[ Page 1537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Alleged supermarket kickbacks. Mr. Levi –– 1537

Possible Balco Industries shutdown. Mr. Barrett –– 1539

Lady Grace investigation. Mr. Lockstead –– 1540

Sale of the Lady Grace. Hon. Mr. Bawlf replies –– 1541

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Forests estimates

On vote 110.

Mr. King –– 1542

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1542

On vote 112.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1542

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1543

Mr. King –– 1543

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1544

Mr. Skelly –– 1544

On vote 114.

Mr. Nicolson –– 1544

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1544

Mr. King –– 1544

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1545

Mr. Lockstead –– 1545

Mr. Gibson –– 1545

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1546

Mr. Gibson –– 1546

On vote 115.

Mr. Skelly –– 1547

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1547

Mr. Skelly –– 1548

Mr. King –– 1548

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1548

On vote 117.

Mr. Skelly –– 1549

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1549

Mr. King –– 1550

On vote 119.

Mr. Skelly –– 1550

Hon. Mr-Waterland –– 1551

On vote 121.

Mr. Skelly –– 1551

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 1551

On vote 122.

Mr. King –– 1552

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Labour estimates

On vote 161.

Hon. Mr. William –– 1552

Ms. Sanford –– 1556

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1559

Ms. Sanford –– 1561

Hon. Mr. William –– 1562

Ms. Sanford –– 1562

Mr. Barber –– 1563

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1563

Mr. Barber –– 1564

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1566

Ms. Brown –– 1566

Hon. Mr. William –– 1570

Ms. Brown –– 1571

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1571

Ms. Sanford –– 1572

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1572

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members of this House to extend an exceptionally warm welcome to Janice Murray and 23 young adults who are students from Coquitlam, from the Como Lake Junior Secondary School. They're in the gallery to watch question period this afternoon. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome Mrs. Margaret MacKenzie and a group of adults who are studying the adult language training programme for new Canadians with the Burnaby School Board.

I think all members realize that each new person entering Canada adds a valuable part to the Canadian mosaic. These new Canadian students are in the House to view and experience the political process in our country, so I ask that members be on their best behaviour and extend a very warm welcome to these very fine new Canadians and their instructors.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to acknowledge the presence in the precincts today and later on in the House of 30 students from St. Patrick's High School in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They're part of the Open House Canada Exchange. They will be accompanied by their teachers, Miss Nina Costopolis and Mr. Wayne Kirk, and also Doreen Ball and Mr. Carl Savage from Hugh McRoberts Junior Secondary School in Richmond.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of introductions today. First of all I would like the House to welcome in advance a group of students who are coming down from the North Island Senior Secondary school at Port McNeill. They will be here later this afternoon at four o'clock accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Parker. I would like the House to make them welcome now.

Seated in the gallery at this time, Mr. Speaker, are some constituents from the Cumberland and Courtenay areas, Sue Bunn, Sandy Baird, and Linda and Dennis Blake. I wish the House to give them a warm welcome.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED SUPERMARKET KICKBACKS

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Agriculture: will the minister inform the House if the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board is involved in paying kickbacks to supermarkets, among them SuperValu and Safeway, and that they paid one cent a pound in February of this year, two cents a pound in March of this year, three cents a pound in April and four cents a pound in May to take their produce?

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, no, I'm not aware that the Broiler Marketing Board was paying, as the member put it, kickbacks. It's possible they were participating in advertising, but I am not aware of it. If he has evidence, I'd suggest that he supply it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) .

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. If it be that supermarket chains in British Columbia are demanding and receiving kickback cheques from food producers - and there's been a public statement to that effect - which can unduly increase the price of food to the consumer, and as the Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of justice in the province whether the law be federal or provincial, will he order at once an investigation into what would appear to be the illegalities of that practice, whether it be under the federal Competition Act or under the laws of the province?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think, with every respect, Mr. Speaker, the question is speculative and hypothetical. I would suggest to the hon. member or any hon. member in this House, or the general public, that if they have evidence, they kindly bring that forward to the attention of law enforcement authorities as soon as they can.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary question to the Attorney-General, who treats this subject very lightly. The liaison officer, the research officer for the agricultural committee, has made a public statement that these kickback cheques are in existence. Now will the Attorney-General investigate what appears to be the illegalities of that kind of a situation at the expense of the people of the province of B.C.?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I must confess, Mr. Member, I'm personally unaware of the individual of whom you speak, but you're aware of the man's name and I would suggest, if he has that information, would he please go to the nearest RCMP office?

[ Page 1538 ]

MR. BARRETT: In the hands of the government committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, he can go there, my friend. You go.

MR. LEVI: A supplementary on the same question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday I indicated to the minister that there was other evidence in respect to information on kickbacks and that it was with the research department of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. I suggested to the minister that he go and talk to them. And Mr. Robin Smith has now appeared in the press saying that they in fact have cheques. Now has he done that?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm instructed that my staff has been in touch with the staff of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received any report from his staff after they had been in touch with the staff of the committee?

HON. MR. MAIR: IV understanding is that the report I received from my staff , to which I alluded yesterday in the House, was prepared after they had spoken to the staff for the standing committee, yes.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister aware that a member of the staff of the agriculture committee has publicly stated that cheques alleging kickbacks are now in the hands of the staff of the committee? If so, was his staff informed that the agriculture committee had those cancelled cheques as documents alleging kickbacks?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not sure precisely of what my staff was informed but I will find out. However, I must reiterate what my colleague, the Attorney-General, says. There is no reason why these documents should not be taken either to the nearest policeman or to the federal Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's the government for?

HON. MR. MAIR: If they want to bring them to me, I will personally deliver them to the nearest appropriate source.

MR. BARRETT: There he is right there - the chief law officer in B.C.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Time is fleeting, hon. members. We have only 15 minutes for question period.

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Attorney-General on the same subject.

Is the Attorney-General prepared to request from the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture the information that he has in his possession through the committee regarding the cheques in order to evaluate whether in fact he should proceed?

AN HON. MEMBER: Witch hunt.

HON. MR. GARDOM: With every respect, I don't agree with the re-ma of my colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Whoever said "witch hunt." You are obviously asking very genuine questions, but it seems to me....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't think its genuine? I said you appear to be asking genuine questions. Well, why make fun of that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Get with it and have a drink of water. You'll feel much better. Just cool down a little.

If this individual, who is nameless and faceless to me.... Do you know the person's name? Is it a man or a women?

MR. LEVI: Robin Smith.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Robin Smith. Now Robin Smith worked for whom?

MR. BARRETT: For goodness' sakes, don't you know what's going on over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Robin Smith doesn't work for me, sir, I assure you of that.

You say Robin Smith has some cheques which are specific evidence of kickbacks. Are you

[ Page 1539 ]

asking the question: what has Robin Smith done with this, or why is nobody doing anything about it? Would you make yourself clear? Has Robin Smith done anything about it?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You don't know. All right. Well, then, I would suggest to Mr. Robin Smith, and will do so publicly right here and now, that he should take any evidence that he may have into the nearest RCMP office.

MR. LEVI: I have a question to the Attorney-General. Mr. Smith is a servant of this House. He is employed by a committee of this House. Would the Attorney-General undertake to discuss with the chairman of the committee, who sits down there, . as to whether he will make available to him the information?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you making the inference that this particular individual has knowledge of an illegal activity and he's not doing anything about it? Is that your inference? If that is your inference, I think in fairness to him you should say it outside of the House and face the consequence that you may have to face.

Secondly, I would commend the gentleman in question that if he does have material, it should be brought to the attention of the authorities and that he should get to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we are doing injury to the purpose of question period by creating across the floor debate when only one member is duly recognized as having the floor.

MR. LEVI: So far it is my understanding that the agricultural committee has spent nearly $1.5 million investigating food price problems in this province. They have within their possession evidence of kickbacks. There is no point in mentioning Mr. Robin Smith. Mr. Attorney-General, will you go to the chairman of the committee and ask him for the information?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Rather than have this convoluted [illegible] exercise that we're having today, I think my good friend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) can abate all of your fears because the action that I apparently suggested is now being carried through. The action that I suggested was in the House a few seconds ago. Now would you mind just holding your seats and he can tell you?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by my staff that the select standing committee staff at the time my staff consulted them were advised to turn over any and all evidence they had to the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They were told so clearly. I can only assume that they have done it.

MR. MACDONALD: In view of that statement, will the Attorney-General as the chief law enforcement officer of the province of British Columbia look at that evidence himself in view of what we say may very well be illegalities -that is breach of the criminal law involved in these allegations? Will you look at it, as the law officer of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The question is out of order as it involves the future action of a minister of the Crown.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the first member for Vancouver East was simply: will the minister undertake a review? I would submit that is not an improper question.

MR. SPEAKER: We can only be guided by the authorities, and the authorities, simply stated, do not allow inquiry into a minister's future actions.

POSSIBLE BALCO

INDUSTRIES SHUTDOWN

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to change the subject in the hope that the Attorney-General has an opportunity to collect his vest, I would ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that after having wiped out 300 jobs by a decision to shut down Railwest, now another 885 jobs at two lumber mills in Kamloops are threatened with a shutdown because of a general shortage of bulkhead flats that the CNR is now suffering. Railwest was building cars. In view of your responsibility, Mr. Minister, in closing Railwest down, what are you doing to help management and workers at Balco Industries avoid these layoffs due to shortage of railcars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I notice that the ex-president of the railway is still flogging a dead horse. We've proved unequivocally about the logistics and the economics of the Railwest plant, so his question is still very argumentative. However, I'll take the second, non-argumentative part of his question as

[ Page 1540 ]

notice.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister undertake to contact the management of Balco Industries and instruct them as to any action that he may or may not be taking to avoid these layoffs?

MR. SPEAKER: The original question was taken as notice.

LADY GRACE INVESTIGATION

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the hon. Attorney-General. Yesterday you indicated to the House that you did not intend to order through your ministry an investigation into the alleged scuttling of the Lady Grace. Can you now tell this House if the Deputy Attorney-General Richard Vogel is involved in any way with Lakex Mines or Coal Harbour Maritime Leasing and their financial dealings relating to the Lady Grace? If so, when was he involved, and in what capacity, and is Mr. Vogel a shareholder in either company?

MR. SPEAKER: The normal practice is to ask one question at a time. There are a serious of questions involved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: To respond, Mr. Speaker, first of all concerning the investigation, I've been informed that an investigation is underway and has been underway by both the CPR police and the Vancouver City Police. The Vancouver City Police have three men, headed by a senior inspector who is looking into the matter. I'm also informed by my deputy that the investigation began by the Canadian Pacific police shortly after the vessel went down.

Now dealing with your broad-ranging questions about Mr. Vogel and this particular company, I'd like to respond to that. First of all, I'd like to say to you that Dickie didn't torpedo Lady Grace - and make no mistake of that fact! And I can assure you, neither did I. I wouldn't know a sea cock from a Rhode Island Red, unless you happen to be a Rhode Island Red.

But Lakex is a public mining company incorporated in 1943 in Ontario, and it is in good standing. This company is extra-provincially registered in B.C., and for many years the company carried on business as a mineral prospecting company, but by the middle 1940s that activity became dormant. I'm further informed that it has aver some 500 shareholders, and its shares can be traded through the facilities of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Over the last year, Mr. Member, I gather the shares had a nominal value of about 20 cents a share, but probably they'd be worth considerably less than that at the present time.

I'm informed that Mr. Vogel purchased some shares in this company in the early 1970s and that today he holds less than something in the vicinity of 20 per cent of the issued stock. For the last 10 years or so this Lakex company had occasionally lent money to borrowers. Mr. Vogel, as everybody knows, became acting deputy on August 1,1977, and he was confirmed in this role on September 10,1977. Now in the summer of last year, 1977, Mr. Vogel resigned as director of Lakex on June 30. During that simmer and prior to his being appointed as deputy Attorney-General, the company discussed the business proposition wherein Lakex would lend money to Coal Harbour Maritime Leasing -I hope I've got the right name there. Some funds were advanced around the middle of August and documentation was prepared by the company's lawyers, which were Lawson, Lundell and Company, and those were completed around the middle of September.

Now Mr. Vogel left this firm and dissociated himself from them at the end of July before he took on the task of Deputy Attorney-General. He was never solicitor for Lakex. He had been its secretary and a director, but both of these positions terminated as a result of his departure from the company on June 30 of last year.

Now it appears from the corporate records that under the B.C. Companies Act he had also been an attorney for the company, and that is not a lawyer for the company. That's a person - it doesn't have to be a lawyer for that matter - who is designated in B.C. under the provisions of the Companies Act to accept service of process and so forth and so on on behalf of a company that is extra-provincially registered, to accept service of writs and documents.

MR. MACDONALD: A company lawyer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it isn't a company's lawyer. Well, here again, my, goodness me, my dear former learned friend calls that.... A person who is an attorney for a company is not necessarily the lawyer for the company, sir, and I assure you he is not the lawyer for the company I've mentioned to you.

It appears from the corporate records that this company failed to remove him from this office of attorney until October 25, which was certainly....

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha!

[ Page 1541 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, all right, they failed to do it - There could well be a few other people who are stuck in the same boat. There is nothing peculiar about that. But in no way did this make Mr. Vogel the company's lawyer, nor was he, and he had nothing to do with these documents in September.

That's about all I can give you now.

MR. LAUK: Does he still own shares?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I gather he does.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter.

MR. BARRETT: The matter is the emergency created by the establishment of closure in the public accounts committee when government members prevented the questioning of a public servant legally called before the committee to give information. This action completely destroyed the effectiveness of this committee. As the Speaker yesterday ruled that this is not a question of privilege, an immediate and full debate of this practice of closure is essential to protect the public interest.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member would please take his seat, the matter raised is one which certainly will require some consideration. I would like to say at the outset that in matters which are raised under standing order 35, it is not only appreciated but it is required that the matter be raised at the earliest possible moment. The decision of the Speaker, which would have fostered this motion for a matter of adjournment, was made at 8:30 last evening and perhaps the first opportunity would have been immediately following.

However, the decision which the Speaker gave at that time was fairly lengthy and fairly involved, and I would appreciate that the members would like to review that decision before coming to the floor with a subsequent motion. Out of respect for that procedure, I do not believe that we could rule that the member did not come forward at the earliest opportune time.

However, I think that the matter will deserve some consideration. I think that the House would wish the wisdom of a considered decision, and as such I would like to reserve decision until such a time as that consideration can be given.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in appreciation of your remarks I do not intend to press the request for leave. I appreciate your comments reflecting of the seriousness on the matter of closure, and I would await your decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to respond to questions asked of me in question period yesterday.

Leave granted.

SALE OF THE LADY GRACE

HON. MR. BAWLF: Questions were asked yesterday concerning the circumstances of the Ferry Corporation sale of the Langdale Queen, since renamed the Lady Grace. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked if the Ferry Corporation received any payments for the Langdale Queen. The answer is yes. "If so, how much?" The answer is $50,000. "Were tenders called?" The answer is yes. "Who bid and what were the bids received?" The answer is Amix Salvage and Sales Ltd., $52,000; Coal Harbour Maritime Leasing Ltd., $50,000; General Metals of Tacoma Incorporated, $23,662; Multiple Products Incorporated, $10,000; and John Lee Ball Jr., $1.

"Did the B.C. Ferry Corporation give a mortgage loan to Coal Harbour Maritime Leasing Ltd.?" The answer to that specific question is no. The British Columbia Ferry Corporation obtained a mortgage. The cash bid having been paid in full, the British Columbia Ferry Corporation then obtained a mortgage in the Ministry of Transport registry of shipping, form 11A, I believe, constituting a first charge on the vessel in favour of the corporation in the principal amount of $50,000.

The reason for that charge is that it was not to, in' fact, accommodate any portion of the sum which was bid - that was paid - but rather as a form of performance bond to ensure that the vessel would be utilized under certain terms and conditions as the public amenity for the residents or the organizations which reside in the area and which would have access to it on a regular basis for the purpose of meetings, these various organizations being non-profit societies, et cetera. So this was not to secure any payment as such which was due as a result of their successful tender, but rather as a kind of performance bond negotiated additionally to the tender to ensure that the vessel would be put to good public use.

[ Page 1542 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make two introductions which I inadvertently missed at the beginning of the session.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: With us today are two legislators from our neighbours to the south, Washington state - Jean Struthers and Robert E. Gains, state representatives in the state of Washington. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Orders of the day.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

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

On vote [10: engineering support services programme, $9,105, 583.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I note that there has been a reduction in this particular vote of some $700,000. 1 find that a bit curious. I would appreciate it if the minister could explain the reason for this reduction in budgetary allocation. It would appear to me on the face of it that the call upon the engineering branch of the ministry would be increasing as we are obliged to move into rougher terrain for forestry roads and so on, certainly for the maintenance of access roads for fire protection and this type of thing. I would be very interested in hearing what programmes, what part of the engineering function has been scaled down to accommodate the reduction in budget allocation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There are two main areas of savings or reductions within this vote this year. Our savings result from our pooling of vehicles to get maximum utilization of them. We have throughout the Forest Service pooled vehicles so that there's a sharing of vehicles among different functions in the ministry. That has saved us a considerable sum.

The other main area of saving is the fact that we're not making any - or very few -capital acquisitions in the way of camp trailers and that type of thing this year. Our capability as far as providing services and vehicles for use is at least as good as it was last year.

MR. KING: Can the minister give assurance that programmes carried on by the engineering branch such as reservoir clearing - for instance in the Duncan reservoir and the Mica reservoir - will continue unabated, that there is no scale-down in those programmes? I would point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that the debris floating on these reservoirs is a major problem in terms of recreational use for those particular reservoirs. Is that a separate vote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Reservoir waterway improvements programme is vote 122. Perhaps this subject might be better canvassed under that vote.

MR. KING: Well, except, Mr. Chairman, the function is carried out by the engineering branch of the ministry - at least on the Duncan reservoir it is. Fine, if it is a separate allocation, then the minister can give me an indication of that.

The main assurance I want is that there is not going to be a diminution of activity for clearing these reservoirs. Not only does it curtail recreational potential but there's a real danger involved to small craft when quick wind changes carry all this floating debris around and create capsized boats and this kind of thing. I would just like some assurance on that point. I would like the minister's comments on that particular point.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the funding for reservoir clearing is provided to the government by B.C. Hydro whose responsibility it really is. The actual work is carried out by the Forest Service. We are carrying on this year as we have in the past, which is reflected in the vote for reservoir waterway clearing.

Vote 110 approved.

Vote 111: public information services programme, $649,614 - approved.

On vote [12: resource management programme, $8,473, 647.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I will take a few brief moments of the committee's time to discuss one area of the coast where we have probably the largest uncommitted block of timber left in British Columbia, certainly in the coastal area, and that is, of course, the Rivers Inlet area, Kimsquit and part of the Chilko, plateau. I am a bit concerned about how that resource is going to be managed. For example, an article in the Vancouver Province this morning suggests the sale of large blocks of timber in the Rivers Inlet area, which is one of our

[ Page 1543 ]

main fishing areas in British Columbia, as you well know - one of our largest producers of salmon.

While it has been suggested that there are ways to protect the environment and protect the fishery and log in the area, I would earnestly urge the minister to consider the proposition that was made some years ago that a road be constructed from South Bentinck through to Rivers Inlet for the removal of that timber so we do not destroy the fishery in the Rivers Inlet area.

I am also concerned about the future of Ocean Falls and the utilization of resources in that area. I would hope that the minister will be firm in his resolve with cabinet, particularly with that cabinet minister who is talking in front of him right now, and make sure that Ocean Falls is modernized, and that the resource of the mid-coast area will be utilized in Ocean Falls. I would like to see the resources of the Chilko plateau utilized in a brand new sawmill in the Bella Coola valley. I'll tell you frankly, there is no economic base in that valley. If this Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) would open a mine and close his mouth he would be doing more for the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please try and stay on vote 112.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I think your ministry should seriously consider the utilization of the resource in the area from where it is extracted. It would provide employment opportunities for many, many people in the Bella Coola valley if we could utilize some the resources of the Chilko plateau in that area.

In the community of Bella Bella we have an unemployment rate of about 80 per cent. If we are going to start logging and other types of sawmill operations in the mid-coast area, I would suggest that that band have the opportunity to extract timber and wood in the area in which they live. It would be of great economic benefit to people living in that area.

Last but not least, I hope the minister will consider a large and properly equipped plywood manufacturing process in any future development in Ocean Falls. We have room in Ocean Falls to provide job opportunities for the people. I hope the minister will seriously consider my suggestions.

A final word: I am concerned about the survival of small, independent loggers in this province, and I will be discussing this fur-

their under your bill. However I don't know of one new operation of a small independent logger in this province who has gone to work under your administration - not one. We should be encouraging these people by making timber available. They buy equipment, they supply jobs, they work hard and they are a benefit to the province. Mr. Minister, I hope you are going to do something about it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: First, to the member in his reference to Ocean Falls Corporation and ensuring that things happen there, Ocean Falls Corporation is government-owned, and I have no personal responsibility for that. The corporation does report through B.C. Cellulose to the Premier. If Ocean Falls Corporation wishes to make application for Grown timber and it is available, I would be more than happy to put sales up for them.

I too am concerned about the small logger, but you are not right in saying that small loggers haven't gone to work in the last few years. Sow new loggers have entered the field and some have gone out of business.

Timber: we won't discuss the new legislation. We can discuss measures being taken to ensure the continuation of small loggers, under debate in that legislation.

As far as ensuring that a sawmill is built in the Bella Coola valley, again, if timber is available in the valley and someone in the private sector wishes to request a sale of timber and it is available in the Chilko plateau it can be made available, but we have not had this request yet. I think that generally the private sector determines, through the competitive system and costs, where these plants should best be located. Coastal timber has always been very mobile because of the low-cost [illegible] transportation systems and generally tends to find its way to the most efficient place for it to be used.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I would like to suggest to the minister that he read the recommendations of the Simons study, which was completed in December, 1975, and implement the recommendations of that report for the mid-coast area.

MR. KING: Under the resource-management programme, I see there is a very modest increase in the budget. Has the minister any plans for the expansion of nursery facilities in the province to accommodate more seedlings and to attempt to catch up with the backlog of replanting that should have been taking place in this province? I presume that would be the vote under which that kind of provision would be made.

[ Page 1544 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, you're wrong again, Mr. Member. That comes under vote 114, 1 believe - reforestation. However, we have this year acquired additional properties for cone orchards. We will be developing our next plateau level for a nursery establishment, and this again is addressed in the new legislation. I cannot further discuss what the plans are because it will be co-operative efforts between the government and the private sector.

Vote 112 approved.

On vote 1[3: special studies programme, $1,776, 086.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this represents a 300 per cent increase over the amount allocated for special studies last year, and I wonder if the minister would give us a breakdown of what these studies involve for the present year.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The main reason for the apparent increase in this vote, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the system services provided within the ministry have been taken as a group this year. This increase is reflected in decreases in other ministries. Our system service group is the interface between our ministry and the B.C. Systems Corporation. Forest productivity also was in the research programme, vote 115, and it is now in this vote.

Vote 113 approved.

On vote 1[4: reforestation programme, $19,837, 242.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister about the terms and procedure in the granting of contracts for reforestation and planting of seedlings. I'm particularly concerned about requirements. I think it would be useful to the committee if the minister would outline the bidding procedures and whether or not there is any preference given to local contractors as opposed to the ones who are bidding on a larger scale. Is there any kind of differential allowance given? And is there a performance requirement, a holdback or a bonding? And what is the schedule for progress payments or under what terms could contractors expect to be paid for the work? How soon would they be paid as work progresses, or would they have to wait perhaps a month or two after the work is completed? I'm speaking of fairly small, independent contractors in this case.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, for local planting contractors, because they are local -and these are very competitive in bidding - we take as a rule the lowest tenders on jobs. People who are local don't have mobilization costs and thus can be very competitive. Also, we tend to let these contracts in small contracts, which again favours the local operators. We've had no particular difficulty in having local operators. To get the work, occasionally an operator will stretch outside of his area and at times there could be problems. Generally local contractors are successful.

The payment schedule is as follows: payment is provided within 30 days after receipt of a completion certificate from our regional people.

MR. NICOLSON: Do they have to put up any kind of a performance bond once they've been awarded the contract before proceeding? And how much would it be in proportion, if there is such a thing, to the size of the contract? Say it was a $40,000 contract. About how large would the performance bond have to be?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is not a bid bond as such required; there is a nominal $50 deposit required. If we were to establish large bid bonds, again it would tend to preclude the small operators, the small type of contracts and the small nature of the business. The Forest Service is quite familiar with most of the people who are involved in contracting.

As larger contracts are let, they tend to go to the people who are more qualified, have experience and are familiar with the costs and the bidding procedures. New entrants usually come in on smaller contracts so as to in effect get their feet wet and learn the ropes and give us a chance to assess their work.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, two things. The minister indicated that this was the vote in which the nursery allocation is contained. As the allocation this year represents about a $1 million decrease aver last year, I guess we have to conclude that there is a cutback in terms of replanting, in terms of seedling preparation and so on. I think that's an absolutely shocking situation to come before the House. I don't know what the minister has specifically in the new legislation for plantation. I haven't got all the way through the Act yet, but certainly I think the allocation should have been in the estimates so it could have been debated in this forum. That's what the estimates are all about.

[ Page 1545 ]

The second thing I wanted to comment on is the problem with some of the replanting programmes that have been reported to me up in the interior of the province with respect to crews dumping seedlings simply to get rid of them. They're basically on a contract basis on the number of seedlings planted. I have had, in a number of different areas, complaints that thousands of seedlings have been dumped in a pile in some ravine or under a log and have not, in fact, been planted. They've been gotten rid of, and consequently the contract receives the credit for the plantation. Now I don't know how widespread this complaint is, but it would certainly indicate to me that there is the need for better supervision of the crews.

I'll tell you how it has come to me. I has come to me through local people being involved in some of these crews, and knowing that it was going on - not with the total crew, but with some parts of it - and basically saying: "Look, there's no administration here, there's no supervision." There's a tremendous loss of seedlings and there's a tremendous loss of replanting potential, and I wonder if that kind of thing has been reported to the minister, and what he intends to do to make certain that all of the seedlings allocated for an area are indeed planted properly.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As to the problem of seedling dumping, I've had one or two instances of this reported to me since I've been the minister. If the member is aware or has these things reported to him as an MLA, I would hope that he would advise the people to contact the Forest Service. Also, I would like to know personally. We're dealing with people and I guess there are irresponsible people who can get involved in planting work.

It's certainly not a great problem. Whenever it has come to my attention it has been traced through and we've generally been able to pin down what happened. It cannot take place on a very large scale, because there is very close follow-up to planting contracts. A person may be able to dump one or two boxes of seedlings, and in a large area it may not be picked up immediately, but anything of any scale would be found out by our contract supervisors.

We discussed at quite great length last night the reforestation part of my budget. As I said last night, the main reason for the apparent decline in the budget this year was because of a drop in site preparation work, which has been brought about primarily through closer supervision and better logging practices by logging companies. We hope this year to plant 75 million seedlings, which is about what our target has been for the last few years. This year we will be sowing 90 million seedlings, so we actually are expanding our seedling sowing this year. Further expansions in reforestation and nursery work will be developed under our new policies and through our new legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is a topic, of course, that's of great interest to many people in the province and people in my riding - reforestation. This government's record, Mr. Chairman, has not been very good in this whole matter. This government, which cannot even come up with an accurate count of how many public servants it employs, has done very little to get a correct inventory of our province.

B.C., with 130 million acres of forest, planted only 73 million seedlings last year, while Weyerhaeuser in the United States, with six million acres, planted 185 million seedlings. B.C. spent 13 cents per acre against that company's $14 per acre on reforestation -an appalling record, Mr. Chairman.

I would suggest that we in British Columbia could reap a great reward of creating worthwhile, long-tem employment for many of our citizens. It has been estimated by some of our senior foresters that an input of $100 million would create 20,000 new jobs in British Columbia, bearing in mind the priorities and the economical importance of the forest industry. I feel that this is the least amount that should be spent. So would the minister care to comment?

MR. GIBSON: Did the minister want to reply to the member for Mackenzie?

HON. MR. WATERLAND. Go ahead.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't able to be here last night but I carefully read the Blues. I was very interested in the debate that went on with respect to reforestation, and particularly this new machine that the minister and the federal minister tested out the other day. The hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) had some comments on it, and I agree in general with his thoughts that this machine - at $150,000 or so a copy and requiring four men to operate it - seems to be a very capital-intensive way of doing something that perhaps, for the time being, is better done in a labour-intensive way.

The discussion also went on with respect to different types of seedlings and the problems of growing these. I'd like to ask the minister what the current balance is between seedlings that are containerized and those that are

[ Page 1546 ]

bare-root. What is the different cost of the two types of seedling, and what is the different survival rate of the two types? I'd also like him to tell us, if he could, roughly how many man-years are involved in the plantation of each, say, million seedlings.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) first, who has left the House. He said this govern ment's record in reforestation is bad. The maximum amount of money spent on reforestation up to the fiscal year 1975-76 inclusive was $13.8 million. In the year 1976-77, our first year, we spent $19 million. There is quite a substantial increase. Now there was $19 million budgeted in that last year of that government. They did have some severe mortality problem in their nurseries. The good intentions were there, but the money couldn't be spent for similar reasons to our difficulties last year. We are very aware of the need for plantations and intensive forestry. That is why we're starting off this year with $10 million for other forest management measures.

The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) did mention briefly the reforester machine which has been developed at UBC. It's not an operational tool yet. It's something that perhaps can be developed into an operational tool. It does have problems at the present time. We in the Forest Service tested it last year. Since then, some modifications have been made. The survival rate of the trees planted with that machine were not very good at that time. They have made some improvements since that time. Since then, it hasn't been operationally tested again. I think it's something that can be perhaps in time developed into a useful tool, but at the present time I think that the job is more efficiently and more effectively done in the more routine ways we have done.

I'm afraid I can't give you specific figures on the man-days of work per acre planted but I can certainly have my staff develop those figures for you, Mr. Member.

The member for Mackenzie also mentioned 13 cents versus a number of dollars figure for money spent on reforestation and intensive forestry. That was as a result of Dr. Jack Walter's article, I suppose, in The Vancouver Sun a couple of months ago. It's difficult to make a comparison like that. He is really comparing apples to oranges. Obviously, Weyerhaeuser is a company that does perhaps the best job of anyone in North America on the management of their private forest lands. But this money is being applied to very highly productive sites'where you should be spending a lot of money. The moneys which we spend on reforestation, if you divide it among the total acreage, is completely misleading because it doesn't pay to spend money on intensive forest management and in some cases, even on reforestation, on very low-site capability forest land. It's just not economically or biologically feasible.

Now if you were to take the money that we spent on reforestation and forest management, such as has been so far by both the government and the industry, and apply it to high-site land, that difference would narrow considerably. We are still not doing as intensive a job as Weyerhaeuser is doing. Mr. Young, who will be trying to develop techniques and methods for our forest management next year will be visiting Weyerhaeuser and other companies and countries who do this work and will be providing programmes for us.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up briefly, first of all, let me make clear that I welcome this reforestation machine and hope the development will be continued. But for the moment I very much agree with the minister; there are more efficient ways of doing it.

I asked him the cost difference between a containerized seedling and a bare-root seedling, if he has that factor. I asked him as well the survival rate difference between a containerized and a bare-root seedling.

As well, the minister mentioned that in some cases it's economically productive to spend money on reforestation and site management, and in other cases it's not. I'd ask if the department has developed an economic model that will give guidance in decision criteria as to how much money should be spent on these various reforestation and management techniques. How much money should be spent and where?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the development of programmes and plans for the future will - 11 be primarily the responsibility of Ted Young in his last year before retirement. This year, we have a programme for managing, with $10 million allocated for that type of work. It's going to be very basic stuff -thinning, spacing, some care and attention to areas where we have root rot problems, dwarf mistletoe control, this type of thing. We'll have very effective programmes and that money will be well spent.

Your question was as to the difference in cost between containerized seedlings and bare root seedlings. It's difficult again to pin down an exact figure, but containerized seedlings are slightly more expensive to produce and they're generally applied to more diffi-

[ Page 1547 ]

cult terrain and more difficult conditions. They're perhaps slightly cheaper to plant once they are being planted because if you were to plant bare roots on the same type of terrain in the same conditions as the containerized. seedlings, it would be cheaper to plant the containerized. The figure is probably in the order of four or five cents difference in the cost of producing the seedlings, which is probably more than offset by the ease in planting in the difficult terrain.

MR. GIBSON: That would be four or five cents on a base of how much?

MR. WATERLAND: On a seedling.

MR. GIBSON: That would be four or five cents difference on a base of roughly how much? I don't need exact figures but just a rough order of magnitude. Also, there's the question of the differential survival rate of the two different methods of planting.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I may have misled you slightly, Mr. Member. The difference in cost can run up to eight or nine cents, but there's a difference in the prices we have tendered for planting. This is what it costs us to plant. People find it easier to plant containerized seedlings so the bid price is generally a few cents lower. The cost of producing them is one cent or less more than the actual production of the seedling.

Vote 114 approved.

On vote 1[5: research programme, $2,181, 163.

MR. SKELLY: The minister explained previously the decline in the budget by saying that the forest productivity group had been transferred over to special studies. Is that the reason for the decline in the budget?

This appears to be one of the budgetary categories in the Forest Service that requires a tremendous amount of expansion. In the representations we have received from forestry groups, company groups and that type of thing, what they are really asking for in a period of transition from old-growth management to second-growth management is a tremendous increase in expenditure on research. Now the companies themselves say that they shouldn't be responsible for this. They are managing lands that are 95 per cent or 98 per cent owned by the Grown. They say that the Grown or the government should be doing this kind of research. I recall when I was chairman of the forestry and fisheries committee, that's when the government saw fit to activate that committee and get it to do some work, informing members of the Legislature and the general public.

But I asked questions of people from MacMillan Bloedel and Rayonier on whether they were doing any research on second-growth management and just how much of their budgets were allocated to research. They allocated very little in British Columbia. The representatives from Rayonier said they spent a considerable amount of money across the border in the United States. They spent money on research but very little in Canada. They expected that the government should spend money on research, and yet the government doesn't seem to be increasing the budget at all.

The minister was proud of the fact that he initiated a tour of the Mesachie Lake research station. One of the problems that that group out there has faced is a lack of adequate funding to expand the research. It seems to me that when we have a very small amount of old-growth timber left, and that old-growth timber is really providing us a competitive advantage in the forest industry, we should be doing a tremendous amount of research into second-growth management. Why isn't there a substantial expansion in this budget in this critical period?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is not really right when he says the companies such as MacMillan Bloedel and other TFL holders in B.C. don't do research. They actually do quite a bit. Also, the research, technology and techniques that some of these companies do in the United States to a certain extent are transferable to British Columbia. So there is an exchange of such information across the border.

I think as new directions are established, there will be - and this is explained in the new legislation - incentive for companies in British Columbia to not only practice more intensive forest management, but also to do basic research. They certainly are beneficiaries of such work. We will continue to encourage this. You will notice again, referring briefly to the new Act, that research council co-ordination is a part of the general thrust that we wish to have. We also work very closely with the federal government on research work. They spend considerable funds in British Columbia on forest research.

So it is really a combination of universities, the industry and the government, provincial and federal. I don't think we can ever say that we have enough research being done

[ Page 1548 ]

and, of course, in the future we must work towards gaining as much technical expertise and knowledge as we can for new and better ways of increasing our forest yields.

MR. SKELLY: I didn't mean to indicate that companies such as MacMillan Bloedel do no research at all. But in fact most of their research is directed towards end product or marketable product development. They also do a little field work in thinning and spacing and this type of thing - not very much and not enough, really, for people who have long-term tenures in this province. The research that these companies do is inadequate.

I would like to hear what the minister's feelings are about that. Do you feel that enough work is being done by these companies or do you feel that some direction should be given by the Ministry of Forests to those companies to improve their research here? It's true that we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel in these cases. If research is being done in the northwest United States, we shouldn't attempt to duplicate that. But the companies them elves indicate that inadequate research is being done in silvicultural techniques and more should be done.

In order to bring that research and development into Canada, there should be some direction from the ministry that the beneficiaries from the forests that are grown here in British Columbia should do their research and development right here in British Columbia, whether they are American companies or whatever. Is the minister willing to provide that direction and give that direction to those companies?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I really can't answer your question in any depth because it is a matter of legislation before the House, Mr. Member, but if you will read that part of the Act it is covered pretty well there, and we can expand on that during debate on that legislation.

MR. KING: I don't really accept that all of these matters are given proper attention in the legislation. We're dealing with the budget here. This is the minister's estimates that we are dealing with, and it's up to him to account for budgetary allocations at this particular stage of the proceedings, not in what may occur with respect to the debate on the statute later on. I want to reiterate what my colleague from Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has indicated, that certainly in our tour of the Mesachie Lake area and our look at Pacific Logging's Cayuse operation we received a very, very unanimous indication from people in the industry, from professional foresters with the Canadian Institute of Forestry and with the provincial forestry department that not nearly enough research is being done, particularly in the area of genetic improvement and the area of locating the best crop for the different regions of the province. That's an area where great waste can occur. In other words, if we prepare millions of seedlings of the Douglas fir variety and plant them in a region that is not appropriate for the growth of Douglas fir, then it's a tremendous loss, because there is a large investment. One of their strong indications to all the members of the committee - it was an all-party committee - was that just not enough is being done.

I think it's up to the minister to make that kind of commitment. We do control 95 per cent of the forest land in the province. I think that the industries that are harvesting certainly have a responsibility too. But the direction and the initiative should come from the minister, both with respect to the budgetary priority and certainly with respect to creating some semblance of order out of the rather fragmented research initiatives that are going on now. Duplication is wasteful, and we want to pull together some effective way of preventing that duplication that can occur between the ministry, various industrial initiatives and so on.

But to simply say, "Don't pay attention to this budgetary allocation in the estimates, but look to the statute to solve all the things, " as the minister has been doing, is not good enough at all. We have no assurance that all of the statute is going to be proclaimed this year, and to suggest that a debate will take place later in the House on a statute which may not even be passed for all we know - that's up to the House - and certainly may not be proclaimed this year or for five years.... The minister shouldn't use that as a vehicle to run and hide. Don't take your lesson from the Premier, because we have a run-and-hide Premier. The minister should be up front and he should answer for his obligations under the estimates. That's what the debate is all about.

I would like to hear what the minister has in mind as a commitment to this area that we all agree on. There's no debate between us as to the need for improved research and development. The only thing we need is a strong, forceful indication from that minister that he is about to make this kind of commitment, and I'd be very happy to receive that from him.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I said, only moments

[ Page 1549 ]

ago, that there is a need for more research in British Columbia. I am in a slightly difficult position because the direction and thrusts of our research co-ordination and work in the future will be developed through policies which will be made possible by new legislation. I'm sorry, Mr. Member, that I can't go into details now. I will agree with you that there [illegible] be a way of co-ordinating the various efforts by different governments, different educational institutes and different companies. Last year one of our foresters in the Forest Service, for example, was chosen 1977 Forester of the Year for work which he did on ecological site classification for forest lands. He was recognized by the entire profession for work done within the ministry. Perhaps we're not doing enough, and I don't think we'll ever get to the point when we are doing enough, but we all agree - you and I and the member for Alberni - that we must do more and there must be co-ordination of this work, and I couldn't agree with you more.

MR. KING: If you can't win the money, do you want to move over?

Vote 115 approved.

Vote 1[6: fire suppression programme, $7,000, 000 - approved.

On vote 1[7: forest protection programme, $10,102, 369.

MR. SKELLY: This is another area where the minister got involved in some problems a few years ago, with regard to the spraying of budworms. I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown on the allocation of the funds under this budget, something like $10.1 million. What is it for? He must have a general breakdown of the funds allocated under this vote. How much is going to be used, for example, for government using 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T on alder management in PSYUs or in areas where the government is responsible for forestry.

How much is being used for insect-spray programmes, and what type of chemicals are being used? You mentioned the bacillus thuringiensis programme. How much is that going to cost the province, and what areas are going to be treated with bacillus thuringiensis?

Can you give us a breakdown on this vote?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the breakdown of the expenditure of this vote is given within the vote. The member is quite capable of reading that. As to breakdowns within that,

I don't have the details of where the total $2 million for pest management will be spent. I will say, however, that our testing with BT and with theramones will be limited to very small areas. Carriers for these will be water. It is difficult to give a cost, and I think it would be meaningless to give a cost for these small areas, because they are such small areas. The purpose is to test delivery systems as much as it is to test the effectiveness of the agents themselves.

We will continue research and accumulation of field data to further assess the damage being done and for the possible control techniques which will be required in the future. Pest management, of course, includes insects such as the bark beetles, which can't be sprayed, and we're developing certain techniques for helping to control that problem in addition to sanitary logging.

It's difficult to give an individual breakdown at a time like this, but the money is primarily, as far as the budworm is concerned, into research and accumulation of additional data for consideration at the end of this year when we will produce another report recommending what, if any, action should be taken next year.

MR. SKELLY: I realized it would be difficult to give a breakdown program by programme in the Legislature without consulting your staff.

I'm wondering how chemicals are acquired. Are they acquired through the B.C. Purchasing Commission? Is there detailed information about the chemicals being used by the Forest Service? In what areas? I'd also be interested in comparative figures. People are concerned throughout the province about the increase in the use of chemical treatments, both in insecticides and in herbicides. B.C. Hydro seems to be a lot more responsive in the meetings they had on north Vancouver Island with regard to treating B.C. Hydro rights-of-way. B.C. Hydro agreed with the people up there that there was inadequate research and possibly they should pull back on their spraying programme until more attention was given to vegetation management and research. They seem to be more responsive than actual line government departments in giving credence to public opinion about 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T and vegetation control chemicals.

Is the minister willing to provide the House, at some point in the future, with information about the areas being treated, the vegetation being treated, or the insects being treated, and what chemicals are being used? Also I'd be interested in receiving comparative data, because it appears to us, in con-

[ Page 1550 ]

sultations between myself and members of the interministerial. pesticide management committee, that there has been a doubling in the use of pesticides this year over last year. Up to March there was something like, I believe, 120 applications last year; up to March this year, something like 213. So there appears to be an escalation in the use of pest-control chemicals. I wonder if the minister would be willing to undertake to provide that data to the House when he is able to pull it together.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, details in the applications we have.... I think if the member wished to visit our protection division, Don Owen would be happy to provide them. There are no secrets in what we are doing. We're not doing any aerial applications. The only spraying with chemicals we'll be doing is ground spraying primarily within the range division for the control of knapweed, and some small ground applications for alder control. They are very limited applications and the details can be had from the protection division if you wish.

That, I guess, covers what you spoke of in the last....

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, two things. The first I should possibly have raised in the previous vote, but it's just a general pitch that I want to make to the minister. This does deal with forest protection. What I'm thinking of are the fire lookouts.

There has been a tendency, at least in the interior, to move to increased aircraft observation for forest fires, outbreaks particularly of the electrical storm variety, and a consequent cutback in some of the observation posts. Again, it's a move away from the employment-intensive approach to the airplane patrol.

I've had a lot of opinion expressed to me by rangers in the field that this is not a very effective thing. One of the problems is early location of these lightning strikes. The problem created is often that the turbulence and the weather conditions at the time of electrical storms preclude a very satisfactory patrol by aircraft. I don't think there is any proper alternative to the personal observation that's been built up over the years, the expertise that people develop in locating these fires at an early stage and being able to attend to them before they get away. So I certainly want to commend that approach to the minister - also from the point of view of increased employment as well.

The other thing I wanted to say, in line with my colleague from Alberni, regarding the use of chemicals, is that it occurs to me that the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia has a very, very high capability now of doing research work into toxicity of new chemicals that cane onto the market and the possible effects on workers. I wonder if there has been any move by the Ministry of Forests to tap into that pool of information that the Workers' Compensation Board has, and to ensure that we are not duplicating certain research work that might well be taken advantage of through their facilities. I would certainly recommend to the minister that a look be taken at that situation. Part of the problem is that there are new chemicals coming on to the market and into the work place every day. It is an ongoing challenge to identify them and to try to anticipate what the possible implications will be. A good deal of research has gone on there and it might be worthwhile for the minister to look at it.

Vote 117 approved.

Vote 1[8: inventory programme, $6,305, 210 -approved.

On vote 1[9: scaling programme, $11,249, 847.

MR. SKELLY: This vote has an increase in expenditure of something like $2 million. I'm wondering how this increase of $2 million is going to be expended. There is a real problem and, again, this relates to the older tenures where some of the companies who have acquired some pretty high-quality timber are putting that timber up the jackladders into pulp mills and grinding it into pulp, when that timber would have a better end-use value as saw logs or peelers. Is the Forest Service going into a programme where quality control is going to be done right at the mill entrance, rather than having poor quality logs go through sawmills with a tremendous amount of waste and high quality timber going through pulp mills and being ground to chips?

This is happening day by day. One of the major complaints we receive from workers in sawmills and in pulp mills is that based on quality there is a misallocation of timber to these various mills. Again, it seems that there is a resulting loss in revenue to the Crown from the poor use of this timber. It also relates back to the fact that timber is not allocated properly in this province, because there is no free market in timber in various areas of the province.

Why the increase in expenditure? Is the ministry going into better control of the quality of the logs that are being allocated

[ Page 1551 ]

to these different types of mills?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The reason for the increase in the vote is primarily because of the record harvest we had last year. If you harvest more wood then more has to be scaled and it requires more people to do that.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we did harvest a record of 25 million cunits in B.C. last year. Of course, as I said, it takes more people to scale the larger amount.

A year and a half ago I was very concerned about reports that members had obviously been hearing about misuse of high-quality logs in pulp mills and so on. As a result, we formed what we called a flying scaling squad which made unannounced appearances at various wood utilization plants. Shortly after that, I think there was quite a shuffle of booms around the province. We did find some abuse, but not as much as had been reported. We are continuing that work. I don't know if the problem will ever be completely overcome. If you have a small percentage of saw logs in a pulp boom, the economics just aren't there to take those few logs and move them several hundred miles to where they can be used in a sawmill. The objective is, of course, and should be to see the right log go up the right jackladder for the right end use, and we will continue to assure that that is done.

The stumpage charge is not based on where the log goes, but on the scale and the quality of it. The person who is chipping a saw log is paying for a saw log in any event.

Vote 119 approved.

Vote 120: range management programme, $2,289, 571 - approved.

On vote 121: forest development roads maintenance programme, $6,594, 677.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, on the question of maintenance of forest development roads, this is quite a problem in our area. When the NDP first came to office and we took a look at the condition of the road between Gold River and Tahsis, it was in pretty sad shape. Money was committed by our government to bring that road up to a better quality standard for passenger transportation and that's been done. I'm pleased to see that the minister has carried on that maintenance programme in conjunction with the Ministry of Highways.

There is a real problem in one area of my constituency between the Nimpkish Valley and Zeballos. A few weeks ago we had an incident where the crew of the Tahsis Company logging division went on strike. They picked up shovels and went out and maintained the road. They filled in the potholes between the Canfor claim around Atluck and the Tahsis Company holdings in the Zeballos area. What we need is a better allocation of maintenance funds to keep that road open on a full-time basis. A lot of high school-age children in Zeballos go right through to Port McNeill in the north part of Vancouver Island to go to residential schools. We've had problems where the school bus has been held up and this type of thing.

We need a more organized maintenance programme in that area. And we've asked the minister in the past to designate the road between the Nipkish Valley and Zeballos as a forest access road and that there be a continuous maintenance programme on it. I wonder what the minister plans to do about that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, this is a problem which arises occasionally. At the present time negotiations about this particular road are underway between my ministry and the Ministry of Highways. The normal practice is that when a road such as some of these forest roads is used to a great extent by the public and the employees in various logging towns, transfers of funds are made from the Highways ministry to the Forest Service for, in effect, public road maintenance. Because we have the equipment capability on hand, we generally do the work. We are presently coming to agreement with the Highways ministry for maintenance on this particular road.

MR. SKELLY: I think the road should be designated a public highway. When the Zeballos iron ore mine shut down - and that was under the previous Social Credit government because of the poor economic conditions - the Minister of Forests at the time, Mr. Williston, made an agreement with Tahsis Company and Canfor to connect the two company road systems so that there would be a transportation highway or a transportation link in and out of Zeballos. It was partly designed for access to timber but also designed for passenger transportation between the main area of Vancouver Island and the community of Zeballos, and also for freight service. There have been times when we've had difficulty getting freight trucks in there that served the whole area - logging camps out in Kyuquot Sound and Nootka Sound, and also the village of Kyuquot out on the far west coast of Vancouver Island.

Why not simply designate the road as highway and be done with it, and carry on and maintain it as a public highway? That's what should be done with that road.

[ Page 1552 ]

Vote 121 approved.

On vote 122: reservoir waterway improvements programme, $5,973, 966.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote I raised my concerns on previously with respect to the reservoirs that have been created in the Columbia chain - Duncan reservoir, namely, and the Mica reservoir - where we have acres of floating debris and logs that are an extreme hazard to recreation and boating and fishing and so on.

One of the things I didn't raise is a concern that I would like to indicate to the minister now. That's the terrible waste that has taken place over the past number of years. As the minister knows, engineering has been in on the Duncan reservoir, using tugs and so on to pull a lot of this debris from the lake and burning it on the shores of the reservoir. A tremendous volume of cedar, particularly cedar butts and so on, has gone up in smoke. Now this material could have been used by the shake makers and the shingle mills and so on in that area. It's been a matter very perplexing to me to see this occur. And we've had closures of the mills because they couldn't obtain a timber supply.

This is clearly a salvage operation, and I cannot for the life of me understand why, between Hydro and between the Forest Service, this material cannot be made available to the shake makers up at the head of Kootenay Lake or to Columbia Shake and Shingle at Nakusp who have had to haul timber all the way from Valemount to feed their mill at Nakusp.

It is a shame when you see timber that could be used going up in smoke on the shores of that reservoir. Yet you find Kootenay Forest Products, Can-Cel and other companies in the private sector guarding their quota very jealously and not allowing any intrusion even for salvage operations. It seems to me that the Forest Service hasn't done a very, very aggressive job of protecting the employment that flows from the kind of operation I speak of. It's a real shame that that stuff is burned rather than utilized where possible. I wish the minister would have a real good look at it.

Vote 122 approved.

Vote 123: building occupancy charges, $3,878, 928 - approved.

On vote 124: computer and consulting charges, $1,682, 000.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would presume that the minister has some reasonable explanation, but it does seem ironic that the greatest increase in the allocations for his ministry appear to be in bureaucracy rather than any activity in the field. Building and computer and consulting charges.... Well, I want to reach the ministers over there, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes it's like the old mule, you know. You've got to grab a two-by-four and hit him across the head before you get his attention. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) knows what I mean.

It is a rather spectacular increase. That's about a 200 per cent increase in the computer and consulting charges against the Ministry of Forests. When I see cutbacks in the allocation for reforestation and research and so on, I wonder if the minister can attempt to justify this rather spectacular increase in administrative bureaucracy.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, really, there is no increase. All we have done is consolidated our computer services into one vote.

Vote 124 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 161: minister's office, $140,241.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I will be very brief. The estimates for the Ministry of Labour for fiscal 1978-79, the members will note, total approximately $40.4 million, which is an increase of roughly 16 per cent over last year's spending level. I would point out to the members that for this fiscal year, approximately $30 million, 75 per cent of these estimates, are devoted to job-training and employment-opportunity programmes.

In addition, as members are aware, the government has provided an additional $5 million for employment programmes through the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, and these funds will be used for direct job-creation programmes for young persons.

The other major component of the Ministry of Labour job-creation and training programme relates to apprenticeship and other institutional training programmes; approximately $13.5 million is allocated in this current fiscal year for that purpose.

There has been a fundamental change in the Ministry of Labour estimates in the past several years. Over that period, during which the ministry estimates have increased substantially, job-training and employment-opportunity

[ Page 1553 ]

programme initiatives have been substantially strengthened. Additionally, the organization of the ministry has been adjusted to meet the primary role of manpower programmes and direct job-creation.

This ministry shares responsibility for job creation and has primary responsibility in the areas of apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship training initiatives. These programmes, however, cannot in thorn elves be expected to meet the requirements of labour force growth. The policies of this government are directly aimed at stimulation of employment growth through vitalization of the private sector rather than job-creation through direct transfer of payment policies. The wisdom of this policy is evident in view of British Columbia's significant improvement in employment over the past several years.

These policies were also viewed at the recently concluded Conference of First Ministers as those required to effect real and substantial growth in the economy and the labour force. The policies of this government have contributed substantially to amelioration of the current serious unemployment problem in Canada. Current statistics disclose the extent to which British Columbia's position has been improved by the policies adopted by this government. Since January, 1976, we have observed that the labour force has increased from 1,081, 000 persons to 1,192, 000 - an increase of 10.3 per cent. Employment over the same period has increased from 973,000 to 1,091, 000 - an increase of 12.1 per cent. During that period, unemployment has declined from 108,000 to 100,000 while the rate has decreased from 10 to 8.4 per cent on an actual figure basis.

As I noted at the outset, over 75 per cent of this ministry's spending estimates are devoted to job-training and employment opportunity programmes. Major among the training programmes are the initiatives in pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship training.

In the apprenticeship area, the ministry estimates for this fiscal year provide for approximately 270,000 training days, while in the area of pre-apprenticeship, approximately 180,000 days are provided for.

I wish to point out that the estimates this year allow for a substantial increase in the traveling and subsistence allowances for students who are enrolled in the preapprenticeship training programme. At present, allowances for pre-apprenticeship students are substantially lower than those paid by the federal government, and allowances have been at this level for a number of years. We will undertake this year to increase those allowances to ensure training opportunity for more individuals.

In the area of direct job-creation for youth, the ministry is committing with additional funds from the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act approximately $22.8 million for youth employment initiatives. As I have already indicated, funds are provided for farms, businesses, local governments, nonprofit organizations, colleges and institutes, universities and provincial government ministries for purposes of youth job-creation. We estimate that approximately 13,700 job opportunities will be created through this programme. In total, approximately 4,840 agencies will be funded through the programme, including 16 provincial ministries. Of particular note, there are over 2,800 individual businesses and 1,300 farms receiving funding this year.

In 1978 the business programme has placed special Emphasis on training opportunities that will be provided to young persons. It is expected that work skills and work experience gained from these positions will better equip young persons for full-time entry into the work force.

I am pleased to advise that in 1978 the provincial government has developed a cooperative programme with the federal government to assist young persons in obtaining jobs. Joint advertising programmes have been undertaken, and joint employment centres have been developed.

There is a special pilot project in the greater Victoria area, which makes the computer referral service of the British Columbia programme available to the Canada Employment Centre for students as well. This centre was officially opened this year, with the attendance of the federal Postmaster-General, Mr. Giles Lamontaigne, and I was pleased to welcome the minister at that function.

The estimates for 1978-79 continue to provide for the operation of the labour standards programme. This is the traditional, but often overlooked, heart of the Ministry of Labour's activities. The labour standards programme continues to place major emphasis on its educational. programmes for employees, Employers and the trade union movement. Over the past year the industrial relations made a total of over 61,000 calls and investigations in connection with their responsibilities under the several employment standards statutes presently on the books in this province.

Adjustments totalling over $2 million were made on behalf of 11,600 employees by over 4,000 employers. Those adjustments, I should

[ Page 1554 ]

point out, were in the area of the wage field, questions arising with respect to noncompliance with the Payment of Wages Act.

The mediation services branch performs the most critical function for the province, with its prime objective of settling disputes between labour and management. In the most recent calendar year, the officers of the mediation service were involved in 315 appointments. Approximately 188 settlements were obtained during the year, involving 860 employers, 880 bargaining units and close to 80,000 employees. The success of the mediation services branch has been a major contributing factor to improving labour-management relations in the province. While we have many disputes which attract the attention of the press, and hence the public of the province, by far the greatest number of disputes some of them of the most serious consequence are resolved with the quiet assistance of the mediation service.

The ministry, in addition, offers services to the labour and management groups in the province through the arbitration and special services branch. That branch maintains a register of arbitrators who are available as the need arises, correlates all arbitration awards, and makes these awards available to interested parties.

In addition this branch maintains constant surveillance of 1LO activities, overviews, and industrial relations issues of concern to the province that are raised in other national and international bodies. The members of this division of the ministry are particularly active in the body known as GAALL, the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation.

The minister's estimates provide for the funding of the occupational environment, elevating devices and compensation advisory services branches.

The occupational environment branch ensures that industrial establishments, stores and offices throughout the province provide environmental conditions conducive to the health, safety and comfort of employees, as required under the Factories Act and attendant occupational environment regulations. Over the past year branch inspectors were involved in excess of 10,000 inspections, and close to 900 plans and specifications for new construction were approved by the branch.

The elevating devices branch is responsible for the inspection of elevating devices - to surprise you all - essentially elevators. But the branch also now discharges a major responsibility with regard to midway and amusement rides to ensure, as has never been the case before in this province, safe transportation for all persons who use such devices. Before any such devices are placed in service, inspectors of the branch conduct full-scale acceptance tests, and subsequently inspect periodically to confirm that safety standards are being maintained. An invaluable consultative service to the general public, to building owners, to management, to industry and government is provided by the branch. During the last calendar year the branch conducted over 9,000 inspections and approved approximately 360 plans for new installations and modernization of existing equipment.

One interesting aspect of the elevating devices service which is being offered as a consultative tool is services to the growing numbers of private elevators being installed in the homes of people who suffer from coronary disease. It is not the intention of the government to regulate those installations in private homes, but we are prepared to offer to architects and designers and to persons who use these devices, without charge, the benefit of examination and inquiry which has been made by the branch into such equipment. We will, if requested, inspect on installation or in the case of needed repairs.

The compensation advisory services branch of the ministry performs an invaluable service for workers and employers throughout the province in assisting them with respect to proceedings under the Workers' Compensation Act. I am pleased to advise that initiatives are underway in the ministry to strengthen these programmes to improve the service to workers and to Employers.

Ministry estimates for 1978-79 for the human rights programmes administered by the ministry provide for the first time a functional breakdown between the commission and the branch. Heretofore - and this is not a criticism of the way in which budgeting was done - it appeared, if not in fact, that the human rights commission was dependent upon the branch for its funding levels. As the members will note in the estimates this year, this has been changed. The total funding for the human rights programme has been increased from $402,000 last year to $507,000 for the current fiscal period.

I wish to advise the members at this time that despite comments which have been made outside this House, it is the intention of this government and myself to proceed at the earliest possible moment with the appointment of a Human Rights Commission. It is my view that the commission should be broadened to include representation from more segments in the community than has been the case in the

[ Page 1555 ]

past, and that representation should also reflect those concerns of regions of the province, the purpose being to ensure that the development of programmes will be given the opportunity of input from a broad spectrum of the communities throughout the province.

The principal thrust of the Human Rights Code of British Columbia must be seen to be educational and conciliatory. In addition to handling formal complaints, the branch is involved directly in educational programmes aimed at promoting the principles of the code.

I am pleased to advise members that the British Columbia Ministry of Labour and the United Nations Association of British Columbia, in concert with the Secretary of State, have undertaken a major conference in British Columbia this year involving 300 students in the consideration of human rights issues. Canada's ambassador to the United Nations was successful in securing unanimous approval of the United Nations' commission on human rights that 1978 would be devoted to major national efforts on human rights educational programmes.

The province of British Columbia was pleased to undertake this major conference commemorating the 30th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. It is the thrust of education which must be viewed as the essential and elemental tool in the programmes in this nation.

In the responsibility for workers' compensation, while not included in the estimates of this ministry, the boards of review fall within the jurisdiction of the minister. There has been, in the past, a problem with respect to a backlog of cases reported before the boards of review, and I wish to take this opportunity to make several statements clarifying this issue.

The boards of review were established in their present form under the Act in 1974. Their purpose is to consider appeals from decisions of the board concerning workers, and appeals from these decisions may be made by workers, dependants of deceased workers or employers. The boards of review presently comprise four complete panels plus an administrative chairman.

The apparent backlog of appeals reached a high of 1,575 in the month of October, 1977. Since that date, the boards of review have progressively reduced the total to 1,311 appeals, which were on the docket at the end of April, 1978. It is essential in considering these figures to recognize that this level of caseloads does not represent backlog. The board of review anticipates that with the normal number of appeals flowing from the workers' compensation board decisions, there would be 700 to 800 cases at any one time before the board of review. At the present time, appeals in the Vancouver area are heard within six weeks, and a decision, except in the most difficult cases, follows within one month of the meeting.

The boards of review have adopted some innovative techniques to cope with the current difficulties. For example, the boards have increased the number of hearings over the past four months to reduce the waiting time from five months in 1977 to the current period of six weeks. Steps are being taken to expand this increased hearing service throughout the province.

At this very moment a review is underway by senior ministry staff of applicants to serve as additional chairman and members of the boards of review. I expect within the next few weeks to announce the appointment of an additional board, which will enable the caseload to be reduced to that which might normally be expected from the number of appeals flowing from the board.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased if the committee would not that here on the floor of the House to assist me are Mr. James Matkin, Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Frank Rhodes, the assistant deputy minister, and Mr. Ray McManaman, who is the director of finance for the ministry. With their able assistance I would be happy to respond to such questions as the members of the committee may wish to place before me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the member for Comox, we have an introduction, I believe.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would ask leave to introduce some guests from the Okanagan.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in the gallery we have some students from the South Okanagan Senior Secondary School in Oliver, accompanied by teachers Ken Hayes and Ena Hobilaid. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I was amiss. I should have advised you and members of the committee that also in the gallery and available to assist should the need arise is Mr. Doug Cameron, assistant deputy minister, whose responsibility is in the field of industrial relations and that division of the ministry. Also on the floor is Mr. Robert Exell, co-ordinator of native Indian programmes.

[ Page 1556 ]

MS. SANFORD: May I take this opportunity to give a welcome to the North Island Senior Secondary School, who have now arrived in the Legislature, although they were welcomed earlier. I look forward to meeting them once they leave the Legislature at about 5 o'clock.

Mr. Chairman, I was really pleased to hear the minister say that there is a conference to be held on human rights here in Victoria, in conjunction with the United Nations Association, and I do hope that stemming from that conference will be a wide educational programme for the people of British Columbia in the area of human rights.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this minister likes to give the impression that he is in complete control of every situation, that he never has any problem in handling himself on the floor of the House answering questions or in his approach to his job. He likes to give that impression and I see that the minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) agrees with that. He looks unhurried and very methodical in his approach. He wants to look like a Liberal, Mr. Chairman. But I think he's a little dismayed to find that he fits in very well with the group that he has adopted. I'm sure that he is very proud of the new federal leader of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Reznowski.

But, Mr. Chairman, this minister does not like criticism. He's bothered by it and we've discovered that. He loses his cool when criticism is directed his way, and when he loses his cool, Mr. Chairman, he sometimes blurts out statements which he then lives to regret. He has a very short fuse. You'd never suspect that when you see him walking down the hall or sitting quietly in his chair. But when he's criticized, he blows. Criticism he can't take, Mr. Chairman.

We saw an example of that in the House during the debate on the budget speech when in one sentence I bemoaned the fact that this province had been without a Human Rights Commission since December of last year, and the minister looked up from his papers, glowered, and blurted out "So what?". We all heard it, Mr. Chairman. He said it laud enough so that we could all hear it. I think in that moment this minister revealed to the Legislature what his attitude is to human rights in this province. Shame on him, Mr. Chairman!

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, there is widespread discrimination in this province simply because of people's colour, sex, religion, background or creed. It exists here in British Columbia, and we have a dire need for the educational work that a Human Rights Commission should be carrying out at this very moment. It's not too long ago that the branch itself dealt with a complaint against a landlord or a manager of an apartment who refused to accept tenants simply because of their colour. And when you have in this province Pakistani university students getting beaten up on a bus simply because they are Pakistani, then the role of Human Rights Commission becomes quite obvious. And when there are parents on the lower mainland who want to drive their children to school every day because they are afraid of what might happen to their children, because of their colour, if they walk, then I think you can see why we on this side of the House have been complaining because this province, for over five months now, has been without a Human Rights Commission.

A Human Rights Commission could be and should be carrying on the educational work that's required in this province to ensure that incidents of discrimination of the type that I've just referred to don't happen.

So what do we have, Mr. Chairman? We have the Minister of Labour during the discussion on the budget speech this year answering "So what?". It was very revealing, and I think it gave us a good indication of what he feels and what this government feels about human rights.

The discrimination that exists against women in the Employment field, for instance, will take years to eradicate. We have discrimination in hiring, in promotion and in pay taking place every day of the week in this province. It will take years to eradicate and it will take unlimited effort by a Human Rights Commission, the [illegible] and everybody else to conduct the kind of educational programme that's needed to eliminate it. But the minister says "So what?".

The minister has also refused to appoint boards of inquiry, Mr. Chairman, when he's been asked to do so by the director of the human rights branch. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is discretion allowed the minister under the code, but there is discretion allowed under nearly every code in Canada. In fact I think every Human Rights code in Canada allows the minister to exercise discretion.

But in nearly every case across the country the minister responsible for the Act appoints those boards of inquiry when he is asked to do so. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, under the previous Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , there ms always a board of inquiry appointed when he was asked to do so. It is the minister's refusal to appoint boards of inquiry that has prompted an

[ Page 1557 ]

unprecedented attack by the then chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Bishop Remi deRoo, who is a British Columbian very concerned about basic human rights. But Bishop deRoo stated that the minister's refusal to appoint boards "is in itself an erosion of people's human rights." He is right, Mr. Chairman. So not only have we been without a Human Rights Commission for now five plus months, but we have a situation where the minister sits on request by the director of the human rights branch to appoint boards of inquiry into cases where discrimination allegedly exists.

Mr. Chairman, this minister and this government are not interested in human rights. Their main interest these days seems to be giving away the province's resources to major corporations. That's where their interest is at.

Mr. Chairman, during the budget debate I brought to the attention of the minister what I felt was a loophole or a lack of research within the research branch of the Ministry of Labour. On the whole, they do a very good job. I think that the Labour Research Bulletin that comes out is very valuable. But I would like to point out that I feel that there is a omission in the research that is being done. This is in the area of projecting the number of jobs that are going to be needed in the future in this province, let alone exist now. Even if the government has no intention to carry out any economic planning in the future, it seems to me that the least they should know is the number of people that are going to be looking for work coming on stream into the work force, aside from all of those 100,000 people that are now looking for work.

This research could be fairly easily done by using the birth statistics, the death statistics, the immigration statistics - which have to be guessed at somewhat - plus the retirement statistics. There are no statistics at this moment kept on the number of people retiring. We only have to guess. But if you look, in 1957 the total number of births in British Columbia was 38,744 and an immigration of 29,272 - that comes from Stats Canada -making a total of 68,000. The retirements were about 10,000, we're guessing. The deaths were 6,863. So in that year alone, 1957, there were that number of births. If you project that to the time when all those kids are going to be graduating from school and entering the work force and include the immigrants, exclude the people who have retired and exclude those who have died, then you're going to need a net increase in the year 1975 of 51,153 jobs.

Now the net increase in the number of jobs that year was 13,000, which means there was a shortfall in that year of 38,153 jobs, just based on the number of people that were born in the year 1957, some 18 years earlier, the number of people who have come into the province, minus the number of people who have died or who have retired.

We can do the same thing in 1958. There were 39,000 kids born that year, and immigration was about 16,000, for a total of 55,000. We had a net increase in jobs needed in 1976, which is the year those people would be entering the work force, of 43,000, but there were only 29,000 new jobs available. So again we have a shortfall of 14,700 jobs

Now this kind of research I believe the Ministry of Labour should be carrying out. We can project this right down the road for the next 10 years, so we have some idea of the number of jobs that we're going to need in this province just to take care of those people who were born 18 years earlier and will be entering the labour force and those who will be coming into the province.

I'm not even making any ref erence to all of the jobs that have been closed down by this government. That list was given by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) a few weeks ago in the House.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour made some reference to the increase in the number of jobs available. I think it would be useful to compare the three years when we were in office with the two years the Socreds have been in office.

In 1972-75 we had a total increase of 140,000 jobs in the province, which works out to an average of 46,600 jobs per year during that three-year period. Since then we have had an increase of 56,000 jobs in the two years of the Social Credit administration, for an increase of 28,000 per year. Compare that: 28,000 per year created under Social Credit as opposed to 46,000 per year created under the NDP. I think it's useful to put that on the record.

I mentioned that the work done by the people producing that research bulletin is good, but I would like to see a number of reports come out of the Ministry of Labour which would give people more information about what the Ministry of Labour is doing. For instance, I would like to see more leaf lets put out on human rights issues so we can avoid the kind of discrimination that exists. How about leaflets on the minimum labour standards so people have some inkling what their rights are?

What about special topics? Could you not consider, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, putting out booklets on the new apprenticeship programme , for instance, which

[ Page 1558 ]

would give us some information about the number of people involved, statistics, what is available?

Very little information comes out of the Ministry of Labour on women and labour. Some jurisdictions are doing a great deal of work in producing material on that particular issue. Individual cases, I think, might be made available: information about human rights cases; information about summaries of decisions; complaints under the labour standards branch. This is information I would like to see the ministry get involved in producing for the benefit of the people of the province.

I would like to move to another topic at this moment. This relates to a concern which has been expressed to me about the draft regulations to the Apprenticeship and Training Development Act. These have been circulating, and I'm surprised that the minister has not intercepted them and amended them. There are some dangerous aspects to some of the regulations which the ministry has been circulating with respect to that apprenticeship programme. Sections 5 (a) and 5 (b) - I'm sure the minister already knows what I am referring to. I think those two short sections are important enough to read into the record. Section 5 (a) says:

" The employment and movement of apprentices within a trade or industry shall not be restricted by any terms or conditions written into a collective agreement between employers and unions representing employees."

Section 5 (b) says:

"Regardless of the terms and conditions respecting the indenturing of apprentices established in a collective agreement between employers and a union representing employees, an employer has the right to have an apprentice indentured to the firm with an apprenticeship agreement, and the collective agreement cannot negate this right."

What the regulations are saying is that if these draft regulations are adopted, the minister or the employer will be able to override the terms and conditions of a collective agreement in this province. That is a dangerous precedent. We don't want to see that happen. I'm appealing to have the minister intercept those draft regulations and remove those two sections, 5 (a) and 5 (b) .

What it really means is that the collective agreement doesn't mean anything, because by using section 5 (a) and 5 (b) an Employer can move people around at will. He can take in apprentices, regardless of what the collective agreement says and regardless of the years it may have taken to work out some sort of an agreement between the union and the company with respect to apprentices. I hope the minister will look at those two sections again with a view to intercepting them at this stage to ensure that those two regulations are not adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if perhaps those two regulations, 5 (a) and 5 (b) , to the apprenticeship programme might be some type of appeasement to those people who are seeking right-to-work legislation in this province. The minister laughs, but when an employer can override the provisions of a collective agreement and can bring in whomsoever they please into an apprenticeship programme, they are in effect denying that union, through its collective bargaining process, the right to have any say in the apprenticeship programme and who should be brought in. People within a union can be moved around in spite of the terms of the collective agreement. I'm wondering if this might be in some way a bowing to the pressure of those people who are interested in pushing for right-to-work legislation. There is a great push out there for right-to-work laws in this province. That's a big misnomer -right-to-work laws.

Mr. Chairman, we saw at the Social Credit convention this minister valiantly fighting off the right-wingers within that group in an attempt to avoid having a resolution passed at the Social Credit convention which called for right-to-work legislation. I know there are a lot of backbenchers back there, and some people within cabinet, who are pushing for right-to-work legislation in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's one right down there.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I know there's the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) who is very keen to have right-to-work legislation in this province. There is the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to mention any more of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman was about to call me to order because I talked about those people within the Social Credit caucus who are pushing for right-to-work laws.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is under increasing pressure from all those right-wingers out there to bring in legislation that will in effect be right-to-work legislation, which will give us the same kind

[ Page 1559 ]

of thing that we have in the deep south of the United States.

Now that's the assurance that I want this afternoon. That's what I'm seeking, Mr. Chairman. I would like, when the minister gets up, for him to say that right-to-work legislation will not happen under that administration.

There are a lot of people who are concerned about it, Mr. Chairman. Even Colin Beale in Beale's letter made reference to the strong, right-wing pressures that are coming to introduce this kind of legislation. In December of last year he wrote the following:

"The moderates in the party" - referring to the Social Credit convention - "only just managed to defeat a right-to-work motion 233 to 217, and Labour minister Alan William deserved full marks for the excellent job he did in fending off the extreme right-wingers. And it is interesting to note Premier Bennett did not vote on the motion and was, according to one report, not even in the convention room."

The newsletter goes on to say, Mr. Chairman:

"But in our particular industry we have in Jack Munro one of the most respected and responsible trade unionists you could find anywhere. But the freaks on the right could do much damage to industry-labour government relations in B.C. if they are not ruthlessly controlled. As we have said before in this newsletter, the anti-labour union-bashing attitude so prevalent in some quarters could spell disaster in the future, and the current uneasiness isn't helping the investment climate one bit."

Mr. Chairman, there are extreme rightwingers within that caucus and I'm sure they do bend the Minister of Labour's ear from time to time, saying: "Yes, let's go ahead and bring in some right-to-work legislation in the province."

Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat at this point and ask that the minister respond to some of the points that I have made with respect to right-to-work legislation, the Human Rights Code and the amendments under the Apprenticeship Act.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to thank the member for Comox for the opportunity to dispel, with regard to those draft apprenticeship regulations, any doubt she may have cast - and I know that wouldn't be done deliberately - on the purpose of those draft regulations and the clear statements which have gone forward from the apprenticeship branch, and the correspondence which I have sent to those who have written inquiring about those draft regulations as to our intentions.

Following the legislation which was passed last year revising significantly the apprenticeship structure in this province, it was obvious that new sets of regulations would be required. There are two choices. We in the ministry can establish regulations and promulgate them without consultation or, taking into account those representations which have been made to the apprenticeship branch over a number of years, we could produce draft regulations which would then be circulated among those persons interested in the apprenticeship programme so that they might provide us with their constructive comments for improvement, the purpose being to ensure that when we do promulgate those regulations, they're ones which are most workable and which will satisfy the largest group of persons in the apprenticeship field.

Well, we chose the latter. We decided that it would be better to draft regulations based upon representations which have been made, to circulate those regulations and to await responses. As the member has pointed out, sections 5 (a) and 5 (b) of those regulations have produced considerable reaction which is being considered by the director of apprenticeship and his staff. The regulations were not drafted by the minister, and not until there has been every opportunity to discuss the matter with trade advisory committees throughout the province and they have had the opportunity of responding will those draft regulations be presented to the minister for consideration.

I have had, as I indicated, a large amount of correspondence about those two sections. As a result, the reason for them is under examination. That wasn't directed by me, it was as a result of experience. We will not introduce regulations in the apprenticeship programme which are going to diminish the acceptability of that programme to all those who desire to make use of it. And I would hope that the member would do all she can to assure those who may correspond with her that such is our intention.

Now in reverse order - the research bulletin. It is not intended that the research bulletin be a promotional periodical. It deals with statistics that are competently assembled by the research branch of the ministry, and then used to indicate what appear to be developing trends and to deal in a sophisticated way with some improvements in the field of industrial relations.

But there is a need, and we accept the member's suggestion with regard to the publicizing of those programmes which the ministry

[ Page 1560 ]

offers. To this extent we have just recently published - and I will send it to the member if she doesn't have copies - new material with regard to apprenticeship. For the first time we have had produced a very well-done film on the whole apprenticeship programme, which is being shown throughout the province.

My deputy minister and some of his colleagues in apprenticeship traveled to Trail on Tuesday of this week, where the film was shown to a large audience. The comments on that film and the clarity of the message that it carried were most rewarding.

Employment standards regulations and the publication of those - the member for Comox will know that four years ago studies were put into motion with respect to the large number of employment standards statutes which we have in this province. Those studies have produced draft legislation, and I hope to be able to introduce it to the House this year, which will eradicate those 10 statutes, some of them very old, and all of the conflicting regulations associated with them. We will, at that time, be carrying out an extensive advertising campaign so that employees and employers will recognize what their rights and corresponding responsibilities are in this important field.

Research into job projections - the member spoke on this matter earlier in the House and I recognize the importance of the material which she has researched. For the past year, we have been looking as well at techniques that we use for job projection, and we find, not to our surprise, I guess, that this most difficult field has never really been tackled very well. We're continuing in efforts to find a model which can be used effectively to enable such a projection to be made.

In the area of the construction field, which is, by reason of the mobility of the workers involved an important one in this matter of job projections, all one has to do is recognize the impact of major construction projects to know how one attracts employees to such areas. We are taking a different and unique step in the appointment of the construction industry co-ordinator. Mr. Claude Heywood will be coming to British Columbia and taking his post on July 1, and one of his special responsibilities will be to identify the demand for construction workers in the various skills and our supply in this province. Having identified both the demand and supply, he will then offer the results of that research to the educational institutions and the apprenticeship programmes so that they may better determine how their counselling should take place with respect to young men and women who will be going into that trade. I'm not suggesting that this programme will be the answer, but I do appreciate the need for it. I think that we have too long been without this essential tool in the supply of skilled workers and in the assistance of our educational institutions in determining the emphasis that they should place upon certain programmes.

Now on the subject of human rights, there is no question about the widespread nature of discrimination which exists here in British Columbia, or indeed elsewhere in Canada or the world. There is no way in which one can measure how widespread that discrimination might be. The very fact that any of it exists should be enough to alarm any person with any concern about his fellow citizen. I wish to take exception to what the member has said about my attitudes or those of this government, because the record is, I think, perfectly clear that our performance meets that of the previous government. There's no point to be made there; this is too big a subject for politics. But we do a good job. With regard to the conference which was sponsored this year, the financial commitment of this government was $21,000 to ensure that that conference was a success. If you can measure in dollar terms performance in this field, it's the largest amount of money that's been spent by any government in this province on such a conference. I think that the fact that the government is prepared to commit that kind of money for that worthwhile purpose is indicative of its attitude and mine.

Yes, during the member's speech in the budget debate I did call across the floor when she was speaking about the delay in the appointment of a Human Rights Commission "so what?" But I don't think that the inflection I placed upon those words was the same as the inflection given by the member today. What I was trying to do in such remarks - and I apologize for being out of order in doing it -was to seek to have the member clearly state to the House what the consequences of having no commission might be.

If there is one thing that is of concern to me it is the inability of our citizens and the apparent inability of the media to distinguish between the commission and the branch and the minister's responsibility with regard to each. It is, I know, a matter of concern to the commission that there is this misapprehension about the special roles that they perform. The commission has an important role to discharge and the one we appoint will be better able, we think, to discharge it. The branch also has a separate function. It is one which receives complaints and investigates. It makes an attempt to conciliate or mediate and bring

[ Page 1561 ]

about a settlement. I think those roles should not be confused in the minds of people who deal with human rights and who look to human rights for protection.

I would hope that the member would make certain that she does everything she can to ensure that that misapprehension is diminished. But I would also point out to the member that she misinterprets the position of the minister in this province as compared to the commissions in other provinces with respect to the appointments of boards of inquiry. In other provinces the branch which receives and investigates the complaint and is unable to make a settlement reports then to their commission. The commission then makes a decision as to whether or not there should be a board of inquiry. That's not the role cast for the commission here under our legislation. In fact, here the human rights branch, having received the complaint, made the investigation and attempted to settle, only reports to the minister that a settlement has not been possible. It is then the minister's responsibility, and it is a heavy one, to make a determination, based upon the investigation, as to whether there should be a board of inquiry appointed.

I would also point out to the member that the number of boards of inquiry which are appointed is not the measure of the success of human rights administration in this province. Indeed, in the province of Manitoba they pride themselves in only having appointed one board of inquiry since their legislation has been in place. That doesn't mean that every case that has come to their Human Rights Commission has been settled. It only means that they've only had to appoint one board of inquiry. They have been able to resolve by settlement every other complaint. Alternatively, those complaints which have not been resolved by settlement may have been refused boards of inquiry because they were not appropriate cases. Therefore one has to be careful about comparing numbers in this numbers game.

I think that I discharge my responsibility in determining whether or not boards of inquiry should be appointed. There are difficult cases. They are not done solely by me. They are done with very competent advice, and I take very seriously the discretion that is placed upon me by the legislation. To appoint a board of inquiry in every case where there could not be a settlement and where the branch itself thought there should be a board of inquiry would be an abuse of the discretion.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the explanation that the minister gave with respect to the draft regulations that are currently circulating as far as the apprenticeship programme is concerned. He indicated that he had not drawn up the regulations and I understand that. It would be done within his ministry. But where there are regulations that clearly override the terms of a collective agreement, then the Minister of Labour must be concerned. That is why I suggested that he has a responsibility, as one who wishes to have the collective bargaining process work, to intercept those regulations. Don't wait for people to complain about them. He has a responsibility to intercept those regulations and ensure that they aren't even circulating, because it's a clear interference into that collective agreement. Where the regulations that are accompanying the apprenticeship programme can override an existing collective agreement, that's dangerous. We can't allow that to happen. That's why I suggested that the minister should have intervened, should have intercepted those regulations and just simply eliminated them, because there's no way a Minister of Labour can tolerate regulations which would nullify an agreement which has been arrived at in good faith through the collective bargaining process.

I was pleased to hear that we may be seeing during this session the consolidation of the labour standards in this province. It was two years ago that we read in the throne speech that the government was going to introduce the consolidation of those labour standards. This year there was no reference at all to the consolidation of the labour standards. I do hope that the minister is successful in getting them in because it's long overdue; it's work that was taking place under the previous government.

While the revision of the labour standards is taking place - and he mentioned that a number of them are seriously out of date - I'm wondering whether or not he's had a look at the federal government's Bill C-28, which in effect will give employees the opportunity to appeal if-.they feel they've been unfairly dismissed, even though they're not covered by a collective agreement. This is under the federal labour code. What an employee can do if he feels he's been unfairly dismissed is to write to the employer. The employer then must give a reason for the dismissal within 15 days. The employee can then go to the ministry if he feels that he's been wrongfully dismissed after he's received the explanation from the Employer. Then an officer in the federal department can look into the complaint. If he feels it is justified, he can ask the Minister of Labour federally to appoint an adjudicator

[ Page 1562 ]

to look into the unfair dismissal.

Now in this province at this time, there is absolutely no recourse for employees who are fired rightfully or wrongfully if they are not covered by a collective agreement. I'm hoping that the minister has had a look at that or will look at that before the labour standards statute is finalized.

I would also like to know whether or not this government has entered into any agreement with the federal government to introduce, provincial legislation to control the wages of public servants in this province. I'm wondering if perhaps the federal government suggested that the province should undertake to bring in some sort of legislation which would control public service employees' wages. If so, did the minister make any commitment or has the government made any commitment to introduce provincial legislation?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to another subject. The Minister of Labour has never explained to the people of this province why lie felt it was necessary to introduce the LRB-supervised strike vote. He has never given us a reason. Now what I'm getting are complaints about the added difficulty this creates for the trade unions of the province. I think one of the trade unionists probably expressed it best when he said that to conduct a supervised strike vote is like conducting a federal election for 30 people.

The minister has yet to this date to give us any reason, any justification for the provision of a supervised strike vote. What kind of irregularities existed that made him decide he would have to go back and introduce a supervised strike vote? Does he have no confidence in the trade unions of the province to conduct their own votes? Why did he do it? We have yet to get a proper explanation out of that minister. If there were some irregularities, was there not some way that those could be handled on an individual basis rather than bringing in a blanket requirement for a supervised strike vote throughout the trade union movement? I'm wondering if perhaps the minister might comment on those additional points.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Briefly, the apprenticeship regulations were put together, as the member points out, not by me but by the director of apprenticeship, together with the provincial apprenticeship committee, which is representative of all the groups in the province who are interested in apprenticeship. They were specifically designed to provoke this kind of discussion, and I needn't repeat myself on that subject.

On Bill C-28, the method by which employees can appeal dismissals, yes, we're looking at Bill C-28 very carefully to see what the results will be of that federal legislation. I would point out to the member that such legislation already exists in the province of Nova Scotia, and they're having some problems with it. Similarly, legislation not identically the same but for the same purpose exists in Britain, and it's causing some concerns for employers and trade unions alike because of the imprecision of some definitions that are used in that legislation. But we are examining it. It will not be in the legislation on employment standards which we will bring in. We're waiting to see what the experience is, particularly in Nova Scotia, with this legislation. I would encourage the member to look at the Nova Scotia experience.

I know of no legislation in regard to the control of the wages of public servants nor of any request from the national government to even consider such a matter. Such a suggestion from the national government would be startling to me.

On the subject of strike vote regulations, those regulations were provided for in statute in 1976. 1 gave my reasons at that time and they remain the same today. I believe there have been some 85 strike votes taken under these regulations, and there has been no apparent difficulty in following the regulations. To suggest that I am suggesting that the trade unions cannot conduct their own votes would indicate to me that the member hasn't very carefully considered those regulations, because the unions still take the votes. They just do so in a uniform manner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the member for Comox, I would remind all members that we are on the administrative responsibilities of the minister, not legislative matters or matters referring to legislation.

MS. SANFORD: I forgot to mention earlier that I am pleased to hear that the staff for the Workers' Compensation Board consultant, who is under the Ministry of Labour, is going to have an increase. Maria Giardini has been doing an excellent job as the compensation consultant but has been really pressured to try to keep up with the caseload that she has been carrying.

The minister mentioned that the boards of review under the Ministry of Labour are now allowing about six weeks' time to have cases heard. I would like to mention to him that that is for the Vancouver area, but certainly in the outlying areas people are still waiting for three months and more to have their cases

[ Page 1563 ]

heard before the boards of review. When there is an injured workman I think there is enough stress, strain and anxiety caused through the injury without having to put that additional pressure on him by asking him to wait for three months and more to be heard before the board of review. The minister indicated that he was going to do something about that and he was going to bring in an additional board so they can do away with the entire backlog. I don't know why the minister has accepted this backlog for over a year.

Last year on the floor of this Legislature we suggested that about six boards be established right then to deal with the backlog. Once that backlog had been done away with then they could revert to four or three boards or however many are required to keep up with the number of individuals who wish to be heard before the boards of review.

I really think it is inexcusable that for a year this minister has allowed that backlog to exist', and to put those injured workers through that kind of anxiety while they await the outcome of a board of review. It's not fair. It doesn't show much in the way of understanding or humanity. I don't understand why the minister didn't then accept our suggestion and increase the boards of review to at least six at that time, deal with the backlog and then, if necessary, cut back on the boards of review. We brought this to his attention last year.

MR. BARBER: Yesterday, I gather, the minister received a letter from the Physically Handicapped Action Committee of Victoria, most of ten known as HAC, in which they made a very serious complaint about which I want to say at the outset I have no personal knowledge.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I haven't seen it, Charles.

MR. BARBER: Perhaps I could tell you about it. It's a matter of policy, and they may simply be wrong, but they phoned me again this morning to ask if I had been able to do anything about the matter and I said I was sorry I hadn't but I would try and raise it during estimates. Their letter, dated May 15, signed by their manager Elly Bowerman, alleges that handicapped persons this year, unlike in the three years past, are no longer eligible to participate in the youth summer employment programme. Apparently they have made an application and were told that handicapped people are not eligible. Again, I'm not familiar with it at all and I will happily accept your advice on the matter, as would they. I quote directly from the letter:

"Dear Mr. William :

"Employment is a concern to us. As you may well know, the handicapped have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining employment. During the past three years your department has included the handicapped in your summer employment project. We thought these steps were of great value. Knowing that summer employment is geared to training, I am appalled that the handicapped are not included. We are not asking for special treatment, but only for a chance to prove our worth.

"Would you please state the reasons for not including the handicapped in your project? We do not ask for specialized treatment, but only for the consideration that is due to us."

When I spoke to Miss Bowerman on the telephone this morning, I asked whether or not it was their information that handicapped persons would no longer be considered eligible for employment, as they understand it, under the terms of reference of the youth summer employment programme. She said yes, that is what they had been advised and indeed specifically they had been turned down. In years past, evidently the handicapped persons associated with the Handicapped Action Committee of greater Victoria had in fact been able to find employment.

For the last time I want to say to the committee that I have no special knowledge of this at all. I am only going on what they have said here in this letter and by what I was verbally advised of this morning. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee whether or not there has been a change in regulations as it would affect the eligibility of handicapped persons or their groups in applying for youth summer employment project assistance and, if so, what has that change been? If not, could the minis'ter today on record and shortly in answer to this letter dated May 15 inform them that it is simply not the case and that they have been misadvised?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS. I'll be happy to answer the question. No, there has not been a change in this regard. In fact my deputy just ad ' vises me that we have - I can't give you the numbers at the moment but I will get them - approved for funding applications by handicapped organizations within this province this year. I would be distressed if anyone said that handi capped persons were not eligible under the programme. Their eligibility is the same as anybody else. As individuals and as groups, they are given every consideration.

[ Page 1564 ]

I will look at this particular matter, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, and have it examined. While the programme period is over officially, our experience is that for various reasons some funded programmes are not carried out and there is what is euphemistically called a slippage of funds. This makes it possible for us to pick up on some of these problem and I will have it looked into this afternoon.

MR. BARBER: I very much appreciate the minister's reply. I'll inform them, if I may, that you will be looking at the matter this afternoon and they might be able to hear from you tomorrow or sometime early next week.

The second matter that I wish to raise briefly - I raised it at some greater length last year - is a philosophical subject of some concern to me, and that is specifically the field of industrial democracy and worker participation as a new means of establishing different forms of labour management relations in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere in this country. I am aware of the minister's argument and that of others that, in fact, collective bargaining is itself the fundamental form of industrial democracy in this country. I respect that. I've come to learn more about that aspect of the debate and have come to respect that argument and will be better informed about it than I was last year at this time during estimates.

I personally remain convinced, however, that there are principles that have succeeded elsewhere that we can learn fran and that we can apply here in enlightened and imaginative manners. I'd like, if I may, at this moment report to the committee on a project that I described to the committee last year during the minister's estimates. As the minister may recall, in June, 1976, 1 set up in the city of Victoria a committee on industrial democracy and it consisted of two representatives each from labour, from management, from the University of Victoria and myself as well. The goal of our committee, at that time and subsequently, has been to create opportunities for sharing information and establishing a debate on the subject of worker participation and industrial democracy, at least here in the capital city of the province. On September 30, October I and October 2 of last year we held for the first time in British Columbia a full-scale conference on the subject of industrial democracy. We had people talking about experiences in Sweden, in Norway and in the United Kingdom. We had at the time it obviously turned out to be ill-advised a cabinet minister from Manitoba who thought he could spend some time with us during the middle of an election campaign, and we had generally brought together a group of people whom we considered professionally and personally very expert in the new fields of the new debate around the subject of industrial democracy and worker participation.

I should like in the committee today thank the minister for making available through his ministry funding to assist us in putting this conference together. Indeed, the conference was funded jointly by grants from the federal Ministry of Labour, the provincial Ministry of Labour and the registration fees paid by the persons who attended the conference. It was, in the opinion of the committee that organized it, a very successful event. We appreciated very much the contribution made by the Deputy Minister of Labour who was a keynote speaker; we appreciated as well advice offered by the ministry throughout the organizational period prior to the conference.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

We sent out 150 invitations. They were roughly sent to 50 persons each in the field of labour, management and the general public. In fact 164 persons enrolled at the conference - and paid to do so - and attended during the entire three days of it. Those 150 persons represented roughly, proportionately, one third each from the field of labour, management and the general public.

The opening speakers were Mr. Don Watson, representing, if you will, management; and Mr. Wyman Trineer, representing, if you will, labour. It was a very interesting evening and it got the conference off to an excellent start. I don't propose to go through the entire detail of it here, but I would like again to thank the minister for the financial support offered to it and for the participation granted in the form of his own deputy minister speaking and giving a most significant and valuable speech.

Since the conference, our committee has received considerable correspondence from people who were there and would like such a conference to be organized again on lines more locally directed than before. We've received endless inquiries from people about the publication of minutes, proceedings and papers that resulted from the conference and the committee itself. The University of Victoria, which provided secretarial services, has agreed to undertake the publication of those papers.

We've yet to decide whether or not we intend to hold a second conference, but I would like

[ Page 1565 ]

briefly to inform the committee of, at least in my judgment, the general results of it. They were simply this: most people have come to recognize that simply reading the blueprint of the European experiences and attempting to apply that blueprint here is a very serious error. It's an error of historical consequence, and of political consequence as well, and should not be made.

Secondly, most people have come to realize that the very narrow and quite single-minded definitions of industrial democracy - which is to say all it means, somehow, is putting a worker on the board - are self-defeating. It is not informed enough; it's not sensitive enough; it's by no means profound enough a look at the whole subject.

Thirdly, again with respect to those who reply that collective bargaining is the first and most native form of industrial democracy here in North America, that's clearly the case, certainly as expressed by management and labour who attended the conference and told us so repeatedly. In their judgment, that form of industrial democracy has taken root here, has succeeded here and must be nurtured here and allowed to become more strong and more successful.

Fourthly, people at the conference do feel that there is an opportunity for the provincial government - and the federal as well, but we talk chiefly about the provincial - to take initiatives of encouragement and not compulsion in the field of encouraging employer and employee groups to get together further to talk about these new principles, and talk about new application of them.

In particular, really quite spontaneously from many people attending the conference, it was pointed out that one of the ways in which further experiments in worker participation might take place is initially through the Crown corporations that the people of British Columbia already own. It was observed by management and labour alike that one of the reasons for some of the suspiciousness and some of the misgivings that can be found in the field is that they simply don't trust one another with one another's secrets.

If I can revert for the moment to the admittedly rather simple-minded metaphor of the board of directors having workers on it, the fear through the eyes of that metaphor has been that management cannot trust the unions to keep their mouths shut about internal problems that may arise on the board of directors and that the worker-directors would inevitably become informed about. They further fear that workers would tell their colleagues in other unions working for other and competing companies what the problem of the first company were. Therefore the misgivings and the bitterness and the mistrust sets in from the outset.

Secondly, labour already has been on record repeatedly as saying that they're concerned about being co-opted into the hands of evil capital.

Clearly, one of the points of reconciliation that can be obtained, and one of them that was most frequently stated at this first-ever Conference on Industrial Democracy in British Columbia, is that, okay, observing that private enterprise is fearful for a lot of reasons that may today be quite reasonable, and that unions are fearful as well, would it not be reasonable, therefore, to start in the sector where those fears do not apply? That sector is, of course, obviously the public one where there are natural monopolies and there is no competition, so to speak, that one need worry about; where the employer is the employee in a certain philosophical sense; where the enterprise is itself owned by the whole public; and where, surely, trade unionists so inclined needn't fear being co-opted by capital controlled in New York City or Berlin or Tokyo, when in fact it is controlled here directly in this particular House of the people which labour also has a voice in - not as strong as we'd like, but also a voice.

The suggestion that came forward, therefore, is that in the field of encouragement, and most certainly not compulsion and not law, what the conference would urge and what I do so now, on the government is the study of possible opportunities for worker participation in the Crown corporations here in the province, particularly looking at corporations that have been wracked with labour-management problems for years and years. I think of B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries as two obvious examples; B.C. Hydro is another. Surely some small step now, where the ordinary fears of private enterprise need not apply because marketplace conditions don't apply either, is some experiment on a small and controlled basis initiated by the province itself.

The conference talked as well about how it would potentially be valuable in the future across Canada to begin to hold these kinds of workshops on a regional basis. It's very clear from the interest shown that labour and management both are prepared to seek new options and new choices. At least in private they'll tell you that neither of them is satisfied with the sometimes very clumsy and unhappy and arbitrary way that problems are resolved.

The papers, we hope, will be published by the university sometime this summer. It's

[ Page 1566 ]

later than we wished but, all the same, when they are published we think they will be interesting documents. The papers that will be published will be circulated widely in the province and we hope will add to the quality and the informedness of public debate on this question. The papers are simply, as was the conference, a very, very hesitant step forward in creating an informed public debate, an informed general debate on the subject of worker participation.

It's something that I remain personally fascinated by and that I should just like to tell the committee [illegible] all the more fascinating in its all the more unexpected diversity as it was presented. I, for one, initially had a very simple and very crude and rather childlike perception of the nature of industrial democracy. As a result of this conference and further reading on the subject, I am aware that it is far more intricate, far more complex and far more detailed and therefore far more worthy of detailed study afield than I and perhaps most other laypeople have ever been aware of.

In any case, I do thank the minister for his department's participation and co-operation and financial support, and would advise the House and anyone interested in the subject that the papers that will be coming forward will be available through the university of Victoria's department of continuing education, hopefully by the end of this summer.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I guess we all learn more every year about this deep problem. I think the member has recognized, as we do, that for government to go charging in with great ideas as to how you're going to bring about democracy, the simple expedient of copying what somebody else does in some other jurisdiction and putting somebody on a board of directors only produces its own stresses. I think that the conference in which the member was instrumental in making a success, and other similar approaches, is the way in which we start.

I think that the initiatives of the national government and their Minister of Labour over the past year have shown how quickly you can set back progress which is being made in resolving those fundamental differences or mistrusts which are preventing us from moving forward in this field.

In this province, B.C. Research Council has done some excellent work at Mackenzie, for example, with Canfor. Their people are also involved at Kitimat and with the Skeena manpower development committee in the Terrace area. The whole purpose of that programme is to allay the fears, to rid both management and labour of their mutual mistrust of each other and then to start the communication which can bring on the plant floor that kind of relationship which eventually can work up through the various levels of the organization. That's the way it should go.

To some extent, the work that Bert Painter did for B.C. Research is being emulated by the government in a number of fields. We hope it will continue because I think only when we get rid of those fears and distrust will we achieve the sort of goal that we're seeking.

I think it's not of ten recognized that the Labour Relations Board itself in this province, like the labour market board in Sweden, is a form of industrial democracy where the two parties come together and work out their own problems with people %ho come from both those disciplines. In that way they solve the difficulties before they become perhaps insoluble. That kind of approach is one which government must support. It will be our purpose to do so.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I was slightly disappointed that the minister, in talking about his ministry and certainly the work that he anticipates doing in it in the coming year, did not mention any of the plans that he had for women in the labour force. I recognize and I made some notes on what he is going to be doing in terms of helping create jobs for young people, and I certainly want to compliment him on that. But all the statistics and all the information that is coming through to us indicate that women are entering the labour force in greater number than ever. The statistics and the information also indicate that they are being trapped in work ghettos and that they certainly need a number of programmes to assist them in terms of getting equal employment opportunities once they enter the labour force.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I just want to ask the minister if he is willing to listen to a couple of initiatives which I think his ministry could become involved in, and if he would be interested in seriously looking at the whole area of women in the labour force and certainly in helping them to have some kind of equality of opportunity once they get there. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that more and more, women are finding that they have to work. Because of inflation and various other economic reasons, most families need both incomes, not just one. More and more there are single

[ Page 1567 ]

women and older women entering the labour force and it's not enough any more to work for a pittance. Women are really seriously concerned about having access to the better jobs and making a decent income.

So I want to talk to the minister about some initiatives that I would like to see his department embark on. The first thing, Mr. Chairman, has to do with publications. I'm wondering why the Ministry of Labour is not in the business of the special kind of publications that we see, for example, coming out of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. For example, from Saskatchewan we have "Legal Rights of Women in Saskatchewan, " "Women in the Labour Force, " "Marriage and Family, Legal Assistance." Beautiful stuff. Mr. Chairman, this material is published by the Saskatchewan Department of Labour. It's not particularly expensive material, but it certainly has a lot of information. It has information on government in action, maternity leave, marriage and the family, and it talks about various pieces of legislation affecting women in the labour force.

The Ontario Department of Labour, of course, is almost second to none, I think, when it comes to putting out information - equal opportunity brochures, position papers, "Facts and Fiction, " "Women in the Labour Force, " "Equal Pay." It puts out all manner of important pieces of information. "The Ontario Human Rights Code, " "Affirmative Action" - these are the kinds of publications that you can get from the Department of Labour in Ontario. "The Law and The Woman, " in Ontario again, published by the Ministry of Labour, deals with all laws affecting women in the province.

In Manitoba, "Family Law in Manitoba" is published by the Department of Labour in conjunction with the Department of the Attorney-General. And of course the Canada Department of Labour for the federal government - the Women's Bureau of Labour Canada - talks about laws relating to working women.

Would the minister tell us why his department has not involved itself with that kind of information? This is again more information put out by the department. "Women and the Skilled Trades" is the kind of thing that should really be on the walls in the employment offices and in various offices, encouraging women to go into other than the work ghettos. It deals with the apprenticeship program , plumbing, autobody mechanics, apprentice woodworking, machinists, welders - this kind of information. Why has the Ministry of Labour of the government of British Columbia not involved itself in that kind of information? This is information that women - particularly those who are re-entering the labour force, who are coming into the labour force after years of family work and child rearing and thinking about other kinds of employment -would find useful.

The information dealing with minimum standards, the Labour Code and how it affects women in the work force - that kind of information - should be coming out of the women's bureau or out of the research department of the Ministry of Labour. The printing of the Human Rights leaflet, for example, is very limited. I gather it's a very difficult piece of material to get one's hand on.

So that's the first initiative that I would like to ask the ministry to seriously address itself to, and that's the publication of material that specifically deals with the laws, customs, job opportunities, training programmes, whatever, that address themselves to women in the labour force.

The second initiative that I would like to suggest to the ministry has to do with the maternity protection legislation. It still remains one of the worst pieces of maternity legislation, I think, anywhere in North America. In 1976 the ministry was presented with a brief in which the legislation was discussed in great detail and some recommendations made for amendments to the legislation. I recognize that it is possible that the amendment to the maternity legislation is along with a number of other amendments. I see the deputy minister nodding his head. I know they have been promised and I know that they are coming, but I'm wondering how soon. We can't wait for an omnibus piece of legislation. We'd like to see this particular Act dealt with immediately.

The first change that we would like to see in it is that the protection of the Act has to be amended to prohibit dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy at any time at all during the pregnancy. We realize that presently the Act says that you cannot be dismissed for a six-week period prior to the birth of the child. In fact most women find that they're being dismissed much earlier than that, so we would like to see the Act amended so that dismissal is prohibited altogether. It cannot be used as grounds for dismissing a person from her job.

The second has to do with amending it to allow women to return to work as soon as possible.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, would the minister like to see some of these pieces of material?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

[ Page 1568 ]

MS. BROWN: You would? Okay, good. I would like to have them back because they're the only ones I have.

The third amendment is to extend protection and guarantee of job and pay security on return from maternity leave. Under the current law, women who go on maternity leave are offered no guarantee that they can return to the same or similar job at the same rate of pay.

The fourth amendment has to do with ensuring that leave be considered as continuous employment for the purposes of pension, fringe benefits and other seniority. In other words, maternity leave should not be used as a means of breaking a person's job service. In fact, it should just be seen as an extension of one's employment life.

The fifth amendment that we'd like to see in the legislation is that it has to be amended to provide job security for up to six months in the event that there are any complications during the pregnancy. In other words, if the person is unable to return to work until at least six months or more after the pregnancy, she should not be penalized in any way for this. Women who experience complications due to pregnancy and birth, who are unable to return to work by the end of the 16-week period which presently exists, should be protected for up to a period of six months.

The final amendment that we would like to see is the Act amended so as to include effective means of enforcing the provisions of the Maternity Protection Act. Current law does not include any provisions for enforcement, and this effectively nullifies the entire Act.

Now I don't know whether the minister has lost his copy of this brief or not, but if he would like I could have these recommendations xeroxed and sent over to him. I think it's really important that the department address itself to the Maternity Protection Act, and I'm asking him not to wait until other pieces of legislation which he's preparing to fit into some kind of omnibus amendment are ready. Let us do something about the Maternity Protection Act right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pro-Life?

MS. BROWN: We're all of us for life. What they're against is choice. I'm pro-choice.

I'm hoping that the minister is not going to respond by saying that the opportunity was there to amend the Act before and we didn't do it. I know he's not going to say that. Instead I'm hoping that the minister will thank me for bringing it to his attention, and that the department will move tout suite to have the Act amended.

The third initiative that I would like to suggest to the department has to do with the whole business of farm and domestic workers being covered by the Labour Code. I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record - I am, I accept that - but the easiest way to stop me, quite frankly, is to include farm and domestic workers. Protect them by the Labour Code.

The domestic workers - if I can talk about them in particular - need specifically to be covered at least by the Minimum Wage Act. They certainly need to be covered by the Payment of Wages Act, and the whole thing to do with holiday pay and decent working conditions.

In 1976, 1 introduced a piece of legislation, Bill 84, which was called the Farm and Domestic Workers Recognition Act. Now if the minister wishes, I'd be very happy to let him have another copy of this so that he'll see the kinds of changes that we would like to see introduced. We would like to see amendment in the Payment of Wages Act, Control of the Employment of Children Act, the Minimum Wage Act, Maternity Protection Act, the Workers' Compensation Act, Annual and General Holidays Act and the Truck Act. We would really like to see those pieces of legislation amended to include and to extend protection to domestic workers and to farm workers.

I heard on the CBC this morning that there is a union that's trying to organize farm workers in the interior somewhere, and they're not running into very much success. I'm certainly hoping that they will continue all their efforts in that behalf. But in fact, nobody is trying to organize domestic workers; they operate in isolation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You enjoy success; you run into trouble.

MS. BROWN: I enjoy success.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Arid run into trouble.

MS. BROWN: And run into trouble. Well, every now and again we have to run into trouble to do the things we believe in, don't we?

Mr. Speaker, the minister is dying up to get and respond to some of the initiatives that I am suggesting to him. I really hope that he is listening with an open mind because they are not the easiest group in society to protect, I recognize that. The minister says I will run into a lot of trouble if he tries to cover them. But I would certainly like to ask him to seriously look at the plight of domestic workers who are working, many of them, in

[ Page 1569 ]

unsafe conditions, incredible working hours, especially the ones who live in and have no way of demanding their two days off per week or three days off, as the case may be. They are not covered by the minimum wage and so have to accept any kind of wage that's paid to them. They cannot demand any kind of holiday pay and a number of them are not even covered , by UIC. I ask him to seriously address himself to covering that group.

The other thing, of course, is the farm workers and certainly the ones who work on contract - and I'm talking specifically about the contract workers. A lot of work was done on this particular topic by a group known as Service' and Agricultural Workers Advocacy Committee, Rachel Epstein. I'm sure that the ministry has all of the information, but if they haven't, again I would be very happy to share that information with the minister, but I would really like to ask that the legislation be amended to cover those two particular groups.

Mr. Chairman, I guess the minister knows, of course, that some of the amendments in the Labour Code which he introduced have made it more difficult for women to organize; that the unfair labour practice section of it has made it easier for employers to fight against organization of workers and that this is affecting women more than any other group in our society. I hope that he will also address himself to amending that.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's hopeless to try and educate that group in the back there, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep plugging away at it.

The fifth initiative is the apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programme. I phoned the apprenticeship branch of the ministry and the information is indeed depressing. There are 14,000 people correct me if these figures are incorrect registered under the programme, of which somewhere between 850 to 900 are women. There are 170 programmes offered, and women fit into about 30 of these categories.

The total is 850 to 900 women involved: hairdressing, 658; barbering, 72; graphic art, 43; dental technicians, 15; practical horticulture, 10; baking, 9; cooking, 7; jewellery manufacturing, 7 - after that, it's downhill all the way - electrical, 2; bench work and jointing, 2; meat cutting, 1; diesel engine repair, 1; dental mechanic, 3; automotive, 1; auto painting, 1; painting and decorating, 1; jewellery engraving, 1. There are 140 other categories in which there are no women to be found whatsoever.

Now 1 realize that the minister will probably say that the problem with the programme is that the counselling has to be done before. It's really at the p re-app rent ices hip level where the women have to be reached before they actually get to the apprenticeship stage. So what we need is maybe more cooperation between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education at the preapprenticeship stage or even before then in terms of the counselling and the suggestions being made to women when they're very young, before they've sort of settled into the stereotyped traditional areas of the work force.

Mr. Chairman, we need more co-ordination and we need more planning because, of course - and this affects not just the women, but it also affects men - we find that a number of people are going through the apprenticeship programme into fields which either are already crowded and have no room with them, or which no longer exist. I want to mention specifically the hot-press printing in which there is apparently not even one job anywhere on the continent to be found. Yet there are still people going through the programme learning how to do hotpress printing. Of course, women are apparently not involved in that programme.

So we don't have people being apprenticed for mythological jobs, that used to exist back in the good old days but that are no longer in existence, or job fields that are crowded. There are 658 women going through on a hairdressing programme when there are more hairdressers than there is hair to go around, quite frankly.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true.

MS. BROWN: You have had difficulty finding a hairdresser, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's just expensive.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I thought you were speaking from experience. Why are they so expensive? Well, because they are trying to make a decent living, I'm sure.

But there are a lot of unemployed hairdressers.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage.

MS. BROWN: Omineca has such a penetrating voice, it's a pity he doesn't have a penetrating mind to go along with it.

Mr. Chairman, if there was some way that we could even redistribute the women in the

[ Page 1570 ]

apprenticeship programme so that we don't have 658 of them in hairdressing and only one in automotive repair or diesel engine repair or whatever, I think that kind of planning and co-ordination would be very useful.

The other thing I would really like to see in terms of the co-operation between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour is an end to these pamphlets that always show women in these stereotyped jobs. I recognize that that probably has more to do with the Ministry of Education than it has to do with the Ministry of Labour, but it may not be a bad idea for labour to have more input into those publications and pamphlets that are used by the counsellors in the educational system showing either women in stereotyped jobs or workers in jobs which no longer exist or job fields that are crowded.

It calls for some kind of new initiative in that particular area. In any event, the minister introduced an interesting piece of legislation in the new Act. I am very excited about it. I would like to suggest, however, that it's not going to be very much use in terms of its implementation unless there are funds and resources available, certainly to put the counselling part of it into practice. So maybe in responding the minister could say something about the kinds of funds and resources that are going to be available for that particular area of the Act.

The sixth initiative that I'd like to suggest to the minister has to do with affirmative action. Is the ministry doing anything at all, really, in that particular area at this time, and would you share with us some information about what you're doing in the area of affirmative action? More and more of the information coming out of the federal government as well as out of the United States and other areas shows that the key to the removal of job ghettos would be more attention to affirmative action programmes. Certainly it has worked for minority groups and for other groups and I think a serious kind of commitment to trying to implement or support that kind of programme would bear some kind of results in the not too distant future.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say some more on apprenticeship programmes, but I don't want to take up too much of the committee's time, so I'll just move on to my very last recommendation. It has to do with the whole business of occupational health. I'm wondering whether the minister would prefer, because the occupational health field is one that affects everyone, to answer my questions dealing with women first, and then I'll deal with occupational health afterwards.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, with regard to affirmative action, there is established, under the chairmanship of Mr. Richardson in the Public Service Commission, the equal rights committee. My deputy minister is involved and is addressing himself to that, as are members of the employment opportunities branch of the ministry.

The relationship between Education and Labour and the subject of counselling is well taken by the member. The Occupational Training Council, which was recently established under the legislation introduced last year, has had several meetings and is underway. It will be its responsibility to involve itself in this whole field of counselling and to rectify some of the anachronisms which exist in our institutional system as they apply to the problems raised by the member. The question of offering courses for non-existent jobs, requiring levels of skill training which are no longer adequate for today's needs - all of these matters are to be rationalized between the two ministries, using the vehicle of OTC and the upgrading of the institute sponsored by the Minister of Education. I don't think it is appropriate to point blame one way or the other. It is a job responsibility; we'd better recognize it and do something about it, and we are.

Maternity legislation: I won't talk about legislation, but that is part of the employment standards. That Act is under review and is all being carved to pieces, so that's being attended to. I don't think, as a matter of fact, that a woman could be dismissed because she became pregnant. I don't think that with even our existing legislation, certainly with the impact of the Human Rights Code, that would any longer be possible in this province.

MS. BROWN: Only six weeks - the Act is very clear about this.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Under that legislation, but I think the Human Rights Code would cover any other period. We'll be looking at this as well.

The member talked about the apprenticeship programmes, and it is a major problem and a concern of ours. There was an article published in a newspaper recently about a week ago in which there was some criticism of the WEAT programme. It said it was "an underwhelming success." I was pleased to note that on the 15th of this month a member of that programme responded at length in the same newspaper, a graduate of that training programme who took apprenticeship under the

[ Page 1571 ]

Ministry of Labour and training at the Pacific Vocational Institute at the Maple Ridge campus.

I recommend to the member The Vancouver Sun of Monday, May 15,1978, where Wendy Mills responds to the criticisms and points out quite clearly that the programme is not a success.

One of the difficulties with regard to apprenticeship is this encouragement of women to offer themselves into these unfamiliar trade areas or skill areas. While we don't do as good a job as the province of Ontario in information services - and I offer no excuses for that - our new apprenticeship booklet which is just out - and I'll see that copies are sent to the member - together with the film that I mentioned earlier, were put together with this particular problem in mind. I'll find out when the film is going to be shown someplace in the Victoria or Vancouver area so that perhaps the member can take the opportunity of seeing it. The Human Rights Branch people have seen it and they think it is laudable.

MS. BROWN: Is this for the schools?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's dealing with apprenticeship. The thrust is to start to break down these barriers which I think are rather more imaginary than real, and which are keeping women from moving into some of these areas. I think that with the changes that take place in certain trades with certain equipment and so on, workers no longer require the physical strength or endurance that was the case before, and women now can do these things. But they don't even think about it. They tend to go into the hairdressing trades and things that have been customary for women. I think the mental barriers are as much with the women as with anyone else, and that's why our apprenticeship material which has been recently published and the film are directed to breaking that down and showing that it is possible for a women to move into this field.

MS. BROWN: Is it for use in the schools? Do you get it to the women when they are very young?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's to be available in schools, work places, for trade unions, for employees' and employers' groups to see exactly what the apprenticeship programme can do.

I mentioned earlier that in the budget this year we are making provision to expand the allowances which are available to people who take these courses, and we're also working to get Canada Manpower to accept these apprenticeship programmes and pre-apprenticeship programmes involving women as part of their programme.

In doubling the amounts that we pay, insignificant as they may be to some people.... For instance, we are presently paying $60 a month for a single person at home; that will be doubled to $120; away from home it will go to $240. Again, this is to make it more attractive to some of the women who say: "Look, there's no way I can go into that programme. I have to go to work to support myself or to make a contribution." We hope that this will also encourage more women to take advantage of the programmes that are offered.

MS. BROWN: Thanks very much. I really appreciate the minister responding in detail.

I was probably not clear about the affirmative action. I recognize that in the public service there is the equal employment opportunities committee. I was really talking about the department spreading the word among employers out there and wondering if any work was being done out in the community at large in terms of encouraging the whole concept of affirmative action in terms of hiring, promotion, retraining and that kind of thing.

I certainly agree with the minister about the reluctance in some areas of women to try to get into fields which have been traditionally recognized as needing a lot of strength and muscle and this kind of thing. I think it is so important that this kind of information be exposed to women when they are still quite young, because there has to be a whole rethinking in terms of employment.

The area I forgot to mention was in prisons. In fact, of the programmes which are open to the women in prison, hairdressing and sewing were the only two that I could find. I wonder whether the minister has any input in terms of the kind of retraining programme that goes on in that area.

Also the minister forgot to respond to my statement about the domestic workers and farm workers being covered by labour legislation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the farm and domestic workers, I meant to mention that they are also being included in the employment standards legislation under consideration to eradicate these distinctions that no longer should exist.

My deputy advises me that we expect to be moving in mid-June further on the affirmative action with a major media campaign with regard to women and apprenticeship, women in the work force and so on. I haven't had a chance to

[ Page 1572 ]

review precisely what the programme will be but it will be the largest attempt that this ministry has made to move in this direction. My only reservation at the moment is whether or not the media campaign will reach the people that we want to reach.

We're not involved in the training in prisons. That may be an area that we could look at.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know if the minister responded to my question with respect to right to work. I asked if he would please reiterate the position of the government on this. I had to leave the House for a period of time in order to speak to a group of students, and I don't know if he made mention at that time of the position that he nodded across the floor of the House that he may indicate to us what the position of the government is on right to work.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to refer to a section under the Workers' Compensation Act, which was introduced under the previous government when the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was Minister of Labour.

This section refers to those people who have been in receipt of compensation for a number of years. I am referring to section 24 (a) of the Workers' Compensation Act. There was an attempt to review some of the old pensions that had been in effect for a number of years in the province. Those people had suffered some sort of disability as a result of an injury that had occurred at work. I understand that nothing was done during the first year that the new government was in office, but then an attempt was made to draft some kind of formula which might apply to these injured workers so that they could have their pensions upgraded.

Many of the pensions are very inadequate. They were set up a number of years ago and they need to be reviewed. A formula was drawn up and presented to the commissioners. There were 104 people who applied to have their pensions upgraded or reviewed under section 24 (a) of the Act. A number of those are over 65 and are really in a situation where they need that additional help. As I understand it, the commissioners have not yet come up with an agreement with respect to the formula that has been drawn up for them. It may be another eight months before they actually arrive at some sort of solution to this particular problem.

I'm urging the minister, in view of the fact that there are at least 100 people anxiously waiting to find out what kind of changes can be made to their pensions as a result of the change that was made to the Act under the former administration.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would undertake to speed up that process and try to get the formula worked out and assist them if necessary so that we can put into effect an upgrading of those 104 pensions that are currently under review. Could he just respond to those two comments?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, my information is that there are less than 100 applications for pension review under section 24 (a) . The matter is under active consideration by the board. My staff has been in touch with the commissioners on this subject during the last 10 days, and it is not being delayed. The information we have is that it will take nothing like eight months to resolve this situation.

The board doesn't need any encouragement from me in this respect. As you know, the board acts independently. They don't need me to tell them how to devise the formula, and I'm not sure that I could. I know that the member is not suggesting that we should interfere or that the minister should interfere, and I have no jurisdiction to do so in the operation of the board. They know their duty and they are carrying it out.

It is a very difficult problem, as the member has pointed out, but the devising of a formula is their job and they are making every attempt to achieve the result and to meet the applications they have before them. I think the number is something like 85. However, whatever number it is, they're dealing with them.

On right to work, my position and the government's position remains unchanged with respect to right to work. It has been stated a number of times. I must express some amazement that the trade unions and the NDP in this province seem to be more interested in publicizing the right-to-work concept than anybody else.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the Chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.