[ Page 929 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Natural gas exports. Mr. Macdonald –– 929

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 150.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 932

Ms. Sanford –– 932

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 934

Mr. King –– 935

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 937

Mrs. Wallace 938

Mr. Hanson –– 940

Mr. Howard –– 941

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 943

Ms. Brown –– 945

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 947

Mr. Hanson –– 948

Mr. Passarell –– 948

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 948

Mr. Hanson –– 949

Mr. Gabelmann –– 950

Mr. Howard –– 951

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 951

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates.

On vote 162.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 952

MONDAY, JULY 23, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, long ago, in the good old days before there was a Burnaby-Edmonds, there was a Burnaby. At that time it was represented by two members, and we have the pleasure today to have in the gallery one of the original, ancient members for Burnaby, Mr. Cedric Cox. Mr. Cox is about to take unto himself a young bride. She's also in the gallery, and so is her brother. Would the House welcome them, please?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House today some friends, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Middleton, from the central Fraser Valley constituency. Mr. Middleton is a retired superintendent of School District 34.

With Mr. and Mrs. Middleton we have our Abbotsford Rotary exchange student, Miss Annette Eyears, from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Would the House please welcome them?

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to beg the indulgence of the House to allow me to welcome a new constituent of mine to British Columbia. Because of his age he's not able to be with us, but I would like the members to share my pride in welcoming my grandson, Christopher Thomas Brummet, who was born at 10:30 this morning in Fort St. John.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House to welcome Harry and Anne Hooge and their family, Carol and David. They are very good friends, members of the teaching profession and very fine people from Dewdney.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, Mr. Gordon Barnhardt, and his family are here today. Please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In view of the submission of B.C. Hydro to the National Energy Board — intervention on June 6, submission July 3 — with the evidence of Keith Kidd of the gas division indicating that the security of supply and price for British Columbians was in jeopardy with respect to the El  Paso contract, did the minister ask Hydro on July 10 to withdraw its intervention before the NEB?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, the ministry did not ask B.C. Hydro to withdraw, or anything else.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary question, can the minister explain, then, why Mr. Guy of B.C. Hydro, who was to speak in answer to the request for an adjournment, was unable to speak, and the government spoke only to Mark Moseley of the Attorney-General's ministry from that point on in the hearings? Did you ask that to happen?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary question, were there any discussions with Hydro following your press release of July 10, in which you expressed displeasure at their intervention on behalf of the consumer?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't express any displeasure with B.C. Hydro in any press release.

MR. MACDONALD: On another supplementary question, why does the minister say that the positions of B.C. Hydro and the government are the same, in view of the prepared testimony of Mr. Kidd to the National Energy Board indicating that breathing, unconceived and unbegot British Columbians will pay the shot in terms of security of price and supply in the future, and of the minister's press release that this export contract was just a matter of getting regulatory approval without difficulty?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The press release and our statements at the National Energy Board hearings were that we were in support of the export of natural gas, subject to certain conditions being met: (a) that there be security of supply, and (b) that the export customers should pay a fair cost of the line and there be no possibility of any cost coming back to the domestic consumer. B.C. Hydro intervened and asked very similar questions, and rightly so. Those questions are put to the National Energy Board, as the member for Vancouver East knows, and then the National Energy Board makes its decision as a result of the answers given by Westcoast Transmission and after studying the submissions of all interested parties.

MR. MACDONALD: On another supplementary to the minister, will B.C. Hydro be given full rein to proceed with the arguing of the points raised by Mr. Kidd in his prepared testimony, that I've already referred to, or is the government going to inhibit them in any way in making an intervention on behalf of the consumer? I see the Premier is going to give me the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order if future action is concerned.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I've just changed the form of it.

Does Hydro have instructions now to proceed with the very important questions of objection that are raised in the testimony prepared by Keith Kidd?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The one mandate that B.C. Hydro has — as the member is aware — is to ensure their domestic customers in the province of British Columbia have a guaranteed supply of natural gas. They will raise those questions and the NEB will have to take those into consideration in deciding whether or not the export permits are issued.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister present at the B.C.

[ Page 930 ]

Hydro board meeting when the decision was made that B.C. Hydro be an intervener at the NEB hearings, at which intervention Mr. Kidd prepared his testimony that further export would jeopardize the possibility of shipping gas to Vancouver Island? Were you present at that meeting when the go-ahead was given by the board of directors to Mr. Kidd to present his position?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't recall that matter being discussed at board level.

MR. BARRETT: Would it not be on board instruction that Mr. Kidd prepared his position, or would Mr. Kidd be operating entirely on his own without board authority in presenting that position?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the member knows that there is a management committee of B.C. Hydro, and that decisions in regard to intervention concerning B.C. Hydro's supply of natural gas to its customers could be made at that level.

MR. BARRETT: On another supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would undertake to inform this House as to who it was who ordered Mr. Kidd to stop in his intervention — which is contrary to the statement made by the minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's an assumption on the part of the member, and maybe he could tell me where he got his information that Mr. Kidd was ordered to stop.

MR. MACDONALD: In the transcript of the proceedings.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you read them?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, we have a copy right here. In the transcript of the proceedings Mr. Kidd is quoted as stating — and I'll quote from the transcript, if you don't have a copy....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's quite all right. You're giving away the gas heritage of Vancouver Island to the Americans; and you stopped it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the purpose of question period is not to bring information to the House.

MR. BARRETT: In answer to the question, "Is there a market for gas in British Columbia beyond the geographic area currently served with natural gas?" Mr. Kidd answered: "Yes, there is. As we pointed out in our intervention, B.C. Hydro currently serves 5,000 customers in Victoria with the butane-air mixture. Studies are proceeding into the feasibility of supplying this and other communities on Vancouver Island with natural gas."

Question: "How would the granting of the licence requested by Westcoast affect this project?"

Answer: "If gas is not reserved for this potential market, the option to serve it could be foreclosed. Canadians living in British Columbia could thus be denied access to Canadian gas of British Columbian origin."

I ask the minister: who was it who instructed Mr. Kidd to no longer pursue this line of protecting the gas needs of the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: My position is the same.

MR. BARRETT: You told us that earlier.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the gas line to Vancouver Island that the NDP stopped some years ago.

I would also like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I didn't hear in there any order that Mr. Kidd said he was ordered to stop the discussion — not out of what you read, Mr. Member. You know full well it's not there. You'll also know that in the discussions and in the research done regarding gas reserves, consideration was given by my ministry and staff with regard to reserves for Vancouver Island and a pipeline to Vancouver Island.

MR. BARRETT: Could the minister thus explain a discrepancy in his statement on July 10, wherein he said that there would be no difficulty in obtaining these approvals, and it is anticipated, in the circumstances, that B.C. Petroleum has agreed to support Westcoast? Can the minister explain the direct contradiction between his press release and Mr. Kidd's sworn statement at the hearing? Let the minister explain that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's all because of the policies of this government. We're finding gas....

MR. BARRETT: I asked the minister if he can explain this discrepancy, which he denied existed. This is a sellout of British Columbia gas.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Much to the disappointment of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I asked the minister to explain to this House why there is a discrepancy between his statements of July 10 and Mr. Kidd's statement.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't need the Premier's assistance; maybe the minister does. Explain the discrepancy.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Once again, for the benefit of the member, there is no discrepancy between B.C. Hydro and the government. We gave our approval subject to...and Hydro intervened with certain questions. If the member checked, he would find there is great similarity. But there's no discrepancy between the two. In the same way, there's no gas line from Mexico to the United States to import all that gas you keep talking about.

[ Page 931 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the government's embarrassment. I would now like to ask the minister at what date he was notified that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, as the instrument of this government, was not charging enough for natural gas into the United States.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that it's the NEB that sets the export price. He also knows that the provinces have the opportunity to state their case before the NEB. I could suggest to him that after the price went up to $2.30 a thousand cubic feet, this ministry went to the NEB and said: "You'd better take another look at it."So we got a fair price.

I would like to say that it was this government and this ministry who said to the NEB: "Look again and make sure we get a fair price." That's why it's moved from $2.30 to $2.80 a thousand cubic feet.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister now prepared to file with this House the correspondence which he has alluded to in terms of asking for a price of $2.80?

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Did the minister put his request for a price of $2.80 in writing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've said to the member that it was this ministry and this government that notified the NEB.

MR. BARRETT: In writing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Member, in writing. But I'd also like to suggest that....

MR. BARRETT: File the letter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why do I have to file the letter? I can file it; I have a letter. You're a big man and you make a big issue of the fact that we have gone after it, and your only defence is to say: "File the letter." I'd like to see you file the letter about the $3.20 you wanted to get for Mexican gas.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we cannot have more than one member having the floor.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I haven't finished, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: He got more instructions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's true. The Premier brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker.... [Laughter.] He suggested that maybe the NDP should file the letter where they got $1.96 a thousand cubic feet for natural gas before they left office.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has informed us that he put his request for an increased price to $2.80 in writing. Could the minister give us the date when that letter was sent to the National Energy Board?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is wrong. I did not state that we put the figure of $2.80 in any letter.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, am I incorrect in assuming that the minister said that he wrote the National Energy Board and asked for an increase? Did you write the National Energy Board?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not asking the Premier, and you can't listen.... Did the minister write the National Energy Board asking for an increase in the price of natural gas?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In sharing the information with the House, I stated to the member across the way that my ministry informed the NEB, when we had the price increase from $2.16 to $2.30 a thousand cubic feet, that they should look at a review of this to ensure that competitive rates are received for export gas into the United States, and that we do not fall behind in our export gas pricing. That was the statement I made a few minutes ago, and I repeat it. The only defence the member has now is to talk about tabling a letter. The information from this ministry and from this minister is that we made a request to the NEB which the NEB carried out, and, of course, we have the increase in August to $2.80 U.S. a thousand cubic feet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. Minister of Economic Development to please to come to order. We are trying to move to the next order of business.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, is the House prepared to grant leave to proceed to Motion 8?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 150: minister's office, $141,341 — continued.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to the Minister of Labour, who, I think wishes to make a comment.

[ Page 932 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't have the opportunity on Friday to introduce to the committee the senior officials of the ministry who are here on the floor, and I would like the House to know that Deputy Minister James Matkin, Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Rhodes, and Assistant Deputy Minister of Industrial Relations Mr. Douglas Cameron are with me on the floor this afternoon.

If the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not at this time going to pursue the matters which he raised on Friday, perhaps I could take a few moments to respond to some of his comments concerning the Workers' Compensation Board and the discharge of the responsibilities of that board under the legislation in this province.

The member was good enough to point out the basic principles surrounding the Workers' Compensation Board and the way in which it arose, and to point out that in the compensation concept workers give up their right of action against their employers in return for certain assured, but regulated, compensation rights in respect of injuries or industrial disease which they may incur as members of the workforce. Having said that, however, I regret that the member for Skeena did not also advise the committee — because he was accurate to that point — that one of the underlying principles surrounding the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board is that it is intended to operate — and does operate — without political interference on the part of this government, or, I would have hoped, of any governments in the past. If, as the member indicates, there is something seriously wrong with the way in which the board is carrying out its responsibilities — which I do not accept — then it is the responsibility of that member, or those who have knowledge of such serious wrongs, to ensure that they are brought to the attention of the board directly, because the board establishes its own policy. I most certainly reject any arguments in this respect which may have been presented to the member, or communicated to him, from the Council of Forest Industries, because the Council of Forest Industries does not dictate the policy of the Workers' Compensation Board, either directly or through this ministry.

With respect to the actuarial soundness of the board and the Accident and Silicosis Funds, may I suggest to the member that he take the opportunity of reading very carefully the Eckler Report, which dealt with some of the financial problems facing the board. He should also recognize that the actuarial advice which is tendered to the board is based upon the guidance of long-term trends, not on annual aberrations, and particularly that the statutory changes made in 1974 with respect to benefits accruing to workers in this province were made without any consideration for the financial impact which those changes would have upon the fund and on the activities of the board, and, in so doing, recognize that the provisions which have been made by this board with regard to overcoming any unsoundness there may be in the fund have been taken cautiously, but responsibly, to ensure that the operations of the board are not in any way hindered, nor that undue burdens are cast upon those whose responsibility it is to provide the funds with which Workers' Compensation operates in this province.

He mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that the fund was something in the neighbourhood of $250 million; in fact, he is just about 100 percent wrong. The investments in the fund are about $540 million, not $250 million. They are assessed actuarially each year, and the financial statements of the board are certified by the auditor-general.

Most particularly I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the consulting actuaries of the board are not involved in making or have no authority to make, political decisions, and do not — and neither does the Workers' Compensation Board. They are guided solely by the responsibility to ensure that the operations of the board are conducted in a manner which produces the greatest benefits for those people who are entitled to depend upon the board for service, namely the workers and the employers in this province.

Lastly, on an incidental point, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made comment about the medical-review panel positions of the board and the fact that their decisions are final and binding. This is not unique to British Columbia, and it is a situation which has existed for many years. I'm sure the member, on reflection, will recognize how inappropriate it would be if medical decisions — decisions by a panel of specialists — were somehow or another subjected to the adversary process, which would be the case if there was an appeal. Medical opinions are medical opinions, and while some may quarrel with the opinions given by doctors, the very basis upon which medical review panels are selected is designed to ensure that there is complete independence, impartiality and professionalism involved in the rendering of those decisions.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to change the topic at this stage because of the decision that the minister announced outside this House last Friday with respect to the Margaret Caldwell case and the board of inquiry decision on that case.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has often been accused of being arrogant, that his whole demeanor and his attitude in the Legislature and outside the Legislature is one which could quite easily be construed as arrogant. But I think that his actions on Friday — particularly in view of the fact that we in the opposition had been questioning the minister on a number of occasions with respect to any appeal that might be made in the Margaret Caldwell case — were arrogant, because what he did, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Estimates afford the time to discuss the administrative responsibility of the minister, and while the administrative actions are open to the subject of conversation, the word "arrogant" has been ruled unparliamentary in previous times. I therefore ask you to withdraw it.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I don't have my list in front of me, and if that's unparliamentary, then....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just ask you to withdraw.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I certainly will withdraw then.

But, Mr. Chairman, it seems incredible to me that a minister of this Legislature would show such contempt for the House and for the legislative process itself by going outside of the Legislature in order to inform the press about a decision that he had reached with respect to this Caldwell case. He did not come into the Legislature to stand in his place and inform the rest of the Legislature when we, in

[ Page 933 ]

fact, had shown an interest in this and had questioned the minister a number of times on that particular case.

Mr. Chairman, any minister can stand at the start of the session, during the session or at the end of the session and make a statement. In this case he had all of those opportunities plus the opportunity when he got up to introduce his estimates for the Ministry of Labour. He had that opportunity. When he got up as the Minister of Labour responsible for all labour matters — human rights, workers' compensation, all of those issues — he told this House nothing, even though he had been to the press that morning and had told them of his decision with respect to the Caldwell case. Now, Mr. Chairman, that surely is contempt for the Legislature.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I can't use the word "arrogant," because that's unparliamentary, but it certainly is showing contempt for us in this House. There is no doubt about that. Why on earth couldn't that minister inform the Legislature that he had finally reached a decision on this? We'd been questioning him for over a week on it. He called the press together and made the statement to them. He came in, and when it was time to introduce his estimates, he stood up in the House and said he would be happy to answer any questions that the members might have. Really, Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen a performance like that in years in this House.

Maybe he was embarrassed to stand up in this Legislature and announce what the decision was, because the decision with respect to Margaret Caldwell is completely inadequate in terms of preserving human rights in this province. I am really shocked that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) would arrive at the decision to launch a partial appeal — only a partial appeal — in the Margaret Caldwell case. That imposes an obvious injustice on Mrs. Caldwell. Whatever the court decides at this stage she will receive neither reinstatement, nor will she receive the arrears on her salary. Because the minister has decided to make a partial appeal, and if the court decides against the board of inquiry on that part of the appeal the minister is launching, Mrs. Caldwell will still not be reinstated, nor will she be entitled to collect back pay, because the minister is making only a partial appeal. Under section 22 of the code she will still not be entitled to receive back pay or reinstatement.

If the minister is sincere in guaranteeing the human rights of the people of British Columbia — and, in this case, of Mrs. Caldwell — he would refer to the courts all the issues that were decided by that board of inquiry. He has made a decision on his own about the human rights concerned in this particular case. He has decided to appeal it, because he's worried about a loophole that may have been opened in the code under section 8 with respect to this appeal. In terms of the human rights, and the alleged human rights that Mrs. Caldwell has suffered, he is not going to appeal. A partial appeal means Mrs. Caldwell will be suffering an injustice. That's obvious.

It seems to me the minister has no option but to appeal the whole issue. Otherwise he should step down as the minister who is charged with the responsibility of preserving human rights in this province. He has a bad record in terms of preserving and promoting human rights in this province. You may recall that when the previous Human Rights Commission, headed by Bishop Remi de Roo, ended the term for which it had been appointed by the previous minister, this Minister of Labour didn't even say good-bye, or let them know their term had been finished, or in any way recognize the efforts they had made as a Human Rights Commission in this province appointed under the previous government.

Then you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we went for eight months without any Human Rights Commission whatsoever. Finally we had the Minister of Labour make an appointment. The Human Rights Commission, expanded at that time, has since gone from one disaster to another. It got so bad that even the Provincial Secretary, the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), just before the election date, indicated to the press that he felt that the record and the performance of that Human Rights Commission was so bad that some of those members should be taken off the commission.

Did the Minister of Labour take any note of that? No, Mr. Chairman. The Human Rights Commission remains the same, and I'm wondering just what the new Human Rights Commission has done since it was appointed. It's been charged, aside from making jokes.... I mean, we all know the Human Rights Commission makes jokes. That's what upset the Provincial Secretary. He felt some of them should be removed because they had no obvious interest in human rights. They hadn't even any understanding about human rights. But what else have they done? I understand the Minister of Labour has charged the Human Rights Commission with the responsibility of coming up with recommendations with respect to retirement at age 65. Has the minister received any reports from the Human Rights Commission on that issue? Have they reached any conclusions? Is the minister going to be taking any action? I know the Human Rights Commission is unable to deal with any requests from people who are aged 65 or over. The Minister of Labour doesn't know what to do with them at this stage. As a result, when anyone complains as a matter of human rights that they are not being employed because they're over age 65, the minister says: "Don't deal with them. Don't handle those cases." But has the minister reached any conclusions on this? Has the Human Rights Commission reported to him?

What about the Eva Johnstons who are no longer able to teach in the Vancouver school system, who have been appealing through various media to get some decision from the Minister of Labour on this issue? Nothing. I would like also, very briefly, to raise one or two more issues. One relates — a very quick question — to the compilation of all those statutes under the labour standards branch. That process of compiling all those statutes was well underway in 1975, before the election was held in December of that year. They were almost ready to be presented to the Legislature at that time. In 1976, I think it was, we had a promise in the throne speech that there would be a compilation of all those statutes under the labour standards branch. What on earth is the minister doing with respect to compiling those statutes? Surely, four years later, the minister should be able to have those statutes compiled and put together in some meaningful way. The situation right now is deplorable. It affects people all over the province. What kind of changes is the minister contemplating that make it so difficult to put all those statutes together? I would

[ Page 934 ]

hope there would be a number of changes, but to date we've had no indication from the minister as to when those statutes are going to be ready.

The third issue I want to raise very briefly again relates to other questions I posed to the minister during this session with regard to the farmworkers in the lower Fraser Valley and the contracting out of farm labour. You may be aware of the serious problem that exists in the lower Fraser Valley with respect to some contractors who are contracting out farm labour. The minister indicated to the House that he was having the whole problem researched and that he was hopeful of a report and hopeful that some action could be taken this session. We have yet to see any changes in statutes or any proposals made inside or outside of the House. I'm wondering what the minister intends to do.

What's happening is that contractors contract out farm labour, then phone up 20 or 30 people and say to them: "I will pick you up at whatever time in the morning" — sometimes it's 5:30 a.m. — "and take you to the fields. You do the work, and I'll take you home again, and you will eventually be paid." There are all kinds of situations that exist in that whole contracting-out process which result in exploitation of labour. Very often these farm labourers do not speak English. Most of them are East Indians, and most of them are being exploited by the present way the system operates.

There are solutions to this. The farmworkers themselves are attempting to become unionized in order to avoid the exploitation currently taking place. When workers work eight hours and more in the field, whether it be picking raspberries, pulling carrots, weeding, or whatever, and are receiving sometimes as little as $15 a day for their efforts, there's obviously something very wrong.

The Minister of Labour himself could very easily resolve the problem by setting up a system of licensing, so that the people who are actually doing the contracting out would have to be licensed under the Ministry of Labour and meet certain requirements before they could receive a licence. This can be done. Various employer agencies now have to be licensed. Why could not the employers — those people who hire the farm labourers — be licensed in the same way? Then the ministry could have some basic guidelines under which these contractors could work. There's no reason why the Minister of Labour could not establish such a system. Maybe, through that, he could even ensure that people are entitled to UIC benefits and that they receive a decent salary. There are all kinds of problems that the Ministry of Labour could ensure would be overcome through this licensing process.

What about income tax? What about Canada pension? Many of these simply go by the board through the present system. I think that the minister is aware of it. I think that the minister has had preliminary reports. I think that he has enough information at this stage that he would be able to take some action which would alleviate the exploitation currently taking place.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I regret very much if the member for Comox judges my behaviour as arrogant. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I, as the Minister of Labour, don't have the luxury that is available to the member for Comox to deal with my responsibilities outside of the law. In the Caldwell case I will say this and not any more, because the Caldwell case is, I think, probably now sub judice. The appeal which is being launched by the government is based upon carefully obtained and considered legal advice. It's based on the strictures in the Human Rights Code and where the decision of the board of inquiry was in error. The case is, therefore, subject to further consideration in the courts. One thing that the member must recognize — and also all members of the committee — is that now that we have a Human Rights Code in this province, what is discrimination within the law is not what any one individual might think amounts to discrimination, but rather what is decided by a competent tribunal, be it a board of inquiry or, failing that, the courts in this country.

The member raised a very important issue dealing with labour standards. When I became Minister of Labour, I found that work had been done in the drafting of legislation. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, the legislation was not in any condition whereby any responsible minister would bring it to the floor of this assembly for consideration. Hundreds of hours have been spent since 1976 in reaching the point where — except for the one matter which the member has properly raised at length today, that of farm labour — the legislation is ready for presentation.

Now the question of farm labour is a serious one. It is easy to use such words as "exploitation," and I suppose even I might qualify some of the conduct which we see among farm employees as exploitive. But it is one thing to identify the problem; it is quite a different matter to search out the solution.

The member spoke of the licensing of farm-labour contractors. Yes, that has been considered, but one of the problems about licensing farm-labour contractors is that they can enter the business and leave the business at will. In the course of the continuing investigation which officials of the ministry are making into this problem, we find that this is exactly what is taking place. When activities are undertaken which we find questionable and which other levels of government find questionable — particularly the Unemployment Insurance Commission — the farm-labour contractor who might offend disappears.

The member talked about bonding. Yes, bonding is also one of the aspects to which our attention has for some time been directed. But bonding still doesn't stop you from going out of business and from somebody else emerging as the contractor, nominal or otherwise. Therefore the method of enforcement is of such consequence that our attention is being turned to the individual more easily identified and more permanently fixed, and that is the person who actually utilizes the labour itself. This inquiry which we have undertaken — and I say it's a continuing inquiry — is producing some new avenues for us to follow. I expect to have the pleasure in the next week or ten days of discussing this entire problem with the Undersecretary of Labor for the State of California, who is coming here for this specific purpose. They too have the problem. They have attempted a variety of solutions, and we wish to take the opportunity of addressing to them some of our particular problems as have been disclosed by official inquiry.

I would not like it, however, to be understood from my remarks that improper practices are necessarily widespread in this province. Farm labourers, in many instances, are paid fair wages and the method of payment and the conditions under which they work are, in the circumstances of the agricultural community, the best that can be designed. We in this province and in this country depend

[ Page 935 ]

upon farmworkers. Their work is dictated not by the desires of individuals but by natural circumstances. When the crops are ripe, they must be harvested; when the weather is appropriate, work can go forward; when the weather is bad, it cannot.

It is in the understanding of the implications of this for the farmworkers that we are addressing this aspect of employment standards legislation with the utmost care, to ensure that, recognizing the problems that face the farmworker, they are adequately compensated, depending upon all the vagaries that must be taken into account.

MR. KING: I have just a few brief remarks to make and some questions to ask the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister pointing out that the labour standards legislation is not ready as yet, and was certainly in no condition to be introduced when he assumed the office of Minister 'of Labour — which I certainly acknowledge. Of course, it was not in an advanced enough stage to be introduced. I rather think, however, that was not the factor which was responsible for the failure of the minister to act. I think, rather, it was the contents of the proposed statute which the minister found unacceptable and not the lack of any background work — at least in some respects.

Be that as it may, I would just like to make the point that a Labour Code was developed in the province of British Columbia with adequate hearings throughout the province. Basically it combined three of the old statutes in a very complex area, and that was accomplished within about a year and a half or two years. I only use that to illustrate that if the minister set a high priority on introducing a rationalized statute governing labour standards in the province of British Columbia, he has certainly had adequate time in office to devote his mind to that priority. Quite frankly, we haven't seen any heavy volume of legislation flowing from the minister's ministry, or any other policy that I am aware of. So it seems to me a matter of having some priorities.

Two things have happened that I am concerned about. One is the Workers' Compensation Board, which I want to get back to a little bit. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister will acknowledge that I have a fair understanding of the legal parameters under which the board itself functions and the relationship between the ministry and that board. Of course, there is no political direction, nor should there be, nor has there ever been, to my knowledge.

But the minister also knows that the administration of a Crown agency — or any agency, for that matter — has a certain style, a certain direction, a certain psychology and that the consequences of that general approach and that general attitude do hold implications for the people who are the clients of that institution. I think what concerns me and many of my colleagues at the moment is an attitude within the Workers' Compensation Board which is retrogressive, in my view, which is leading us backward to the point where literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workers in the province of British Columbia are finding a very rigid and stringent standard of adjudication with respect to their claims.

I can outline, as an example, two cases that I have had in my own constituency. Before I do that, perhaps I should say to the minister that I, as an MLA in this House, have seen the caseload of workers' compensation problems accelerate at a very alarming rate over the past three years. I think the same is true of all my colleagues, and I'm sure it must be true on that side of the House. That's a general indicator. It's a superficial one, but it indicates that there's a different style of administration and that workers feet aggrieved and feel that their cases are not receiving, much less than sympathetic adjudication, either sensitive or humanistic adjudication — nor, in some cases, the full measure of the law, because the law is rather flexible in workers' compensation matters. It can be exercised in such a way that the burden of proof is imposed upon the board rather than the worker.

What has happened to some extent, it seems, is that the onus has been reversed and placed on the worker, rather than the probability being acknowledged to be on his side. There are two cases that I'll just use as brief illustrations — not major ones in terms of the kinds of injuries involved, but certainly problematic in terms of the worker's security of employment.

One was a case where a faller in the forest industry had been struck by a falling snag and sustained a hip injury. He had received his time-loss benefits, and the medical profession had done, in effect, all that they could do — rehabilitated him to the full level of their medical capabilities — but he was unable to return to his normal occupation as a faller, which is a top-level salary position in the scheme of things in British Columbia. This young lad was foreclosed from pursuing that kind of career.

He was then interested, and indicated his interest, in retraining in heavy-duty mechanics or something of that nature. He received no valuable counsel from the Workers' Compensation Board. His case dragged on for a year and a half, without even the offer of any education retraining or counselling in terms of the direction that he should address himself to in qualifying himself for a new vocation. And that is a mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board — not just to pay benefits, not just to pay disability pensions, be they partial or total, but to try and rehabilitate in real terms workers' lives. I find them sadly deficient in that particular area at the moment.

This case dragged on for a year and a half until I finally interviewed the young man on a number of occasions, and found that if he stayed in the forest industry he could retain his association with his own union and a pension plan attached thereto. He had knowledge of the forest industry, and he was interested in scaling. Mr. Chairman, I was able to phone the Forest Service, find that they were mounting a scalers' training program, have the young man enrol in it, because there was a position waiting for him at a good level of salary in something that would not exacerbate his physical disability. After my having done all of this groundwork, I then approached the rehabilitation representative of the Workers' Compensation Board and persuaded them that they should put up the tuition fee, and that they should pay him time-loss benefits for the period of his training as a scaler in the forest industry, which, I think, was a three-week course.

The reason I raise this is because that is the job and the function of the board staff. and they do not seem to be paying adequate attention to it. They seem most singularly reluctant to put out dollars for retraining of injured workers. In this case there were a variety of options available, and after waiting a year and a half, to no advantage in terms of dealing with the board and appealing to them for assistance

[ Page 936 ]

and funding for retraining, he had received nothing. It was only after I was successful in getting him enrolled that I was able to pry, reluctantly, from the board funds to accommodate this retraining.

The second case, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to deal with in any precise way, because it is under appeal to the board now. But this was a young man who was also a faller in the bush and he developed an affliction. It is a rather rare one; I forget what it is called, precisely. It's the "something" syndrome; it's of the hands. It results in extreme pain to the wrists and hands, and the inability to control particularly a vibrating object.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Meniere's syndrome.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING: I believe that's what it is, yes.

So he received treatment, was subsequently operated on, and it was suggested that he try to go back to his occupation, after a period of rehabilitation. That he did, and on his return to work he found that the operation of a power saw created a major problem with his hand, even though it had been operated on.

He went back to his doctor, who advised him to take a few more days off. In the meantime he received a letter from the Workers' Compensation Board in Vancouver advising him that under no circumstances could he go back to that kind of occupation, in light of the particular affliction that he was suffering from. Taking that letter as gospel, he terminated his employment with the particular employer he was with, and approached the board for retraining as a heavy-duty mechanic. Through his own initiative, which is acknowledged by his employers and by the board, he was able to find a job with Finning Tractor. It was just a part-time job as an ordinary labourer, but he was interested in improving himself and qualifying as a heavy-duty mechanic. The board turned him down flat.

Then, to add insult to injury, they wrote him a letter back saying: "Please disregard our letter of such-and-such date, advising you that you cannot follow your normal occupation. That letter was sent in error, and you are now free to go back operating a power saw." What kind of nonsense is that? That's people's lives they are playing with. He'd terminated his employment. He had seniority with that employer. He'd terminated his seniority. He'd terminated his benefits — and he's getting the double shuffle. He's in a Catch 22 situation. He burned his bridge on one end, on the advice of the board. They won't give him any assistance in retraining, on the other hand. He has nowhere to go. Those kinds of specific cases — and if the minister wishes, I'm prepared to provide him with more details, personally, in his office — and that kind of circumstance are what we are all encountering. That kind of particular problem occupies a great deal of time for MLAs and certainly, I imagine, a lot for the board. But it is that kind of problem that is causing real frustration and real bitterness among many hundreds of workers in the province of British Columbia.

It speaks to me of an administration of that board which has become very inhumane. It speaks to me of an administration which, as a bottom-line administration, is more concerned about the amount of money paid out than trying to put back the lives of people who have been injured during the course of their employment. The whole premise and the whole background of the Workers' Compensation Act is to try to ease the suffering, to try to compensate for the impairment of any physical function created through employment. There is a departure from that kind of sensitive approach. I'm sure the minister must be getting mail on this too. I know when I was minister I received a great deal of mail on it. I would be willing to bet the minister's mail has increased regarding these kinds of claims.

What I'm saying is that while there should be no political control exercised by the minister over the board, I think the minister has every right and obligation to hold that board to account for their style and their philosophy of administration. In the final analysis it's the administrative practices, the administrative decisions — the administrative style of the board, if you will — that affect people's lives. If that style and that psychology are dedicated toward financial cost control, to the detriment of the safety and security and proper rehabilitation of injured workers in the province, then I say that is wrong and the minister should not hide the fact. It is an independent tribunal. If that independent tribunal is not fulfilling its mandate in a sensitive and a humane way, then its members should lose their mandate. A different administration should be appointed. That is the minister's political responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, I want to make this point. Two things disappoint me about the minister, and I hesitate to criticize him because I know his feelings get hurt very easily, and I would never want to hurt the minister's feelings. I would never want to call him arrogant, Mr. Chairman, although I know some people would. But I'm one of those who defends the minister. I say he's not arrogant. He just seems that way at times.

Two things concern me, and I think the minister is dodging a little bit. I asked him a question on Tuesday, June 12, with respect to the appointment of a human rights board of inquiry in the fishing industry, under the chairmanship of Jack Bourne, Q.C., Clarence Alcott, and C. Lynn Smith, of Vancouver. I asked him what the criteria were for the appointment of such boards of inquiry, and since it was of an industrial relations–related kind of dispute, whether or not it was practice to appoint an impartial chairperson, and someone who is representative of, or associated with, labour on the one hand and someone associated with management on the other, so that there can be a fair balance. The minister assured me that was the case, and he said Mr. Bourne, the chairman, was chosen because he is a lawyer of long experience in arbitration matters, who has, in the course of his practice, made it abundantly clear he is completely impartial in the discharge of that responsibility. I accept that. I don't even know Mr. Bourne. But the minister made the point that it is customary. He was determined there would be one person on the board identifiable from management and one identifiable from labour. I want to ask the minister which one was identifiable from labour.

Was it C. Lynn Smith or was it Clarence Alcott, whom I appointed to the Labour Relations Board as a management representative? C. Lynn Smith is associated with management from an industrial relations standpoint. I want to know who is the labour representative. I'd appreciate it if the minister would answer that question. I have to assume it's

[ Page 937 ]

probably Lynn Smith he's talking about. I would like him to explain to me what is her background with the trade union movement of this province. I'd appreciate the minister doing that for the House — either that or reviewing the answer that he gave to me in question period. Perhaps that's acknowledging that it wasn't quite the way he said it was on that occasion.

My last and final point is with respect to two challenges, one to the Human Rights Code related to the case that my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) talked about, and the other is related to a wage-recovery claim by the Labour standards branch of the Ministry of Labour regarding the primacy of wage certificates over mortgage liens and other kinds of liens. I want to know why the minister has not been more forceful in protecting the primacy of the labour law under his ministry. Or does he believe that it went too far? With respect to the human rights case, he is appealing section 8, but he's leaving section 2 of the Human Rights Code to go unchallenged. Now, Mr. Chairman, I can tell him something about the philosophy of the Human Rights Code, and I don't think that's what the Legislature intended. Why is it not his intention — through the legal appeal mechanisms that he has at his disposal — to defend the integrity of the Code that he is sworn to administer? Why has he not challenged the decision — that terrible, terrible, decision — with respect to the granting of supremacy for mortgage liens over unpaid wage certificates? That is something that has really injured the workers of British Columbia, and I find it shocking that the minister hasn't challenged that one.

Finally, if it is not his intention to do so — I certainly can't force him — then I want to ask the minister if, in the absence of that kind of decisive approach, the minister would agree to fund legal assistance for the victims of this kind of discrimination, on the one hand, under the Human Rights Code, and on the other hand, to the worker who has an appropriate claim under the labour standards of this province and who has now been deprived of any effective mechanism for recovery of those wages. Would he consider standing the legal costs, for a trade union for instance, to appeal that decision respecting the labour standards legislation? I'd appreciate some answers from the minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I was interested to hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) deal with two specific cases with respect to workers' compensation and direct his attention, as he did, to the performance of the rehabilitation section of WCB. The problem which he presents is truly one of the administration of the board, and in the two cases which he has mentioned I think there is room to criticize the way in which the board has discharged its administrative responsibilities to those workers. I would compliment the member for doing what, I think, is part of his responsibility — it's a very difficult one — and having found an opportunity for the injured workmen to have made that known and to offer that assistance.

On the question of rehabilitation, the knowledge that is available to rehabilitation workers is one which troubles us, and I would very much appreciate it if the member could provide me with the details of those two cases. I don't think it matters that he identifies the workers, just the circumstances, because, as he probably pointed out, I'm in receipt of letters directly from workers and from other MLAs which indicate similar concerns. We have, as the member knows, the Compensation Advisory Service. It has now been expanded from one officer, when the member was the Minister of Labour, to four. In the last ten days we have been fortunate in recruiting another qualified lawyer who's prepared to undertake this important and burdensome responsibility.

MR. KING: Was that Maria Giardini?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, we recruited another one in just the last ten days.

MR. KING: To work with her?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, there are four in that group.

But with respect to the range of problems that the member touched upon, we are presently contemplating the appointment of a special officer — and I use that term not as one of art — on a contract to undertake the responsibility of doing extensive inquiries and interviews into problems such as the one that the member has raised. Then we can classify the cases which are causing concern to injured workers and in that way assist the board by recommending to them how they should change their administrative procedures to overcome conduct which some workers have spoken of as being callous, insensitive and demeaning. We want to identify once and for all whether that's a problem and to assist the board in taking steps to rectify it.

As I said in response to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), it is the obligation of the board to carry out its statutory responsibilities in a way which provides service to those who are entitled to it, namely to the workers and the employers of the province. I think it is my responsibility — and I accept it fully — to assist them in the full discharge of that obligation.

With respect to human rights cases that were touched upon by the member, and first of all with respect to the Jorgensen case, I was in error in responding to the member's question in the House.

MR. HOWARD: I accept your apology.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I haven't apologized yet, Mr. Chairman, but I do apologize to him. In fact, Ms. Lynn Smith, who was chosen as a member of that panel, was chosen not because of her association with the trade union movement but because she is recognized as a practitioner who has concerns about women's rights. At the time that the board, was appointed, that aspect loomed large in my concern about the matter which was to go under inquiry. Mr. Alcott was chosen because. as a member of the Labour Relations Board, he has shown himself capable of exercising responsible judgment in all matters which have come before him. In the case of Mr. Bourne as the chairman, the member may not know him — I do. He is a well-respected member of the legal profession with a broad experience in a wide range of matters, and therefore could discharge the responsibility of chairman.

The Caldwell case I've already answered. It is my responsibility, based upon the advice that I receive, to uphold the statute. While the member may not believe what the intent of the Code is, and the words, that is a matter

[ Page 938 ]

which is to be determined by tribunals. I think it is quite clear that the decision which has been taken by us in that respect will help to clarify that important matter of concern.

Lastly, the labour standards problem, and the Homeplan mortgage case. That, Mr. Chairman, is another reason why I have not been able to bring the employment standards legislation before this House. One of the most significant aspects of the Code will be the question of payment of wages, and we have been aware for two years that the Homeplan case was developing through the courts of this country. It finally reached the Supreme Court of Canada. That's the end of the road, Mr. Chairman; I can't make any further appeals. We have now from the Supreme Court of Canada the final decision in this country with respect to that matter. When we bring the employment standards legislation before this House, it will accommodate the problems created by the Homeplan case.

However, I would assure the member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that the number of instances in which circumstances such as existed in the Homeplan mortgage case arise to confound the enforcement of the Payment of Wages Act are extremely rare. As the member well knows, the labour standards branch of the ministry each year collects something in excess of $2 million in unpaid wages and benefits for workers and, as the largest collection agency in the province, does an outstanding job for those employees, and will continue to do so. But I think the member, when he sees the legislation, will recognize that we have taken steps to ensure that we have accommodated the Homeplan decision with utmost fairness.

MR. KING: I want to thank the minister for his information, some of which I didn't have. I wasn't aware, for instance, that the case on the unpaid wages had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada; I'm very pleased to hear that. I trust that the minister will be very alert and very quick in dealing with any necessary amendments that might flow from whatever that decision was. I would like to see a copy of that judgment.

Again, I'm not sure whether I heard the minister correctly, but it seemed to me he did indicate that subject to proper judicial appeals, with respect to the Human Rights Code, the government would be prepared to review its position with respect to the adequacy of that Code, in terms of ensuring that discrimination of any kind and in any form will not enter into the workplace or any other institution within British Columbia. That is encouraging. Perhaps that is why he has chosen to deal with the appeal related to one section, and view the necessity for amendment with respect to other sections of the Code which may be obviously deficient. As I indicated earlier, perhaps it's a case of hope springing eternal, but I did find the minister's remarks encouraging.

The minister partially answered the one final question I was going to ask, which was with respect to the collection of unpaid wages by the labour standards branch. Could the minister give me a ballpark figure on the amount of unpaid wages collected in the calendar year 1978? If the Ministry of Labour annual report is out, I apologize; I haven't seen it yet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll get the specific figures. Again, I must say to the Chairman and members of the committee that I apologize for not having the report. It just arrived in my office in manuscript form. It's not yet available for distribution to the members, or else you would have had it. The figure is just in excess of $2 million in unpaid wages, holiday pay, et cetera.

In the fiscal year 1977, it was $2,096,000; in 1978 it was $2,119,000. In each year there were just over 1,000 firms affected, with just in excess of 1,350 employees. The total adjustments were in the $2 million area.

MR. KING: I want to thank the minister for the information. I want to point out to all members of the House that this is really a rather scandalous situation. We hear a great deal of criticism of the trade union movement in British Columbia today from all sections of the community and from a lot of politicians. In order for politicians to have some perspective and some understanding of the dilemma which working people are faced with, I think we should pay very close attention to the annual report of the Ministry of Labour, and note that almost $2.25 million is collected in unpaid wages, where employers had hired people and then skipped without paying their workers.

One doesn't have to have a very vivid imagination to appreciate the circumstances that would obtain in this province without trade unions to protect workers or without the Ministry of Labour to protect workers to some extent, at least in the absence of trade unions. That's an equation that is not very commonly understood or even discussed in the province of British Columbia. I particularly commend it as reading to the backbenchers of this government and to the Chair.

I undertake to transmit to the minister more precise information on the two Workers' Compensation Board cases I referred to. Because he and I have this kind of cooperation going back and forth, I trust that he will be prepared to call me to his office to consult with him in respect to amendments to labour standards legislation when he's ready to go.

MRS. WALLACE: I have an item I want to raise with the minister regarding the Youth Employment Program as it relates to voluntary organizations. There is a particular organization in my constituency, the Community Options Society, which has used that Youth Employment Program. They found it impossible for them to continue using the program, because there is no funding available for supervision or direction of the employees they received. There is only funding for the employees. It makes it very difficult for a volunteer organization to take advantage of this program and to provide jobs for young people. The jobs are certainly there. Without some provision in that particular program for volunteer organizations to have at least part of their supervisory costs covered, it makes it very difficult. In effect, it discriminates against volunteer organizations from participating in that program.

I just wanted to raise that before getting into the major thrust of my remarks today, which I wanted to make similar to those which have been put forward by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke relative to the Workers' Compensation Board, about the kind of problems that I have been experiencing as a result of complaints that have come before me in my duty as a representative for my constituency.

When I was first elected, some four years ago, I had a very good working relationship with the Workers' Compensation Board, and we seemed to be able to resolve the cases

[ Page 939 ]

very readily. But as time has progressed, we seem to be getting into more and more of a confrontation situation where there are all sorts of technicalities and administrative problems involved. It doesn't just relate to rehabilitation, as the minister indicated earlier. Some of the cases that I wanted to talk about related to other areas.

As a result of some of the remarks that one of my constituents brought to me regarding the disability awards officers, I even took it upon myself to write to the Workers' Compensation Board and find out what the job qualifications were for a disability awards officer. I have an answer here from one of the representatives of the Workers' Compensation Board which outlines what the qualifications are and what the functions of that particular job are. I note that the qualifications include a minimum of grade 12 education and three to four years previous related experience. A university degree is preferred, and an equivalent combination of education experience will also be considered. The ability to make decisions and to communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing, is essential. Probably those are worthwhile qualifications, but I'm wondering whether or not they are sufficiently broad.

This particular constituent, who was a faller, was injured in the woods, which made him unable to carry on as a faller. He went over to take tests, or whatever you call them, to find out what sort of job he would be qualified to handle. This man was in constant pain and he was pressured by the particular disability award officer who was handling his case to work up to the point of exhaustion, and then go and take the rest of the day off, and finally was advised to take plenty of painkillers so he would be able to carry on.

Because this man so wanted to be rehabilitated, so wanted to be self-sufficient again, he did this up to the point where they found they couldn't retrain him, but his disability was something like 10 percent, where, actually, he is quite unable to do any physical work for any length of time. I think there is something wrong when that kind of approach is taken by the disability award officer which puts a man in this position where he has the assessment of a 10 percent disability because he forces himself to keep going for short periods of time, takes painkillers, and tries to do the very best he can on the specific tasks that he's assigned by that disability officer.

So I think that the minister certainly should have a good look at that aspect of the Workers' Compensation Board, because that is, I think, reflecting attitudes, as the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has indicated. It reflects an attitude. Any government board reflects the attitude of the government of the day, and that is what is happening with the Workers' Compensation Board, because the government of the day somehow thinks that we have to give as little as possible, and I don't think that is the right attitude.

A person who is injured on the job deserves to be able to continue to live as a decent human being. The traumatic experience of not being able to carry on with the physical kind of work that, say, a logger has done, to have to be on a job where most of the time has to be spent sitting, where he is in constant pain and having to take painkillers....

That's a sufficient punishment for an accident on the job. That is a sufficient handicap for him to have to face, without having to face the handicap of not being able to provide for himself, his wife or his family. Those kinds of awards — a 10 percent disability award, even though it is tied to the cost of living — and the mechanics of trying to get that up so it's somewhere a little better than 10 percent, even though it is not enough for that man to continue to live in decency and to feel an adequate head of that household to provide a fair kind of living for his wife and family....

Another instance that has just recently come to me concerns a chap who had a leg injury. Unfortunately there was very severe arterial damage, which has affected the main arteries of the body. After a great many appeals and a great deal of medical consultation it was agreed that he had to have the main arteries removed from his entire body — a very serious operation. This operation was undertaken, and it was understood that WCB would pick this up. Again, he's on a partial disability, tied only to the broken leg. The other afflictions that he's feeling as a result of this — and the medical evidence indicates that they are the result — are not considered. He has been getting a very small pension. He was supposed to have the cost of his most recent operation picked up by WCB — he's getting his painkillers and other drugs paid for. He decided to appeal because he felt there was sufficient medical evidence that he should have a larger pension. What happened? As soon as that appeal was filed, his files were pulled and sent somewhere else. WCB then refused to pick up his hospital bill; they refused to pick up his drug bill; and we're not at all sure whether or not he's going to get his pension cheque.

Those kinds of administrative problems, Mr. Minister, are not in the best interests of the workers. Surely there has to be some coordination between departments so those kinds of things don't happen. I have many cases; that's not an exception. It seems that whenever an appeal is launched against a given award, everything is stopped until that appeal is finalized. Now surely, if there is an improvement and some of those benefits are going to be withdrawn as a result of an appeal, it's not going to happen prior to the date of that decision — there is no reason to cancel the benefits the employee has been getting. If it's going to be a larger award, as in most instances it is, then there is certainly no reason to cancel those benefits. It seems to be an administrative problem, and it seems to be one that has developed within the last year or six months. I don't know why this has developed, unless it reflects the attitude of government, and the attitude of the Workers' Compensation Board, that we must give as little as possible to those workers. That seems to be the trend.

Another case I have is that of a young chap who injured two of his fingers. He had an operation; they tried to correct the nerve damage; but it was not successful. The end of the finger has not matured, he has no feeling, and in cold weather it is quite painful. The Workers' Compensation Board say they don't pay for cosmetic damage. I don't want to talk too much about that particular instance, because I think we are getting an appeal on that one. But that's a very heartless response to a young man who has lost the feeling in his fingers and is finding it difficult to work.

There is another case, and this one has gone on for a long time. This man has been on a very small benefit, an 11.38 percent disability. He has been unable to work because he has a back injury, and somehow the compensation board came up with the conclusion that he had voluntarily left the workforce. I want to read into the record the most recent letter I've had from this man, and the minister will perhaps understand what I'm talking about when I say that the workers of this province really feel that

[ Page 940 ]

they are not being treated fairly when they are faced with an accident:

"I again appeal to you for help. Since last we talked I have had several setbacks in my life — the greatest being that my wife could take no more, and, seeing no future, she left. She left me and our two girls and now has repatriated herself as an American and is residing in the United States. Upon her leaving I borrowed enough money, sold off most of our furniture and came to Victoria in the hope of seeing some justice done in my case. My appeal has fallen on deaf cars ever since I arrived here. Six years ago I had a job with security, two houses and three lots. Today I have two children and an income consisting of $94 from WCB, $271 from Canada Pension Plan and $145 from Human Resources — a total of $510. My rent is $246, my hydro $30, and I have a car payment of $90, leaving me $144 to feed and clothe my children and myself. I feel I am a victim of a great human tragedy that is going on in this province, one placed here by the WCB."

That's the attitude of this man. This is what's happened to him as a result of a compensable accident, and a small pension award, though that man is not able to continue to earn a living. He has a Canada disability pension, but WCB does not see fit to give him a large enough pension to provide an adequate living for him and his family, to the degree that his wife left him and he now has those two children to support and he's degraded to the point where he has to apply for social assistance in order to support his family. That is not the kind of treatment we should be giving our injured workmen in this province.

Those are cases that have developed over the last couple of years. We didn't have that kind of case when I was first elected. There were very, very few we couldn't resolve. The compensation board seemed to take a much broader point of view.

I think one of the most outstanding examples that came to my attention was where a young man in the interior had an accident in April 1977. He went through doctors, through appeal review boards, always being turned down by the compensation board. Every time he went for an appeal the medical review board granted his appeal. The accident happened on April 5, 1977, and after two appeals he finally, in August 1978 and then in October, as a result of two separate appeals, had his case resolved. So there was a case that went for a year and a half, with no income, always being told by the Workers' Compensation Board he could go back to work. Yet when he kept appealing...and in many instances he had to insist that the Workers' Compensation doctor refer him to a specialist. There was one instance where he went to the compensation doctor and was told he was quite all right to go to work. He insisted on a referral to a specialist with whom he had an appointment. That specialist immediately put him in hospital.

It was only because of the persistence of that worker and the persistence of his union in that particular case that the two medical review boards finally came through with some assistance for that worker and some lost-time payments. But that, I think, exemplifies the kind of thing I'm talking about. There is a change of attitude that the Workers' Compensation Board is not doing a job for the injured workers of this province. I believe it's up to the minister to make sure that the board of management of the Workers' Compensation Board are made fully aware that this government, and that minister, do not want to save dollars at the expense of the injured workers of this province. That's what's happening, and I would ask the minister to assure the House he will take such action.

At one point I went so far as to write to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board to ask him if there had been a change in regulations; there seemed such an about-face in the way cases were being handled. He wrote back and assured me there were no changes. But I can tell you, if there aren't changes in regulations, there are certainly changes in interpretation — and it's affecting the injured workers in this province.

MR. HANSON: I would like to continue along the same lines as the previous two speakers. They were talking about the Workers' Compensation Board, the difficulties with the administration of the present board, and the inequities in the compensation payments.

I would like to broaden that somewhat and say the work environment in British Columbia is hazardous. What the two previous speakers have been talking about are simply just manifestations of the neglect in the broader area of occupational health and safety.

There is more time loss, and the minister knows this, as a result of occupationally induced or occupationally related injuries and accidents than there are in labour, strikes and lockout affairs of this province.

Surely that particular fact should justify more than 70 cents a worker a year out of this minister's budget to make the work environment safe. What I am talking about are preventive illnesses — illnesses and injuries that can be avoided so that the money doesn't have to be spent at the WCB end.

But there are political reasons why they will not make sure employers clean up the work environment. It's a cost on the employers. It cuts into their profits. Occupational disease is silent. It kills in slow motion. We have no registry in this province to identify and list and categorize toxic and dangerous carcinogens. We have no registry at all. We have WCB posters that say: "Don't get in the trench unless it's shored up." "Wear your hardhat." "Don't cut your leg with a chainsaw." We don't have any posters saying: "Do not work in a work environment that has carcinogens in it that are not listed." In British Columbia we have done no research on toxic materials, on carcinogens. There are thousands of people contracting diseases. What we get is 70 cents a worker for preventive medicine. It's lousy. It's cheap. You could do better.

Thousands of different chemicals are coming out every year, and there's no research on them. Of two million known chemicals only 600 have been researched. Hazards in the workplace, heavy metal, minerals and organic chemicals are potentially hazardous contaminates of industrialization. The early Romans recognized that mercury caused poisoning. And 200 years ago cancer was detected in chimney sweeps. But it is only recently, because of the long latency period between exposure and first evidence of clinical disease, that arsenic, asbestos and synthetic chemicals in industry are being identified as cancer-causing agents. Of the 17 chemicals now linked to cancer, 14 of them are in the workplace in British Columbia: arsenic, asbestos, auramine, benzine, benzedrine, cadmium-oxide and sulphate-chromium compounds, hematite-nickel compounds,

[ Page 941 ]

soot and tars and vinyl chloride. The need to protect workers from all chemicals until their hazards are known and guarded is imperative. With all due respect, through you, Mr. Chairman, we are not getting that leadership from the Ministry of Labour.

To the best of my knowledge, a legislative and regulatory morass makes sure that effective enforcement and effective protection are not in the workplace. There are 400 different sets of governmental regulations across Canada, and there are 150 different federal and provincial sets of regulations affecting workers in B.C., with 31 different Acts or agencies in this province alone dealing with the worker's safety in his own work environment. If these figures do not in themselves point out the intolerable situation that exists, it should be further stated that the majority of governmental agencies involved cannot, or will not, enforce the regulations. In fact, they jealously guard their territories or jurisdictions to the detriment of the health and safety of the workers of this province.

There is a move afoot, and representations have been made, to consolidate this legislation and these regulations. But one thing should not be done. There should not be a separation between the regulations on the protection and the enforcement. It should not, for example, be taken into the Ministry of Labour on the regulation side, while the enforcement is left over on the WCB side. Any consolidation must contain the enforcement provisions — and stronger enforcement provisions at that.

I would like to suggest to the minister that if this consolidation is to take place, the province should immediately enter into negotiations with the federal government, invoking section 69(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act, to assume authority for the Workers' Compensation Act, to assume authority for inspection enforcement of all federal jurisdiction in the province of B.C. That should be done now.

Also, I'd like to make another suggestion: that either through your ministry, or through the Ministry of Health, a registry of chemicals in the workplace be made and that these be brought to workers' attention when they assume and perform their duties; that through the Minister of Education, Science and Technology, and his connections with the University of British Columbia, the faculty of chemistry and physics could commence graduate research on some of the chemicals in common use in the workplace in the province, so that people aren't in jeopardy, so that their health is not suffering. We know right now they're going to suffer. We know right now they're going to contract these diseases.

I'd also like to ask the Minister of Labour to check with the Minister of Education regarding the Pacific Vocational Institute. I understand all ceilings in that institute are lined with asbestos. There are not supposed to be any asbestos linings in any educational institutions in this province, if I'm not mistaken. Would he please find that out for me?

I would also like to ask him how the regulations and threshold limits are established for British Columbia. It is my information that a private research group in the United States, whose initials are ACGIH, establishes the threshold limits for all provinces in Canada, with the exception of P.E.I. I'd like to know if that's true. I'd like to know why we are going to that particular body.

I understand that in Ontario $5 million of lottery funds is put into occupational health and safety. Wouldn't that be a better function for $5 million in British Columbia than a few footbridges in Socred-MLA ridings and other kinds of politically motivated grants? I think that's sufficient at the moment, and I would appreciate responses from the minister.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, when the minister rose at the beginning of the day, I very much appreciated his very calm,  dispassionate, almost disinterested approach to explaining the function of the board. He did make some comment about this deficit position, and I think it might be worthwhile, not that's really germane to what the board is doing, to show him — and I'm sure he knows these figures as well as I do — that his reference to being 100 percent wrong is in itself wrong and erroneous. The 1978 report of the board points out — and I have to read it to get this point across:

"As stated in the 1977 statements, it was the objective of the board to fund class balances to be recovered from future assessment over a nine-year period commencing in 1978. And if actual experience during 1978 had matched the assumptions in the assessment-rating process, progress towards this objective would have been achieved."

I read this the other day. It means that the board underestimated its position.

"However, for a variety of reasons class deficiencies increased, the majority of which are outlined below.

The total of that class deficiency increase was $36,408,000. Further on in the financial statements they talk about actuarial liabilities, and this is what we are discussing. A further quotation is:

"For a variety of reasons, previous provisions have proved to be insufficient, and at December 31, 1978, actuarial liabilities exceeded the reserves which had previously been provided by $50, 376,000. This additional requirement has been charged with the classes and credited to the respective funds, resulting in a year-end total for 'class balances to be recovered by future assessments' of $227,000,163."

That's where I got the quarter of a billion dollars deficit position in the funds necessary to be set aside to cover future payments. Sure, as the minister said, they have bond holdings of some $500 million, and the interest earned on those bond holdings is credited to the particular class and subclass from which those funds were obtained in the first place.

If you look further into the report, things like this show up. In Class 1, for instance, they started off the year with a $62 million deficit. Their deficit at the beginning of the year was far in excess of the amount of money that they could possibly earn on the bonds that were held and credited to that particular class, so they end up with a negative-interest position, not a positive one. They don't earn any interest on the money. They start off in that class with a $62 million deficit position and end up at the end of the year at $76 million. That really is beside the main point that we were trying to get across the other day and again today, but it does show, statistically, that what the minister was talking about in terms of my being 100 percent wrong was not an accurate statement on his part and was just designed to kind of fudge up, in a statistical way, what is taking place.

[ Page 942 ]

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and members who have not spoken in this debate can recite individual cases to substantiate the general declaration that there's something wrong with the way the board is functioning. The minister admitted to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke that there was something administratively wrong with respect to some cases that the member related. But if there is case after case after case, as there are, exhibiting administrative incompetency, then surely that must reflect something on the board itself in terms of its policy decisions and in terms of its assessment and its decisions and its ideas as to what it wants to see happen. I don't want to go into detail about specific cases — I have a number of them and I'm sure other hon. members do as well but let me relate one in a kind of a time-frame situation.

A person was injured on May 25, 1978. Three months afterwards, on August 23, he received a decision from the board rejecting his claim. He went to his union as soon as he got the letter, and the union appealed it to the board of review. On November 21, 1978, the board of review held a hearing; the employer, in this instance, elected not to appear at that board of review. Three months later, on February 16, 1979 — nine months after the injury — the board of review ruled unanimously in his favour. The board then sent him a cheque for three months' lost wages. He went back to the board and told them he had been off work for eight months, and asked them why they had only paid him for three months. The board said: "If you don't like our three months' wage-loss compensation, appeal that decision to another board of review." So he's got to go back to another board of review for a further appeal, and it goes on and on like that. Then he got opinions from the board that he wasn't really injured; the employer stepped into the case; and they have finally got an oral hearing established for Tuesday, September 4, 1979. In this situation the employer is now appealing the original unanimous decision of the board of review. Sixteen months later the case is going to be heard. For all of that time he has been off work he has received three months' lost wages and he feels disadvantaged — and justifiably so.

There is a cliche I've heard — almost a cliche at this stage — emanating, I think, from the legal profession, that says: "When justice is delayed, then justice is denied." In this and in other cases that can be related to the minister, justice has been delayed to these people; and it is therefore denied. The full responsibility for that can't be sloughed off by some offhand remark of the minister, such as: "Oh, that is an administrative question; I'm sure we can clear that up." There are dozens upon dozens of administrative questions involved reflecting, I submit, an attitude on the part of the board which does not serve the interests of the workers in this province.

A few days ago I asked the minister in the House about the situation with respect to two skin divers who lost their lives in the course of skin diving for a species of clam called geoduck. The minister denied at that time that there was anything lacking in the responsibility of the board, or that the board had shirked its responsibility. He insisted that was the case later on. The board now, according to an item I saw in the Daily Colonist this morning, has determined that the safety rules developed by the board with respect to undersea divers will now be made applicable to skin divers in this jurisdiction who are diving for geoduck and abalone, both of which need to be dealt with below low tide, and require the activities of a skin diver to obtain the best quality of fish.

Here is a situation in which the board itself had developed safety regulations with respect to skin divers, had not applied them to skin divers employed in those two fisheries — had shirked their responsibility — and they have now turned around, as a result of two fishermen dying, and have said: "All right, now we see that it has happened, we'll make the regulations applicable." Is that not a shirking — initially at least — of a responsibility on the part of the board? As far as I'm concerned, it is. They've hidden behind the spurious question of the constitution and said: "We can't deal with that, because it is federal jurisdiction." That is a lot of rot, a lot of nonsense. The minister knows that probably better than anybody else, because he is a lawyer. Lawyers know these things better than anybody, and I'm sure the minister does. The constitution deals with the seacoast and inland fisheries as being under federal jurisdiction. The minister knows too that there was a decision made — I think it was in the Privy Council; it was some years back — that did not extend to the proprietary interest or ownership of the fish itself, nor fish canning and processing, because the proprietary interest of the owner of the fish at that time came under provincial jurisdiction. The moment a fisherman out on the fishing grounds catches a fish, he is involved in the proprietary ownership of that fish, and I think he comes under provincial jurisdiction.

At one time the board was examining the development of safety inspection regulations for fishing vessels, a process and an activity which was abandoned and suspended by the board in 1976, because, as I understand it, the board said the federal Ministry of Transport was going to get into this field of fishing vessel inspections and regulations. Therefore they said: "We, as the Workers' Compensation Board here in the province, don't want to have anything to do with it." They backed off and moved away from the original thing that they were trying to do. The federal Ministry of Transport has not developed any inspection regulations, Mr. Chairman, for any fishing vessels under 15 tons, and that means that fishermen involved in smaller boats are at the complete mercy of the employer or whoever it might be, whether they are individual entrepreneurs or whatever. There are no safety inspections, no protection for lives, no requirements to be met to preserve the lives of those people, none whatsoever. So long as that continues, I think the minister has got to accept the responsibility for the injuries that happen to those people and for the deaths in that particular industry. He could do something about it and the Workers' Compensation Board could do something about it if it just had the guts, as it's called, or the intestinal fortitude or the interest or the concern about the safety of people in the fishing industry to get out there.

The minister may be in doubt about the constitutional requirement. The question of what are fisheries — be they seacoast or inland — under that section 91 of the BNA Act has never been determined by the courts. I submit that this jurisdiction about fisheries does not extend to the people employed in the fishing industry. It is a separate matter. But if there is any difference about it, why doesn't the minister or the government move under the provisions of the Constitutional Questions Determination Act and make a

[ Page 943 ]

reference to the supreme court? It's a very simple process. You just go to the court and you pose some questions to them. It's happened before. Say, "This is the question we want to have answered," and see where one stands in that regard.

The minister's colleague, the Minister of Environment, a few days ago spoke proudly of the fact that he had a tremendous rapport and relationship with the new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Hon. Jim McGrath, and that the federal minister not only would cooperate but would ask the advice of the provincial government in the area under his jurisdiction. This is a wide-open opportunity to do something in this particular field.

Let me touch on one other subject here if I can. In 1942 we had a royal commission, headed by the late chief justice Gordon Sloan, which dealt with the work of the Workers' Compensation Board. We had another in 1952, and during that time I had the privilege and honour to be able to sit in and listen to a number of the hearings that the late chief justice held with respect to the Compensation Act. We had another royal commission in 1964, some 15 years ago.

It seems to me that with the developments over the last 15 years, particularly in the last three or four years as indicated by statements of members in the House of individual cases that they have to deal with, of the trade union movement and the multitude of appeal cases that it has with the board, of individuals who are clergymen in downtown Vancouver working with people who have to appeal on their part before the board, that there is something drastically wrong. It's either in the attitude of the board to its responsibilities under the statute and to the philosophy of the statute or something seriously wrong in the administration, or both.

Let me cite this to you, Mr. Minister. The adjudicators in the board structure are the people who make the first decisions and the first assessment of the claim. They make some determination about it. When adjudicators write, as they have done on particular claims, "East Indian syndrome," then there is something very seriously wrong. They heard the message from up above in that board structure which said: "Oh, don't use that phrase. That's a terrible phrase to use. That indicates a prejudice." They discontinued using it, and now they just put the initials in, EIS. It says the same thing.

When adjudicators working for the board have a position with respect to a particular race of people, then their decision is clouded. Their decision is liable to be biased. They automatically respond to the person coming forward with that particular claim on the basis of his racial inheritance, and that is wrong. That's disgusting, but it has happened. When those things permeate through the whole board, and when you find people spending months and months going through an appeal process, as shown in the cases that have been related here this afternoon, you cannot slough that off with saying that's just administration. It requires a much more serious examination and a much more open and public examination. To me, the only way that can be done is through a royal commission. It's happened before. It's been necessary before to bring the Act up to date, to renovate the Act, to modernize the Act and to examine the processes and the procedures with respect to it. It's time again to do that once more.

There's no point, in a total sense, served by having an annual few hours' debate in this Legislature during which MLAs have a multitude and a dozen other problems to deal with. There's no point having a debate in which is said: "That's the time of year you relate things with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board." That's not good enough. We make the speeches and we lay the cases out. Sure, we're able to go back to the people who have been in touch with us and say: "Well, I raised it on the floor of the Legislature. I told the minister about it. I explained this situation." Nothing. Next year we come back and do the same thing. To keep that up is an exercise in futility. A one-year examination, in a public way, is simply not good enough, especially in light of the weight of evidence presented here, which indicates.... It can be substantiated and supported by nearly every trade union in the province, by a number of social workers whom I know, by ministers of the cloth in the downtown Eastside in Vancouver, who deal with individuals on an appeal basis and who help them out and try to steer them through the labyrinth and swamp within the Workers' Compensation Board. It's not good enough just to be able to do that.

The minister will go down in glory if he would make one commitment to the House today, even if he only says he'll seriously consider — we don't want him to make these judgments off the top of his head — the appointment of a royal commission to examine the workings and functions of the Workers' Compensation Board. By that one statement, he will do much to please hundreds and hundreds of workers in this province who have been disadvantaged in the last few years by the very board for which he is responsible in this House in giving an answer. If the minister will do that, I'm sure his estimates will pass in a wink of an eye, and we'll all adore him — for a very short period of time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've had a number of interested comments from some members, and I should catch up. Because it's fresh in my mind, perhaps I could start with the matter addressed to me by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I won't go into the financial aspects of his comments. Let me say, however, that there is nothing drastically wrong with the Workers' Compensation Board. I urge the member to be cautious in the use of such phrases, because it tends to discredit the very valuable work being done by a lot of very dedicated people in the Workers' Compensation Board to the benefit of workers throughout this province. This is not to say that there are not improvements that can be made and must be made. Let me point out that in 1978 the Workers' Compensation Board handled more than 161,000 new injury cases.

The records of the WCB in this province indicate that 98 percent of all claims made against the WCB are allowed. Only 2 percent of the total are disallowed in the first instance. From there they move to the boards of review. The experience of the boards of review is that approximately 40 percent of the cases which go before the boards of review are resolved in favour of the claimant. Therefore the number of cases, the ones which the members are most likely to hear about, fall within that very narrow percentage which don't fit within the system. The Workers' Compensation Board is predicated upon regulatory concepts. As a result, there are guidelines to be followed and standards to be met before the claim can be accepted and paid. Some people don't fall inside those limits, and that may be unfortunate. But consider the alternative; to do away with

[ Page 944 ]

the Workers' Compensation Board and send those 161,000 cases to be decided in the courts of this province by actions initiated by the workers against the employers. I suggest to you that the consequences for the workers of the province and for the employers would be many thousands of times worse than any situation which the member has described.

The member raised a subject which I hesitate to speak about, because in so doing it may lend credence to the rumours he's been hearing: the notation on files of matters which are completely unacceptable in any standard — ethnic slurs. I don't know where the member got his information. I heard the same rumours last Friday. I have spent the morning checking with officials of the ministry who deal on a regular basis with the files of WCB. I am advised that they have never seen such a notation on any file that has come across their desks. They deal with the files of people who have the most difficulty with Workers' Compensation Board, the cases that are turned down. If the member has evidence of such practices, then I ask him to let me have it. It will be referred directly to the chairman of WCB, and it will be stopped.

However, in the course of these investigations this morning, I did find that some private physicians have written to WCB on behalf of their patients, making reports with respect to the conditions of those patients, which raised doubts as to their sincerity. Having told the patient one thing, they tell WCB something else. That may be where the rumour starts. But as I say, if the member has any information with respect to such practices, I would like to have it.

Now on the matter of the geoduck divers, the member has opened the matter, and this touches upon matters raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) as well — divided jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial government. In 1976 I was aware that, aside altogether from what might be the best interests of the people in the fishing industry and the fishermen of this province, there was a constitutional problem. It's all very well to suggest that we should ignore the constitutional problem, but that only leads to challenges in the future. We attempted, in negotiations with the federal government, to get them to accept the regulations of the Workers' Compensation Board in the fishing industry, and subsequently to continue the arrangement that existed with respect to the operation of the longshoremen in this province, whereby WCB had been accepted for years as discharging a regulatory and inspectional function, only to find that the federal government was beginning to exert what it considered to be its sole jurisdictional responsibility, both with regard to fisheries and with regard to our ports. As a result of those actions by the federal government, legal proceedings have been started for the purposes of determining once and for all where the jurisdiction of WCB begins and ends, and where that of the federal government commences.

I must say that as a result of continuing efforts by the board and by officials of the ministry, it now appears that there has been a reversal of the position taken by the federal government. In occupational environments we had working arrangements with the federal government, including funding, which was stopped. That has now recommenced. We have the same with pressure-vessel inspections; we have recommenced the successful cooperative operations that we have enjoyed in the past with the federal government. Now it appears that the way is opening for the Workers' Compensation Board to establish and enforce regulations covering both the fishing industry and the ports. This, we think, is a very positive sign.

It's all very well to take the time to fight lawsuits about constitutional issues, but I hold the view, as do officials of this ministry, that in matters of such importance to the people of British Columbia as occupational health and safety, and workers' safety on the job, it ill behooves two levels of government to be arguing about legalities when we can work out comprehensive and cooperative arrangements which will ensure that there are fair and adequate working conditions and proper enforcement of regulations.

WCB is on the spot in this province, and can do it and is willing to do it. We will work out with the federal government the way in which we can accomplish this end without imposing upon the employers a double set of regulations and a double standard. This is our objective, and I look forward very shortly to seeing it resolved.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) raised interesting matters concerning occupational environment. One of them was how certain threshold limits are established. Yes, the organization to which he refers is utilized, but only in the establishment of international standards. Those standards are themselves subject to adjustment by various organizations and by various provinces. Some provinces set higher standards, some set less stringent standards than others. The province of British Columbia supports the Canadian centre concept, and we trust that active support of that centre will enable us in this nation to achieve a uniformity of thresholds, a uniformity of regulatory approaches, to the very serious problems that the member raises.

He spoke of the number of regulatory enactments that we have in this country dealing with hazardous substances, their production, their storage, their transportation and their use. I agree with him that it ill behooves any province or the federal government to ignore the lessons which scientific advances present for us each day, and to ignore the serious consequences that careless use of new substances can produce for the people who are closely associated with their use in the working environment. But their established status, province by province, in a nation such as ours, where there is ease of transportation of goods, where the use of goods in one jurisdiction with one set of regulations could be permitted but disallowed in another, can cause serious consequences for all of us. Therefore the standardization of regulations of this kind is a direction in which we must all work. The Canadian centre has intended to achieve that, as well as other objectives, and I think it's one which should enjoy the wholehearted support of everyone in this House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked, first of all, about the Youth Employment Program. We do make allowances providing assistance for supervisory costs to non-profit organizations if we're made aware of them at the time that the application for employment is made. There are limits, and I'd be pleased if the member would give me details of the case that she referred to in her opening remarks. We don't generally pay the cost of all supervisors in order to ensure that employees can be taken

[ Page 945 ]

on the job, but we do have in our regulations the ability to assist with supervisory costs when additional employees are taken on. The Youth Employment Program 1979 is an improvement over what we had in 1978, and that over 1977, and that over 1976. It's a dynamic program, and we want to see that it continues to improve, and to benefit those young people who enjoy the training and opportunity prior to taking a permanent place in the workforce. It is through cases such as the one the member raised that we are able to make adjustments. And if this is a problem, I'd like to know about it so that we can have it examined when we review this program — the review will start in about five weeks.

Workers' compensation. The member raised a number of specific instances. One problem about workers' compensation and the cases that are brought to my attention is that each one depends upon separate circumstances, and, without having the opportunity to examine the file, it's impossible to know precisely why there has been one result in one case and a different one, apparently, in another, and what the reasons were behind the decisions made.

Freedom of information is a subject which is of concern in many areas, and it certainly is in workers' compensation. Nonetheless, files are not readily available to claimants, for very good reasons: the free expression of medical opinion is absolutely essential for the proper functioning of workers' compensation, and all of the experience seems to indicate that if the files are open to examination, that freedom might not be recognized. I think it's unfortunate that's the answer that has to be given, but it is. However, the compensation advisory service of the Ministry of Labour — and these are government employees, not employees of WCB — does have access to files, and does use them when they represent claimants before boards of review. I'm satisfied that if any member has a particular case that has given him concern, he need only call the compensation advisory service and an opportunity will be made available to him to have a clear understanding of the precise basis upon which any decision has been rendered. If that is not satisfactory, then there are rights of appeal.

One of the problems we have with workers' compensation is that the system which has been adopted since the outset is that no file in workers' compensation is ever closed. We have two ways to go. You can have a closed system whereby, having had your decision, you go to appeal, perhaps to a second appeal, and that one is final, binding, and there is no more. The other way is that a file is never closed, and each decision brings in turn its own right of appeal. That's the system we have in British Columbia. Quite frankly, of the two, I think the one which we have here serves best because, with changing policies in the board and changing benefit levels, we are finding that cases which appear to be closed some years ago unsatisfactorily so far as the claimant was concerned are now being opened and being reviewed. And I think that in light of changing circumstances and changing knowledge about the causes of industrial disease, we would like to preserve the flexibility, even though it will significantly multiply the administrative tasks which are associated with the operations of the board.

MS. BROWN: I would like to say that statistics notwithstanding, I certainly cannot share the minister's opinion that the Workers' Compensation Board is working on behalf of the working people of British Columbia. If the cases that come across our desk and that are brought to our attention constitute a mere 2 percent of the cases that go before Workers' Compensation Board and are the ones that are disallowed, I would hate to see the ones that are allowed. The decisions made by Workers' Compensation, certainly in the cases that we see, are quite inhumane. All of us could add to the long stories of various colleagues on this side of the floor in terms of the inhumane decisions made by Workers' Compensation on a number of points.

However, that's not the issue that I would like to deal with today. My colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), touched on the issue of occupational health and the fact that there is just not sufficient testing available in terms of the dangerous chemicals and compounds which are being used in industry today. This results in the workers of British Columbia really, being used as guinea pigs.

I think that women have a special kind of concern. We're in a Catch-22 situation as a result of this. Not only are women exposed to the hazards, the chemicals and all of these other untested compounds which are being used in industry, but we're also being discriminated against because industry has decided that we have special kinds of biological functions that are more open to impairment by some of these. There is impairment to urinary and sexual functions from radiation, for example, and impairment to pregnant women and to their fetuses as a result of either exposure to these chemicals and compounds or even exposure to noise.

The result of this is that companies like General Motors of Canada prohibit the hiring of women of child-bearing years in its battery plant, for example. The reason they give for this is that they think that the lead oxide emissions in the plant could conceivably hurt the unborn child. Yet such research as there is shows that they will hurt both the male and the female reproductive system. In fact, what should be done is something about cleaning up the emissions in the plant, rather than simply claim that no women of child-bearing age should be hired. I would certainly like to support the second member for Victoria's plea that the minister look much more clearly at this whole area of health and occupational hazards.

The B.C. Federation of Labour prepared an occupational and safety legislation report for the minister, which was presented to him in May of 1978. I think at that time they did not get an opportunity to meet with the minister. Although it has been his practice to meet with this particular committee, this is not happening any more. Is this correct? I don't know. What I've been told is that the minister is no longer meeting with the occupational health and safety committee of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

In any event, there was a report prepared for the minister in May, and the report, which was prepared by the compensation and safety committee for their convention, has in it a number of pieces of information which would be of great interest. I'm sure, to the minister. If he doesn't have a copy of it. I would certainly like to share mine with him.

A number of recommendations were made at that time in this report. One of the recommendations was that the premises of industry need an ongoing investigation. It's not sufficient just for it to be done in a spot way or from time to time. It has to be consistent, and it has to be ongoing. In fact, the government could take the lead in demanding a healthier workplace for all people. Because if this happens,

[ Page 946 ]

then certainly no company like General Motors could decide to discriminate against women in hiring practices and use the specious argument that they are doing it on behalf of the health of these women. It is incredible that you wipe out one form of discrimination and another form of discrimination raises its head. I know that the minister does support the concept of equal access to the workforce, and that women should have a right to any of the jobs that they are capable of doing.

The fact that occupational and health standards are now being used as an excuse to keep women out of certain jobs should be of concern to the minister. I'm sure that he will look into this matter at once. Certainly those areas that have to do with radiation and the impairment to the sexual functions, to the unborn fetus and noise exposure risks these kinds of things, the general health hazards in these areas — have to be of particular interest to the minister, not just on behalf of women, because, of course, they affect both male and female workers. But in any event, if this were the case, that would be one excuse that would be removed from the employers, certainly in terms of their hiring practices.

The other issue that I wanted to raise with the minister is this whole business of unemployment. Mr. Chairman, I notice that the last report that came out said: "Men and women share the burden of unemployment almost equally between the ages of 20 to 24, but beyond this age group women are hit much harder." It says once you hit the 25 to 34 age group, the gap in unemployment between men and women becomes quite noticeable. For men it starts to drop, but for women the jobless rate continues to increase. As we are finding at the same time that we are running into more and more single-parent families where women are the sole support of their families and they have to work, as we're finding at the same time that everyone is living longer, including women, and that a number of women are finding that they have to re-enter the labour force in their 50s, and even in some instances until they're 65 and can qualify for some kind of pension.... With the general unemployment, a number of women, even where there are two parents involved in the family, are finding that they have to work, either because unemployment has hit the male or because one salary is just not sufficient to deal with inflation. It is unfortunate that the unemployment rate among women seems to be on the increase at this time. It's not just the national figures. I notice that in British Columbia, for example, the last report that we have showed that although the male unemployment rate remained virtually unchanged, the female unemployment rate has experienced a real worsening, "rising to 10.2 percent from 9.8 percent of last month, and 9.3 percent of last year."

Now this coincided, of course, with the decision made by the federal government that women were no longer a target area for assistance. I have here before me a letter dealing with a memo which was sent out by the previous Minister of Employment and Immigration, in which he said: "Projects which have been developed to serve women are no longer included as target groups under the current policy guidelines." This brings me to my question. In terms of apprenticeship programs and job training and these kinds of things, what kind of efforts will the provincial government be making at this time to address the worsening problem of unemployment among the women of British Columbia?

Now I understand that the Ministry of Labour is doing some kind of internal study on the Women's Bureau, which has been so dormant it's hard for us to remember that it even exists. But I'm wondering whether this study which is being done in the Women's Bureau.... Is the minister even aware that such a thing is going on? Is it an attempt on the ministry's part to address itself to the whole issue of the worsening problem of unemployment among the female labour force? If so, when is the study going to be completed, and would the minister be willing to release it so that the public could have some kind of understanding? Are we going to see a rebirth of the Women's Bureau, a reawakening, a rejuvenation, or whatever the word is? If it's going to at last come alive and do something, there will be great rejoicing in the land. Once the study's completed, I hope the minister would be willing to share it with the rest of us.

The final thing that I wanted to touch on is the issue of domestics. You know, a number of years ago I introduced a private member's bill on the floor of the House about the fact that domestics and farmworkers were not really protected by the Labour Code in British Columbia. As a result, the exploitation of these two particular areas of the workforce was being allowed to proceed unchecked. My colleague from Comox earlier raised the issue of the farmworkers.

Domestics are in an incredibly vulnerable situation. They have no rights at all, really, under the law. No one lays down any kinds of rules about the number of hours that they can work, or should work. The domestics find themselves in a situation where they're working from sunup, in some instances, until long after the sun goes down. They're not even really covered by the minimum wage law because it's easy to get around that in many instances where the domestic lives in. What the person is told is: "You are being paid the minimum wage, but out of this has been deducted your room and board. Therefore this is the salary you get." In many instances they can end up working five, six, seven days a week and their salary turns out to be just a token gesture, not a living wage whatsoever. Yet there is no proof that they are not getting the minimum wage, because the person who is employing them can place any kind of financial level in terms of their perception of what the room and board is that the person is getting in exchange.

There is no protection in terms of holiday pay. There is no protection in terms of their even having a holiday. There are instances being brought to my attention of domestics who just never get any time off, because they're needed. There are small children involved and the parents decide that they need the time off, so they have to be around for that. A number of these women, of course — and for the most part they are women; there may be one or two men involved but I haven't heard from any of those — actually came into this country to be domestics. They were brought into the country as domestics, with a commitment to work for a certain person, and virtually remain enslaved to that employer, because what they are told by the employer is: "If you are not satisfied with this job, it is very easy for me to tell immigration that you are not satisfied with me, and I am not satisfied with you. So maybe it would be a good idea to return you to your country of origin." As a result of this sort of intimidation, a number of these women remain in this enslaved situation and have no kind of recourse.

[ Page 947 ]

I am raising this issue again with the Minister of Labour to find out whether his department is seriously looking at the plight of the domestic worker — not just the immigrant domestic worker, but the domestic worker for whom Canada is home as well — in terms of protecting their rights, payment of wages and working conditions. I hesitate to ask that they be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board after all the things we've been saying about it, but in any event they really should be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. There are only two groups that I'm aware of at this time who are really not covered by the Workers' Compensation Board, and that is domestics and farmworkers, and, I think, actors and actresses.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: And MLAs.

MS. BROWN: Sorry, and politicians. But other than that I think just about everyone else who does a hard day's work for a hard day's pay gets covered by the Workers' Compensation Board.

I would appreciate it if the minister would talk a little bit about the whole business of women and the labour force and what his department is doing in that regard at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The question of domestics has been examined in a manner similar to that of farmworkers, but not as extensively. There isn't the opportunity to look into that situation, and if the member has case histories we'd be grateful to have them.

Domestic employees will be included under the Employment Standards Code. We don't think we will have the problems of enforcement that we might have with farm labourers, but we are not sure. However, it can start from there. At least when the labour standards branch is available to these domestics who do have a problem, and who do wish to consult and find out what their rights are, they'll be able to go to the labour standards branch on a confidential basis and find out about it, and then our investigators will be able to go and on their behalf determine just what is going on in their workplace situation.

The aspect that you dealt with about people who get new immigrants to come to this country and to undertake employment and then threaten them with the law, as they say it is, is one which disturbs us with regard to farm labourers as well. One of the incidental things we learned during the inquiry which is going on is that when our inspectors show up at one of these sites suddenly everybody disappears. We are led to believe but can never prove that they are told that when some official comes around, they may be in trouble with their immigration status. That is most unfortunate and only tends to make our task more difficult, but we will push on anyway. Certainly as far as domestics are concerned, I see them as coming within the employment standards with regard to wages, holiday pay, holidays, and the way in which they're paid in relationship to board, room and actual wages. That is already administered by the branch and we will see that is extended to domestics.

With regard to women in the workplace and what we're doing about it, may I just advise the member that it is difficult and sometimes dangerous to rely upon the unemployment statistics in percentage rates, because, as the member knows, from time to time those percentages are based upon the number of persons who are offering themselves for employment, and that can vary. It is always startling to me to find that in one month there will be already-working people offering themselves for employment, and therefore part of the labour force will fall among the unemployment statistics in the calculation, and the next month they're not there. And you say, "Well, where did they go?" or "They weren't there last month, but they're there this month — where did they come from?" Therefore, while the statistical figures indicate shifting trends, they don't help us very much.

What the member may find to be important, however, is that in 1977, of the increased number of jobs in the province, 63 percent went to men. In 1978, however, three times as many women entered employment as did men — 34,000 women were successful in gaining employment in 1978 against 12,000 men. That in itself is a factor in the number of people who offer themselves, but there is lots to be done.

A year ago in the course of my estimates we discussed the work that was being done with regard to apprenticeship, and I think the member.... I hope she has seen the apprenticeship film which is now available which features the women of the province. The Human Rights Commission is funding a study by Ms. Braid, from SFU, about women in non-traditional jobs. She's also being funded by the Ministry of Labour. I am advised by the research branch of the ministry that her particular thesis and her analysis technique is one which will be valuable to us and will help us to expand programs which not only encourage women to go into non-traditional occupations, but will also encourage employers to open up non-traditional occupations to women. As the member well knows, heretofore women have found a relatively narrow scope in job opportunities. This in itself is, I think, a major factor in the difficulty that women have in finding employment.

As the member pointed out, among single-parent families, most of the single parents are women. It's a biological accident, I suppose, that the child tends to stay with his or her mother, and then the woman has to go to work. We are addressing ourselves to these areas in the hopes that we can, in extending opportunities, expand the number of jobs that will be available for women.

The Equal Opportunities Program of the Public Service Commission is also one which is attracting our attention, and with the Human Rights Commission we are working with the Public Service Commission to do what we can to ensure that there are greater opportunities for women in jobs which have seemingly heretofore been closed to women. I think we now have one deputy minister position occupied by a woman, and we want to see that expanded. I'm trying to get one of my assistant deputy ministers to retire early so that we can fill that position with someone else.

Lastly, may I say that with regard to the occupational safety committee brief for the B.C. Federation of Labour, the brief was sent to me early this spring. My records show that we communicated with their office three times during the month of March. Messages were left but there was never any response. There's been no reluctance on my part to meet with them, but since March there have been a number of other activities which have attracted our attention. I'm sure that before the year is out I will again have the opportunity of meeting with that committee of the Fed, which has some very good ideas.

[ Page 948 ]

MS. BROWN: I raised a question about the study being done in the Women's Bureau, and I think the minister forgot to respond to that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't forget. I'll answer it in a minute.

MR. HANSON: I also have a question regarding the Pacific Vocational Institute. The information I have is that the lining of the building is of asbestos, and that is not allowed in an educational institute. Would he please advise me of that?

MR. PASSARELL: I'd like to talk about a subject that's been negated today, and that's land claims. Some of the comments that have been made by the minister over the years have alienated the natives of this province to the minister. Two of these are the statements made in 1975 to the Nishgas, and the second statement was the meeting that the minister had with Mr. Judd Buchanan. I'd like to know what the reasons are for the denial of land claims. At the present time the federal government is initiating developments towards this, and what is the minister going to do concerning land claims and aboriginal rights in this province?

Under the circumstances, I know that it's very difficult for the provincial government to settle the land claims. But the minister could initiate the getting together of the federal government, the natives and the provincial government in a trilateral negotiation. He could be the catalyst in this situation of getting the three groups together to start to work on this.

Another comment that disturbs me was made by another minister concerning native people who were moving to the lower mainland and who were told to go back to where they belong. Why do some of the native people who come to the mainland have to be told by the United Native Nations, as on July 24, 1979: "The UNN estimates that unemployment is still running at about 70 to 75 percent on most reserves, with unemployment being much higher in the northern part of the province"? The UNN further states that in the Dawson Creek–Chetwynd area, unemployment among reserve natives is as high as 90 percent.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I wonder if the minister has received this booklet from the United Native Nations that came out a few weeks ago. I'd like to read a few quotes from it. This is from a chief of the Nishga:

"What we don't like about the government is their saying this: 'We'll give you this much land.' How can they give it to us when it's our own? We cannot understand it. They have never bought it from us or from our forefathers. They have never fought or conquered our people and taken that land away. Yet they say now that they'll still give us so much land, that being our own land."

That was in 1887.

The plight of the native people cannot be further ignored. As I said before, I would like to see the minister get into trilateral negotiations with the native people of this province.

There's a young gentleman named Stan Daniels who writes something further about the plight he is facing:

"The question of my identity is hard for me to understand, on one hand, when I consider myself an Indian. I say this. The Indian says: 'Who do you think you are! You're nothing but a white man.' When I consider myself a white man, or talk or act like one, the white man says to me: 'Who in Hades do you think you are! You're nothing but a darn Indian.' I am caught in a vacuum of two cultures, with neither one fully accepting me."

I'd like to know what the minister is going to do specifically about the native people in this province. I notice that under vote 153 there is a section put aside for the provincial native Indian programs, working out to approximately $61,000. Taking into account the number of natives in the province, this works out to 77 cents per native. This is deplorable.

By hiding behind the cloak of the federal government, it appears that this minister and the Social Credit government will ignore the heritage of the native people who are seeking land claims and aboriginal rights.

We as the immigrants to this country and province have pushed the first citizens aside.

I have two final questions. What are you going to do? What are you going to do concerning the statements you made to the Nishgas four years ago?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To answer the last question first, I propose, and this government proposes, to fulfil the commitment — if it was a commitment, as described by the member — made to the Nishgas four years ago. But in so saying, may I also ask the member, since he comes from that part of the province and represents most of the Nishga people, that he consider very carefully what was said to the Nishga people in January 1976. At no time did the government of British Columbia indicate that we would negotiate with the Nishga tribe or with the government of Canada on the question of aboriginal rights or land claims. We said at that time, and have repeated it on many occasions since, that we would sit down with the federal government and with the Nishgas and discuss the land claims problem as they saw it. This was done over a succession of meetings, and at the conclusion of those discussions the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada placed clearly before the Nishga people their respective positions with the way discussions should continue in the future.

It was also agreed at the time of those meetings with the government of Canada that if there were other general land claims, such claims would be filed by other native groups with the federal government, not with the government of this province. In spite of the comments of some provincial and some federal politicians to the contrary — federal and provincial politicians who know better — we have fulfilled our responsibility in this respect.

We have proposed to the Nishga people, as we have to other Indian groups in this province, that we sit down and discuss the way this government may assist them in those areas of concern they share with other people in this province. It may not satisfy the Indian politicians or those politicians who seek the Indian vote. But the fact of the matter is that the Indian people in this province have the same concerns as the rest of us: adequate housing, proper

[ Page 949 ]

educational facilities for their children, proper recreational facilities in their own communities, the opportunity for employment and for economic advance. In spite of what some of their politicians may say to the contrary, that's what the rank and file Indian people in British Columbia want.

It is unfortunate that we have in the province of British Columbia today, as we have seen for the past number of years, competition between Indian leaders for the benefits that can flow from federal funding to the glory of those Indian organizations. Not any of it goes to the benefit of the Indian people in this province.

So far as land claims and aboriginal rights are concerned, the Nishga people and the Indian leaders throughout this province know precisely what the position of this government is. If aboriginal rights ever existed — if they did, and there are serious questions about that — they were eliminated during the time that British Columbia was a colony, and if not then, at the time when British Columbia became a province and a member of Confederation. The responsibility for dealing with that aspect of any continuing aboriginal rights in the position of the province of British Columbia rests with the federal government. Our responsibility as a provincial government is to the Indian people who reside in British Columbia as citizens of this province, the same as it is to any other resident in this province. We make no distinction between status and non-status Indians. We make no distinction between the Indian people and the rest of the citizens of British Columbia, so far as services from this government is concerned.

If you attempt, in the records of this province whether it be in health, human resources, or whatever — to identify the services to native people, you will find you can't do it. You can't do it, because we don't keep records on that basis. I trust the day will never come when we do.

The member criticizes the size of the budget made available to me in the discharge of my responsibilities. May I remind the member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it never was the decision of this government, nor of the previous government, to establish a department or ministry of Indian affairs. We do not intend to duplicate the tragic error made by the federal government in this respect. Instead, it is my responsibility and that of the officials who work with me to ensure that all the services of this government are made fully available to the Indian people in this province. If they encounter difficulty in having those services delivered to them, then they can use the services of my ministry to overcome those difficulties.

We fully recognize that among some Indian people their relationships with government and government organizations are difficult. We're there to provide help. That's what we're there for. But we are not there as a ministry or department of Indian affairs, to treat the Indian people in a special way, different from the rest of the citizens of this province. We recognize the contribution that they have made to British Columbia; we recognize our responsibility to ensure that their culture and their language is preserved — and in that respect they can count upon the support of this government; we recognize as well that over 100 years of unfortunate practices on the part of government have been to their disadvantage and that they may require some special assistance in order to take full advantage of citizenship in this province — and we're prepared to help them there as well. Other than that, they share in all the services of every ministry of this government, without distinction. And so it should be.

Unemployment is a serious problem amongst residents of the Indian reserves, and when we meet with Indian groups, with reserve groups, with Indian bands — not with Indian political organizations — we attempt to encourage them to use the facilities of government and to develop employment opportunities that those reserves produce for them. And we have been successful. A considerable amount of money has been made available by the people of the province of British Columbia — including the native people, because they're taxpayers too — to some worthwhile Indian enterprises. They deserve our continuing support and will get our continuing support. We hope that in that way we can overcome the unemployment problem that affects native people in their own communities without having to encourage them to leave those communities, and the culture and the life that is theirs, in order to seek employment in this province. It's a long, slow, difficult process, but that shouldn't hinder us from continuing it and making sure that it is successful.

The member was good enough to quote a Nishga tribal chieftain back in 1887. I would just like to say that the quotation comes from the time when the reserve system was in full flower in this nation. The reserve system, I trust the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) will recognize, was the first attempt at land settlement, and it failed. And I say — through you, Mr. Chairman — to the members of this committee that we should not repeat that dastardly mistake and try another land settlement the same way. If we don't learn from that historic blunder, then the natives will continue to suffer as they have in the past.

MR. HANSON: That was a quiet but impassioned speech by the minister, Mr. Chairman. but I would like to clarify and point out a number of the facts of the case.

The case is that the figures of 70 percent unemployment on most reserves and up to 90 percent on others that my colleague from Atlin listed in this House are true. The female and male native Indian population within correctional institutions is ten times what it is for non-Indians. The mortality rate among live births is three and a half times what it is for the non-Indian community — 49.9 per 1,000 as opposed to 14.9 per 1,000. So. In the jail population, in the mortality rate among Indian children, in the number of people who achieve grade 12 education, in the number of people who are unemployed, in the number of people whose mean age of death is around 32 years.... How can you say in this House, with a straight face, that the Indian people get the same benefit as non-Indians? That's absolutely crazy.

I debated whether I would stand and say anything in this House. But, having been an anthropologist working for the provincial government, and having visited and worked with band councils on reserves, and having some modicum of understanding of what their situation is — and I realize the legal entanglements — I have to say that the delivery of service is not there. The representatives of the province and the people sitting across from me.... It is up to you to do something about it. You're elected.

MR. BRUMMET: Why didn't you solve it in 1972-75?

MR. HANSON: You know, I'm never amazed at the comments I get from the member for North Peace River. Maybe it's the natural gas fumes that got into his brain.

[ Page 950 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if the members would address the Chair, we could avoid these interruptions. Please continue.

MR. HANSON: He's pleased with himself. He thinks that's amusing.

But I'm saying to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the facts speak for themselves. I'm not trying to make any cheap political points on this. I think it's about time that positive steps were taken to find employment through your ministry. I think that if people could find meaningful jobs, that would alleviate much of the socio-economically related pathology that we see on Indian reserves. I know you're aware of what is happening in the Cowichan area. My colleague is deeply concerned about the number of people who are taking their lives on Vancouver Island, just through despair and despondency. We must do something about it.

MR. GABELMANN: I intend only to take a few moments this afternoon for a couple of comments.

First of all, I was quite offended by the minister's comments concerning his attitude towards native Indians in this province in two general ways. First of all, he said that native Indians are citizens of this province like all other citizens of this province and should not be distinguished from other citizens. In effect, that was what the minister was saying. Yet the facts are that native Indians in this province, for a variety of reasons, some of which the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) alluded to, are different. They do require special and unique treatment. They do require some kind of special status and do require some kind of approach as a unique and troubled group. That requires that we, in a sense, take what some people might judge to be a prejudiced view. That means that we must do what has been done for blacks in the United States. We must say: "Here is a group within our society that has special problems, special needs and requires the special attention of government." I say that in full recognition of the fact that the federal government has the primary responsibility for native affairs.

But I'm concerned when I can find only $61,800 in the estimates of this minister for special programs for native Indians in British Columbia. He will argue that money that applies to native Indians in British Columbia is being spent through other ministries in other ways. That's true, but what I would argue, not at great length today but on other occasions when I hope we can have this debate, is that there should be massive additional funding. I have reservations in my riding, Mr. Chairman, with 96 percent unemployment, and probably with 90 percent unemployability, because of alcohol and because of history and because of the way we whites have treated Indians over the last century. We should be spending some money which is clearly earmarked for employment and social programs within the native Indian community. That's the first general comment I'd like to make to the minister, because I do not accept his approach to it.

The second item was his comments about political leaders of Indian communities, and his implication that he doesn't want to listen to them; he would prefer to listen to the "rank and file." It reminds me of the not-so-old labour song about Joey Smallwood — that the workers are fine, but their leaders should be shot.

We don't have any right in this House to determine the leadership of groups out there in that community. We must abide by the democratic choice of the organizations affected, and if they choose leaders that you don't like, that's your tough luck, Mr. Minister. You must still deal with them because they were chosen by their organization. You cannot stand up in this House and say you have more knowledge about who they should be electing. You do not have that kind of authority or that kind of omniscience. I won't use the word "arrogance," but it sure would apply to the speech that has just been made by that minister. It revealed an appalling lack of understanding of the democratic procedure. That's all I'll say about that at this point.

I wanted just to say very briefly about the WCB.... I'm not going to refer to case after case, which I could do, as all members could do, but I want to just make one quick point. There are quite a number of workers in this province who are doing their jobs fully adequately, who have something wrong with them — a deteriorating back, a knee that's wonky, some other kind of physical impairment that isn't affecting their work but is a medical reality. Occasionally workers who have that kind of impairment, who have the expectation — and their doctors would agree — that they would be able to continue their work until the normal retirement age, will have an accident on the job. The accident on the job combined with the pre-existing condition preclude that worker from going back to work at that job.

The WCB approach to determining what the compensation should be is based not on the fact that the worker can't go back to that job, but based on the fact that there was a pre-existing condition that was not work-related, and therefore the disability awards are often of a very low percentage. I have one case, and I won't go into the details now, where the gentleman is receiving $8.64. He got a 1 percent disability from the board. He cannot work. Everyone agrees he cannot work — his doctor; WCB people; I agree when I talk to the gentleman. He got a 1 percent disability award because the accident he had on the job, together with the pre-existing condition, made him incapable of working. Yet if he hadn't had the accident on the job, the pre-existing condition wasn't so bad that he couldn't have continued on until his normal retirement age, which was about seven years later.

That's a problem that I think we have to deal with because he will go on welfare. He's eligible for welfare but he won't go on welfare because he says, quite properly, that the employer owes him a living, not society. That kind of case comes up quite often.

I'm not going to say very much more. I would have liked to talk at some length about the minister's response to labour-management relations. I would like to talk about labour standards and certainly about farmworkers. It was April 1975 when as chairperson of a committee of this House I filed a report on that problem with farmworkers and domestic workers. It's now more than four years since that report was filed. I think it's long overdue that some action was taken.

I would like to just leave this subject, Mr. Chairman, with one final comment on the.minister's responsibility in labour matters. I believe the minister must be an advocate for workers when it comes to certification applications, when it comes to difficulties with first agreements. The government is full of advocates for the employer. The

[ Page 951 ]

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is constantly handing over forgivable loans to employers so they can expand their businesses, and on and on. These are all kinds of support for the owner, support for the capitalist, support for the management, but very little active support for the worker.

When workers get into difficulties with intransigent employers in a first contract situation, the minister should be using the weight of his office as an ally of the workers in securing a first agreement. That perhaps is an attitude that the minister doesn't accept, but I believe it's his responsibility, and I'd like to leave that with him at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, when I listened to the minister's comments about native people, I felt very sad for this province and for the native people in it, because that declaration reflects exactly what has been the attitude of the white man to the native Indian people ever since government existed in this land. It's the overbearing and, if you will forgive me, the arrogance of the white man that's reflected in that kind of statement. To cast everybody into one mold, and to say to the native people, "This is integration," is what the minister is talking about. He is saying to the native people: "Deny yourself your own inheritance, your own culture, your own language, your own children, and your own feelings, and come my way."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You better get a new hearing aid, Frank.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, it touches him. It finally woke the minister up, proving that the paramedics did save his life earlier. It finally woke him up because it strikes at his heart that exactly what I am saying is the truth, and he can't deny that. That is what has caused the difficulties confronting our native people in this whole province and nation ever since Canada was formed — that supercilious, overbearing attitude that says: "Do it my way. I know better than you do. Forget your history and join with us and all your problems will be solved." The native has rejected that because he is a proud and dignified person and wants to retain his integrity and has been able to do it in spite of declarations by people like the minister over the years.

It is a very regretful and sad state of affairs to hear it enunciated in this so-called enlightened age by a so-called enlightened government and minister. It harkens back to the earlier time when this province joined Confederation and the native people were looked upon as no different than the trees or deer in the forests. They were counted as such; they weren't even identified as human beings in counting the population for British Columbia to join Confederation. The minister's statements today make it not much further removed from that. He hangs his hat on an opinion or statement about aboriginal rights and says: "No, they don't exist. They're gone, and if they ever did exist, they were wiped out." What he uses to substantiate that position was the decision of the court of appeal here in the province in the case referred to loosely as the Nishga case, or Calder, et al, v. the Attorney-General of British Columbia. The court of appeal said that if there were any aboriginal rights, et cetera, they got wiped out of existence and effectively extinguished, because the European came along and sort of encroached upon the land, and the natives didn't fight back, so they lost them. That is exactly what the minister is saying here.

I am convinced in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that at some point of time, maybe in the not too distant future, some group of native Indians are going, through the supreme court of this country, to win their case and their claim, and there will be a judicial decision supporting that. Times will change and the attitude of the supreme court may change to provide for that. The native people are not resting in their efforts to find the substantiation in the historical documents to support their claims about title. There are groups of native people now who are attending courses at Carleton University in the area of research and analytical techniques. There are groups of native people who spend their time in the Provincial Archives trying to find the documentation to support their claims and their position. As sure as I'm standing here, they'll win.

The minister tells us, apropos of that meeting he attended at New Aiyansh in January of 1976, that at no time did the government indicate that it would negotiate the land claims question. It's surprising if he says that in this House with a straight face. How can he explain that every native person from the Nass Valley who attended that meeting heard him deliberately and specifically use the word "negotiate"? How can he explain that and stand up and tell this House with a straight face that he never said any such thing? I just don't believe the minister, because....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Are you calling the minister a liar?

MR. HOWARD: There's no need to call him a liar. I wouldn't do that, his words speak for themselves. But I do know this, and I'll say this clearly. No matter how many times the minister stands up in this House in his place and says that his government did not commit itself to the Nishga people to negotiate, I will not believe him. No matter how many times he says it. That's another exhibition of the doubletalk and the two-faced approach that goes on. It permits the minister and his government to stand up and say to the native people on the one side: "Oh, you're beautiful and you're glorious. Everything that we have is available to you." On the other side they cover up the deplorable situation outlined by my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), about the situation as he knows it and the situation as every person in this province knows it. I think it's a very sad and deplorable note for the minister to have to close off his remarks in his estimates in this kind of fashion. It leaves a very bad taste in the whole level of our debate and our concern about native Indian people. It will be something that the native Indian people will remember for many, many years to come.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was heartened to hear the second member for Victoria speak about this particular subject, because he made it abundantly clear that this should not be a political issue. There are no political gains to be made by anyone with respect to the resolution of the Indian problem in this province and in this country.

I say to the member for North Island that I regret if I am so inarticulate as not to have made him understand that when I was critical about Indian organizations and their leaders I was not in any way suggesting we should dictate to them who their leaders should be. It is the native people who must choose, no question about that.

[ Page 952 ]

One of the difficulties that confronts any government in resolving the problem, other than at the band or tribal basis, is because there is not in this province any identifiable individual or group which speaks for the Indian constituency. The contest which is going on between groups who would represent that Indian constituency is, as I said, not in the best interests of the Indian people. The contest goes on and has gone on for years, and it has all the appearances of going on in the future.

The results may be of some satisfaction to Indian leaders, but they are not to the Indian people. Let it be perfectly clear — at no time have I ever suggested that integration is the answer for the Indian people. I made it abundantly clear that their culture, their language, their way of life, is their choice. While I have said there is no political mileage to be made out of dealing with this matter, if we are to deal with the interests of the Indians at heart, let me make it perfectly clear that I know there are people who are prepared to use it for political purposes. But don't count me among their number.

What the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) should recollect is that he served the former government in a capacity in which he should have assisted the Indian people of this province. And whether he likes it or not, the records of his performance did not disappear when he ran away from the job.

But I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman and the member, that there will be no attempt on my part to use his performance in any way as a criticism of him on the floor of this House, because that does not advance the Indian people's lot by one inch — and that's my only concern, not the member for Skeena. He will have to answer to the Indian people in his own time for the way in which he conducted himself while he was on the payroll of the former government.

MR. MACDONALD: He did a good job.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, you see, at this late hour.... I don't wish to inflame the tempers of any of the members opposite. But I would certainly hate to have brought on the floor of this House some of the correspondence which emanated from that group when they were in government.

At any rate, it is the responsibility of all the members of this chamber on both sides of the House to direct their attention to the plight that faces the Indian people. As the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) pointed out quite clearly, they experience high infant mortality, high suicide and murder rates, low educational attainment, high unemployment, low health standards and a high incidence of disease. That's the shame of this whole nation, and we must all work together if we're going to solve it.

Vote 150 approved.

Vote 151: ministerial administration — support services, $2,653,832 — approved.

Vote 152: Job Training and Employment Opportunity Programs, $36,253,809 — approved.

Vote 153: occupational environment and compensation advisory services, $1,566,415 — approved.

Vote 154: safety engineering division, $5,812,929 — approved.

Vote 155: Collective Bargaining and Labour Standards Program, $2,772,487 — approved.

Vote 156: Human Rights Programs, $711,952 — approved.

Vote 157: Labour Relations Board, $1,340,101 — approved.

Vote 158: essential services advisory agency, $297,000 — approved.

Vote 159: Boards of Review (Workers' Compensation Board), $10 — approved.

Vote 160: building occupancy charges, $1,123,000 approved.

Vote 161: computer and consulting charges, $1,040,100 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LANDS,
PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 162: minister's office, $148,408.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to the vote.

First, in opening this brief discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, I just want to say a few words about the various components within my ministry.

First of all, I want to talk about the parks and outdoor recreation division. For, the information of the members, last year in our park system throughout British Columbia, which comprises approximately 364 sites, we had 9.4 million visitor-days. In addition, park campsites recorded 1.8 million camper-nights. Approximately one-third of the utilization of our provincial campsites was by visitors to this province, which indicates its importance to the tourist industry.

In 1978 we had one of the most active years in the history of this province, with respect to the acquisition of land for park purposes. Since I assumed responsibility, we have acquired land on Sidney Island, Bear Creek delta and Kitsumkalum Lake. Major additions have been made to Strathcona Provincial Park and to the Okanagan mountain parks. In addition, four new parks have been created from our Crown land holdings; this occurred at Athalmer, Okeover Arm, Taylor Arm and west Shawnigan.

Outdoor recreation is a broad and varied mandate. Under this particular area of responsibility, we have proposed, and had agreement to pursue, a policy of designating historic trails in this province. We are now commencing discussions with our federal counterparts on the initial development we hope will take place on the Alexander Mackenzie grease trail.

The preservation of caves and safety with respect to heli-skiing and river rafting have been topics of discussion. Initiatives have taken place in each of these areas.

In the area of housing, a significant event in 1978 was the signing of the federal-provincial agreement assigning the exclusive responsibility for senior citizens' housing to

[ Page 953 ]

the province, while seeing the federal government accept responsibility for cooperatives and non-profit municipal projects. We were somewhat disappointed that the agreement with the federal government was so long in materializing, because they held up some very desirable projects, and we were unable to proceed to the point of approving them as quickly as we had hoped. Subsequent to the signing of the federal-provincial agreement in March of this year, 18 projects comprising 373 units have been approved. I anticipate that a further nine projects, with approximately 300 units, will be approved during the latter part of this fiscal year. I anticipate that over 4,000 families will be assisted in purchasing their first home this year. In addition, 3,500 will receive the $1,000 home purchase assistance grant, and approximately 2,500 will be provided second mortgages of $5,000 each. These three programs are funded through the Home Purchase Assistance Program. The proper management of this fund has led to self-sufficiency for these particular programs, and an ability to annually review the level of benefits and to adjust them upwards.

The urban land program is active in some 25 smaller municipalities, where my ministry has entered into agreements with local governments to develop much-needed service to urban residential land. In addition, of course, there are in place major land-servicing agreements with municipalities in the lower mainland, which will result in the ultimate servicing of in excess of 20,000 housing units. The capital requirements for these particular expenditures are provided through the housing fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I hear a lot of ayes. If it is the wish of the House to approve my estimates, or this particular vote at this time, I am prepared to take my seat and adhere to the wishes of the members of this House. [Laughter.] However, it doesn't appear that way, Mr. Chairman,

Further to housing, by ensuring that the assets of the housing fund show an appropriate return, we're able to fund these very desirable projects as well as expand the fund's function to encompass all Crown land activities within my ministry.

The members will note that legislation providing such authority was contained in our Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act. The responsibility for the Crown land reserves of this province is a very significant one. Administratively, the job has grown and changed significantly over the years as competition increases for the available unalienated land base. The resources applied to this job have not kept pace. The goal of my ministry is to seek a more timely, efficient and equitable basis to deal with some 12,000 outstanding leases and approximately 3,000 applications we receive each year.

We have initiated a policy review, examined our organizational structure and sought methods whereby we can modernize our administrative systems. Many activities are taking place and initiatives, large and small, have been undertaken or are in process. I may say that during this time of change, I'm most gratified by the response of my staff, particularly those directly affected by the challenge offered. Examples include the continuing emphasis on decentralization and the consolidation of our housing and lands regional operations. We have introduced a target of 120 days to deal with applications right from the point of application to adjudication. I am gratified to see daily changes that are making this goal more and more achievable, The evidence is there, Mr. Doubting Tom from Shuswap-Revelstoke.

By placing greater demands on our staff we have an obligation to provide them with the very best equipment, In this regard word-processing machines and minicomputers will be provided over the next year to all our regional operations. In fact, the first minicomputers will be installed in Kamloops within a few weeks. The rest of the regional offices are scheduled to receive this equipment by late fall.

We are placing greater emphasis on information outlining the issues involved in the management of the Crown land base, and we anticipate that both public displays and printed material will be available within weeks.

One of the most significant changes has been the introduction of an appeal process. I admit that our current arrangement is experimental we're going to learn from this experience. We are, I'm convinced, progressing toward a fairer and more equitable manner to deal with the applicant who feels that the ruling in his case — be it with regard to price, or other matters relating to application — is dealt with fairly in a manner that reflects government policy, and that all the facts have been considered. This process is now available in three regions, and I hope by this fall to make the appeal process available throughout British Columbia. This provides you with a minuscule documentation of the various components of my ministry, and these very brief remarks, I hope, will give the members of this House food for thought so that they can come forward with some very objective and worthwhile questions on the administration, the management, of this most important ministry of government.

Mr. Chairman, it appears they're not prepared to ask any questions. Under the circumstances I feel I'll take my seat and we'll pass the vote.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. BARNES: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to discharge a resolution standing under my name in the Orders of the Day.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: I am acknowledging the Provincial Secretary's order-in-council No. 2012 of July 19, in which it has now designated October 14 to 20 as single parents' week. I would like to congratulate him inasmuch as I had resolution 5 standing under my name on, the order paper, which I'm sure he regarded as being an incentive, although he did not answer my correspondence in this regard.

Nonetheless, I now ask that the resolution be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the House that normally resolutions are withdrawn without debate.

Hon. Mr. Phillips moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.