Minister

of Labour being asked back in Ottawa by their own federal MPs. It's

strange, to say the least, to notice the kinds of questions being asked

back in Ottawa by those federal NDP MLAs, who are asking questions

about the Canadian armed forces policy regarding homosexuals and

lesbians but very few about job creation or fishermen's problems on the

Pacific coast of Canada. There are questions being asked about the

Canadian assets of Marcos, and Nicaragua, and Atlantic fishing, but I

don't see anything in here about British Columbia Pacific coast fishing

or jobs. It's very strange; you'd wonder if they are members of the

same political party. I've looked at the entire question period during

the month of March 1986, and I see no reference to those types of

issues being made by their members back in that great capital city of

Canada, Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Labour. I wonder sometimes just exactly what we're doing with the

people that I consider to be the grassroots, the backbone in British

Columbia. I include in that group the workers in the mines, the

loggers, the sawmill workers — truly the backbone of this province —

but I wonder about the small building contractors. Has he had a look at

what a tremendous contribution the small building contractors make to

the province of British Columbia? Has that minister had a close look at

the unjust, discriminatory method in which these small contractors must

bid on jobs in competition with the public sector?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I'm going to be very specific, Mr. Chairman, and I've got some

accurate rates here that have been researched very thoroughly and I

think serve as an example of trades people in the small contracting

industry trying to bid against school boards and municipalities,

attempting to do work by the private sector rather than it being done

by the public sector. I'd like to quote a few rates to the minister.

First of all, if you are a carpenter or journeyman of any type or

classification working for a school board in the province of British

Columbia, your employer, being the school board, is required to pay the

WCB $0.49 cents per $100 of payroll. If you are a private contractor in

direct competition with that school board, your WCB assessment is $5.87

per $100 of payroll — a difference of $5.38 per $100 of payroll. That

translates into, if there is a job to be tendered and the

superintendent of operations is to give the board of school trustees a

quote on the possibilities of contracting it out to the private sector

or doing it in-house, the school board having a clear advantage of

$5,380 for every $100,000 of labour content. If that particular project

had $1 million worth of labour content, the in-house school board

competition would have an advantage of $53,800. That, to me, is grossly

unfair.

These figures do not suggest that public sector construction workers

— journeymen, tradesmen — have fewer accidents or are any more safe

than private sector ones. This system is built in such a way that it's

a global assessment. In a school district 80 percent of the employees

are teachers, another 15 percent are clerical workers, and probably 5

percent might work in what might be classified as a hazardous industry

— janitors, repair and maintenance staff, groundskeepers, and things

like that. What you have is a weighting factor built into this WCB

formula. There are 95 percent working in what could be described as a

safe working environment, with very little time lost because of

accidents, and 5 percent in what might be described as a high-risk

area;

whereas the small contractors in the province of British Columbia

are the exact reverse — 95 percent or more of their employees work in

the field, in the high-risk area.

I'm asking the minister: have you given consideration, or will you

give consideration, to having a very close look at this inequity? It's

an obvious injustice; it's wrong; it's not fair; it's not equitable.

Have you looked or will you have a look at revising the means by which

the Workers' Compensation Board assesses private employers and public

sector entities such as school boards, municipalities and regional

districts?

[ Page 7872 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to thank the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke for all the research he has put into making his

presentation. I won't look into it myself, but I will send the matter

to the acting chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, who is

empowered under the act to make those decisions and make whatever

revisions are necessary in the rating program. I would like to thank

the member for that, and I will take his comments out of Hansard

and send them to the acting chairman of the board. I know that the

acting chairman will respond to him on matters dealing with that

assessment.

MR. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I will

certainly take that advice and take that notice back to the people who

have brought the problem to my attention, and I thank you for your

response.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to ask a couple of questions and

then make some general comments about the WCB. I understand the

Workers' Compensation Board annual report has been ready for some time

and is in the minister's hands. I wonder why we haven't had an

opportunity to have that available to us prior to these estimates.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes, I received the annual report last

week, but I haven't had an opportunity to read it myself before

presenting it to the Legislature.

MR. GABELMANN: Just let me say very briefly, then, that it

really would be helpful in these matters if, annual reports being

available or near to ready to table, estimates could follow rather than

precede the reports. That happens in a whole variety of ministries, and

it's really a difficult process. What that can do is shorten the

debate, because some of the information that might be useful is quite

often contained in these reports. I hope that next year we do this in

reverse.

I want to ask a question about the workplace hazardous materials

information system, commonly called WHMS. It's not spelled WHIMS, but

it is pronounced "whims" by people who are active in the whole question

of hazardous materials information. I gather there is a meeting in

Ottawa May 6, which is a couple of weeks away. Will the ministry be

represented, and what is the position of the provincial government in

respect of this particular proposal?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, my deputy will be attending

the meeting in Ottawa. The meeting is drawing together all of the

deputy ministers or senior officials within the various ministries

across the country. It is designed to finalize the report and come back

with recommendations to the province on legislative change or otherwise.

MR. GABELMANN: I thank the minister for that. Does the

ministry or the government accept or agree to the

schedule agreed on by

the steering committee in charge of this particular subject?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the steering committee that

has been looking at the report so far — and that's at the

administrative level — feels that there are some administrative

problems with some of the recommendations contained in the report, and

that will be the matter of discussion at the meeting. They hope that

they will be able to come back to British Columbia in particular with

some recommendations for us and that the administrative process and

everything else will be cleaned up at that time.

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make some general comments about the Workers'

Compensation Board. I am not going to repeat what the member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has said but maybe just give my perspective on

what is happening. What I did was to write down what I thought were the

four biggest problems in the Workers' Compensation Board over the last

few years and to see how we're doing in resolving what I think

generally would be perceived as significant problems.

The first of those that I wrote down was the general problem of

management. For some time now we have had very unstable management — to

put the kindest words on it that I can — and as a result no consistency

and unfortunately a lot of difficulty within the administrative

structure in terms of knowing what policy is today and thinking it is

going to be different tomorrow. The whole question of a happy and

contented workforce is one that can only be addressed by management.

When workers are not performing to the best of their ability or are

unhappy or tense or all of the other kinds of things, you never say it

is the workers' fault; it is management's fault. And at least nine

times out of ten it is a management problem, not a workers' problem. In

respect of the Workers' Compensation Board, we have had that problem in

spades in recent times. So I have watched with interest as the minister

begins the process of what I think is a genuine attempt to stabilize

the management structure and hopefully the people.

On that question I must say that I have been pleased so far by the

way the minister has embarked upon that very necessary program of

change at the management level. I encourage him to stick with that and

to continue the consultation that appears to be happening in a fairly

broad way in respect of that management structure change that is going

on.

We can all argue, I suppose, about the various choices, board of

directors versus commissioners versus any other set of structures you

might want to name, but the important element in all of this is that

there is some stability, some trust on the part of the parties

involved, and some sense of direction and some sense of purpose on the

part of the staff in the operation. If that comes from this process,

then all of us will be well served.

One of the other four areas was the whole question of the backlog on

appeals. I must say to the minister that I for one applaud the

minister's actions in first of all keeping an appeal system — I think

the whole question of there being an appeal system was in very real

jeopardy — but not only keeping it but expanding it and in

regionalizing it. The horror stories that the member for New

Westminster talked about are very real, and every one of us who is

actively involved in assisting constituents knows of people who not

only have lost their homes and their savings but in many cases have

lost their families simply as a result of a two-year appeal process

which people have had to wait for.

I have done this in other years, Mr. Chairman. I think it is

important to say the good with the bad, and so far at least it looks as

if that is a positive thing.

[3:15]

The minister made some curious comments in opening debate on

Wednesday afternoon that I've read now seven or eight times, trying to

see if I could understand them. He was talking about the whole question

of boards of review and the

[ Page 7873 ]

expansion of boards of review into the

regionalizing of that process, and somehow worked the question of

workers' advisers and employers' advisers into the sentence, and then

never referred to it. It was still the same sentence as the board of

review question.

The best I can understand from what's in here is that the minister

intends to expand the workers' compensation advisory services out of

Richmond as well and into the rest of the province. If that's what he's

saying, that certainly would be most welcome. I can see that there

could be some problems with doing that, in terms of the

administrative-type problems. Quite often these cases are best dealt

with by mail anyway. It may not matter particularly where the offices

are located. I'd like get some clarification, because it's not clear in

reading the Hansard what the minister meant.

While I'm talking now about moving from the boards of review on to

the compensation advisory services, I continue to be surprised by how

few people know about the compensation advisory service. It's usually

the workers' adviser that's important, inasmuch as most of the calls

that most MLAs and, I'm sure, lawyers and everybody else get, in fact,

come from workers as opposed to employers. I get the odd one from

employers, and that's easy enough to deal with, but 90 percent are from

workers. Of all those calls, I would say that virtually nobody — I

won't say "nobody" — even knows what the compensation advisory service

is, much less that it exists. I think that might be true too about some

MLAs, actually, Mr. Chairman, because I notice some MLAs still end up

doing all the detail work of trying to sort out compensation cases,

when the services of the workers' advisers are there. They have access

to far more files than we'll ever have access to, and have far more

skills and time and ability — and, I might say, do an excellent job.

MS. SANFORD: They're too pressured; they've got too many cases.

MR. GABELMANN: There's no doubt, the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) suggests, that they're too busy. And it's true: there is too

much to do, increasingly. But the work they do that I see is absolutely

first-rate.

That service not only needs to be expanded in terms of the number of

people available, but it also needs to be more publicized. Workers

don't pay any attention to what the rules and processes are in respect

of filing a compensation claim until they get hurt or injured. At that

point they're more concerned about the injury than they are about what

the particular rules are. Once they get into the system.... Granted, 90

percent — whatever the number is these days — are solved without

any further administrative problems, or without any further review, or

whatever. But for the rest — and that's what we're really talking about

— there is no clear indication to those people what all of the

alternative appeal processes are and what resources are available to

assist them.

So a lot of people.... Some manage to stumble into their MLA's

office or into a lawyer's office — which I advise everyone to stay away

from in respect of these issues, because they're going to spend money

for nothing when we can do it far more effectively, and save them the

cost. But they do; they go into lawyers' offices, and they come into

MLAs' offices. But that's only the tip of the iceberg, again.

It seems to me that every claimant who has a letter sent to him or

her from the board, saying, "We have rejected this," or "We've decided

this.... It should be very clear what the appeal process is and who

they can get advice from. The next step is usually in the letters — not

always; but it should be always — but never is there a reference to

where they can get further advice from. That might save a lot of grief.

It might, in fact, save a lot of stress on the appeal process. People

appeal simply because.... What do you do when you are in trouble and

you've got the wrong decision? You appeal. Everybody just goes to the

appeal process.

It may well be that we can minimize or lessen the demand on that

appeal process structure by having a more informed workforce out there,

particularly the ones who are directly on the firing lines. I think

that's a very high priority, in my mind at least, for the board in

respect of the compensation advisory services for the ministry. I do

hope that there will be some significant expansion there. I might say

again: I'm not particularly concerned about whether they are regional

offices or not, because it's probably best dealt with by mail, in any

event, rather than by people dropping into an office.

The final thing I want to say relates to the whole question of

regulations. We've talked about the fishing industry. So far the

decision has been, in respect of the farm industry, that the farm

community should live by its own regulations and see if they can do

better. I think what we'll see out of that process is that for a while

the record will be even better with the voluntary program than it would

be with enforced regulations — just for a little while, while the

farm community is trying to prove that they can do it themselves. We

should keep a very close eye on the statistics, because I'm convinced

that those numbers will start to go down once the initial enthusiasm to

avoid regulation wanes. At that point I think we're going to have to

face the inevitability that safety and health regulations will have to

be in place in every workplace in this province. We can't live with the

idea that if you fish or farm for a living, you don't need to be

protected in the same way as if you log or mine. They're all workers

and they should all be protected.

Those are my comments in respect to workers' compensation — a few good moves and a few yet to make.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I appreciate the member's comments and his

constructive suggestions on how we can improve services. Let me go back

and say that yes, there were difficulties in the administration of the

board; I think that's recognized throughout the entire community. At

the same time, tough decisions had to be made with respect to runaway

costs and so on. But that's all behind us now.

What we have to do is start building a system that will provide

services to the community. As I said earlier on, I've asked Caldwell

Partners to undertake a process of meeting with the parties of interest

to seek their advice on a structure that they feel would best represent

their constituents. I look forward to receiving the report from Kevin

McBurney over the course of the next weeks or months, or as long as it

takes to get some resolution from the parties on a process that they

feel would best serve their interests. One thing it has done is get the

parties talking to each other and working with each other. It's my firm

belief that anything we can do to get the parties of interest working

with each other and reaching common goals and objectives will pay

dividends in many other areas as the weeks, months and years go by.

In talking about the worker advisory service, the member was

correct. A lot of people don't use the services of the worker advisory

program in the Ministry of Labour. He's correct, too, when he says that

we should publicize it more. Perhaps I'll get my staff to print up some

of those nice red,

[ Page 7874 ]

white and blue pamphlets that he criticized me for

the other day; I'll distribute them around British Columbia with my

photograph, and tell them to get in touch with the worker advisory

service in the Ministry of Labour. Seriously, we will find a way to

inform them about the worker advisory service. It is an exceptional

service, and they do a really good job on behalf of a lot of people in

B.C. who don't have access to unions; even the ones who do don't have

the expertise to deal with those matters. We will be expanding that

service within the Ministry of Labour because they all can work

together. They have the knowledge of each other's research in

particular cases, and will work quite well.

What we want to do, though, in expanding the regional review board

concept.... In the Ministry of Labour we hope to be able to conduct

those reviews out in the community. The employer and employee

communities will be represented on those review panels. An office will

be set up in at least some of the regional centres across the province

— in Ministry of Labour offices if we can — with secretarial services

that will put injured workers in touch with the worker advisory service

and with other services that may be available to those individuals who

need help and assistance. If we do that, I believe we will be adding

credibility to the service, and reducing the workload on MLAs where

possible, who, regardless of party, quite frankly do a good job for

their constituents in matters dealing with workers' compensation

complaints around the province.

As well, we hope it will take the pressure off some of those offices

across B.C. We'll be looking at the regions where there is a backlog of

appeals to be dealt with, treating them in a priority way in

establishing those regional offices. Initially you will most likely see

four: in the northern, Okanagan, Vancouver Island and Kootenay regions,

where the smallest number of reviews has to be heard. If we could look

at it in that priority, the area with the highest number of reviews to

be dealt with is where an office will be located first, and expand it

from there throughout the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member talked about the farm industry. It's a little bit

different than the other industries across the province. I agree with

your comments in that particular area, but I will continue to ride on

it and work with the parties to look at ways in which we can help both

parties achieve their objective, and that is to reduce the number of

injuries and deaths in the workplace, regardless of the industry in

which people work. I know that's an objective of yours and of mine.

To summarize, the board of review is proceeding quite well. On the

section 90(3)s, I've asked the parties of interest to monitor that for

me to keep me posted on how it has been administered. If there are

further changes to be made in that area, without question we will seek

the advice of the parties in dealing with that particular area as well.

All in all, there are a lot of good things happening. I've got to say

that it's awfully slow. As I said earlier on, the reason it's slow in

many cases is that I tend to use the opportunity to get a third party

in to meet with the parties of interest to discuss with them the

available options, to try to reach consensus in the community with

respect to administrative procedures and guidelines; and any

opportunity to get the parties working together pays dividends in other

areas of the industrial relations community. So I thank the member for

his comments and his constructive suggestions. We will be acting on

those in the next little while.

The other one you mentioned is that MLAs are not fully familiar with

the worker advisory service, and that there might be an opportunity

whereby all the members who are interested in this particular area....

I'll ask my staff now to maybe put together a workshop for all MLAs who

may interested in this area and ask the workers' and employers'

advisory service to put on that workshop for MLAs. It may help them in

carrying out their responsibilities to their particular constituents as

well.

[3:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo my colleague's

disappointment that we haven't got the annual report to deal with, and

that we're in fact having to ask a lot more questions than we would

normally because we haven't got the information in front of us.

I want to express even deeper disappointment at how little was said

by the minister in his opening remarks about his responsibility for the

women's program in the province. As you know, Mr. Chairman, he's

supposed to be concerned about the employment situation for more than

50 percent of the people in this province, and he dismissed that in

something in the neighbourhood of a paragraph and a half. So I guess

I'm going to have to just ask a lot of questions. I haven't got any

alternative, since the minister volunteered so little information.

I gather from his opening comments that the minister has been

spending some time meeting with groups of women across the province and

with various women's organizations, and that in fact there was a

conference in Vancouver recently at which there were a number of

participants from women's groups across the province. I wonder if the

minister can tell me whether the Congress of Black Women were invited

to attend.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: This was put together by professional

people in the Ministry of Labour. I didn't invite anyone in particular,

but it's my understanding that, yes, the Congress of Black Women did

attend. I may be corrected on that, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister be willing to release a copy of

that invitation list? I have received comments from various groups that

they were not included on the list, and it would make it easier for me

to respond if the minister made a full copy of the list available. Is

that going to be possible?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: To answer the hon. member's question, the

lady who represents that organization — I think her name is Betty Lough — did, I think, attend the conference.

I also received a lot of criticism about the number of people who

did attend, hon. member. Over the course of the year we went out around

the province — to Prince George, Kamloops, Richmond, Burnaby,

throughout British Columbia — and met with quite a few women's

organizations across the province, and had good discussions with them

in areas that affect them and their particular organizations. As you

know, the Ministry of Labour plays a coordinating role with each

ministry in government, too, in areas affecting women. We would come

back and discuss those matters that were brought up with the minister

in question, and hope that we

[ Page 7875 ]

could get some policy changes in some areas. We

attempted in this particular case to bring representatives from as many

of those organizations as possible, but not to leave out the ones we

hadn't yet had an opportunity to meet. That was put together by the

staff in the Ministry of Labour, and I'll check to see if a list of all

those participants is available.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, can the minister respond as to

whether the Vancouver Status of Women Council and the Women's Centre in

Cranbrook were also invited?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The Women's Centre in Cranbrook was not

present at that meeting. The Vancouver women's group that you mentioned

was at the meeting in Burnaby.

MS. BROWN: The minister spoke about his big meeting in

Vancouver with all of the women's groups. Can the minister explain,

then, why the Vancouver Status of Women, who are located in Vancouver,

were not included in that meeting in Vancouver? What were the criteria

for deciding who would attend the meeting in Vancouver and who wouldn't?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I tried to meet with organizations that I hadn't met with before, and have a mix of both.

MS. BROWN: What does that mean — that you had or hadn't met

with the Vancouver...? I'm sorry, I need some clarification. What does

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Like the member, I have difficulty with the

so we have a little bit of difficulty in that area. But I will try to

clarify it as much as I can. I mentioned earlier on that I did meet

with the Vancouver women's organization at a meeting in Burnaby. I

don't have the date for it, but I had that meeting with them. Then I

received a lot of requests from a variety of women's organizations from

across the province for other meetings with them. With the conference

on women's programs coming up in June at Fairmont Hot Springs, what I

wanted to do was get some ideas on the issues affecting women,

particularly in the areas of the conference agenda, that they could

give me some advice on as we approached that conference. So there was

an invitation issued to a variety of women's organizations across

British Columbia that were felt to be representative of the total

province. That list was put together and, needless to say, we had a

pretty good set of discussions on a number of issues. I found the

exercise really worthwhile, and made a commitment to them that we would

have a follow-up conference later this year, involving matters dealing

with women's participation in the economic development of our province.

It was one of many, but not the last one.

MS. BROWN: I just want to confirm that the minister has made

a commitment to secure for me a list of the participants, just so that

I will be better able to respond to any complaints I get about people

being left off the list — but, more positively, so that I can help you

in terms of people being left off the list for the October conference.

The women's office issued a blueprint, "A Plan for Progress." I've

been reading this very carefully, and I still haven't figured out what

this plan is. What the minister has talked about is a lot of concern

with issues that are of concern for women, and the government's ongoing

commitment. But there really isn't anything to tell us how this is

going to be translated into jobs, into economic independence for women,

into training, into educational retraining and educational development.

What, aside from the fact that it's very attractive, is there? Is there

something else that's going to come that's going to tell us what this

plan is? What is this?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As the member knows, the Minister of

Labour, through the staff of women's programs and its deputy —

established some years ago — operates in a sort of coordinating role,

representing women's issues to each ministry of government. What we did

in this particular case was establish a major policy program for

initiatives that are mentioned in the program. I would hope that the

member would help me during the debate on each ministry's estimates in

terms of asking the minister how they intend to carry out the mandate

that has been asked of them by me and cabinet and, indeed, women's

programs with respect to the plan that was initiated by me and the

staff in women's programs. I'll be asking the minister for an

up-to-date account of the progress that they are making in terms of the

development of plans within their particular ministries to carry out

the government's mandate as announced in "A Plan for Progress."

Needless to say, this is just the beginning of other things to come.

But these are the major areas that I picked up around the province that

affect women in a variety of areas. You will remember that the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), in debate on his estimates,

changed some of the rating with respect to payment of Human Resources

benefits to people in British Columbia. That was the result of a lot of

this consultation that has taken place across the province, plus a

variety of other initiatives underway in each ministry of government. I

know the staff and the minister in each ministry of government are

working hard to achieve the objectives set out in the plan as announced

by the government.

MS. BROWN: I want to speak to the minister specifically,

then, about the initiatives in the Ministry of Labour. Does that

include equal pay for work of equal value, and can I have a report from

the minister as to how he is coming along with implementing this very

important initiative, which I know women's groups right across the

province have been asking for for a number of years?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, when it comes to government

services, the Provincial Secretary is responsible for the employees

within government. I should say to the member that I have met recently

with the Hon. Walter McLean, federal minister responsible in that area,

and had a lot of discussions with him on that particular issue. I also

met with the new minister in Quebec and the minister responsible in

Ontario, and I had good discussion with the three ministers on that

particular subject. My staff and I are monitoring those three

jurisdictions with respect to equal pay for work of equal value,

monitoring their experience in that area. I would like to make a report

to the member at a later date on that.

MS. BROWN: Am I to understand that equal pay for work of

equal value is now supported by this minister's government — that women

can take it as a given that this government is committed to the

implementation of equal pay for work of equal value?

[ Page 7876 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It would be correct to say that the

government is committed to equal pay for equal work. But what I said

was that we are monitoring the programs set out in Quebec, Ontario and

discussions that I have had with both ministers, neither one has a

clear idea on where they are going with respect to the development of

the program.

It is one that I would like to watch — not forever, but I would like

to watch — and I would like to be able to look at its practical

application in British Columbia and not get into some of the problems

that they have gotten into in those three jurisdictions with respect to

the administration of the program.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this government has been committed

to equal pay for equal work for the last 35 years. I had black hair

when this government first became committed to equal pay for equal

work. So here we are: I am now completely grey — you know, silver

threads among the gold — and I am still hearing about equal pay for

equal work.

There have been a number of royal commissions and studies done. The

Abella commission, which tabled its recommendations in the House,

specifically addressed itself to some of the provinces. The federal

legislation is not satisfactory; all it asks for is reporting. That's

not what the women are asking for; they are asking for equal pay for

work of equal value. What I am hearing the minister saying is that 35

or 36 years after accepting.... It is no big deal to say that people

should be paid equally for the same work. That's not a giant step

forward. That's not a major moral victory. That's just fairness, that

people who are doing the same work should get the same pay. What we are

talking about, and the minister knows full well, is that because of the

work ghettos in our society, in which some jobs are done primarily by

women and other jobs are done primarily by men, disparities in wages

have developed.

Part of his government's red, white and blue booklet talks about

minimizing and eliminating inappropriate wage disparities. That is just

a euphemism for equal pay for work of equal value. Now I am willing to

accept eliminating inappropriate wage disparities, if the minister

recognizes what he said when he says that the government is going to

eliminate inappropriate wage disparities. What the minister is saying

is that rather than saying to women, "If you want to make a decent wage

you have to enter the so-called non-traditional workforce," the

government is saying that this government is committed to seeing that

the value of the work that women do is rewarded in terms of the pay

packet that they take home at the end of a work day.

Monitoring what the federal government is doing is not the answer. I

think he said monitoring Quebec. We've been around long enough, and

we've had all of the same studies that the federal government and

Quebec have had. Surely this forward-looking minister can come up with

a better response than that.

[3:45]

In translating the statement in this red, white and blue glossy into

disparities means that this government is going to be implementing

equal pay for work of equal value?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I met with the ministers responsible in

in the administrative development of any report. As I said earlier, we

will monitor those problems, and once we've got a clear handle on where

they're going and have the benefit of their knowledge and experience in

that area, then we will be able to have a clearer look at the concept

of equal pay for work of equal value. I make the commitment to the

member that we will monitor that. And we won't experiment with it; we

will take what they have done and use its practical application in the

workplace, and deal with it from there.

MS. BROWN: In the meantime I would like to suggest to the

minister that this monitoring British Columbia is something that the

women's office could be doing. Simply looking at Ontario and Quebec is

not enough. Charity begins at home. Why not start with the Provincial

Secretary's responsibility for the public service and start monitoring

the public service to see whether it is possible to learn something

from our own experiences right here in terms of pay equity? I certainly

accept the minister's commitment, and I hope that before we meet again

a year from now the monitoring will have ceased and the implementation

will have begun. Maybe even by the time the annual report has been

published that will be done.

The other question has to do with affirmative action. I'm hoping I'm

going to get a more knowledgeable response from this minister than I

received from the minister responsible for post-secondary education.

That is another area that I know women's groups have been speaking

about, not just to this minister but to previous ministers who had

responsibility for this area. There have also been a number of federal

and other studies which I know have come across his desk and been

analyzed by the women's office. What is happening here in British

Columbia in terms of implementing some kind of affirmative action

program?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, "affirmative action" is

another one of those buzzwords that keeps humming around. Some people

look at affirmative action as quotas for women, disabled and

handicapped people and visible minorities. I'm going to be honest and

sincere with the member. I don't believe that anybody should get a job

or a position just because they're disabled or just because they're

handicapped or just because they're women or they come from one

geographic area of the province as opposed to another or they're Irish

or they're Italian or whatever the case might be. If that is the

member's concept of affirmative action, I have to say that I don't

agree with that concept. I'm not saying it is your position.

I would say something else, though. All of us have become

accustomed, I guess, to the ways of doing things down through the

years, and we have to be more understanding of the community of British

Columbia. The way in which we appoint people to various positions, be

they workers' compensation commissioners or people in any other area of

responsibility within the provincial government.... When the member

talks about affirmative action, yes, there are some things that I would

like to see done: interview panels with male and female

representatives, where equal opportunity applies to the applicants to

be able to succeed in securing the type of employment that they want

and to have access to particular skills and trades and areas that were

denied them in the past. That is the approach that the government of

British Columbia is taking in those areas. We provide

[ Page 7877 ]

equal opportunities to all and special privileges

to none. It's an area, too, where the entire community of British

Columbia has to become involved, whether the trade union movement or

the management community. It's all too easy to look at the people we're

associated with and put forward the name of an individual who you feel

could do a good job, when there could be a female out there who

probably could do a better job, given the same opportunity. Our goals

and objectives must be to provide the education and the opportunity to

all in our community to seek access to all areas of productive life in

our province and to give the people of our province equal access and

equal choice in all of those areas.

MS. BROWN: The more the minister speaks, the more convinced I

am that he didn't write this glossy brochure. When he talks about

eliminating systemic discrimination, what does he think this systemic

discrimination is? Systemic discrimination is the direct result of

people not being hired because they were women, or because they were

disabled, or because they were members of minority groups. We have a

situation that's the result of that.

Let me give you an example: the Ministry of Human Resources. Most of

the people who work in that ministry are women. Most of the people who

use the services of that ministry are women. There are five people at

the top: the minister, the deputy minister, and four associate deputies

— or is it three? That adds up to six people at the top, and not one

female among them. That's the direct result of systemic discrimination.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What's the point of talking about equality to everyone and no

privilege — whatever that little catch-phrase is that you use — no

privilege to any and equality to all, or whatever. You've been giving

privilege to special people since the beginning of time. You cannot

convince me that, of the large number of women who since the beginning

of time have trained as social workers and worked in the social-work

system, not one single one of them is capable and able and qualified to

have broken that all-male leadership at the top. There has been

systemic discrimination, and there has been privilege.

I'm not accusing the present minister of that, because he inherited

it; that was not of his making. When I asked the deputy minister about

the next layer in the event that this layer of six white Anglo-Saxon

males should die, the next layer that's moving up.... You know what

that constitutes? More of the same. It means that a ministry that deals

primarily with women and their problems, a ministry that hires

primarily women for the next 20, 25 to 100 years, if your system

continues, is always going to be headed by decision-makers and leaders

who are male.

Now you're not going to change that by standing on the floor of this

House and making pious statements about: "I don't believe we should

hire somebody because they're female or because they're disabled." Over

the years, people have not been hired because they're female and

because they're disabled and because they belong to various ethnic and

racial minority groups. How do you intend, as was written in your

brochure, to eliminate this systemic discrimination?

Brighter people than you and I, Mr. Minister, have decided that the

only method to deal with that is through what is called — your

catch-phrase as you refer to it — affirmative action; that for some

period of time at least, discrimination in a positive way is going to

have to happen on behalf of those people who have been the victims of

discrimination in a negative way down through the years. It's as simple

as that, because unless that happens, we are always going to have

deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers — male, white

Anglo-Saxons — administering to the needs of people who are primarily

female, many of whom are disabled, many of whom are members of ethnic

language.

Now don't tell me what my definition of affirmative action is,

because clearly you do not understand what affirmative action is all

about and what it's trying to do. It's not simply a quota system. It's

going out and aggressively ensuring that people who have been blocked

get an opportunity to get into positions where they can start making

some decisions on their own behalf. Unless you are prepared to do that,

then start out by withdrawing these glossy things and eliminating that

statement about eliminating systemic discrimination, because that's

false advertising. It's as false advertising as the other statement

which says you're going to eliminate inappropriate wage disparities,

yet you're not going to implement equal pay for work of equal value.

Clearly the minister did not write this brochure. There is even some

question as to whether the minister read this brochure, because

somebody over there is putting words into his mouth which he is not

prepared to back up by action. Now how is he going to eliminate

systemic discrimination? Answer me that.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, you know, I got a letter from

a particular union in British Columbia here a few weeks ago saying that

they wanted a representative appointed to the Labour Relations Board in

British Columbia. The letter went on to state that 90 percent of their

membership — or approximately that amount — is female. They put forward

the name of a male representative to sit on the board. So I wrote them

a letter back and said to them that since they represent so many

females, it would be probably fitting if they would nominate a female

member as a representative on the Labour Relations Board. They can't

tell me that they don't have a female among all of that membership that

would not qualify to represent them on the Labour Relations Board.

It is areas like that, hon. member, where I have tried in the very

best way I can to remove discrimination in a variety of areas. A lot of

it is attitude, and we can't correct the attitudes of hundreds of years

overnight, where a daughter sitting on a father's knee will sit down

and old attitudes would say: "Look, you don't have to go out and get a

good education. You look good, and you're going to get married, and

somebody is going to look after you forever." Those attitudes were

around years ago and, sad to say, they are still around in some

quarters.

[4:00]

What we have to attempt to do is to remove that stigma, if we can,

from the community and give people free choices and free options, but

make sure that they have the educational ability and capacity to be

able to deal and be promoted in any area of expertise that they wish to

excel in. It is not going to be easy, but I know that British

Columbians are committed to it, and I know, too, that British

Columbians wouldn't want to see us entrench further discrimination by

correcting the wrongs of the past hundred or couple of hundred years.

[ Page 7878 ]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as an elected representative of this

House and a minister, surely the minister does not have to drag out

that tired old argument about attitudes. Most British Columbians were

quite happy driving their cars without buckling up their seatbelts.

They didn't care because they were convinced that the only person who

would be injured in an accident would be the next person, not them. It

would never happen to them.

The government didn't go out and say: "Well, we can't change

attitudes." The government said: "You buckle up your seatbelt because

it costs us money when you get injured in an accident, and ICBC has to

pay your disability pension and all of the costs involved in taking

care of you." Nobody worried about the attitude of those British

Columbians who didn't want to wear their seatbelts. It was mandatory.

There were no arguments then about a young girl sitting on her father's

knee feeling that she can always ride secure in a car because she is

pretty, and when she grows up her husband is going to see to it that

she doesn't get injured in that car.

Most British Columbians would just as soon drive on any side of the

road that is free for them to drive on, especially on a two-lane

highway, when the traffic is backing up and you'd like nothing better

than to whip into the other lane and get on your way. Nobody worries

about your attitude. The law says you drive on that side of the street,

and in this province that's where you drive. Nobody trots out some

tired old argument about attitudes.

But when it suits the government, suddenly we get to hear about

attitudes. You can't steal, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre,

you can't covet your neighbour's wife, you can't kill somebody. There

are a million and one things you can't do despite people's attitude,

because the elected members in this House bring in legislation that

says: "This is the way it is going to be in this province."

The only thing that laws do is to signal what the government wants

done at this time in this place. Whether you call it affirmative action

or pay equity or any other euphemism that you want to call it, at least

bring in regulations in your own ministry and in the other ministries

in your own government to ensure that for a time at least the obstacles

that are in the way of women, the disabled, and ethnic and racial

minorities as a result of the systemic discrimination that has taken

place.... The minister has the power to do this, as his government has

the power to do it, as they had the power to legislate that everybody

in this province buckle up their seatbelts or else they'd be breaking

the law.

I am tired of these little arguments about attitudes. We never hear

arguments about attitude unless it has something to do with something

that the government really doesn't want to do something about. I've

heard it as a person wanting to rent accommodation when I first came to

this country, and racism was more overt then than it is now, where I

would be told by landlords: "I would love to rent you the

accommodation, but I have to change the attitude of the rest of my

tenants first, because they don't want you to live here." We brought in

human rights legislation, and whether people's attitudes changed or not

the accommodation opened up.

Let us deal with the attitudes. The attitude you talk about that

young girls learn on their fathers' knees, women are themselves

beginning to change those attitudes in other women, through raising

their consciousness and saying: "Your father told you you're young and

pretty, so don't get an education. Somebody is going to marry you and

take care of you. So now you find yourself at 45 years old being traded

in on a younger model and you're poor and on welfare." That changed an

attitude pretty fast, you believe me.

Poverty is what's changing women's attitudes, not what they learned

on their father's knee. Poverty is what's changing their attitude.

Unfair family relations laws is what's changing their attitude. Failure

to implement maintenance laws is what is changing their attitude. And

the other thing that's changing their attitudes is having to work and

not be paid a fair wage and not get true value for the work that they

do. Not every woman wants to go out and drive a fork-lift truck or a

dumper or whatever those big trucks are called that haul gravel. Not

every woman wants to drive a gravel truck.

The work that women do is valuable. Women in nursing is valuable.

Women in clerical work is valuable. You want to shut this province

down? Let every secretary stay home one day. You can fire every

legislator in this building and the province would continue, but let

your clerical staff stay home one day and see what happens to this

government, if you want to know who really keeps the wheels of

government moving.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, we can't buy that

attitude argument any more. It just doesn't work. For 2,000 years we've

been waiting for people to change their attitude, and we're still poor.

We're still not being paid for the job we do. We're still not getting

fair value for our labour. We're still finding obstacles to our

progress. In the Ministry of Human Resources, everybody at the top is

male. I want a report from that minister now about which of his other

ministries have women at the top. I know that he has a deputy Minister

of Labour responsible for women's programs. Give me a report on the

other ministries. Let's see how you're doing.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member knows full well

that she can get that information from the ministers as they're going

through their spending estimates in the House. I don't want to be

facetious, but the Minister of Human Resources was a female until one

or two months ago. So a lady occupied the very top position in that

portfolio. Granted, the senior staff level are male, but not too long

ago the senior position was held by a female.

MS. BROWN: Yes, and the only reason I'm raising these issues,

Mr. Chairman, is because this is the ministry which the minister in his

own words — and I want to quote — said: "...I am so proud that I have

responsibility for. The other side of my ministry, and a very important

part.... I spent a lot of time meeting with women's groups across the

province in attempting to provide an advocacy role for women in British

Columbia." That's the only reason I'm raising it now. It's his

responsibility. He hasn't had the job for a long time, and that's why

I'm being very gentle with him — because he hasn't had the job for a

long time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, staff of other ministries are the responsibility of the particular minister of that ministry.

MS. BROWN: I know, but what that minister told us earlier,

Mr. Chairman, when you weren't here, is that his ministry liaises with

all the other ministries, and he told us that, just in this particular

area, to see what's happening to women in those ministries. All I'm

asking him for is a report on what he's finding out as a result of that

liaison.

[ Page 7879 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, as a result of that liaison,

training programs have been put on for men and women in management,

particularly in government services. That's been aimed at changing

attitudes on the part of all of our employees, and providing

opportunities as well for women to excel in those management areas.

We've had a survey done on attitudes in government, with respect to how

those attitudes are developed and how we can change those attitudes.

We've attempted and to a large degree succeeded in removing a lot of

the systemic discrimination in government by ensuring that the

specifications for the job are reflected for the job only; and that

male and female representatives be on interview panels when individuals

come and make application for a job; that there are, where possible,

male and female representatives on the job where there's opportunity

for both sexes to interview the individual who's making application for

the job.

A lot of good things have happened within government over the course

of the past while. Some still needs to be done, but progress is being

made in many of those areas. I know that in dealing with those issues

myself, I've got into lots of good discussion with senior officials in

my ministry: labour and areas like the Labour Relations Board and the

Workers' Compensation Board. In those areas within my jurisdiction,

where I've seen women in the community who I know could do the job

best, better than some of the ones who were put forward, I sent it back

to the parties, and asked them to have another look at it. But in the

final analysis, in many cases, it's their decision. While you can

encourage them to do it, they're responsible, in the final analysis,

for the individual who they feel would best represent their particular

constituents.

MS. BROWN: As long as the minister has an open mind, and is

still willing to have his consciousness raised, there is some hope. I

would like him to do some more examining of the whole idea and the

whole concept of affirmative action — call it whatever you want to. I

think that that needs a second look on his part.

When are the domestic workers in this province going to enjoy the

full coverage of the fair employment practices act, or whatever that

legislation is? I'm still getting complaints from them about areas in

which they are not covered, in terms of holiday pay and wages and those

kinds of things.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I would appreciate it if the member would

bring any of those areas that she has in her file to my attention or to

my deputy's attention, and we will see that we get some answers to you.

I've asked my deputy to have a look at that whole area of nannies and

domestic workers, and so on and so forth. He's doing a lot of work in

that area at this particular time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, that brings into account the other

group of women who are often forgotten about: farmworkers. Are you

looking at that group of people at all? What's happening to the women

farmworkers?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That is included in the group that I've

asked my deputy to have a look at, in terms of coverage under

employment standards and other areas. He's studying it at this time.

MS. BROWN: One of the things happening, Mr. Chairman, both with domestic

workers and with women who work in the farm labour community, is an increase

in the sexual harassment complaints. I'm wondering whether the minister has

been receiving any of this, and if he has been looking at it. It's quite possible

that women who are sexually harassed and have resources can file complaints

before the Human Rights Commission; and if they're not satisfied, it can go

through the courts — we've had a celebrated case of that.

[4:15]

The more vulnerable members of our community are these two groups in

particular: the domestic workers and the women in the farming

community. And I'm getting complaints about the women who work in the

garment industry too. They are now beginning to speak up about the

sexual harassment. I don't want the minister to stand up and tell me

that this is a hazy area, that we're not sure what constitutes sexual

harassment. Women know what constitutes sexual harassment. When they

say no and the harassment continues, then it's harassment. Mr.

Chairman, I know the minister would never say this, but there have been

myths about the fact that women say no when they mean yes on some of

these occasions. In fact, men interpret a no as yes when they want to;

so there are problems in the man's head about whether the women means

no when she says no. But women know when they say no that they mean no.

Okay?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, that clears it up. So the hazy part of it is not the woman's problem at all.

What's happening, though, is that a number of these women feel very

insecure and vulnerable in terms of filing a complaint before the Human

Rights Commission, either because of pressure from their own community

or in terms of job security. Has the minister had an increase in the

number of complaints from women in the farm labour community, women in

the garment industry and domestic workers, and how is he planning on

dealing with this?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member raised something that's a matter

of concern to all of us, and probably left out another group —

immigrant women — who are in a similar situation. The staff in the

Ministry of Labour and Women's Programs have been working with the

community in that particular area trying to find resolutions to the

problem. You're quite right, there's a lot of pressure on one group or

another not to file reports and so on. What the Ministry of Labour

staff is doing.... I haven't received a detailed report on it other

than the normal briefing that I get from them, that it is a matter of

great concern throughout the community. Where possible the matter has

been dealt with by the human rights council, but it's the area where

it's not reported. In some cases people don't know how to report it.

Language barriers and other things come into play.

I look for a report from both Women's Programs and Ministry of

Labour staff on it and hope we will be in a position to deal with the

matter effectively once it comes to that point.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke about the garment

industry, farm workers and domestics, I assumed the minister knows they

are primarily immigrant women.

[ Page 7880 ]

What is the ministry doing, if anything, about the working conditions in the garment industry?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I have to be honest with the member and say

that at this time I haven't done anything with respect to working

conditions in the garment industry. I know that some trade unions out

there are working pretty hard trying to improve the lot of that

particular working group. To be honest, I haven't had an opportunity to

deal with that.

MS. BROWN: A couple of articles have been done on the unsafe

working conditions, the lack of ventilation, the whole situation in

terms of the working conditions of immigrant women primarily who are

working in the garment industry, some of whom are not part of any trade

union. Some of them are, but a number of them aren't. Apparently the

Workers' Compensation Board hasn't been as aggressively involved as

they should have been in watching standards and ensuring that working

conditions are safe and healthy. I'd like to suggest to the minister

that this is an area that needs his attention.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Again, I thank the member for her

suggestion there. Nobody has brought that to my attention, to be

honest, but I will ask Glenn Hall, acting chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board, to undertake a review of that particular area

immediately and ask for a report from him on that industry.

MS. BROWN: Good stuff. Thank you very much.

I have a few questions about your budget. How can the ministry

afford to reduce the salary component of the women's office? Who are

you firing or demoting? I was under the impression that the women's

office was understaffed and overworked, and now I see that again the

employee benefit area of the budget has been reduced. What have you

done? What are you doing?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: There have been no reductions in staff in

the Women's Programs office, or the operation of Women's Programs; the

employment benefits are being taken care of in another area.

MS. BROWN: Does that mean more contracting out?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No, it doesn't, other than that the employee benefits are moved to a different portion of the budget.

MS. BROWN: I would also like some information about the

grants. I notice that the overall increase for the ministry was only

$100,000. That doesn't go very far when you represent more than 50

percent of the people of the province. I'm impressed that you are able,

with an increase of only $100,000, to discharge your responsibilities,

but could you explain to me how the grants are distributed and who is

getting them? And how can $100,000 meet the increased demands on that

office?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As I said earlier on, Mr. Chairman, the

Ministry of Labour plays a coordinating role through all the ministries

of government in matters dealing with women. Other ministries are

carrying out functions within their particular ministries. Our mandate

is to deal with those areas in their particular budgets — under

allocation. Dealing with who gets grants and who doesn't get them, I

leave it to the professional people in the Ministry of Labour to make

those recommendations. I've had no difficulties so far with the

recommendations they've been making in matters dealing with grant

applications. In all honesty, I do have a question that I keep asking

them about the amount that is given to each organization that makes

application. They advise me that the grant is a one-shot deal. In other

words, if you got a grant last year, your chances of getting one this

year are slim.

They tend to provide grants to women's organizations around the

province as a sort of seed money to set up their particular

organization or do research in particular areas that will be of

assistance to the staff and the ministry in the development of further

policy goals and objectives. That's basically the way they carry out

the function of their office.

MS. BROWN: I'm just about finished, Mr. Chairman, except to

bring to the minister's attention the fact that unemployment among

women is on the increase. I recognize that there's going to be another

conference — in October, I think — to look at economic development, and

that the commitment was made by the Premier to put it on the agenda of

the first ministers' conference.

Could the minister do two things for me before I forget. First, I

would very much like to have a list of the grants that have been

awarded, just to give me a general idea when I'm speaking to groups, so

that I can help them on whether they would be eligible to receive

grants or not. Second, can the minister tell me, in as concrete a way

as possible, what employment initiatives are presently planned in terms

of attacking the massive unemployment among women?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I understood that the names

of the groups who got grants were available from Public Accounts, but I

will ask my staff to prepare the list for me and will probably have a

discussion about that in a little while.

The Ministry of Labour, of course, has the non-traditional

employment fund for women who want to get into nontraditional jobs. A

number of workshops have been set up across the province in cooperation

with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. The

surveys that we've done so far show that there are an increasing number

of women participating in their own business now. There's a steady

increase in that particular area.

MS. BROWN: Are they successful businesses?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: They are very successful businesses,

operating across the province. That has been developed largely as a

result of the mentorship program and other programs of the Ministry of

Labour's Women's Programs. They've done an exceptionally good job in

many of those areas. I hope that the conference that will be developed

in October will address the area of banking, and other programs with

which the government of British Columbia can assist that particular

group of constituents in developing their own businesses.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we share concern for the best interests of women in this

[ Page 7881 ]

province, it seems to me that the Minister of

Labour should ensure that the opposition's spokesperson is invited to

all of these conferences. Right?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Without question, Mr. Chairman. If I don't get into

trouble, the idea is worth considering.

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: My wife.

MR. REID: I want to raise a couple of points on vote 54 with

reference to some comments made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on

Thursday last, when she talked about the transit workers in Vancouver

being locked out last year for three months. I just want to make the

record quite clear that they were on strike for three months — they

refused to come to work for three months. She made some comment in

reference to 40 to 50 employees being fired or determined as redundant.

Metro Transit Operating Company has not fired a driver in the last four

years except for theft or reasons of liquor or drug charges. Because it

has 3,000 employees, there were some who left because of attrition.

But, Mr. Minister, I want to commend you for your activities during the

three-month shutdown and the way that your ministry handled that

particular dilemma.

The problem that Crown corporations have.... And I think your

ministry should be addressing them, as they apply to the taxpayers of

this province and to the $6.5 million settlement that was made with the

operators and that is now being challenged by the residents of the

lower mainland, as it equates to $5 or more on their hydro bill as a

result of that settlement.

But the other problem that Metro Transit and the transit authority

have is similar to the one that we have with the post office. The

absentee rate in a company of that size.... It has a 17 percent

absentee rate, and in that company that equates to close to 300

employees per day being off on sick pay. But the difficulty it creates

for the taxpayer, Mr. Minister, is that the taxpayer pays the full shot

for every day that member is off on his sick time, plus we bring in

employees at overtime pay. For a company that provides millions of

hours of service in the lower mainland, every hour that is provided in

overtime does not provide one extra minute of service for the taxpayer.

[4:30]

There is such an abuse in the absentee system in Metro Transit that

I would hope that your ministry could help in that regard, because the

taxpayers are being ripped off. It is probably interesting to note that

the member for the NDP running in Vancouver—Little Mountain happens to

be the president of the union, Mr. Colin Kelly. I notice in the paper

this morning that Mr. Colin Kelly said that B.C. Transit asked for some

cooperation from his employees to provide some operators to work their

days off to help the lower mainland during Expo. Mr. Kelly said the

operators turned them down.

Well, I am not surprised, because, you see, in my experience with

Metro Transit, the transit operators of Metro Transit.... The majority

of them are excellent operators and want to do their job. But there is

a segment of them, Mr. Minister, who continue to rip off the taxpayers

on a daily basis.

This year the proof is coming out. I see the estimates of the

minister responsible for transit indicate that $72 million was what was

required last year to provide for assistance for transit in both the

large communities and small communities. But to and behold, in 1986-87

the figure now goes up to $118,735,000 — surprise, surprise — without

any additional service for the people out there on the streets.

So I want to express my concern as a member of this House to the

minister responsible for labour about the concerns of the taxpayer as

they equate to the problems of civil servants who have no concern for

the taxpayer and continue to bleed the system. Mr. Minister, I would

hope you would give that some consideration.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member expressed, I guess out of

frustration, some matters that he has to deal with as an MLA in

answering some questions to his constituents with respect to the

operation of the transit system. What the member pointed out were to a

large degree management problems associated with the operation of the

system. As most members know, when dealing with matters like that —

union-management relationships — if the parties come forward to me with

some recommendations or suggestions that they may want me or my staff

in the ministry to deal with, we would be pleased to do it. But we

don't interfere in the bargaining process at all. That is a process

that is best left to its own devices, and when necessary we attempt to

do that. So I would like to thank the hon. member for his questions.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I consulted with our critic on

labour, and I want to thank the member for Surrey for correcting my

statement. It was a strike, I have been told, not a lockout. However,

the 40 to 50 jobs lost through attrition still remain lost. But I

certainly want to change the word from "lockout" to "strike."

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: ministry operations, $63,786,153 — approved.

Vote 79: student employment programs, $15,000,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 59: minister's office, $189,745.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, before entering into the

debate on the estimates of Municipal Affairs I'd like to just highlight

a few of the activities of the ministry over the past year and, in

doing so, also indicate that the ministry is entering into its new

fiscal year with a global reduction of spending of $8.7 million, an

indication that the amount of money spent does not always indicate the

performance of any program provided by government.

As we enter into this new year with the reduction, we also have a

very dramatic increase in productivity in the ministry, productivity

that is well spelled out in the additional responsibilities taken on by

the ministry as it would apply to the provincial-municipal partnership

program, a program that has been extremely successful since its

introduction, with, to this date, 131 municipalities committed to

working together with the provincial government, chambers of commerce

and many other local groups in stimulating and assisting to stimulate

the local economy. We can identify, as a result of this

[ Page 7882 ]

program, approximately 700 new jobs that have been

created, with considerably more identified due to negotiations going

on. I believe that we also have announced investments of somewhere in

the neighbourhood of $200 million.

In addition to that, the downtown revitalization program is still

moving along rapidly and is also very successful in stimulating the

local initiative out there. It's a program that is beneficial to all

communities, and because of the way it pulls the communities together,

the province as a whole is benefiting in seeing this sort of

partnership approach as it applies not only to the partnership program

but also to the revitalization.

Revenue sharing is also another program that has been of great

assistance to the municipalities. As you will recall, it was necessary

a couple of years ago to change the formula on revenue sharing as it

applied to sewer and water mainly, because of the demand that was

placed by the municipalities on the available funds — understanding, of

course, that revenue sharing is not some figure that is pulled out of a

hat but is rather a figure that is determined by legislation based on

the income of the province. I am very pleased to point out to the House

that in spite of the change from the 75 to the 25, we are still seeing

a great deal of activity taking place out there, and I am sure that

this will continue.

This year we are very pleased to announce an increase in the

unconditional portion of revenue sharing from $90 million provincewide

to $95 million. This is that portion of revenue sharing, of course,

that has no strings attached; it's given to the municipalities to

assist them to cover the costs of those services, or whatever, in their

community that they deem high on their priority list. We are very

hopeful that the allocation of funds without any strings attached will

give them the opportunity of spending it where the greatest need is and

also that it will assist directly in holding down any tax increases

that may be contemplated.

Now we look forward to more activity in the area of infrastructure.

There has been a great deal of discussion taking place over the past

couple of years about the need for infrastructure. I want to point out

very, very clearly that this ministry recognizes indeed the need for

improved infrastructure throughout Canada. However, we must also point

out that there were two reasons why we could not go along with the

initial recommendation by a committee headed up by Mayor Mike Harcourt,

where they were bound and determined that the federal government be

asked to commit a very large amount of money to this program — money

which they don't have. It was our judgment, Mr. Chairman, that rather

than go to Ottawa looking for more money, we preferred to see them get

the deficit down so that the taxpayers of Canada and British Columbia

would get more for the tax dollars sent there rather than see such a

large percentage of it go to pay interest on old debts.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

The other part of the program or recommendation that we objected to,

Madam Chairman, was the portion where they ignored the small

municipalities. The recommendations were based on the needs of major

municipalities, which we took objection to because we believe that in

this province with 141 municipalities we have an obligation to all

municipalities, not just the big ones. Therefore we rejected their

recommendation on the basis of that also.

What has been forgotten here, Madam Chairman, is that British

Columbia does have a program to deal with infrastructure in the

province and has had it for some years — that is, we make money

available through revenue-sharing based on the income of the province

as indicated earlier. As a result of that we have seen many, many

projects installed over the past number of years, and recently I asked

my ministry staff to review the condition of infrastructure in British

Columbia just to give us some reading as to where we stand.

The indication as a result of that review was that indeed British

Columbia's sewer and water infrastructure is in pretty fair shape, much

better shape than almost anywhere else in Canada. But there is some

need for some improvement in the funding of our roads. Therefore I

suggest today that we will look at that very, very closely to we make

sure that those dollars that are available for the improvement of

infrastructure will be placed where they are most needed, where our

priority is highest. So there we have it, Madam Chairman. I will be

pleased to attempt to answer any questions that my critic or any other

member of the opposition wish to put to us today.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I was expecting a lot more from

the minister in terms of the problems local government is having.

Obviously he feels very defensive about the infrastructure program,

because he now knows that the government of British Columbia is the

only province that isn't supporting infrastructure and those jobs that

are associated with rebuilding our municipalities — the only province,

Madam Chairman. I'll get back to that later on.

Firstly, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

has finally found some time to deal with municipal affairs. As we all

know, of late he has been meddling and interrupting and getting

involved in the Expo tenant eviction situation, and indeed has been

designated as the person to take the heat and try to find ways not to

deal with that particular situation. The minister knows that the

Vancouver municipality has consistently asked for that minister to take

some responsibility to bring to this House some enabling legislation

under Municipal Affairs to protect those in need in Vancouver.

Unfortunately this minister has refused and indeed has made some

statements saying that it's a good thing in some respects that these

people are being evicted, because they're finding better homes. What

incredible statements this minister has made, and how he has

embarrassed — along with his other colleagues — this government and the

people of British Columbia in terms of the lack of action for

protection of tenants in Vancouver East.

Madam Chairman, this minister and all the other ministers and the

Premier of this province have indicated that they are incapable of

dealing with this human story — this human interest problem — this

incredible attack on those in need. This minister and others have tried

to cover up as much as possible the incredible cruelty that is

happening in Vancouver — the destruction of lives that's happening in

Vancouver in more ways than one.

[4:45]

We now have between 600 and 700 people who have been evicted in

Vancouver for Expo, and this government refuses to show any compassion

or understanding, and particularly this minister, who has been on a

mission of search and destroy on social housing programs. He and the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) have concocted this latest

commission to

[ Page 7883 ]

try to embarrass all those non-profit groups and

those church groups who have been trying to bring housing to those in

need. This government and this minister, Madam Chairman, are a bad

bunch, and it's time that they took some action for those people in

need. It's time that we had legislation to protect those people in

greatest need in Vancouver. I could not start these estimates without

going on the record and saying that that minister over there has shown

a total lack of understanding of what's happened in Vancouver. Over and

over again Vancouver council has asked that minister to introduce some

enabling legislation to deal with the housing problem in Vancouver.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are dealing with the

estimates, and that does not permit discussion with regard to proposed

legislation. Would you please stick to the estimates, vote 59.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm sticking to the issue of this government and

this minister refusing to deal with the human misery in the downtown

east side of Vancouver by introducing municipal enabling legislation

that would give Vancouver the ability to protect those tenants. This

minister has categorically stated that he's not interested in helping

those people; he's not interested in helping Vancouver. Therefore he's

not interested in ending the shame that is currently hanging over the

province of B.C.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Madam Chairman, the first comment of the

member in respect to infrastructure is totally incorrect. This is not

the only province that said no to Mayor Mike Harcourt's proposal to go

to Ottawa and ignor