[ Page 4165 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Advertisements for Systems Corporation personnel. Mr. Speaker rules –– 4165

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 203.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4165

Mr. Stupich –– 4166

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4167

Mr. Wallace –– 4167

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4169

Mr. Nicolson –– 4175

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4176

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4177

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4177

Mr. King –– 4178

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4179

Mr. D'Arcy –– 4181

Mr. Levi –– 4182

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4184

Mr. Mussallem –– 4184

Mr. Gibson –– 4185

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4186

Mr. Wallace –– 4187

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we commence Committee of Supply this morning, if I may beg your indulgence for a few moments, I'd like to give my decision on a matter of privilege raised by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) .

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard rose on a point of privilege on July 25 and alleged that advertisements for personnel for a new organization to service the data processing needs of provincial government ministries infringe upon the privileges of the House because Bill 44, which sets up a Systems Corporation, has not been passed.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) also made a statement on July 26. The minister indicates that the particular advertisements in question make no mention of the proposed Systems Corporation. They refer specifically to a new organization which could, in effect, be within the Ministry of Finance. The minister further indicated that computer services will be provided in a consolidated facility within the Ministry of Finance if the Systems Corporation is not created, and that funds for the purpose have already been provided in Committee of Supply with the passage of vote 5, Ministry of Finance estimates.

It should be noted that the House has given legislative sanction to the expenditure of one-third of the total supply with the Interim Supply Act which was passed March 30 and given royal assent on April 6,1977.

In considering the question raised by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) I draw attention to a similar matter which has already arisen this session. I would refer the members to the portion of the decision found in Votes and Proceedings, July 12,1977, which reads as follows:

"As the hon. members know, it is the duty of the Speaker, as stated in May, 18th edition, page 226:

" 'Under usage when a complaint of breach of privilege is raised he has to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over the other business of the House.'

"In reaching my conclusion on the matter raised I have considered the following passage from May, 18th edition, at page 132 under the heading: 'Acts or Conduct Constituting Breach of Privilege or Contempt.'

'It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.'

"The facts alleged do not, in my opinion, disclose any conduct tantamount to obstructing or impeding the House or any member in the discharge of his duties. I note that the hon. member has made no such charge, but he complains of a 'contempt of the House' arising from the enumerated actions. Without going into the merits of the case one can readily conclude that it would only be prudent, if not incumbent, upon a ministry of the government to take preparatory steps in contemplation of the passage of legislation. I cannot see that to do so would impede the House or any member thereof in the performance of their functions.

"If the actions complained of were thought to be improper or unlawful per se, then, as stated in a ruling by Speaker Dowding, Journals 1975, page 209, 'it would be a case to take up by one of several means at hand: by setting down a motion of privilege with notice; or instructing a committee; or by normal debate as the occasion presents itself within the rules during estimates or when a specific bill is called relating to this subject.' "

The citation of Mr. Speaker Dowding is taken from a ruling that arose out of the purchase of the Princess Marguerite. The same reasons apply in this instance which, because of the vote in Committee of Supply and the Interim Supply Act, must be considered as not going as far as the earlier decision. I cannot agree with the hon. member that any member has been instructed or impeded in the discharge of his duties. Accordingly, I do not find a prima facie case of breach of privilege in this instance.

The House in Committee of, Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

on vote 203: minister's office, $131,284 - continued.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to some of the matters which were raised during the debates yesterday afternoon. Some of the members aren't present. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) raised some problems which she has

[ Page 4166 ]

recognized in her constituency in regard to the opportunities for young people. I think that her remarks were principally directed at the performance of Canada Manpower and the area of counselling. I am not expressing any criticism of Canada Manpower, but I would say to the member that this ministry is equally concerned with respect to many of those problems, as is my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

We find on examination that this whole subject of counselling has been very seriously fragmented throughout our system. The schools operate counselling services; the colleges operate counselling services; Canada Manpower extends a very significant sum of money in counselling services; there are counselling services available in the private sector through some associations. I'm not criticizing the job they do, but the Minister of Education and I have become concerned that all of this effort and the rather large financial resources utilized in counselling have not been focused in a way that makes it possible to ensure that both the personnel and dollars available for counselling are really addressing the problem. Some years ago, I became interested in this aspect of our educational system, because it really is part of education. I made some inquiries as to what takes place in. other jurisdictions. I found that in the state of California they have developed one of the outstanding models for counselling programmes and they run it from the state government. They are able to put teams of counsellors into specific areas where there are problems, such as those which the member from Cowichan-Malahat referred to last evening.

Canada Manpower's programme is a good programme. But it is not co-ordinated with the other programmes we have. This was also drawn to our attention very forcibly in the report submitted by the Goard commission after their travels around this province. As a result, the Minister of Education and I will be introducing to this House shortly legislation which we believe will give us an increased capability with regard to the subject of counselling. Counselling, by being co-ordinated, will assist students from their early days in secondary school and on through colleges and universities, and also after they leave the educational system. Because what we are finding is that some people have been trained for occupation, sometimes without any counselling. Then, once they move into the work force and find that they are not fitting into the pattern they have designed for themselves, they need to get some advice as to what they should do to correct mistakes, if they are mistakes, which they made during their earlier training programme. And so the post-educational counselling is equally important. We are moving in the direction of providing this broader range of counselling services, and we will be attempting to encourage Canada Manpower to co-ordinate their efforts with ours, and we will want to co-ordinate our efforts with theirs so that there isn't duplication, waste and inefficiency. How quickly we'll be able to achieve this goal, I can't say.

But I wish to assure the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that the problem which she raises is deemed to be important, because without adequate counselling we get these unusual circumstances where students train themselves for positions which are not available or they don't know where to go and make the training they have useful to them. If they intend to stay in their home community - in your case, in the Cowichan Valley - then it seems to me that they should be directed during their educational years into programmes which will equip them for opportunities which will be available in that community. There's no sense in allowing a young person to train himself for an occupation which is only to be found in the East Kootenays, for example, if it is really his desire to stay in the Cowichan Valley and make his home there. That's a matter which is under consideration.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano is not present. I'll defer my responses until he is in the House. There's nobody else whom I would like to talk to this morning.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): A situation came to my attention quite recently, something I thought was in the past but apparently it is still going on in the Fraser Valley with respect to agricultural workers and berry picking in particular.

The information that I got very recently was that some of the growers are paying $1.50 a flat for picking the berries as opposed to the more regular price of 25 cents a pound. Now a flat would normally be 18 pounds but I'm told that these particular growers insist on the flats being overfilled so that they're getting some 24 pounds of berries for $1.50 whereas the regular price at 25 cents a pound would be something like $6.

These growers, of course, are taking advantage of pickers who are unfamiliar with the language and unfamiliar with the regulations, although I understand that the regulations are actually available, I think - they were made available under the previous Minister of Labour - in some I I languages. So there should be plenty of opportunity but individuals are simply afraid to take on this situation by themselves. So I'm wondering just what to do about it.

Not only is the pay perhaps one quarter of what they would normally expect it to be, but these same offending growers hold back the pay until the end of the picking season. Nothing at all is paid until the end of the season, which could be as much as eight weeks. In addition, I am informed that in some cases there is some tampering with the payroll which would affect

[ Page 4167 ]

UIC contributions and rights to claim UIC and possibly income tax as well. Accommodation, I'm told again - it's all information-, I don't have anything other than a conversation with one person whose children are involved as pickers - is very primitive. One-room accommodation is used for from six to eight people who are charged $60 a day for this accommodation which may or may not include board - I'm not sure.

My informant did give me the names of two offending growers. I just don't know what to do with these names or with this situation. I am asking the Minister of Labour for some direction on this. I know that there are inspectors in the field. Possibly they just can't get around as often as they should to all of these jurisdictions or possibly they are not looking closely enough at some of them. I don't like to use the names publicly until there is some opportunity to do some checking, and I would appreciate the minister's advice.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member for Nanaimo could give me specific details. I will turn that over to the labour standards branch of this ministry for such action as is deemed appropriate. Now when I say "such action as is deemed appropriate, " I am not avoiding the issue, but as the law presently stands we are extremely limited in the extent to which this ministry can involve itself in that particular area.

I wish to assure the member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we are concerned about it. The labour standards branch, in considering legislation which I talked about yesterday and which I hope will be before this assembly this year, is going to deal with that particular aspect of the problem. I am not sure whether the member is suggesting that there is a farm labour contractor involved in this aspect or not, but we would like to investigate and find out because without talking about legislation or prospective legislation, I would assure the member that the subject of farm labour contractors in this particular field of berry growers and so on and seasonal labour has been very carefully examined. We would like to have that information to ensure that the practices which we would find offensive are not carried on.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a few questions particularly in the area of health and safety. The minister, I think, is aware of the fact that the five B.C. mining locals passed a unanimous vote asking the government to consider transferring the matter of health and safety from where it presently resides, under the Mines Regulation Act, to the Workers' Compensation jurisdiction. The request, in view of the material they submitted, seemed to me to be quite reasonable. It seems wise to have the setting of standards and the inspection authority placed within an arm of government which has almost exclusive concern for the health of workers. The health regulations, at the present time under the Mines Regulation Act, are in an arm of government where the overriding interest is mineral production, as it should be. It is felt that removing this matter to the jurisdiction of the Workers' Compensation Board would make financing available on an assessment basis related to the hazard rating as experienced in that particular industry.

That would be my first question: could the minister say whether this is being considered? Has the submission that was presented by the Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers I know it has been received by the minister been considered to the degree that the minister has any comments to make?

In the area of health and safety, Mr. Chairman, I just can't say how concerned I am personally about the escalating amount of information we have on the dangers of asbestos. We used to think mainly in terms of workers in the industry, and indeed they are now coming up with figures which are nothing short of staggering. It has become more and more obvious that asbestos, and a whole variety of products, exposes the consumer to some serious dangers. I just want quickly to mention and quote the world authority on the problems of asbestos, Dr. Selikoff from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. He mentioned that among asbestos workers in the United States, for example, there's twice the rate of cancer of the larynx. He stated that among asbestos workers there were 427 deaths from lung cancer, while 92 could be expected in a general population which did not work with asbestos.

Another complication of working in these plants was the very serious lung condition, asbestosis. He reported 141 deaths.

One of the very interesting things that I think should be pointed out from this research in the United States is that it isn't asbestos and smoking alone which cause lung cancer, but the researchers have found a very unusual combination of the two factors. An asbestos worker who smokes has eight times more chance of getting lung cancer as an asbestos worker who does not smoke and 90 times more chance of getting lung cancer than the man who neither smokes nor works with asbestos. These are dramatic figures. The problem in convincing legislators seems to be that much of the cancer and the lung disease and the very serious conditions that are either very disabling or fatal in the long run take such a long time to become obvious. The pathology is not evident until many years after exposure, and human beings as we are, we tend to be less impressed by conditions where there is a long time gap between cause and effect.

[ Page 4168 ]

Without taking up too much time of the House, literature and information is coming out literally week by week on the far-reaching effects not only of asbestos among asbestos workers but in the ways in which asbestos in various products is exposing the population by and large to serious health hazards. For example, it is interesting to note that the United States consumer products safety commission in Washington has just recently banned wall materials and patching materials which contain asbestos, and other products such as imitation logs which are burned in fireplaces. The statement was made that consumers are being exposed to a needless hazard when it's well known that asbestos is probably one of the most well-documented toxic substances around.

Now I know that the minister is not responsible for the wider field that I have moved into, Mr. Chairman, but certainly I would like to try and touch both issues - namely, the very specific issue that we have asbestos mines in British Columbia. I just looked back into Hansard for May, 1975, when I asked the then Minister of Mines about the situation in British Columbia. It was rather shattering to find at that time that the mine had actually had to be closed for a period of time. The figure that was quoted at that time was that the amount of asbestos fibres in the air at Cassiar Asbestos Corporation was 125 times the legal limit.

Just recently the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health recommended reducing the permissible exposure level from the current standard of 2 fibres per cubic centimeter to 0. 1 fibres. That's a reduction of something like a factor of 200, which means that the workers would be exposed to no more than 100,000 fibres on an average work day. This national Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in the United States makes it plain that adoption of this standard will not prevent cancer but should materially reduce the risk of cancer induced by asbestos.

Another interesting fact worth mentioning is that if we all think back - maybe we don't want to! - to the early days of Pierre Trudeau we may recall that one of the important public and political issues he became involved in quite some years ago was the asbestos problems in Quebec at Thetford. At that time he was extremely concerned about the exposure involved to the miners. Whatever we think of the new Quebec government as far as separation is concerned, it is very interesting to see that one of the commitments that the PQ government is determined to follow through on is its intention to bring in much stricter legislation on asbestos standards. The minister concerned, Social Development minister Pierre Marois, said that:

the asbestos industry will have to improve safety conditions. At the present time the situation is unacceptable and has to stop.

He stated that the government will be introducing legislation to remedy the most urgent and unfair things that are happening to asbestos workers. Quebec is the leading asbestos producer in the country with nine of the country's 14 operating mines.

"New legislation will also give workers the right to have their own doctors examine personal medical records held by the compensation board. Marois said he will introduce a complete new programme on the health, security and welfare of workers."

So the situation is very clearly being recognized in Quebec.

Another interesting aspect of this whole matter, Mr. Chairman, is that recently members of the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers voted to give 25 per cent of their latest wage increase towards a fund to help prevent asbestos-related diseases and take care of the victims. Some of the figures are quoted by that particular union as to why they are completely convinced that there has to be an all-out attack on prevention and better management of those unfortunate persons who have already developed serious disease.

Just one last reference to try and really prove that this is a serious problem. There was an article in The Globe and Mail last March, and I won't go into all the details. The family of father, brothers and I don't know who all, working in Thetford, was quoted. The gentleman's name is public information. His name is Mr. Lessard and he has asbestosis at age 52. His father died in 1957 from asbestosis and he was 62. Robert's brother was 49 when he died of the disease, and he left a wife and two children. His brothers, aged 47 and 55, have also been forced to quit their job because of asbestosis.

In this article of The Globe and Mail it just makes a statement: "Scientists now regard asbestos as one of the most dangerous substances used in industry. It is recognized by most medical experts as one of the leading occupational causes of cancer."

So I've taken some time to make the point as best I can, Mr. Chairman. This is a very serious problem, both in the industry and in the population generally. I wonder if the minister could bring me up to date with regulations in British Columbia. Secondly, there was a question asked in the House of Commons on July 18 by Mr. Cyril Symes, MP from Sault Ste. Marie, who was quoting another type of cancer among the workers at International Nickel. Incidentally nickel is another cancer-causing agent which has to be dealt with, perhaps not in this province but certainly in Ontario. He asked the question of Mr. Munro, the federal Minister of Labour, about the long-promised Canadian centre for occupational safety and health to help co-ordinate

[ Page 4169 ]

and implement measures to protect workers' health and safety on a national level. The answer Mr. Munro gave was that this would be set up by the end of 1977 or the early part of 1978. In his answer, Mr. Munro said:

By and large, discussions with the provinces have gone very well. There is no invasion on provincial jurisdiction. 1, have talked with ministers of some provinces and my officials have talked with them as well.

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

"The ministers to whom I have spoken have welcomed the initiative. If it has the participation of the province under the aegis of the federal government, business, labour and some type of tripartite apparatus, then their findings will have tremendous political momentum for implementation and for acceptance within the general community.

It would seem that on matters like dangers of asbestos, nickel, vinyl chloride and plastic materials, this is a whole emerging new field of health problems. Just recently I talked to Dr. Bates, the retiring dean at the UBC medical school. I've talked to others and there's no question that much as the lifestyle argument is related to the importance of limiting various types of cancer and heart disease and so on, there's a whole emerging area within the labour field of a wide variety of new materials, new elements, new compounds, which I think is a sleeping giant as far as the production of preventable disease is concerned.

I don't want to sound as though the whole thing is doom and gloom. I don't mean that at all, but I think that too often we lose sight of some of the things that take a while to produce the disease rather than more immediate matters as accidents and heart attacks and the like. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on the situation regarding asbestos mining and processing in B.C. and would care to comment on this discussion which he or his officials have had with the federal government and on the setting up of a Canadian centre for occupational safety and health.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the problem raised by the member for Oak Bay, specifically with regard to problems in asbestos mines, and also in those industrial areas where asbestos parts are being used, is one of the high points in the need for consideration of the whole subject of workplace environment. It is a matter which is receiving the immediate and active concern of the officials of this ministry, dealing specifically with the asbestos problem. Yes, the mine at Cassiar was closed. A very serious industrial relations problem was developing out of what really was a health problem. The management and the union recognized that if some of the standards which are considered to be appropriate were applied to that mine, it would be shut down. There are some jurisdictions which say that the acceptable level of asbestos fibres is zero. Well, that means you close down the operation.

As a result of that concern on behalf of both the management and the union, representations were made to the government for their assistance in making a full-scale attack on the problem. Management indicated its willingness to spend significant sums of money - a multi-million dollar programme, in effect - if they could just have the assistance of all those agencies who could help them in resolving the difficulty. As a result, under the chairmanship of Deputy Minister James Matkin of this ministry, a provincial committee has been established, containing representatives from the union, from management, from the Workers' Compensation Board, the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Health and the occupational environment branch of the Ministry of Labour.

In addition, there is a plant-level committee, comprising representatives of union and management at the plant level.

As a result of the formation of this committee and the initial work that has been done, the company has expended large sums of money - the amount of which I can't give you at the moment - in improving the facilities which have led to a significant reduction in the level of asbestos fibres experienced in that operation. Neither the company nor the union nor the committee are indicating satisfaction with the levels that have been achieved. They are still in excess of 2.5. But the committee continues to function to determine the extent to which the levels can be further reduced.

The interesting part of this whole aspect, Mr. Member, is that the committee has obtained the services of Dr. Grzybowski of the University of British Columbia, and you have referred to some of his comments. In this matter, he has made a significant inquiry into the combined factors of smoking and asbestos fibre. He finds the relationship between those to be deadly.

My friend, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , has a non-smoking programme going. I can tell you that in the asbestos industry that programme really worked, because the message is now getting through that if you are engaged in that industry and you smoke, then you might just as well use a gun.

At any rate, Dr. Grzybowski has expressed the view that rather than establish absolute standards -because no standard may be good enough - what is essential is that there be a monitoring programme to concern itself with the exposure that you have. If you are going to work in the mine for a very short period of time, perhaps you can be exposed to very high levels of asbestos fibres. But if your lifetime is to be

[ Page 4170 ]

spent working in an asbestos mine or with asbestos products, perhaps - who know? - .05 level may in fact be too high. That's the direction in which the research is taking place at the moment.

You raised the question of the federal programme. It is also related to this concept of asbestos fibre and its impact upon worker health. In fact, the federal programme was an outgrowth of an organization known as CAALL, which is the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation, which has representatives of all levels of government in Canada. They were concerned with this particular problem, among many others.

The idea of a national centre for information exchange with regard to these matters came from CAALL and generated the federal programme which has recently been announced. At the staff level, this federal programme is receiving full support. I'm not suggesting that that means the government is not supporting it, but we're concerned that what may appear to be some limitations with that programme at the moment are only effective insofar as those areas within federal jurisdiction are concerned. We're up against this sometimes ridiculous jurisdictional division. I trust that we will be able to work out the co-ordinated programme with the national government so that all levels of government can focus their resources in achieving a solution to this asbestos and other similar workplace problems.

Now as an information exchange organization, we fully support the federal programme, and I'm relating it back to the asbestos problem. The Cassiar plant has now been in operation, I think, for about 20 years. That's about the gestation period with regard to asbestos problems. One thing that the provincial committee is now turning its attention to, and is using CAALL and the federal programme as a means of assistance for, is to find out where those workers are today who were in that plant 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and who have left. We want to find out where they are, if they have continued to work in fields related to asbestos and what their present condition is.

MR. WALLACE: There's a lot of them on welfare though.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There may be, and maybe the reason they are on welfare is because of asbestos-related problems. It may be that with regard to this Cassiar operation, we can do a research programme which will definitely establish the consequences of continued minimal exposure on the health of these workers. Now that will enable us to extend this research into those other areas in industry which use asbestos products, one of the major ones being the construction industry. As the member well knows, there is serious concern about that. That's one aspect only, as I indicated, of this whole question of workplace safety and occupational environment.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, to the member, that my deputy minister was delighted to hear the member for Oak Bay suggest that these matters should all be co-ordinated in one agency of the government. Because my deputy minister held that view, and I do as well. In fact my position is that I don't care where it is - whether it's in the Ministry of Labour, whether it's in the Ministry of Health, whether it's in the Workers' Compensation Board, wherever it is - just let us bring all of these environmental safety agencies together into one group so that we aren't going to be faced with a multitude of sometimes conflicting regulations and duplication of inspections, which results in some cases in having several inspections of one operation and none of another.

In that way, you don't achieve the results. You have conflicting regulations, and sometimes employers who are quite willing to make the changes that they must make in their facilities to achieve the highest level of safety and workplace environment say: "If someone would just tell me what I should do, but I've got instructions from two different inspectors, one telling me one thing and the other telling me another." I just think that that sort of confusion has to end.

To give the member an idea, we have the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , who has the safety inspection-occupational environment responsibility for mining. We have the occupational environment of the Ministry of Health, which covers a wide variety of industries, including smelting operations. We have a contest between the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Labour as to whether a smelter is a mine or a factory. We have the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who is concerned, we have the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom's) ministry concerned with fire marshal inspections, and we have Public Works involved in gas inspections - all safety, all related to workplace environment. Then of course we have the WCB, which covers the whole range. Probably with the funds at their disposal they do one of the most effective jobs.

I think the time has long since passed when we can allow this situation to exist. Action is being taken by government in this regard now. There is a committee of deputy ministers who are addressing themselves to the problem. We've had discussions with the Workers' Compensation Board. As I say, my position is that I'm not trying to build any empires for the Ministry of Labour, I'm not trying to build any useless bureaucracies. I think, however, that we should solve this problem, co-ordinate these activities, and get on with the job.

As the member pointed out, CAIMAW on behalf of its union members, B.C. Federation on behalf of all the unions that it represents, and the

[ Page 4171 ]

Confederation of Canadian Unions on behalf of all the unions they represent have indicated quite strongly that the trade union movement on behalf of the workers are themselves interested in the resolution of this problem, and industry groups are interested in the problem. But they say to the government who has the regulatory function: "Maybe it's time you got your act in order." I agree with this. So we are moving in that direction, and I would hope that we could very quickly find an agency which could be the centre of this.

It would seem appropriate, I think, that the Ministry of Labour would be chosen. But as I say, we are not going to allow our desires to stand in the way of what may be the most effective solution. If it should be WCB, then fine, let's expand their safety division and involve it in all these matters. On the other hand, perhaps by the very nature of their responsibilities and the authority they have, this whole subject of environmental health, so far as the workplace is concerned, might better be left to some other agency. I just don't want to quarrel about who's going to run it. I just want it run.

MR. WALLACE: If there are others who want to enter the debate, I'm quite willing to defer at this point. I don't want to, I hope, get into a subject which I know you, Mr. Chairman, might be wanting to discuss because I feel it is important, and that relates to the situation at Cominco. Perhaps I'll leave that unless someone else first wants to raise that subject.

Just before we leave asbestos, I would plead with the minister on the aspect of the work of the , compensation board in regard to workers who are suffering from pulmonary lung problems where there has been clear evidence that the worker was exposed to asbestos. The minister made the very valid point that the exposure to a high concentration for a short time or to a low concentration for 20 years - either way - if you end up a cripple, it doesn't really help very much if you have to take four or five years fighting the compensation board.

I don't wish to be unfair to this minister because of a particular case that literally took days of my time over a period of about three years concerning a man who had been involved at very close quarters in lagging pipes in ships of the Royal Canadian Navy at the dockyard here in Esquimalt. I don't wish to go over all that again by any means, but all I'm asking is the benefit of the doubt.

We pointed out that with asbestos exposure it can be sometimes 20 years until you prove beyond all medical doubt. In this case the man was told he could only prove it if he would have what is called a lung biopsy, where you penetrate the chest and get a piece of lung to put under the microscope. The physicians in this case advised him that the mere procedure of undergoing a lung biopsy would put him in a degree of danger that wasn't justified. So the board fought tooth and nail - and, I think, in a most ridiculously tenacious manner - to refuse this man a pension. As I say, I shouldn't get into this because I get very upset about it, but the final fact was that I found out that there had been an inadequate decision made away back down the line because this man was branded as having some pre-existing lung condition.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

When I rook the trouble to go through acres of paperwork, there wasn't a jot or title of evidence that the man had any pre-existing lung condition. Somewhere along the line, a bad decision was made. This man finally, after about five years of fighting, got half the pension.... Well, he wasn't getting any at all to start with, but at least the board, I gather, compromised and provided him with half pension.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, to this minister is: Would he try to ensure that perhaps there's a little more compassion in judging cases where the person, the worker, is claiming that exposure to asbestos contributed to his lung problems?

Now I'm very well aware that there are many other lung conditions - the so-called obstructive lung disease, of which I don't think anybody has quite figured out the cause. All I'm saying is that in workers where there has been at least for a period of time some exposure to asbestos and they have a pulmonary problem, if it can't be absolutely proven one way or another, I think in light of all the world evidence that's coming out about the tremendous potential of asbestos to cause disease, the worker should surely get the benefit of the doubt.

The other area I'm most interested in about which I'd like to ask the minister is the progress regarding the changes in the legislation which made it compensable for a person who suffered deafness as a result of a loss of hearing. It's in section 7 (a) of the Workers' Compensation Act.

We've heard very little about the progress of the programme to try, first of all, to compensate workers who have lost hearing because of non-traumatic reasons, as the Act says, "arising out of, and in, the course of employment." I understand there was a building leased or purchased in Richmond. I don't know exactly when it was purchased or leased but, anyway, I understand that there was space obtained in a building in Richmond and there has been considerable delay in getting ahead with the programme. It was to be the centre at which hearing tests could be conducted and evaluation of the worker's condition made. Although I would suspect

[ Page 4172 ]

that it is not the fault of this minister, my office has been having considerable difficulty trying to find out the information about this hearing branch building.

I'm not going to mention names because I don't know the gentleman concerned, but I understand that a sizeable square footage was obtained for this hearing centre and that a large part of it sat empty for a long time. I understand now that some other branch of the health service is moving in to take up the empty space. I've been trying to find out exactly what the square footage is and what rent the government is paying. These are not perhaps as important aspects of the problem as the central question: what is the Workers' Compensation Board doing? How many cases have been at this stage since the inception of the legislation? How many workers have been examined and evaluated? How many pensions have been awarded, and so on? I would like some very definite statistics and if the minister doesn't have them handy I would be quite happy to have them tabled later in the House, or he may care to make a release on it at a later date.

Deafness from employment is also a little bit like the asbestos situation in that it's recognized but I don't know that there's any very easy way of recognizing the scope of the problem and the intensity of the problem. For example, the kind of music, if I can use that word, that emanates from rock concerts just has to be one example of young people playing these noisy instruments where they can't fail to have hearing loss if they sustain these decibels for any ongoing period of time. Maybe in that case we're dealing with self-employed persons who don't come under the Workers' Compensation Act but, nevertheless, I would wonder if there's any research going on into preventive measures other than the matter of wearing ear protectors, which is important in itself.

I'm not in any way criticizing or suggesting they should not be worn, but I wonder if the minister can tell us what research, if any, is being done in trying to give industry incentives in the very first place to use either different types of machinery technological advances to incorporate sound-reducing equipment into those areas where indeed the cause of the high degree of noise can be prevented. Obviously if you're servicing a jumbo jet at Vancouver airport there's really nothing you can do to prevent the noise in the first place, so presumably ear protectors are the only weapon the worker can use. But I've been reading of many other areas in industry where noise has just become an accepted fact of the job. There are, I'm told, with technological advances, all kinds of possibilities of reducing the emanation or the intensity of the noise in the first place. So that would be an area I hope the minister would give us some comment upon.

I would also be interested with regard to the Workers' Compensation Board.... It is a long time r really since the tremendous controversy and dissatisfaction within the higher ranks of the board developed, but I just feel it's only fair to say that I think the timing and the manner in which the former chairman of the board was dismissed represents one of the less glorious moments of this minister's career. The chairman was Mr. Ison who, out of courtesy, had given notice that he had intended to leave the position of chairman. The minister terminated his position and, as far as I'm aware, gave no reason, and it may be the minister's right not to give a reason.

We talked earlier on in debates about the fact that senior public servants of the calibre of the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board or similar positions deserve a high degree of respect, courtesy and fair play simply because of the kind of notice they have to give in their jobs and because of the fact that they are usually serving in a highly responsible position with some form of agreement for at least two, three or four years or whatever the case might be.

I would like to ask the minister if he cares to answer whether he feels that the dismissal of the chairman was reasonable and justified at the time that it was done, because one of the consequences was the long delay that followed in finding a successor. There may be valid reasons for that but the minister well knows that the long delay did nothing to give the compensation board public confidence when it was leaderless. I am very pleased that the board now has a new chairman and I would go further and say that the initiative that the new board just took recently in having a seminar here in Victoria for the benefit of MLAs is very much to be commended. I hope that while not all of us could attend the seminar because of other duties here during the session, that is the start of an ongoing practice to make officials of the compensation board available to have the MLAs better understand the workings of the compensation board.

The last subject I want to touch on at the moment is the question of the decision to reduce the penalty at Cominco. As the members probably well know this again relates to health conditions under which workers are working in Trail. Again, as the minister has pointed out, I suppose if you go to the n'the degree the incidence of some of these contaminants and toxic materials to be really safe would have to be zero. That's in no way practical since we require the resource - in this case minerals - to be processed as a very large part of the economic base, if not the only part of the economic base, in the Trail area.

On the other hand, if certain expenses are involved by any company in producing a safe atmosphere for the worker to work in and if that expense, Mr. Chairman, adds to the cost of the final product, then so be it. I think in areas such as asbestos, nickel, lead

[ Page 4173 ]

and all these other toxic materials, the rest of us enjoy benefits from the fact that our economy produces these products and sells them in parts of the world and brings in export dollars. The price shouldn't be at the expense of the workers who are exposed to these toxic and highly dangerous elements in the first place. I have toured the plant at Cominco and I personally have the greatest sympathy for the workers having to work in that kind of atmosphere.

The Workers' Compensation Board has a clear responsibility in imposing penalties where their standards are not being met and it has done so. The latest decision was decision No. 234 which in effect reduced the penalty from something like $30,000 a month to $5,000 a month despite the fact that decision No. 234, which was handed down on March 18, said:

"Threshold limit values had been exceeded in several areas of the plant. The company had been slow in responding to orders written by officers of the board and plans for a new drossing furnace and evidence of a firm commitment on the part of the company to invest in such a furnace had been slow in coming."

The commissioner's decision was considered by Dr. Little, J.P. Paradis, D. Davidson and S.H. Brown, commissioners.

Now this is a big issue in itself and I know we don't have time to go through the whole matter because there were previous decisions. If the minister wants to have some research done on this, there were previous decisions of the board - Nos. 15, 19, 36 and 167 - which gave detailed outlines of the problem at the Cominco plant. They were more detailed and explained the underlying philosophy of, the board in regard to trying to enforce the required standards. Unfortunately, decision 234 is much briefer and doesn't go into the same amount of detail.

In one of the earlier decisions, the board explained: "Industrial health differs from physical safety in that the consequences of injurious practices may be less immediately obvious." That's like the old asbestos problem again only, in this case, the time gap is not 20 years as it is with asbestos. The board went on in its earlier decision, No. 15, to say:

"We are concerned with long-term injury to health and we are concerned with situations in which the prevention of injurious conditions may involve substantial expenditure. Delicate judgments have to be made about the critical levels at which contamination becomes injurious and about how much exposure to risk is tolerable in the cause of productivity."

In decision 15, the Workers' Compensation Board is putting its finger right on the issue. I'll just repeat that quickly. They are saying that we have to be 'concerned about, "how much exposure to risk is tolerable in the cause of productivity." Decision 15 goes on to talk about the matter of striking an appropriate balance between the demands of production and the health of the work force. The Board itself points out~

"It is the function of the board to assert the coercive power of the state to shift the point of balance, where necessary, to a different position from that in which it might otherwise settle, and to shift it in the direction of health and safety. This is done by the establishment of ~general regulations, by the issuance of specific orders, and by the enforcement of those regulations and orders, generally by the imposition of penalty assessments. It follows that the imposition of a penalty assessment is not based necessarily on any assumption of fault. A penalty assessment is primarily a device designed to shift the point of balance by making sure that non-compliance with regulations and orders of the board is less profitable than compliance."

I think, Mr. Chairman, in the light of decision 234, it is not surprising that workers, and many others, are asking the reasonable question: has the board fulfilled its obligation to enforce the very regulations and the very philosophy which the board had outlined in previous decisions? If the minister, as I say, wishes to research this matter further he will find out that in previous decisions the board went to some length to explain its responsibility and the guidelines under which it functions. But then in this latest decision in March, decision 234, they document areas in which the company has not met the standards. The surprising contradiction is that the penalty is reduced from $30,000 to $5, 00b. Now the minister may have some information or some details that I'm not aware of, but it's a very important issue again related to this whole area of trying not only to give the workers the safest possible standard but also, when these safest possible standards don't exist and the mechanism is available under law, to persuade and coerce - or whatever word you use - the employer to conform and provide a better level of safety. It seems very strange that the emphasis would appear to be shifting to a position of less enforcement.

One other area just before I leave this topic, Mr. Chairman, deals with biological monitoring rather than just taking samples of air, important as that is, to measure the contaminant. It's a question, in other words, of examining the worker himself through blood tests and various other devices. There's a very dangerous statement in this same decision 234, and I can assure the minister from discussions with union representatives that this part of decision 2 34 will just lead to unending battles with the unions. It indicates that the board really doesn't understand, or doesn't seem to understand, the real meaning of the

[ Page 4174 ]

threshold-level minimum. It implies, from the experience at Trail, that when a worker works in a certain area of the plant and becomes contaminated to a certain degree, he can just be shunted to some less dangerous area of the plant. Then you move another worker in to the more dangerous area until he gets filled up with the lead, or whatever it is, and then you move him to a safer area.

It just seems to me that it's really a very unfair -never mind unhealthy - practice of any plant, and I'm not just picking on Cominco. It happens to be the one where the documentation is specifically available. Surely it isn't right to suggest that you can move workers around to safer or less safe areas so that, sooner or later, all of the workers have been exposed to a high level of contamination.

This issue of the methods by which monitoring is carried out, and the apparent lack of enthusiasm which the board has for biological monitoring as well as plant monitoring, is something that I think the minister would probably want to look into if he is not aware of the issue at the moment. There has been tremendous study and appraisal done by some of the trade unions who are very concerned not only about the issue itself - worker safety and health hazards -but about this particular decision at Cominco. I wonder if the minister would care to comment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Other members may want to address themselves to the situation at Cominco, and I'd be happy if they would. But I will respond directly to that problem. When I became Minister of Labour I was early made aware of the problem at Cominco - the problem from the workers' point of view, the matter of the penalty assessment levied by the WCB, and the efforts which were being taken, effective or not, by the company to rectify the cause of the problem. I was advised by the company at the outset that there was no known technology to achieve the levels of lead contaminant which had been laid down by the board.

I took the position at that time - and it is my position today - that this area is one that is the responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board. They have the responsibility to administer that Act and the regulations which are made thereunder, and I will not interfere in the exercise of that responsibility any more than the former Minister of Labour interfered when the original penalty assessment was levied against that company and this action all began.

I have been kept informed of the changes which have been made by the company. I am advised that additional moneys in the millions of dollars are being expended in that operation, in part to make the plant more safe than it presently is. Since the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board to reduce the penalty, I have had no representation made to me by the company or the union with respect to that aspect.

1 have taken the position that it is a board responsibility and I expect them to carry it out. The words read by the member from the decision of the board I accept; I think they have clearly stated their responsibility, and they have made it quite clear that in the exercise of their duties as members of that board they will properly take into account the area of safety and productivity.

The Workers' Compensation Board has over the years been independent of government and of political influence. Under my ministry it will continue to be so. It is designed to provide service to the employees and to the employers of this province, and only if they fail in that responsibility will it be necessary for the government to intervene.

That is not to say that there shouldn't be changes in the legislation from time to time. Heretofore legislative change has only emerged in one of three ways: as the result of royal commissions, as the result of decisions on the part of the board itself stimulating legislative change, or as the result of the personal interest of the Minister of Labour. To that end I find it necessary to establish in the Ministry of Labour a capability with regard to workers' compensation which heretofore has not existed. This is being done. A working group has been established in the ministry which is looking at the Workers' Compensation Board and developing the expertise in the ministry so that we will be in a position to make judgments as to what legislative changes there should be or to assess those recommendations which come from employers, from trade unions, from the board itself and from others who are interested in this important field.

With regard to Mr. Ison, I don't intend to engage in any discussion or debate on that decision. If I was wrong, as some people think, that's their view. I would just say, however, that I was distressed to find that Mr. Ison announced his intended retirement at a date convenient to him, the day following the election of this government, before a Minister of Labour had been appointed. I felt that perhaps I was entitled as the Minister of Labour to some better consideration than was shown in that particular case. But that decision has been made and I have to stand by it.

I don't accept the suggestion Which has been made by others and referred to by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) - I'm not saying this was his criticism - that for a period after Mr. Isoh left the board was without direction. That's just not true. During that time it was subjected to a tremendous amount of criticism, much of it unfounded, The senior officials, responsible officers and employees of Workers' Compensation Board, continued to discharge their responsibility to the highest level. They are to be commended because it was a difficult period; there were uncertainties. I'm only pleased that with the appointment of Dr. Little, Mr. Paradis, Mr. Davidson

[ Page 4175 ]

and Mr. Brown, those apparent difficulties have disappeared. I say "apparent" in the sense that they were on the surface only; they were not down in the board. The board staff is dedicated to compensation principles and, as I said, has discharged its responsibility properly.

I know that all the members have a tremendous amount of material to read, but if I could just refer the member to the annual report of the board for the year ending December 31,1976: page 7 on noise-level surveys; page 9 on investigation of research; and in particular, page 18, where they deal with the hearing branch. There is some statistical information, together with a clear indication of the steps that have been taken by WCB on this whole question of noise-level monitoring, determining whether or not the plant should be adjusted rather than obliging the worker to wear some sort of hearing device.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The report shows that 2,802 claimants were examined during the year 1976; 1,078 were referred for hearing aids. There are training courses going on with regard to audiometric technicians. I don't want to take the time of the committee to read these details, but I will get from the Blues the specific questions that the member asked with regard to information. I'm happy to supply that to him. At the same time, if the member has had difficulty In getting information from the board about their facilities and so on, I'm certain that Dr. Little will be only too pleased to make it available, and perhaps I can give the information at once.

Again, dealing with Workers' Compensation Board and the specific case of the gentleman here in Victoria, the dock-worker who worked at the dock yards. I don't want to comment on particular cases; again, the board makes its decisions independently of this minister and of the government. The onus of proof, however, by statute, is in favour of the worker. If there is a doubt, the doubt is resolved in favour of the worker. That's crystallized in our law.

MR. WALLACE: It's not always done though, Allan.

HON~ MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oak Bay is a distinguished member of the medical profession. Let me say that in spite of where the burden of proof may lie, or whether the reasonable doubt is given, it seems difficult sometimes to move medical opinion as quickly as would seem to be appropriate.

MR. WALLACE: Agreed, agreed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not a doctor so I can't quarrel. But the member well knows, as I do, that you run up against a situation and they say: "Well, based upon accepted medical opinion, this is the situation." You may wonder whether that's right or not. Here am 1, a poor layman, and there are you, a doctor, You run up against that barrier over which there appears to be no hurdle. Somehow or other, the barrier has to move. You can never go over the barrier; you've got to move the barrier. That seems to be imperceptible. I suppose lawyers have the same problem; they don't adjust that quickly either. But I think that is the problem in this particular case. You get a medical opinion. It seems to become crystallized and to get anybody to move from that . . . to admit that maybe there was some doubt that could have been resolved in a different way, maybe there was some evidence that wasn't considered, maybe the opinion was that of the individual and maybe it should be changed. But once it's crystallized under the regulations as a medical opinion, there it sits. It takes a long time and a long struggle; I'm pleased that in this particular case that at least there has been some budging on the part of the decision in favour of that worker.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, there are many things which I would like to discuss. In the interests of perhaps getting a commitment - or actually-just getting reinforcement of a commitment, which I believe I already have from the Minister of Labour - I'd like to again bring to his attention the matter of non-payment of wages in western Canada and, indeed, in Canada.

It's rather interesting that in the U.S. they have laws which are interstate laws. Things which might not be illegal if committed in a state are illegal if you cross state boundaries in order to commit these acts. Things which might be a misdemeanour become a federal offence by virtue of moving across state boundaries. But here in Canada, particularly pertaining to non-payment of wages, if an employer can make himself unavailable by being beyond provincial boundaries, he can, I guess, relieve himself of the obligations which are placed by provincial statutes, certainly in all four western provinces.

The Minister of Labour has given me the kindness of a fairly lengthy reply to the problem but I would also like to bring it to the attention of the committee. Here is a case in point. This was at a restaurant, the Strawberry Inn in Creston, B.C., and it shows six employees standing out front of their former place of employment. It says: "Closed. No wages paid." These are restaurant employees and certainly, I am sure, can very ill afford to go without payment of wages. The sign says: "Closed until further notice, " in the windows of the Strawberry Inn in Erickson after the manageress and the staff had closed the restaurant because they had not received their back wages. This

[ Page 4176 ]

was owned by an absentee owner. The manageress, Mrs. Hannah Petterson, said that the five employees and herself are owed a total of $2,000 by the owner of the inn, Jim Bullard, of Wainwright, Alberta. She said she closed the doors on April 21 because neither she nor the staff had received their March wages and it was impossible to keep the staff.

The six employees - Mrs. Petterson, Cathy Bristo, Ron Skerik, Teresa Schmidt, Karen Meyer and Natalie Knoll contacted the Board of Industrial Relations in an attempt to claim the money owed them but were told that because the labour legislation is provincial rather than federal, the board could not take action against the owner until such time as he came to B.C. A representative of the board, Mrs. Isabel Ingram, says that the province does not have reciprocal agreements with other provinces in this regard. She explained that a certificate could be served, either to Mr. Bullard in person or by registered mail, but that the certificate must be served in B.C. The certificate served could then be registered in court and becomes, in effect, a judgment, she says. Mrs. Ingram pointed out that there were other avenues which the six could follow but she was not at liberty to discuss civil law. The six had gone to a legal-aid lawyer who suggested contacting the Board of Industrial Relations. She asks the question: "Why can't the province co-operate? It doesn't seem right that an Alberta resident can come here, hire British Columbians and then go back without paying the staff."

Well, as I say, I have corresponded with the minister and I have received a fairly lengthy reply. A suggestion is that this could be brought out at an upcoming meeting, which I assume is to come up this fall at the four western provinces ministerial meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I can't help feel that when governments across Canada felt that they wanted to move in terms of an Anti-Inflation Board, the degree of co-operation required was indeed much, much greater. I know one or two of the Ministers of Labour across this country. I don't know if the Hon. Walter Fitzgerald is still the Minister of Labour in Nova Scotia, but I certainly know him and I know how he would feel about such a thing. I think it is no less important that there should be co-operation, and I would welcome it with our immediately neighbouring provinces. There should be co-operation throughout Canada in terms of perhaps giving up some bit of jurisdiction or doing whatever they would collectively come about to decide as to the route to go.

I believe that Saskatchewan has taken some legislative steps. I have corresponded to all Ministers of Labour in the four western provinces. So far I have only received a reply from the minister in Alberta, and Mr. Schreyer and Mr. Broadbent will be hearing from me also. This appears to be the situation as it exists today.

My purpose in standing here today is not to say that the minister hasn't done anything. The minister has responded to me and he's given some intention. It is to bring it to the attention of the committee and also to highlight it to the minister. To my mind, I could think of no higher priority than this. Although it seems to be a small thing and affect a small number of people, it should be a high priority because I think it is a manageable task. It's not an insurmountable task. It is not something that need take, a great deal of time, but it must receive a very high priority if it's to be done. This thing must be brought to a head.

If a reciprocal arrangement could be brought about for the four western provinces, I daresay this would solve 90 per cent of our problems. In fact, if a reciprocal arrangement could be agreed to just with the province of Alberta, it would probably resolve 70 per cent of our problems. As in all of these difficulties that I have experienced most often, whether it be a bankruptcy or this type of situation, it seems that the owner has taken off to Alberta. I'd like some comment, some reaffirmation, and maybe some optimistic forecast, from the minister on this subject.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the problem raised by the member for Nelson-Creston, while small, is nonetheless of great significance, as he points out. It is sometimes these small problems that, when overlooked, cause significant hardship for a lot of people. I want to assure the member that this particular problem, as raised by him with me earlier -and I thank him for doing that - is not being ignored, and I'm not suggesting it was ignored in the past.

It's true that the four Ministers of Labour in the western provinces discussed the subject and came to an agreement that they would do something about it. But agreement is not enough, we find. In order to make effective the process that is available within this province there has to be legislation in other provinces. That means that before the processes that we use in British Columbia can be effected in Alberta, Alberta must pass legislation, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba. As you say, Saskatchewan is the only one that has. Well, British Columbia will be the second. We have legislative change ready now which will ensure that for such actions taken in other provinces, if the defaulting employer moves to British Columbia, there will be a summary method of recovering wages, if he has the funds, rather than putting the employee or employees to the expense of going into court in another jurisdiction and then using the processes of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.

This is available to the employees of the Strawberry Inn but, as you properly point out, the cost to those employees of utilizing that process would probably exceed the amount of their claim. That's why we have the payment of wages legislation

[ Page 4177 ]

that we have in this province.

However, while the other provinces have not passed legislation, as the result of the agreements made between the four Ministers of Labour, when the member for Revelstoke-Slocan was in this portfolio, there are some administrative techniques which are being used. In the particular case of the Strawberry Inn, the officials in the labour standards branch of this ministry made efforts to see whether something couldn't be done in Alberta. The situation was such that administratively they couldn't handle it. It has to be done formally with a judgment, or a certificate having the force of a judgment, and until Alberta moves with their legislation, that's not possible. I've written to the minister about the subject and I hope that he can be encouraged to do as we are doing to resolve this difficulty.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I have just a couple of points, Mr. Chairman. I have to comment on the situation inside the non-ferrous smelting operations in Trail since they've been raised in the House by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . The reason the minister has not heard about the matter since the fines are reduced, or indeed the reason that I did not raise it in the House here, is that the fines were reduced on the basis of a very firm undertaking by Cominco Ltd. to resolve the situation by spending some hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new lead smelter, a new lead refinery, and to make major changes in the zinc tank-room operations. No one, to my knowledge - no one in the general public; or among the workers; or in their bargaining agent, the steelworkers; or in the board - does not take their word at face value since the engineering is going on and the material has been ordered. While certainly this company has dragged their feet in the past, and some of the facilities being replaced are 30 to 50 years old, there is no reason, at this point, to believe they won't be as good as their word.

One can, of course take the position, as the union does, that the reduction of the fines should be based on performance, not on intentions. My position, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, is that the question is not whether Cominco pays $5,000 a month, $30,000 a month, or $300,000 a month. The question is: how soon can the unsafe working conditions in some of those plants be resolved? The firm did put a caveat on their intentions. They said they intended to go ahead, assuming that the economic climate and the sales of their products remain firm, which it has. In fact, it has improved substantially since they made the announcement.

Should, at some point during this major reconstruction phase, some evidence come to life that the company has not been acting in good faith or is dragging its feet in some way, I would firmly support that not only the fines be reinstated, but some retroactivity with interest be applied. However, there is no reason to believe at this point that the situation is not going to be resolved as soon as possible, not just with all deliberate speed, but with all possible speed, and be resolved to a standard higher than that required by the Ministry of Health or by the compensation board. Certainly this is the information I've had from both sides of the bargaining table on this matter.

Another point I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, Mr. Chairman, if it has not been raised already, is the question of lost earning power of workers who have been injured or disabled in some way due to atmospheric conditions in plants. There is a set formula, of course, that the board has so much in terms of a pension for loss of fingers, loss of the use of an arm, loss of an eye, et cetera. But to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, it does not take into account the loss of earning power.

To illustrate what I mean, possibly an individual worker could lose a couple of fingers. He would receive a lifetime pension for that. He may very well, however, be able to return to his trade, and with his earning power unimpaired. Another worker may lose some of his facilities, limbs, or fingers, and find out that they cannot return to their trade. They have to return to work which pays at a considerably lower level of income. They might drop down to, say, a level of labourer, janitor or that sort of thing, from being a tradesman. In no way does the pension they receive from the board make up for this loss of earning power. I would like to see some attention paid to this problem, whether it's a ministry responsibility or a board responsibility.

However, I think it is a matter that is grossly unfair that some injured workers receive a pension and maintain their income, when others may well receive a pension, perhaps even a higher pension, but in fact find it very difficult to find any kind of employment, or if they do, it's at a much lower level. I think this is a real problem in British Columbia. Workers who are disabled or who are faced with a problem such as we have in Trail of reduced ability to work due to exposure, in the past or in the present, to atmospheric pollutants have a major problem which I don't think can be resolved under the present guidelines that the board operates under.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) , the subject of lost earning power and the implications with regard to pensions is a matter which I understand the board is addressing itself to. The example you gave of a worker who loses a limb and therefore is obligated to take employment far down the wage scale is, of course, a clear one. Ones that are less clear are those who are affected by atmospheric conditions in plants. There's no visible physical change, but there's loss of

[ Page 4178 ]

strength, breathing and so on, which reduces their productivity and the effort that they can expend. That results in them being shifted to less onerous duties. But that's under consideration, and I can't comment on it other than that.

With regard to Cominco and the undertaking that's been given to the board, I'm certain that it's being watched very carefully by the board and by the trade union. The trade union has a safety officer of considerable experience, and I'm sure that we can count upon Mr. Al King to make certain that the employer meets its responsibilities as early as possible. He's a man of experience and intelligence. He used up all there is in that family, but he can be counted upon, I'm sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, right on!

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I'm going to ignore that completely, Mr. Chairman, and go on to something else. I did want to say, with respect to my colleague from Nelson-Crest on's (Mr. Nicolson's) concern about recovering wages when an employer fails to satisfy them and then escapes to another province.... Quite frankly, I had forgotten. I thought we had passed the legislation. I think that darned election in 1975 interfered with a lot of things.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It produced a great result though.

MR. KING: A lot of good things, I might say.

But it's quite true that we did get agreement from the four western provinces and letters were exchanged confirming that agreement. It was consummated in Edmonton at a meeting of the four western Labour ministers at that time. I hope that none of them are reneging on the commitment they gave on behalf of their province. It's riot really too much of a problem to pass reciprocal enabling legislation which allows those wages to be recovered.

I want to say to the Minister of Labour, though, that I think it is a larger problem than perhaps he is aware of. This is a fairly widespread kind of occurrence in my own experience. It may be that it's more common in the interior around the Golden-Revelstoke area but very frequently - almost yearly - there are particularly service kinds of operations that come in for a short tourist season. They set up, they employ a number of local high school or university kids and they just operate for the tourist season. They fold their tent and steal away back to the confines of Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba failing to satisfy the wages that are owed. I suspect in many cases the futility of trying to recover makes it.... You know, it's not reported, to the department. But I suspect it's a more serious concern than perhaps the department is generally aware of. '

One of the other matters I want to comment on relates to workers' compensation . My friend the Conservative leader talked a great deal about the Workers' Compensation Act, which I do not intend to do, other than to say that the board I think is doing a generally pretty good job. I wanted to congratulate the board on the seminars they conducted in Victoria for the edification of members of the Legislature. It was worthwhile, it was informative and I found the staff of the board most co-operative. I learned on that occasion that the board is indeed proceeding with the administrative apparatus necessary to fully implement section 24 (a) and I'm pleased to hear that.

I think there are a number of areas where the board requires the political support of the minister and the government. Those two areas that particularly concern me are with respect to new chemicals coming on the market and being introduced into various industrial processes. Much of this occurs without adequate analysis and without adequate attention even being paid to determine whether there is any danger to respiratory health or to skin and so on. I think the minister might do a real service for the province by trying to deal with that kind of matter on a federal-provincial basis, because it is very difficult on a provincial basis to control all of the chemicals and the problem is equally applicable in Quebec or in Newfoundland. So it's one of the matters I hope the minister will pay some attention to when he is discussing industrial health and occupational environments with his colleagues across the country. It is something that I think can only be adequately controlled by a national programme.

But it is dangerous, you know. The new contaminants and toxic chemicals that are coming on into use almost daily. . . . Terry Ison was doing an excellent job, in my view, in developing public awareness and industrial and trade union awareness of the dangers of these new toxic chemicals. So I hope the minister will perhaps refer to some of Terry's lectures on the subject at UBC and some of the articles he had written. It's valid.

One other area that I think requires the same kind of approach - a political approach essentially, because our own board in British Columbia can't really handle it - is noise level. Now we do have a rather faltering legislative step into covering noise in the Act. I don't think that's the answer. It's an initial recognition, in my view, and not much more. But the real problem, it seems to me, is to try to reduce noise levels. If we are to do that, then it has to be done at the manufacturing plant. Again, we have no muscle in terms of doing that if we stand alone as a province. Obviously there would have to be some national standard regulation of noise level as applicable to the 10 provinces, because otherwise the one province would be subject to all kinds of pressures.

~ You simply wouldn't have the muscle to convince

[ Page 4179 ]

industry that they had to meet these criteria for the construction of new machinery when it comes to automobiles, trucks, mining and machinery such as jackhammers and drills and so on. I think about diesel electric locomotives on the railways. To some extent we have jurisdiction, but they are all British Columbia workers; they are all Canadian workers whether they are precisely covered under our Act or not.

Again, with sawmill workers who may be working close to inadequately muffled machinery: these things, in the long term, cost more if we allow them to go on. I think if the provinces got together and made a real concerted effort to convince the manufacturers of this industrial equipment that the noise level should be greatly reduced, it would be a big help. It would be a big saving in human terms and in financial terms in the long run.

I am very concerned about the last point I want to talk to the minister about, and I hope the minister can help me. I am concerned about the Revelstoke dam. The minister has a great deal of control in this matter on two counts: he is the Minister of Labour, with the authority to ensure that there is opportunity for local workers; and he also sits as chairman of the appeal committee of the Revelstoke dam water licence. As such, perhaps he knows something that I don't know as to whether the dam will go ahead or not. But the fact of the matter is that work is already underway on the dam. Work proceeded before the appeal committee had even started to sit; work proceeded once the conditional licence was granted. There's quite a major work force there. Of course, if the cabinet appeal committee, which the Minister of Labour chairs, decides that the project should proceed, then that work force is going to expand rapidly.

Unless the minister does something about ensuring access for local people on the basis provided for under the old Public Works Fair Employment Act, hopefully through a negotiated agreement with the unions involved and with the contractors, then I'm afraid that local people, whose resources are being developed in this case and in an area where there's high unemployment, are going to be left completely out in the cold. A year ago last June I wrote the minister a lengthy letter outlining to him what we could anticipate and asking him to take action at that time when there was lead time to come to a negotiated agreement. I even offered my assistance to the minister. I think he acknowledged my letter, but nothing else. Since that time he has had letters from the Revelstoke city council, the Chamber of Commerce, the senior citizens, the Regional District of Columbia-Shuswap, the village council of Salmon Arm and a whole variety of responsible organizations in that area, asking the minister to designate a fair division of labour on this large government-sponsored project.

I'm disturbed that he hasn't done anything. I don't know whether he has some special problems, but if he has I wish he would have let the local people know -perhaps we could have been of some assistance. If there's no problem other than the will to get involved and try to develop a vehicle for bringing this type of arrangement into fruition, then I'm rather disappointed in the minister.

The other thing is that I wish he would let us know when he expects the cabinet appeal committee to hand down their decision. I know it's not the minister's vote responsibility directly, but there's a very large work force involved, and that decision of the cabinet appeal committee is going to affect the employment security of workers in the Revelstoke area and it's certainly going to affect the viability of many new industries - businesses that have developed in the area based on their anticipated economic analysis of what would occur when the dam was started. If, all of a sudden, it's to be postponed or cancelled, there's going to be great economic chaos in that area from the point of view of both the workers and business.

I think the minister really owes the public some indication and more interest than I've seen thus far.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With regard to payment of wages, there's a meeting of Ministers of Labour of the western provinces being organized for the month of August. Saskatchewan has moved, and we are going to raise that whole question again.

On the Workers' Compensation Board and the subject of seminars, I'm glad the member found them useful. When Dr. Little was appointed chairman and the new board was established, it was made perfectly clear to them that one of the major responsibilities of the board is to communicate with the general community so there would be a better level of understanding of the services provided by the board, not only among workers and employers but generally. These seminars will be continued and there will be further lines of communication opened with the community. I know that the board organized a seminar that conflicted with the sittings of this House, but they are going to be renewed.

I have asked them perhaps to have a series where specific problems can be discussed. There should be some communication with members so that some of the matters here can be discussed. It is not a question of what the press prints or what I relate to the board. The independence of that board, I think, entitles them to have the opportunity to meet directly with MLAs in a sort of forum atmosphere.

New chemicals and noise levels. Yes, I am aware of the work done by Mr. Ison in that field and I assure the committee that his contribution is not being ignored. The same applies to noise levels. This is one of the hopes that we have with regard to the federal

[ Page 4180 ]

occupational health centre. It's going to give us a place where these problems, which really are national problems, can be discussed and resolved. I think we can do much in noise levels locally; most of our sawmills are designed here in British Columbia. But the member is right; the equipment in many cases -engines, motors and so on - come from outside and we don't have any control of them. So it is a question of modification of muffling devices after they arrive. It is a national problem and could best be resolved at that area.

Revelstoke dam. It is my hope that the decision with regard to the conditional water licence will be forthcoming inside the next two weeks. It is not being delayed. Following five days and two nights of hearings and the submission of additional information, we have eight volumes of transcripts from the hearings alone plus 28 volumes of transcripts which were extensively referred to during the course of the hearings. The members have been dealing with those matters and we think we are now in a position to begin our final deliberations and to produce the result.

I can't forecast what it will be. If the decision is to confirm the licence or modify it in some respect or such a result that the work will proceed, then the ministry will be entering actively into discussions with British Columbia Hydro, the trade union movement and the Revelstoke community with regard to the problem of the utilization of local workers and the availability of opportunity for them on that project. There have already been some preliminary discussions. In the circumstances it was difficult to carry it forward very far, but discussions have already been opened. I have spoken to Mr. Kinnaird about the subject.

There is no unwillingness to discuss the proposal which I am putting forward, and I would welcome any suggestions the members may have. But the proposal I am putting forward is that there should be an employment opportunity office established in that general community whereby that work force will have one place to go and there can be an examination made of availability and skills. Then we can apply such persuasion as may be necessary to ensure that Hydro or the contractors or the trade unions see the wisdom of the point of view expressed by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .

I would say in conclusion, I just wish that the Chairman and the Clerks at the table would stop harassing that member. It interferes with his speech but it makes him smile.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind hon. members that as far as the committee is concerned, there are no Clerks. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for his answer. I am very pleased, quite frankly, to hear that the minister does intend to intervene, 'because this is a long-standing problem that I have had in my particular area for many, many years where local people felt they should have a chance of some employment on the Mica Dam, the Keenleyside Dam and the Duncan Dam. Here they had to sit and watch people coming in from not only B.C. but even out of the province who by essence of already being union members were hired. Local people, watching the development of their own resource, had no access whatsoever.

I certainly recognize the rights of trade unions. They have no seniority with the permanent employer;' it's an interim thing. They move from employer to employer so they have their seniority protection through the trade union. I recognize that. Until they can improve upon the system, that's the only security they have. But surely there's a balance, and what we are talking about is a fair balance.

I suggest that so long as local people are prepared to pay their union dues, it should be optional for the union whether they take them in on a full membership basis or simply a work permit. In that way, after the project is finished, the union has no continuing obligation to the individual worker involved. That's fair enough because if they inflate their ranks then certainly those people who are in the industry permanently would not have employment security at all.

The only thing wrong with what the minister has told me, in my view, is that I believe there should be the opportunity for preparing through advanced training. I want to tell you that in Revelstoke for the first time in many years the railway industry is not that active, or the forest industry either, and I suspect we have a couple of hundred young people in that town who have no particular skills in construction work and they are going to be excluded on that basis. Had the minister initiated a programme six months or a year in advance, it would have been possible to appraise the skills that were available, the unemployment levels, and to offer some training so that applicants in the local area would have the skills required to secure employment.

It's not good enough to say we'll grant a certain percentage and then deny the local applicant a job because he's not a Teamster, he didn't know how to drive a truck, or because he didn't know how to drill and he can't get into the rock and tunnel workers. So it should be a total programme. I suspect that is going to be a problem. Now it's true that there are some local people equipped with skills there too, but there will be many who are not. I rather regret that a training programme was not initiated and a complete manpower appraisal for the region.

The other problem, of course, is designating what is local or regional. I think in all of these

[ Page 4181 ]

circumstances it has to be a negotiated matter; it has to be fairly flexible. There should be discussions between the union and the employers on how many jobs we are talking about, what the duration is, where it is reasonable to commute from. Then, of course, there should be some residency test. In anticipation of major employment projects, people come crowding in and then say: "Look, we're local and we deserve a job." In essence they're not really local unless they, have lived there for some reasonable period of time. What should the residency test be?

All of these questions should be asked, and that's why I would have preferred to see some advance planning so that training and the criteria for employment qualifications could have been set much earlier with participation of everyone else involved.

But I am pleased and I thank the minister for indicating at least that when and if the water licence of Hydro is validated, there will be some action by the department to come to grips with the problem.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll only take a moment. I thank the member for his comments.

The question of manpower assessment and training will be taken into consideration by this ministry. I wonder if I could ask the member if he could give assistance. This is his constituency and in fact his home community. There are three communities which surround Revelstoke. One of the matters which we have under consideration is: what is the area? I'm not making any decisions but I would appreciate the assistance of the member if he could be specific, perhaps in a letter to me, as to what would be deemed to be appropriate. In our consideration of the matter and in correspondence that has come to us, it is surprising how big that community has become all of a sudden. I would welcome the member's particular views on that.

Residency is a problem, I think. However, that can be solved. You have to be pretty arbitrary about the decision but you can't have people flooding in in anticipation of jobs and saying: "Well, I live here so that. . . ."

MR. KING: I'll send you a letter.

MR. D'ARCY: I'd like to comment briefly on the local employment situation. For the benefit of the minister and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , it is quite possible to accomplish what the member for Revelstoke and the minister have been talking about. I have a graphic example within my own constituency.

The Seven Mile Dam is at the height of construction right now. It has been in construction for three years. At the time it was started in 1974, there was a firm undertaking on the part of local management of B.C. Hydro, the contractors and the trade unions that they would make every effort so that there would be local employment. Local employment, it was decided, would be within 100 miles of the particular construction job. I'm happy to report to this House that the latest figures I have indicate that some 89 per cent of not just the workers but some 89 per cent of all personnel on that particular project, which admittedly is only half the size of the Revelstoke dam, do come under this local criterion.

The percentage of workers on the dam is in fact higher than that 89 per cent. That is a total figure; it includes engineers, geologists, helicopter pilots, supervisors, project managers - everyone. I think the House will appreciate that the major contractor, say, who comes in from San Francisco is going to want to bring some senior personnel with him. Those senior personnel in many cases make up the 11 per cent who are not local.

I'd like to add some comments to the question of noise levels in industry in British Columbia. I'm happy to see that the compensation board is going ahead with its testing programme. I would like to note, however, that this is still a major problem in industry. I personally suffer some hearing impairment myself after only 10 years in the pulp and paper industry. I was not in that industry as long as many people nor was I in the noisiest areas of that particular industry.

I would also like to note that one of the worst areas for noise in industry is in the power boiler. The steam engineers have a great problem in this regard. I'd like to point out that they are not dealing with the kind of simplistic boilers that some people in the House may have had to deal with in their working lives, but rather a very complex mechanism with pressures up to 600,700 and even 1,000 pounds per square inch. Certainly any kind of hearing impairment in these areas is a major problem.

The last point I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the question of student employment, particularly for non-profit societies that have had to hire students in advance of getting the funding approval through the Ministry of Labour. I'm wondering if the minister could consider applications for some retroactivity in this regard, if a non-profit society.... I'm thinking, in particular, in my constituency, of museum societies such as the Rossland museum, which in order to have any kind of a successful year at all, had to go ahead and hire students back in May, June and the early part of July. They've only recently - as a matter of fact in the past week - received approval to hire students whose salaries will be picked up. Certainly that society could not have waited until the end of July in order to staff its facilities. So they had to put these students on by July 1, and in some cases much earlier,

I'm wondering if the ministry can consider

[ Page 4182 ]

applications for retroactivity of funds for non-profit organizations which due to the nature of their business, which in this case is museum tours, have had no choice but to hire people. After all, Mr. Chairman, most of the students have been on the market since the end of April or the early part of May. We are now at the latter part of July, and I think this is a real hardship on many of these organizations which is going to have to be met by the communities in which they operate.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, perhaps if the minister is going to respond to the member for Rossland-Trail on the Revelstoke thing, he might also make some remarks, beyond the question of local employment, about whether there is, in fact, any discussion going on in terms of the total social impact if that dam goes ahead, and what kind of arrangements are being made there with the community. It requires an increase in all the services there. Are those kinds of discussions going on as well? We've not had that kind of preparation in possibly one of the largest constructions that will be going on and the impact of people coming into the area.

What I'd like to talk to the minister about now is a problem which relates to labour standards and what might be something that the Board of Industrial Relations could look at. I see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) in the House-, I might get two ministers with one speech here. It relates to the question of the janitorial services that are being hawked around, particularly in the Vancouver area. Just to bring the minister a little bit up to date, if he's not familiar with it, it has been going through his ministry for some time, and also through other ministries. As a matter of preface, I'd like to give the minister an idea what it is I'm talking about.

From time to time, a number ' of ads appear in the paper. I'll give you an example of one that appeared recently. It says:

"Office cleaning. Your protected investment will earn up to $500 monthly for 12 to 15 hours per week. Forty hours per week earns $1,000 per month-plus in your janitorial business. You receive full training and guaranteed accounts in your area."

What it is is that ' t people are going along to these offices - West Coast Building Maintenance is one company that has certainly been involved, They talk to the people who are there and are told that for a payment of a couple of thousand dollars they can have some janitorial contracts. When they have signed the contract they get a guarantee that they're going to get something like $450 a month, less the 20 per cent administration cost. Then they are usually shown lists of places where they'll work. What happens in a large number of cases.... There are about 19 cases at the moment involving around $40,000 of non-payment of money in this respect of the monthly payments. As a matter of fact, the Vancouver City police have about 60 files on these kinds of operations.

There has been an approach made to the labour standards branch about this kind of operation. It has occurred to me that this kind of operation seems like a franchise operation, and in some cases it's referred to as a franchise operation. We don't have any franchise legislation here, but I'm told that if such practices took place in the province of Alberta, given their franchise legislation, there would be certain actions by the government against these particular companies.

The other thing is that a lot of the people involved in these transactions are new immigrants, people who see an opportunity, if they can get the down payment of $1,000 or $2,000, of going into business for themselves. I think it is fair to say that it is not a genuine free-enterprise operation. It's a ripoff. People are getting very badly burned on these things.

Now there have been discussions with the labour standards branch. It's been their feeling that they've discussed it, they've known about it for some time, but they don't feel they have the jurisdiction or the competency to deal with it. I'd like to ask the minister if it's not possible, in the interests of all of these citizens who are having such a bad time - and there are many of them before the courts; many of them who have made complaints to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to the police, to the Better Business Bureau - for the Labour Relations Board to make a determination about this. Couldn't they take a look at it and examine whether, in fact, these people are dependent contractors and whether they are covered by some aspect of the jurisdiction of the legislation in the province?

Perhaps the minister's department would also look at whether there's not some infringement of the Employment Agencies Act, which is an Act the minister does administer. These people are really holding themselves out as offering people a business enterprise, and part of the business enterprise is the question of employment. Some of the people who are going into these businesses are involving their families in working in these kinds of enterprises, and you almost get the feeling that not only are they a kind of franchise operation, but also they're suggesting there are some employment possibilities.

Now there, also need to be, presumably, some discussions between the ministry, if they're prepared to look at it - and I think they really should look at it - because later on, as I understand from the minister, there will be legislation regarding labour standards. Certainly here is something which comes within the purview of the labour standards.

I'd like to refer the minister to a similar situation

[ Page 4183 ]

in regard to these, what I would call, franchised janitorial services going all over the country. They've been going on particularly in Ontario. I'd like to refer the minister to a recent determination that was made in the province of Ontario. Presumably his staff may be familiar with it, or may have given him the reference: "In matter of the Employment Standards Act, 1974" - this is Ontario - "in the matter of the report that the Majestic Maintenance Services Ltd. may have failed to comply with the Employment Standards Act." There was a hearing and there was a commissioner. It's a fairly lengthy statement and if the minister wants to see it, I can certainly let him have it.

In there, they go through a great deal of examination of information and then finally rule as follows:

"I find that the complainant cleaners are employees of Majestic within the meaning of the Act and having regard to the agreement of the parties with respect to quantum, I direct the parties to meet in an attempt to arrive at an agreement with respect to whatever moneys, if any, may be owing arising out of this determination."

The problem here is that in British Columbia we , are not able to get any particular department of government at the moment to take a solid look at it. You may be aware that the law students legal advice programme has been using law students most of the summer. They have been doing an indepth study of this particular problem. They have been, as I said, to the labour standards branch; they have been to the department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; they have been to see the Crown counsel in Vancouver, who told them that after a thorough investigation by the city police, ~they concluded that on the face of it, no criminal charges could be laid. That may be the legal position.

However, on the other side of the question, people are losing money and they are not getting the money that they contracted to get. The RCMP commercial crimes division have expressed an interest in it. They are pretty busy right now but they have been....

There is the question of the Revenue Canada taxation branch, which was also contacted. There have been a number of law offices contacted, as well as the Better Business Bureau. There is, as I understand it, a series of articles which I'm very anxiously awaiting to see appear in the Province, which is being done by Mr. Jim Spears. I understood that they were coming out a week or 10 days ago. I think that it is very important that these articles do appear, because there has been a great deal of research done in this area, both by the students and by Mr. Spears who, when he's not a newspaperman, is also a law student.

I think it is important that the public get some rather concise information about what is going on in this particular area. These advertisements are still appearing. People are still getting involved in these kinds of situations. The sad part is that when we look at it, and they have looked at it from a number of angles, there appears to be nothing in any of the legislation that exists in this province that offers these people any kind of protection. Now in respect to the minister's department, it is not possible, in the interests of these people, that the Industrial Relations Board agree to take a look at it. It may very well rule that at the end it is not something that they can deal with. But they may very well be able to say: "Well, we cannot deal with it but we can suggest that ...... They can make some suggestions to the government about what kind of legislation is needed. Meet with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and suggest to him what might be done.

Right now it appears that the people who have worked very hard to examine this problem can offer no real avenue to the people who have been bilked. I think it's fair to say that they have been ripped off for a lot of this money. We are not affording any warning to the rest of the public. Hopefully, if these articles are published in the newspaper, they will serve as a warning to people that all is not as it is stated to be in these arrangements. We do have the judgment from Ontario in respect to a similar situation. They, of course, made reference to a specific piece of legislation. But it has to start somewhere.

Now we're not into the Minister of Consumer Affairs estimates. I hope lie will answer the question I asked him the other day. There's got to be some action taken. I'm suggesting, Mr. Minister, that perhaps it may be possible in your department, by using your deputy, who is the chairman of the industrial relations board, to review it and to make a determination or to look at it and make some referral to some part of the government. But not to the Minister of Mines. I plead with you, sir - not to the Minister of Mines. His vocabulary is only three words long. Oh, I've forgotten. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I've forgotten that he used to be the Minister of Labour. That's quite true, yes.

So in respect to this case, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we may very well start in the minister's department in respect to this question.

There is one other question I do want to raise -this is a different matter - which relates to pensions and the discussions that are going on with ministers across Canada or in the future western ministers' conference. One aspect is the private pension situation - whether any discussions are going on related to legislation that we might be thinking about in this province, particularly in relation to private pensions, around the question of portability, around the question of people in unions being involved in the

[ Page 4184 ]

administration of these pensions, and also in terms of the Canada Pension Plan.

Now I know that in the discussions with the previous government that took place, when I was on federal-provincial conferences, we did it through the Ministry of Human Resources in terms of the Canada pension legislation. I'm sure the minister is aware that there are a number of research papers that were done. There are some very serious problems with the Canada Pension Plan, and it has direct effect on the labour force in this province, particularly in relation to the funding, particularly in relation to the questions that are being raised in the federal House in respect to pensions for housewives.

I have not heard in the 18 or 19 months tenure of this government that they have been.... Nobody to my knowledge has made any statements regarding their input into the Canada Pension Plan and we have not had any statements regarding whether the government is looking at legislation in relation to the private pension funds. I know recently the minister received a request from one of the unions to take a look at pension legislation or the need for pension legislation. So those are the three areas that I want to cover at the moment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the point regarding labour contracts - that is turning individual persons who would normally be seen to be employees into independent contractors, thereby avoiding payment of wages, unemployment insurance, and all sorts of benefits - I wouldn't like to give that member any advice. But if I were concerned about the problem I would send a letter of complaint to the chairman of the Board of Industrial Relations. Having received such a complaint they wouldn't dare not to investigate and make some inquiries, and who knows what might come from that?

MR. LEVI: Could you repeat the last two sentences?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It will be in the Blues.

Pension legislation - yes, there has been a committee at the deputy minister level concerning itself with private pension schemes. My deputy minister had been involved, together with Mr. Forrest of the superannuation branch. The report, I believe, is complete now and I believe the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is bringing that matter by way of a submission to cabinet in the next.... I don't know how quickly, but if the report is ready.

We have no pension legislation of that nature in this province. The officials' committee has examined pension legislation in other provinces. I don't think it does that much, quite frankly, but it should. I think that we need to have some better legislation than, indeed, exists in other provinces.

We find a number of pension plan schemes which are operated in this province which don't even comply with our Income Tax Act, believe it or not. As a result there are some apparently questionable practices. I am not accusing anybody of any wrong, but the benefits that employees think they will be getting may not be realized and that shouldn't be allowed to occur. But as for Canada Pension, I am not aware of any discussions that might be done by the Minister of Finance. I am not certain.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was in a moment ago. She asked me a question yesterday concerning elevating devices. I would like to put it on the record Mr. Mozier, who is the director of that branch of this ministry, has been in communication with the fire chief in Vancouver. The matter is one of ongoing study.

Principally, the concerns of fire safety and elevators are not so much with the equipment or the inspection, but in the education of people who use elevators. You, Mr. Chairman, will particularly recognize that at most elevators now there's a small sticker saying: "Do not use in case of fire." That's great, if you happen to read English, your eyesight is good, and you can see the sticker. But there just has to be a better educational programme, and this is being designed by officials of the elevating devices branch - a real programme of education. It will deal with just what the consequences are of being incautious in the use of elevators and with fire safety.

In reply to the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) , the allocation of moneys with regard to non-profit societies has posed a problem in the past. We have recognized the difficulty that arises when some of their projects begin before the programme is really underway. I must admit that there is a bias with respect to those employers who can offer employment for the full term of the programme. When you have employers on a waiting basis, you give the nod to those who will offer the long-term employment.

I can look into that particular case, and we will examine it because, as I told the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yesterday, the programme is an evolving one and anything we can do to improve it by modifying the regulations and making them more workable we want to do. I've been given statistics that out of the $22 million allocated for this programme, non-profit societies are receiving $2.5 million - just over 10 per cent of the money is going to that area. If there is a problem, I would be pleased if the member would draw it specifically to my attention.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I rise in my place to plead the case of one man - one man who was denied his rights; one man who, I

[ Page 4185 ]

believe, was mistreated and abused under law. A constituent of mine in Mission has run head on into not only the union, but also the labour board.

I believe that if a man cannot receive justice - if the system of law should be so complex and so devious that a single man cannot receive a natural justice - I think that this forum has a place for him, the one man. Only one is as important as the whole province combined, if he has not received his justice.

So I come here to plead his case, to tell you what happened, and to give you the full detail. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman, not at great length.

Because he was a family man, respected and honoured, this man was liked by his friends and employees. He worked for the hospital. This man was so much liked that he found himself in the position of vice-president of a union. He was a man who liked to see things physically done right. He wanted to see the union have a budget. He wanted to be sure that the money was being spent correctly. So he went to the union and said: "I'm a vice-president now. I'm a man on your executive. I want you to spend the money of this union correctly. I want the membership to know what's happening."

They said: "Just be quiet for a while; we'll tell you someday." But the day went, another day came, a year passed, and he kept insisting. Finally, he found himself in a position where he was required - almost required - to stop paying his dues. Now I won't take the time to explain to you how this position happened. But by one move and another, he is now -since that time two years have passed - putting his dues in a trust account for the union. But they will not recognize this and they finally insisted on his dismissal. He was fired out of the union. An employee of 15 years and the labour board has been no help. In fact, they are part of the trouble.

I've catalogued here in detail what I think the problem is and I will read it. The man's name is Macdonald, and I say that Mr. Macdonald has been dealt with unlawfully on every important point of his case. His recourse to law is beyond his ability to pay or his resources. Worse than this, he has not been given a proper hearing.

The Labour Code puts the right to recourse to law at the discretion of the labour board, recourse he might have pursued and he might have afforded had there not been a gross delay, during which time Mr. Macdonald's financial reserves were depleted. It was impossible for him to pursue his course for redress before determining whether the labour board would or would not take jurisdiction. At a vital time in his case, the labour board took eight months to decide whether it would or would not bargain for his legal and natural rights under the Labour Act. It further declined to give him his rights within its powers. It is shocking that the labour board was indifferent while it held the future of this one person at risk; the board was either callous, careless or both.

The board's first findings on its initial determination were not consistent with its findings on appeal. The board is ambiguous at best and culpable at worst. It seems to me that for its own convenience the board maintains a comfortable position between the hospital union and itself, and in the process expended the individual, Mr. Macdonald, and his rights under law. I do not presume to adjudicate on the board's position, but regardless of responsibility Mr. Macdonald was a victim of a process and expended before the altar of overwhelming, irresistible and improper use of power.

I charge that the labour board based its findings on what it knew were irregularities. The labour board thus acknowledged that the arbitration was faulty and that nothing turned on it and that the board was unlawfully constituted. Further, the board also knew Macdonald had no recourse against it. In law, as Senator Lawson stated - he is a member of the board - the union member has no standing in such an arbitration, and the union, adverse in interest, is the member's only spokesman,

It is a disgrace that an arbitration tribunal can conduct itself with blatant and knowing impropriety, and that the individual affected should have no recourse in law within his means and no qualified or legal help at his disposal. He has no legal help; he cannot afford it. But yet he is allowed to flounder, and the board stands by and the union stands by, both quite satisfied that this man shall sink. Right today he has sunk.

It is a disgrace that the union would have dealt with Mr. Macdonald as it has done, but doubly a disgrace that the whole system denies him a hearing, let alone a remedy, unless his resources were equal to the union's. It's a disgrace that an employer - in this case, a quasi-governmental agency - should deal with an employee of long service in this way. It will be a greater disgrace if nothing is done for this man. Some may say that he had been poorly advised, but none can say that he has received justice and fair play at the hands of the union and the board.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I was very impressed by the statements just made by the hon. member for Dewdney.

This brings me back to the contention I made to the minister yesterday that it would be a good thing to proclaim part 8 of the Labour Code of British Columbia which would provide for a labour ombudsman to look into exactly the sort of case that has been raised in the House by the hon. member for Dewdney. The labour ombudsman has, under section 29, "the power to investigate any decision or recommendation made or act done or omitted relating to matters of administration, including the merits of a policy, and affecting any person by, for

[ Page 4186 ]

example, any board, commission or other tribunal, " and so on. This is exactly the kind of case that the position of labour ombudsman was intended for. I hope the minister in considering the very important representation made by the hon. member for Dewdney will not consider merely the instant case but consider as well the process provided for in law by this Legislature but not as yet by proclamation by the government. We will consider whether that process should not at the earliest possible moment be implemented.

I want to go on and consider some other matters, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I might start out with the question of the requirement that persons who, as a matter of religion, wear turbans should be required to wear hardhats by the WCB when this runs contrary to their religion. Let me ask the minister before I commence whether this has already been canvassed in the debate. I've been in and out and it is possible I might have missed this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this important subject in industrial relations and workplace safety has not been canvassed, and I think that the member should advise the House of this problem.

MR. GIBSON: I am sure that the minister himself is well aware of the problem.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): It's the wrong vote.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, well, if you think this is the wrong vote I'll raise it on a later vote and raise some other things on this vote, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, this is very important. We should get to the bottom of this problem.

MR. GIBSON: I'll certainly suit your convenience in that regard. I've conceived....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Would the Attorney-General please come to order?

MR. GIBSON: I certainly take my hat off to the Chairman and I appreciate the way he controls his committee.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, standing orders say you have to rise uncovered, Mr. Minister, at least as to the head.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano direct his debate to the Chair and please proceed?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the question is, as the minister says, an important one of industrial safety. It's also one of religious conviction. I would be grateful if the minister would give the House his appreciation of how he balances these two conflicts.

The representations I have received have included, among other things, a field memorandum, dated November, 1975, from the U.S. Department of Labour, occupational safety and health administration, which deals directly with this particular issue and concludes in the operational paragraph:

"Citation shall not be issued for failure of members of the Old Order Amish or the Sikh Dharma Brotherhood to wear hardhats. Employers of members of these groups shall not be required to provide protective head equipment for their use as long as such employees have informed their employers of their religious objection to the wearing of hardhats."

Mr. Chairman, there is a question of balance here. In terms of occupational safety, the WCB makes the argument that a hardhat is required in certain job locations. I am told by those who would resist this order on religious grounds that there is a general disposition in the religious community, in the Sikh community, to waive rights that would otherwise be attendant on them in terms of compensation in exchange for the freedom not to wear a hardhat.

I suppose in a way it's an issue of safety versus individual liberty. I'd be grateful if the minister would inform the House as to his stand on this and the way in which the WCB has approached it to date.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be very brief. I'd like to deal with this matter at some length. Obviously, since this vote is not going to pass, this opportunity will present itself on Tuesday.

This problem is not being ignored by this minister or by the Workers'. Compensation Board. There is a very serious problem. At my behest, in response to representations made by both members for Vancouver South, a year ago the Workers' Compensation Board went to considerable lengths to determine the safety factors which were then being alleged by members of the Sikh religion as to the safety that could be built in to the use of the turbans. It was found on that occasion that from a safety point of view, the turban, regardless of the material used in its composition, left a great deal to be desired with regard to the protection of a workmen from injuries in industrial operations. The consequences, of course, from that are not only to the workman

[ Page 4187 ]

himself but to other workmen who may be dependent on him in the course of the operation.

It is on that basis that the WCB made its decision at that time, in spite of the fact that they had before them the experience during the recent world war with regard to turbaned soldiers and the decisions in the United States which, of course, are based upon the basis of their Bill of Rights in that country.

Now recently I've been advised by representatives of that religion and by the members for Vancouver South that in the United Kingdom they have been exempted from the obligation to wear helmets while riding motorcycles. Again, it's based upon religious principles.

This has been referred by me to the Workers' Compensation Board and I've asked them to again look at this particular problem to determine whether or not there should not be some change in the regulations. I have not yet had a response from the chairman of the board on the subject. I'm looking forward to it.

I have posed as well the offer of some members of the Sikh community to waive any claim there may be if allowed to work without using hardhats. That's very easy to do when you're seeking this kind of opportunity, but what does the board do or what does society do when some injury arises? That's the concern that we have to have. We recognize their religious conviction and the very deep, deep roots that wearing a turban has, and they won't be ignored.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, since I don't suppose this can be raised under any other vote than the one we're on, and I.... Well, I just want to know what the situation is again regarding the minister's responsibilities in dealing with Indian affairs and what has transpired since.... I don't think it's something we can deal with in five minutes. So I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed-, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Report on the Statute of Frauds:

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.