[ Page 3463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Fluoridation of water supplies. Mr. Cocke –– 3463

Indexed pensions. Mrs. Dailly –– 3463

Vancouver fire boat. Mr. Lauk –– 3464

Kettle Valley Railway. Mr. Barber –– 3464

Accommodation for students. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3465

Transportation and Highways ministry policy on Indians. Mr. Howard –– 3465

Ombudsman staffing requests. Mr. Macdonald –– 3465

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority annual report, 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3465

Oral Questions.

Educational television equipment. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 3466

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

Votes 162 to 164 inclusive approved –– 3466

On vote 165: revenue sharing fund –– 3466

Mr. Barber

Votes 165 to 169 inclusive approved –– 3466

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

On vote 146: minister's office –– 3466

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Hanson

Mr. King

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform the House this afternoon that with us in the members' gallery are four young people from the village of Burns Lake in that great constituency of Omineca. They are Mr. Wilf Adams, band manager of the Lake Babine band, accompanied by Mr. Frank Alec Jr., Corrina Wright and Corrina Joseph. I would ask this House to make them very welcome.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the Merritt senior Babe Ruth team, attending the British Columbia senior Babe Ruth championships here in Victoria. They won their first game yesterday, 3 to 2, over Trail. Doug Beech is the manager of the team. Mr. Beech last year received the Ministry of Human Resources International Year of the Child award in recognition of his 13 years of service in working with young people in Merritt. Along with Doug — an erstwhile fishing companion of mine, which will bear no further explanation — are five team members: Ronnie Hume, Arne Stadler, Scott Wright, Duane Jurret and Mike Bertucci. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the House might be interested to know that I had the pleasure of meeting this morning with the Tourist Advisory Council of British Columbia. This council is composed of 20 members from all over the province, people from the industry. We had a most productive morning. In the gallery this afternoon are Mrs. Bunne Hoffman and Mr. Bob Petrick, both past-presidents of the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce. They were at our meeting this morning. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Bobby Ackles, manager of the B.C. Lions, and their coach Vic Rapp, on their victory over the Winnipeg Blue Bombers 26 to 6 last night. It looks as though they are going to repeat the glorious days, which I once enjoyed, in 1964 when we won the Grey Cup.

As well, I would like the House to join me in welcoming my secretary, Elaine Little, her daughter Beverly and Beverly's husband Bob Stone, who are immigrating to Canada from Crapstone, England. If the House would join me in welcoming them this afternoon I would be most appreciative.

MR. RITCHIE: I would invite the House to welcome one of British Columbia's more progressive poultry farmers, Mr. Manuel Manuelan from the Central Fraser Valley.

MR. MACDONALD: I wish the House to welcome to our galleries two fine citizens of British Columbia, Dr. and Mrs. Greenberg. If I may say, to boot, they are two great Canadians.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming my doctor, Gordon Gell — he's here to check on why I'm still around here — and his wife, Isabel, with his sister Mona Bohemer and a cousin from Wales.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to members of the B.C. Marketing Board, Mona Brun, Mr. Chuck Emery, Mr. Al Giesbrecht and Mr. Martin Hunter.

MR. HYNDMAN: The Laurel House Society of Vancouver does exceptional work with children around the province suffering with the problems of autistic disorders. One of its directors, Mr. Speaker, is in your gallery today. Would members welcome Mrs. Yvonne Jackson from Vancouver.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today, under the guidance of Mrs. Betty Good of my constituency, are a group of 20 or more Mexican students who are visiting our capital and British Columbia. They are here on an exchange basis, and next year a group of our students will go to Mexico. I wish the House to make them welcome,

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, John Siray. John is dean of vocational programs at the East Kootenay Community College. I'd like the House to welcome him this afternoon.

Oral Questions

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health — that's quite a change for me; I normally direct them to the Speaker. I would like to ask a question about fluoridation. Contained in the minister's health statement of today's date regarding denticare is a quote by Dr. Ted Ramage, president of the College of Dental Surgeons. He said: "The college applauds the minister's support of fluoridation. We hope he will convince the government to promote fluoridation throughout British Columbia as part of a total preventive dental-health program." Is the minister still determined to promote fluoridation of municipal water supplies?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly encourage municipalities to use the means at their disposal to obtain the permission of their residents to fluoridate water.

INDEXED PENSIONS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. The government has in recent weeks directed boards of Crown corporations to bring their pension plans into line with the legislation currently before the House, which limits the protection given pensioners against inflation. Yesterday the minister introduced amendments to one of the bills that changes substantially the pension indexing arrangements of one of the groups, government employees. My question to the minister is: has the minister decided that all employees, including municipal employees, teachers and employees of Crown corporations, should now have broadly similar pension-indexing provisions?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is

[ Page 3464 ]

aware that she is addressing a matter covered by a bill before this House. Her preamble to the question, in any event, is not correct. She implied that the government has directed all Crown agencies to bring their pension plans into line with those in the public sector that are being currently amended. In any event, I don't think it would be appropriate or in order to debate the pension bill which is before the House.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm not attempting to debate the bill and I would just like to repeat the question. If you consider it in order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the minister would answer it. Has the minister decided that all employees, including municipal employees, teachers and employees of Crown corporations, should now have broadly similar pension-indexing provisions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: No answer.

MR. LAUK: I'm surprised at the Provincial Secretary's lack of knowledge.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm still checking your handwriting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't write so bad yourself.

MR. LAUK: That's improper grammar. Would the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) please talk to that gent. He needs the benefits of a core curriculum.

VANCOUVER FIRE BOAT

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and lack of transit....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, if a question is prefaced in such a manner, the question automatically becomes out of order. I would ask the member to possibly start again.

MR. LAUK: Shall I rephrase?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please.

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What steps has the government taken to assist the city of Vancouver to obtain federal funding for fire boat services in Vancouver harbour? As the minister and the government know, there's a widespread concern that this fire boat will be taken out of service.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, my ministry has excellent and regular liaison with the city of Vancouver, and any request from them would certainly be acted upon. We've not received any request in that regard.

MR. LAUK: Would the minister undertake to provide information to the House confirming absolutely that the government has received no requests from the city of Vancouver?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not received a request. As recently as the day before yesterday I met with the mayor of Vancouver. Certainly if the mayor or the council has a presentation to make, we look forward to it.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister received requests from trade unions operating along the shore for such an intervention on his part, either as an MLA or cabinet minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. The CPR has given the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society only until July 28 to come up with some $500,000 with which to finance the purchase of a section — only a section — of the Kettle Valley railway line. My first question to the minister is: has he decided to support this excellent project, either by providing a grant necessary to purchase the rails or by offering to guarantee a loan to the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society for the purpose of obtaining the rail from CPR?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As you know, the government, through various ministries, has been approached with regard to the Kettle Valley railway situation. As far as my ministry is concerned, its responsibility would be through the heritage branch, and the suggestion is that the heritage branch should have some dedication towards applying their authority covering parts of the Kettle Valley railway. I might say that the government has already, long ago, indicated that it is committed to acquiring the rights-of-way involved in that site. At this stage there has been no proposal under which we would undertake to acquire a tourist railway or acquire the facilities of the railway which exists: We are already committed, as I say, to acquiring the rights-of-way in the name of the Crown when the railway is dismantled. That purpose is already being pursued.

MR. BARBER: I'm aware of that, but that wasn't the question I asked — nor, in any case, is there any great purpose served by acquiring the right-of-way and abandoning the rail. There's no great purpose to that at all. Has the minister decided whether or not to make available funds, directly or indirectly, via the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society to assist them in the purchase of this historic tourist resource? Have you decided whether or not to make funds available for that purpose? Yes or no.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Not from this ministry.

MR. BARBER: Have you decided whether or not to guarantee a loan in order that the Kettle Valley Railway Heritage Society might be able thereby to obtain the interim financing in order to preserve this vital piece of Canadian railway history?

HON. MR. WOLFE: You've got the wrong ministry.

MR. BARBER: It's not the wrong ministry. You are responsible for the Heritage Trust, which should, if it is doing its job, be concerned about this. My final question to the minister: have you decided whether or not to designate the railway as a heritage resource — as you are empowered to do under section 4 and as you could do by a study under

[ Page 3465 ]

section 7(1) of the Heritage Act — in order to preserve and protect the existing rail line known as the Kettle Valley Railway?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That question has already been answered to the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society by indicating that it would be impractical or impossible to declare the entire railway project as a heritage site. It is not within the resources of the heritage branch or in fact the government facilities to take on a project of that size.

ACCOMMODATION FOR STUDENTS

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that students attending UBC, BCIT and the Pacific Vocational Institute will be able to obtain rental accommodation near their respective campuses this fall?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is an important question. I will take it as notice.

MR. GABELMANN: Is the minister now in a position to answer the question he took as notice on June 4 regarding the shortage of accommodation for SFU students this fall?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't recall the question. However, I will check my questions that I've taken as notice and come back with an answer, hopefully.

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
MINISTRY POLICY ON INDIANS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to transport a question over to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and ask the minister if he has decided to put a stop to his ministry's practice of advising construction crews working on Indian reserve land to treat Indians with special care because they, in the words of the ministry, "are more likely to be guided by their emotions than by law and logical reasoning." Has the minister decided to stop that practice?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I've heard of this. I'll certainly look into it.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister, while he was looking into it, would mind examining page 109 of the construction foreman's manual of his department. He might find it there.

OMBUDSMAN STAFFING REQUESTS

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Premier. In view of the caseload before the ombudsman, which has reached staggering proportions, and in view of the announcement of his Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that he was introducing a "crude instrument of restraint," can the Premier assure the House that a decision has been made to exempt the request of the ombudsman for additional staff from that "crude instrument of restraint"?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The ombudsman has had all requests to Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance for staffing dealt with, as far as I understand, both appropriately and quickly, and to the extent of the requests. I think possibly the ombudsman has had great satisfaction in dealing with Treasury Board.

In regard to the member's question about a "crude instrument" which is an attempt to bring efficiency to government and to watch the spending of the taxpayers' money — there must be appropriate appeal for just cause for replacement of personnel — I would think the public would think of that as good stewardship rather than a "crude instrument." They would perhaps think that if other governments had practised the same sort of restraint in advance, perhaps some governments wouldn't run large deficits when they were in office.

MR. LAUK: I rise to point out to the Speaker that under the rules established for this period of time, ministers should be responsive to the questions and not make speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. With some degree of intention to help members, I will reserve on that until the conclusion of question period and deal with the matter then.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, before asking the ombudsman to investigate the Premier's answer to my question I would suggest that this request is before the cabinet — from the information I have, which is pretty authentic, Mr. Premier. I'm asking whether some steps cannot be taken from your high office to expedite that request, which is very urgent, and exempt this particular request from your freeze.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I am very attentive to the needs of all citizens and particularly those that would be met through the ombudsman. It goes without saying that without his urging I would obviously take special care to preserve requests, not only from the ombudsman but from every citizen, to get more responsive government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just prior to proceeding, the point of order raised during question period took away, in itself, from the time of question period. When a question is framed in such a way that it more or less elicits a long answer, that has to be taken into account as well. Secondly, if members, when they are phrasing their questions, impart some argument or particular phrase that might be argumentative or stimulate debate, then some response to that point must be expected. The point by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was well taken.

MR. LAUK: Further on that point, Mr. Speaker, if that were the case I would agree with the Speaker's ruling. In this particular instance I rose — and I do rarely within question period — because the phrase that was chosen by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was a phrase used by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis): "a crude instrument of restraint." As a result of that, I was surprised to hear the Premier make a speech attacking the use of that phrase and thereby indirectly attacking the Minister of Finance. I rose for the dual purpose of bringing him to order and protecting the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have the pleasure to file the 1979-80 annual report for the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

[ Page 3466 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to answer a question?

Leave granted.

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION EQUIPMENT

HON. MR. SMITH: This is a question which was asked of me by the penetrating first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on July 16. He asked me a question concerning the ministry policy of approving the purchase of educational video cassette equipment. The member brought to my attention the case of the South Cariboo School District, which wished to purchase 1/2-inch cassettes but were unable to get assurance that shareable funding from the ministry would be available for this format.

In answering this question I should say that about five years ago the government approved a policy of the uniform purchase of 3/4-inch videotape cassette equipment. This allowed cassettes to be interchangeable for use within government and was a good policy as it ensured uniformity and portability. But technology has changed during the past five years and there have been some decided advances in the development of 1/2-inch cassette equipment. Some colleges and school districts have already purchased these 1/2-inch cassettes while others wish to expand their use for educational purposes. Proponents of the small format argue the equipment is more serviceable. It is smaller and therefore more portable; even more pertinently, it is cheaper. Taking into account this new technology and the need to replace some videotape equipment through the system, my ministry has been sensitive to the desirability of broadening the approvals to permit replacement of 1/4-inch cassettes with authorized 1/2-inch cassettes like those in the home video systems. My ministry in the past month has been cooperating with a committee of school district representatives to develop a new cost-sharing formula which will permit the purchase of 1/2-inch cassette format. This cost-sharing formula should be in place and announced in the fall.

In addition, I support the desire of the Provincial Educational Media Centre to acquire the necessary videotape dubbing equipment permitted to provide programs in the 1/2-inch cassette format to school districts and colleges. As a result, school districts can soon be expected to be able to acquire replacement equipment in the authorized 1/2-inch format using a new cost-sharing formula. They can also expect that the Provincial Educational Media Centre will shortly have the capacity to provide their programming. I know the member has been hanging on every word.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

Vote 162: minister's office, $165,465 — approved.

Vote 163: general administration, $2,685,010 — approved.

Vote 164: grants, contributions and subsidies, $73,450,000 — approved.

On vote 165: revenue sharing fund, $176,200,000.

MR. BARBER: I have one question only. I raised it during the debate on the minister's office. Can he inform us when he intends to inform local government as to the extent to which their share of provincial revenues, as defined in the Revenue Sharing Act, will be announced and the likely extent of the decline in those revenue-sharing grants next year because of the current decline in provincial revenues? When will it be announced and what is his best guess as to the likely proportion of decline in those grants to local government in B.C.?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We normally announce at the end of December.

MR. BARBER: Has the minister received to this date any information from the Minister of Finance as to the level of decline in moneys available for revenue-sharing under this program? If not, can he tell us when he expects to receive that information?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The sources of revenue for the revenue-sharing program are sales tax, income tax, personal and corporation tax, as well as a portion of the resource revenues. None of that will really be known until later on, so it will be about December before we get that information from the Ministry of Finance.

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: central ministry services, $445,382 — approved.

Vote 167: transit services, $77,765,000 — approved.

Vote 168: building occupancy charges, $348,000 — approved.

Vote 169: computer and consulting charges, $49,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 146: minister's office, $155,758.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My staff has been called, and those who are in the immediate environs will be here shortly. Prior to their arrival, I would like to mention something about the great Ministry of Labour.

I would like to acknowledge my predecessor, who left the ministry in pretty fine shape. We've had to do the odd thing; I admit that. There has been some reorganization in the ministry and some recent appointments. My deputy minister, James Matkin, will be arriving shortly.

Since my taking over the ministry there has been an appointment of a new assistant deputy minister, Hugh Bardon, who is looking after administration and safety engineering.

Also, there is a new assistant deputy minister, Bob Gray,

[ Page 3467 ]

who was recently appointed to that position. His function is in the area of manpower and apprenticeship.

The other assistant deputy minister is Doug Cameron, who is presently on vacation. He, is in charge of labour relations and the area of occupational safety.

There are a number of boards and commissions for which the ministry is responsible. I think they ought to be identified, for the benefit of all members of the House.

Under the jurisdiction of my ministry is the Labour Relations Board, the Board of Industrial Relations — which will now be known as the Employment Standards Board when the new legislation comes to pass the Human Rights Commission, the Workers' Compensation Board, the workers' compensation boards of review, the Essential Services Advisory Agency, and the Provincial Apprenticeship Board.

With respect to the Essential Services Advisory Agency, I have some plans for that particular agency. It's something which I think the community requires — that is, education in the area of industrial relations and also further education in the areas of occupational health and safety. We're just in the process of attempting to work something out. Probably within the next few months we'll be able to expand the services of that agency to our community in general.

The Provincial Apprenticeship Board is something which became effective on January 1, 1980. There were appointments of 12 people from industry — six from management and 6 from labour; the chairman is a director within the Ministry of Labour. The board has recently come in with a report. I felt that the number one mandate of our ministry ought to be training, and apprenticeship in particular. Recently we have received the approval of Treasury Board — as the members opposite are aware — to inject some new enthusiasm and assistance into this training program.

This year in the area of labour relations we have had some difficult disputes, as you're all aware. I guess the major dispute was the BCR, followed by the Vancouver police and the public health nurses; but I think that the ministry has acquitted itself reasonably well. With a great deal of help from all of the officials and those in the mediation services, we managed to preserve the traditional collective bargaining relationship.

The present dispute in the construction industry would indicate — at least in the releases which I had most recently — that that particular dispute may be pointing in the direction of a settlement. There is one outstanding dispute which is concerning me, but I have made it a practice not to comment on disputes which are under active negotiation and, of course, when there is some fostering within the community. The Victoria and area police are posing a small problem at this time; but I think that we'll be able to encourage a resolution. I hope that that's not too far away.

In the area of Human Rights there was an appointment of a new Human Rights director, Nola Landucci, who I think is doing a very commendable job in her new role. She has jumped right in, and I know she will be of great help to us.

There are some other areas that no doubt are sensitive. Probably one of the areas is the Workers' Compensation Board, and I'd like to say something about it. I have a couple of notes here. Probably one of the things which has pleased me more than anything was an editorial in the Victoria Times headlined "Signs of Sensitivity." I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from that editorial, because really what it does, I think, is describe in fairly clear language what some of the problems are or have been, the emphasis which the board is placing upon its function, and also that it is sensitive and responsive to a number of the criticisms which have been levied. The editorial reads:

"The provincial Workers' Compensation Board has a reputation for being slow, rigid and far more interested in saving money than helping injured workers. The reputation may not have been deserved. In an area as emotional as injuries in the workplace nearly every rejected claim can turn into a cause célebre with the help of political action and publicity.

"Be that as it may, the board showed last week that it can listen and be sensitive to the concerns of workers liable to sustain injuries in the course of their jobs."

Of course, they are making reference to revised schedule B, the list of industrial diseases and working conditions about which it will make an automatic assumption of cause and effect. And it goes on.

I think it's indicative of the concern which the board does have, and the fact that it has been translated and reflected in the editorial comment is again indicative of, as stated in the title of the article, "Signs of Sensitivity."

I expect to receive questions concerning the board during the discussion of these estimates. The House is aware that the board is not included in my estimates, but the opposition will take that opportunity, no doubt; it has for a number of years through the hon. member of Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and you're going to express some concern. I hope that we never treat the safety and rehabilitation of workers as a partisan issue. Differences of opinion and emphasis are bound to arise, but the basic issue must be non-partisan. As long as I am minister responsible, that will be my position. I think we have an excellent system in British Columbia. I don't know if I noticed that great a change between this government and the previous administration. In some respects, particularly in regard to the board's rehabilitative facilities and activities, it is the envy of other jurisdictions and other countries; but I can see that we can't become complacent.

I've been concerned with the record of fatalities and the injuries sustained by workers in this province. The record is upsetting to me and it will take strong action by both management and labour, assisted by the prevention services of the board. There were two recent appointments to the board, as you are aware: Mr. Michael Parr and Mr. Joe Miyazawa. Mr. Parr brings with him a lifetime of experience as a worker and highly respected trade union leader. Mr. Miyazawa began his career in 1940 as an hourly worker in the forest industry and was on the staff of the IWA in 1946. In 1965 he became part of management.

There's another area involving the boards of review. I'll mention to you that in reading Hansard from a few years back I note that there was an eyeball figure of about 500 cases for each panel when it was originally set up. Right now it's anticipated that in 1980 we can expect to receive something in the order of 3,000 appeals. As a result there are now five panels in existence and I am in the process of appointing a sixth. So when we eyeball the figures we are looking at about 500 per panel.

One of the areas that concerned me was the number of appeals which were going to the boards of review. Going back to 1978, the total number of general appeals that did go

[ Page 3468 ]

to the boards totalled 2,507, according to the statistical analysis delivered to me by the WCB. Approximately 300 were disposed of without going through the process. Of the 2,132 that did go through, the actions of the boards of review upheld roughly 1,250. I'd like to speak in round figures. The decisions by the boards of review reversing the decision of the claims adjudicator were roughly 900. In 1979 the total number of appeals was roughly 2,400. Of that number approximately 1,400 were sustained and 972 were allowed. I have some detailed material on the boards of review, which I think perhaps we'll go into when members ask questions on that particular area.

I would like to mention the mediation services. As you are aware, they have done, and always do, a commendable job. But I think what some people are not really aware of is just exactly how successful they are in mediating disputes. In 1979 there were 308 appointments and they were involved in effecting 271 settlements, which is about 88 percent. In 1978 there were roughly 280; 232 were settled with their assistance, which is 83 percent. So I notice they've gone up 5 percent over the previous year.

Another area that members might be interested in is a significant one on mediation involving work stoppages. In 1979 the total number of man-days lost was 665,000. This is .046 percent of the total number of the workforce. This year indications are — if in fact the construction industry does secure a settlement, and I understand there is a proposal from both sides that the agreement negotiated be accepted — that we're going to find 1980 to be an exceptional year. As of the end of April the total loss in man-days is about 160,000 for the first quarter. So pushing that out for the full year at 480,000, it's going to be the lowest it's been, I imagine, in the seventh decade. I have figures going back to 1975 and 1976 and it's a substantial reduction. I'll just put one caveat on that: I'm not aware of the present status of the breweries.

I'll conclude my opening comments with the following items. One recent announcement by the ministry was the increase in the minimum wage. You are aware of the employment standards legislation. As to priority with respect to a social services tax and payment of wages, a policy decision was made by cabinet giving wages priority. If you recall, a piece of legislation was passed, the Social Service Tax Act. It was fairly rigid for some time, giving priority to government. I am glad to report to you that three or four months ago, I think, this change was made as a matter of policy. Of course, it was the correct decision to make, to give priority to wages.

One other item I think members might be interested in is the matter of Ocean Falls. As you are aware, the closure of Ocean Falls resulted in displacement, dislocation and loss of jobs for approximately 400 men and women. I am pleased to report that a great deal of concern was expressed and a lot of effort was put into this area, and my ministry was a part of it. As of July 18, some 26 people were still not relocated. There are about another dozen on top of that who, I think, in all fairness, are not too interested in moving at all and are not really looking for assistance. That's to be expected and understood, but 26 is not bad, and that was done in a very short time. I think that we should offer our thanks to people in industry, to the corporation and to Mr. Williston for all the work he did, and to people in industry throughout the province who absorbed.... I can tell you that the tradesmen were absorbed very, very quickly. The problem that we had was in the area of the production workers.

I think I will leave that for the time being, sit down and let you have your turn.

I would like to announce that Mr. Matkin, my deputy minister, is in the House.

MS. SANFORD: I was about to welcome him; I saw him come in.

I want to thank the minister for his brief overview of some of the things that are going on in his ministry. I was particularly interested, Mr. Chairman, in the minister's opening statements and the emphasis which he placed on certain aspects of his ministry, which is going to give perfect credibility to the first line of criticism that I wish to bring forward under the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

I have never seen a minister as defensive about any aspect of his ministry as this minister was about the Workers' Compensation Board and its activities. He even read from an editorial in one of the newspapers trying to justify the actions of the Workers' Compensation Board, trying to convince us through an editorial comment that indeed the board is doing a good job, has a heart and all of these things. One of the areas in which the minister has utterly failed is in the area of workers' compensation and industrial health and safety in this province. He has been a complete failure. I think that his defensive posturing concerning that particular aspect of his portfolio in his introductory remarks verifies his own feelings of inadequacy in that area, his understanding of his own failings in dealing with the problems that relate to injuries, deaths, compensation and the whole question of industrial health and safety. It's an area which the minister hasn't talked about before.

The public has been very concerned about health and safety in the workplace. I have never heard as much discussion from the general public on issues such as the hazards of asbestos. We have heard about the problems as they relate to the schools, the problems related to PCBs in the environment, the problems related to the new chemicals being introduced and what sort of dangers are inherent in them, and the effects of radiation on workers.

Even issues that were very rarely discussed before are now being discussed by the general public — but not by that minister, and not by this government. These are areas that relate to stress on workers and the dangers presented by just the sheer boredom of the repetitive work that some workers in this province have to face. Noise, vibration, dust — all of these things are now becoming issues with everybody except the minister, the Workers' Compensation Board or the government. They're not concerned about them. I have not heard the minister make one speech on that issue. He has not directed his attention there, and it has been one of his biggest failings, Mr. Chairman. That's the tragedy, because it affects the health and the lives of the workers and the people of this province.

You know, you would think, listening to the minister in his opening remarks, or at any time that he has been questioned about the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board, that that minister was a paid public relations employee of the Workers' Compensation Board. Every time, he jumps to their defence. He has shown absolutely no leadership in terms of trying to improve the situation as it relates to health and safety in the workplace, or in terms of improving the situation as far as the role of the Workers' Compensation Board in improving health and safety, and in dealing with the claims that come before it, is concerned.

No wonder he was defensive in his opening remarks today. Ever since 1976, Mr. Chairman, one of the problems that has increasingly come before the MLAs — or at least a

[ Page 3469 ]

problem that comes to us in increasing numbers — relates to the dissatisfied claimants who have gone before the Workers' Compensation Board. We have file after file relating to dissatisfied injured workers in this province who have felt that they have not had fair dealing from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Even the ombudsman complains that one of the biggest problems he has to deal with relates to the Workers' Compensation Board and dissatisfied claimants. Surely the minister must be aware of the fact that all MLAs are receiving these complaints from constituents day after day. I wonder how much time and effort is spent by the MLAs in trying to resolve satisfactorily the complaints that come before us with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board.

He must be aware of all of those complaints. He must be aware of the dissatisfaction that's been expressed by the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association. He must be aware of his own colleagues who are being badgered concerning Workers' Compensation Board claims. But each time he acts like the public relations expert, the employee of the Workers' Compensation Board. He jumps to the defence of the Workers' Compensation Board and makes no indication at all to the public that he is concerned about it, that he intends to make any changes with respect to either the operation of that board, the makeup of that board or the whole question of industrial health and safety.

We've had the IWA document for us the increase in the number of injuries and deaths within the forest industry in the province. The B.C. Federation of Labour has stated many times that one of its major concerns is that of Workers' Compensation Board claims. CAIMAW has been a constant, outspoken critic of the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board.

What does the minister do? He stands up and defends them. In fact, the major action the minister has taken is to reappoint Dr. Adam Little, whose resignation has been called for by almost everybody within the labour movement. He appoints him for another two years. That's the extent of the concern of this minister with respect to the very serious problems that exist in that area.

When the minister was confronted with the figures relating to the increase in the number of injuries and deaths in the workplace, and at the same time was confronted with the figures that demonstrate that there is a decrease in the number of inspections in the workplace conducted by the Workers' Compensation Board, what was his response? Immediately he jumped again to the defence of that WCB. In my view, the minister should have said: "This is unacceptable. This is an area which I expect I will be changing in the immediate future, and it is something that I cannot accept." What did the minister do instead? He said: "Oh, well, the increase in the injuries and deaths in the workplace in British Columbia relates to the fact that there's been an increase in the workforce." Mr. Chairman, we had an increase in the workforce in British Columbia last year of 3 percent, but the increase in the injuries in the workplace last year over the previous year was 16 percent and the increase in the number of deaths in the province showed an increase of 25 percent over the previous year. But oh, no, the minister must play his public relations role on behalf of the WCB. Does he not know that he's the minister, he is in charge and he is the one that should set the direction, pace, tone and stage for the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board?

I assume that you really can't blame the WCB all that much when you have a government and a minister that gives no leadership, shows no concern in this area, and in fact concurs with the Workers' Compensation Board in its attempt to cut costs. The major direction and thrust of that Workers' Compensation Board is to cut costs on behalf of the employers of the province. They're under tremendous pressure from the employers to keep the costs down. There's an unfunded liability in the Workers' Compensation Board fund of well over $200 million and the employers say: "Keep the costs down." I'm sure that the commissioners feel that pressure.

When you have a government that concurs with keeping the cost down you have a reduction in the number of inspections and no improvement taking place with respect to health and safety in the workplace. That's what happens, Mr. Chairman, when you have a minister that adopts that attitude and refuses to take any leadership with respect to improving the situation as far as Workers' Compensation Board claims and health and safety in the workplace are concerned.

Surely the minister must be aware of this. I cannot understand why he has not taken an interest in this subject and got up and given speeches on it. Anytime you read about the minister making a speech somewhere, there is no reference whatsoever to the problems surrounding Workers' Compensation Board. Sheepishly today he came into the House and tried to explain that Workers' Compensation is okay, but he was very defensive. It showed that he's uncomfortable with that issue and is not prepared to take any leadership there, and that the workers of this province cannot look to that minister or that government for any improvement with respect to the operation of Workers' Compensation and the improvement of health and safety. I think that they must be feeling very pessimistic at this point. The minister has failed on that issue.

The Workers' Compensation Board had to drop its Diagnosis Alert Program because of the pressure that it was under. Do you know that program, Mr. Chairman? That was a program introduced by the Workers' Compensation Board to keep down costs. We know that. The people who had claims before the Workers' Compensation Board were to be healed or cured within a given period as laid out by the regulations set down by the commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Board, or their claims would be reviewed to find out why they were not cured or healed within that given period of time. It was an attempt to make sure that those workers got back to work — got cured within a given time as set down by the Workers' Compensation Board and got back on the job, to keep the cost down for the employers. That program has been quietly dropped because of the pressure that the Workers' Compensation Board commissioners were under.

We had an interesting development with respect to the proposed changes to schedule B. There the Workers' Compensation Board were going to cut off the eligibility for firemen who suffered a heart attack if they didn't suffer that heart attack within 48 hours of fighting a fire. I'm sure the minister remembers that kefuffle. Again, because of the pressure they were under from the public in that issue, they have decided to drop that from the regulations under schedule B.

But how can the minister accept the fact that there are reductions in the number of inspections in the workplace? He says himself that the workforce is growing, but he can accept a cut in the number of inspections that take place.

[ Page 3470 ]

The province of British Columbia ranks second among the provinces of Canada with respect to the number of injured workers' claims filed. There is a great deal to be done in improving the safety and health of the workplace, and I'm afraid that this minister is not prepared to take any action in that area. He has done nothing; he has said nothing; he has shown no concern. The only thing he has done is defend the Workers' Compensation Board and reappoint a chairman in whom the people of the province have lost confidence.

There is a lot of work to be done even with respect to the operations of the government itself, let alone industry, in terms of health and safety. Between 10 and 12 percent of the claims for the year 1978 — I am afraid I don't have any more up-to-date figures — involve provincial government employees. The figure demonstrates an accident-frequency rate higher than in either the mining or the logging industry — two of the most hazardous industries we have, yet the frequency with which the government employees made claims is higher than in those two industries.

What has the minister done in terms of encouraging his cabinet colleagues to ensure that the employees who work for the provincial government have a safe workplace? He hasn't said a word about it. In fact, I don't think he was even aware of those figures until this moment.

Another area in which the minister has been a great disappointment relates to the area of unemployment. He has done very little to ensure that the people of this province are going to be able to find work. He hasn't shown any concern; he hasn't made any speeches about that subject either. He has given no leadership and no direction in that area. What has he done to try to increase the processing of raw materials here in British Columbia? I haven't heard him say a word. I haven't heard him make any proposals. I haven't heard him express any dissatisfaction with shipping our raw materials to other countries. I haven't heard him say anything about the need for more secondary processing here. He is not that concerned about it.

He talked about Ocean Falls and the relocation of employees there. What did he do in cabinet to prevent those layoffs in the first place? Was he an outspoken person within that cabinet, saying that unemployment in this province is high enough without having to lay off people at Ocean Falls?

What action has he taken with respect to the layoffs resulting from automation in areas currently being affected, such as the telecommunication workers? Has he made one statement? Has he done any work at all with respect to the layoffs occurring in that industry?

I don't want to discuss legislation at this stage, but he did make reference to his new employment standards legislation. There is no provision in there at all with respect to layoffs resulting from automation, plant closures or whatever. These all relate to employment in this province. He made no mention of it and has not dealt with it at all. I don't expect that he will. Surely in this day and age when we see automation taking place at an alarming rate — people losing their jobs all over the place and being replaced by machines — the minister should be doing some work to ensure that those jobs are replaced by some other jobs. He should be making sure that the people who are going to be affected have some alternatives and some notice of what is going to happen to them. We were out just the other day on a tour with one of the logging companies. One of the things that they demonstrated to us, which was of great fascination, was a falling machine which will eliminate the work now done by fallers in the woods industry. It cut the tree off and laid it down neatly. This one machine can take out 600 trees a day.

These are things that are happening all over the province, and the minister has made no effort, no move to ensure that there are alternatives for these people. What did the minister say about the shutdown of Railwest when that happened? I realize he wasn't a minister at that time. Railwest was shut down, and I didn't hear any noises out of Prince George from a candidate who was the potential Minister of Labour. No, he didn't say anything about that. What steps did the minister take to prevent the bungling with regard to the Cargill operation? We have the Maplewood people still out of work because of the bungling by his cabinet colleagues. I didn't hear him make any comments or statements about that. How much fighting did the minister do during the bungling of the Marguerite, where we had Canadian crews here in Victoria losing their jobs and American crews being hired to operate the jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? Was the minister alarmed about that? Was he concerned even? He didn't make one comment, not a word.

I don't think he's been in there fighting for jobs, fighting to improve the employment situation in this province. He didn't mind when American crews replaced Canadians; he didn't say anything about it anyway. We've very high unemployment — 8.1 percent on Vancouver Island according to the last figures — but it's okay. According to this minister the government can go on closing down, shutting down and selling out at the expense of jobs here in British Columbia. He does and says nothing. That's a disappointment. He just sits quietly in his office allowing all these things to happen around him, allowing his cabinet colleagues to go on shutting down, selling out and giving jobs away to the Americans, and he doesn't say anything about it. In fact, he compounds the problem by his silence. He should be in there fighting. He's the Minister of Labour. He should be concerned about unemployment in this province. I haven't heard him say anything.

There is one subject that the minister talks about a lot, and that's the subject of apprenticeships. I picked up papers out of Prince George and the minister has made another speech about the shortage of skilled tradesmen in this province and how he's going to solve the problem. One of the difficulties right now is that they have a hiring freeze on, and I don't think he's going to be able to solve the problem very adequately through his own ministry because of that hiring freeze. But that's only one small aspect of the problem that he has with respect to trades training and apprenticeship programs. It's a very serious problem. We've all these young people without work and we have industry all over the place looking for people who have skills. The minister has set up this Apprenticeship Board....

But I am wondering at this stage, since the minister was hoping to be able to come up with some joint program with the federal minister, Mr. Axworthy, who is putting some $7 million into British Columbia for trades training, if all this fighting and bickering that's going on between Victoria and Ottawa has affected that program to the extent that there is no cooperation and no communication. Mr. Axworthy and this Minister of Labour should be working hand in hand in order to try to solve that problem. I'm not convinced that Mr. Axworthy is going about it the right way, but I think that program has been jeopardized by the statements of the Premier of this province, and the attitude of this government towards the federal government at this stage, because the

[ Page 3471 ]

federal minister, Mr. Axworthy, is about to sign agreements with Kaiser and other companies — the interior forest industry — so that apprentices can be hired with the assistance of federal money.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to take my seat at this stage. I want to raise more issues concerning the apprenticeship program, as well as other issues. But I'm hoping that the Minister of Labour will comment on some of the points that I've raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a number of items which the hon. member has raised. I would like to, first of all, make reference to her comments on unemployment. I think I can say that the statistics which were recently issued for the end of June indicated an unemployment rate of 6.3 percent. I appreciate that that's not really ideal, but I will tell you that 6.3 percent is the lowest it's been for approximately seven years.

I know this may be difficult for the hon. member to accept, but as far as the Workers' Compensation Board is concerned, generally speaking I think it has not only been the policy of our government but that of all governments within the province that a minimum amount of political interference in the activities of the board will probably produce far better results. It is my practice, and it has been the practice of a number of my predecessors.

That doesn't mean to say that there is not dialogue between the Minister of Labour and the commissioners on the board. It doesn't mean to say that there is not dialogue between various directors employed at the board. But one of the things which would place every politician, and I mean all government members, in an unbearable position would be if, in fact, they were constantly being advocates for people who have been injured in the workplace.

With respect to the comments raised by the member on occupational health and safety, I'm very much aware.... It is my belief that for the next five years there are two areas which will be of major concern, and that's one of them. The other one is training in the trades. That's why I raised in my opening remarks the comment about the present Essential Services Advisory Agency, where I thought perhaps an institute could be created to cover not only education in industrial relations, but also addressing by all members of industry the concerns in the areas of occupational health and safety. Now I mean that. I recognize the concerns which we have and which you have. There's no dispute.

Somebody recently said that it's easy for all governments across this dominion and in other jurisdictions as well to have workers' compensation boards end up being the kicking boys of the western world. I think that was rather an astute observation. As a matter of fact, it was made by a former British Columbian who was very active in the Labour Relations Board and has recently left.

Figures are sometimes hard, Madam Member, to analyze. I presume that you will receive one set of figures and I'll receive another set of figures. But you set me back when you told me there is a 25 percent increase in deaths, because I have before me a breakdown of fatalities right from 1975 to 1979. I think that I should raise them with you. This is a table which I received from the WCB for fatal claims during the years 1975-1979 inclusive. The essence is that there have been the following fatal claims which are accepted by the board: 1975 — 210; 1979 — 198. Now in the intervening years they have reduced. The difference between 1975 and 1976 there is a reduction from 210 to 151. In 1977 there were 147, 182 in 1978, and 198 in 1979.

It is interesting to note, though — and the question is really one of inspections, I presume — that during that time the total claims had increased as follows: from 1975 claims were approximately 135,000; in 1979 there were 187,000.

You cannot, by any means, justify fatalities. I for one am not going to do it. One death is one too many; that goes without saying. But we have to live with some of these facts of industrial life, and we try to do the best we can. If you wish to make comparisons, have a look at the number of fatalities in 1975, which were 210, and the total amount claimed was $135,000. Compare that with the number of fatalities in 1979, which were 198, and the amount of claims was $187,000. The ratio of accepted fatal claims to the total claim remains fairly constant: in 1975 it was 0.18; in 1979 it was 0.14. A 25 percent increase is an alarming figure. I would hope that over the next little while — if not during my estimates, then subsequent to them — perhaps you could show me where that figure came from. Perhaps I'm getting the wrong information. I'm not going to take an oath on this. I believe it to be true; I have no reason to dispute it. But I'm always ready to listen.

I think we ought to have a look at those 198 claims as well. The Workers' Compensation Board has jurisdiction over certain areas. The WCB had inspectional jurisdiction for 105 of those fatalities — 53 percent. Others having inspectional jurisdiction were the Department of Mines, Transport Canada, the RCMP, the Coast Guard, the Department of Labour, and RCMP (non-motor vehicle). So I think we ought to be concerned with what the WCB has jurisdiction over. Then we ought to address ourselves to where in fact that 53 percent is occurring — the 105 fatalities. In logging there were 41 fatalities. Inevitably it's highest in the logging industry. I made an inquiry into that, involving chokermen. I understand there was a short program for chokermen at Camosun College — almost like a pre-apprenticeship program — which lasted for about three weeks. I was interested in the type of training those chokermen received. I'm well aware of how dangerous it is, because I spent a long time doing that. I found out that until very recently there was only one injury for those chokermen who had been trained; I thought that was rather interesting. It seems to me that maybe there ought to be more effort in the logging industry to train people who are going out, because those are difficult jobs.

Sawmills accounted for 9 percent of fatalities; in construction it was approximately 17 percent; the rest break down into a number of miscellaneous industries. If we could just seriously zero in on one area — logging — I think we would make substantial progress.

I'm not going to respond to your comments, Hon. member, regarding Ocean Falls. I think the reason for the closure has been made abundantly clear by my colleagues. I'm not sure whether the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) was here when I....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I heard it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As I told you, there are now about 26. I think the people involved ought to be commended for that.

There were some discussions between me and the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy. On two or three occasions I have

[ Page 3472 ]

promised to be somewhere to receive a call. I worked with him to try to get some assistance. I found out something in government, and it didn't take very long: it's that each bureaucracy wants to have control. The program is something that I think we, the provincial Ministry of Labour, have got in place. Apprenticeship counsellors look after all of the administration. And what happens? The feds come through and pay, through journal entries between my ministry and the Ministry of Education, for the apprenticeship seats. As far as the program goes, which we have not yet formally announced but have managed to get out....

MS. SANFORD: Did you manage to get it out? Was it personal and confidential, and you pinned it on the wall?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, hon. member. I am talking about the apprenticeship program. Yes, I was looking to see whether or not we could get some assistance and have just one government do the administration. It makes a great deal of sense. Why should an employer who is prepared to participate and is encouraging and delighted to have this assistance and incentive have to fill out more than one set of documents and deal with more than one government? It just doesn't make sense. Anyway, the responses have not come.

I am aware of some talk about Kaiser and the program in the forest industry. The figure which you mentioned in the House, Madam Member, boggles me, because the amount of money I am told is available through the federal government is something in the order of $30 million. Normally 10 percent would be allotted to British Columbia, so we are talking $3 million. I haven't got any particulars of their program. There has been a lot of talk, but not much more. Maybe there is more coming.

You made reference to the ombudsman. I saw the annual report, and it looks like a number of the claims he has involve the Workers' Compensation Board. Remember, there were 187,000 claims in 1979. Of those, something in the order of 2,600 were subject to appeal to the boards of review in 1979. Take 2,600 over 186-thousand odd and we are down to a pretty low figure. Then in 1979 the appeals permitted were 960. In other words, 1,400 were sustained — not necessarily disallowance of a claim, but in fact the amount allowed may not have been acceptable to the injured worker.

I am afraid that I must take issue with the hon. member involving her comments about Dr. Adam Little, because I will tell you that I have found him.... It didn't take me too long to find out what a very, very difficult job he has. The fact is that he has the courage and knowledge to back it up in every case. It is very easy to criticize, but I will support him. I am on record as saying that a number of times, and I will continue to. I decided to put him right in the centre with me and one other in the presence of those who are concerned about the increase of assessments. I said: "I am going to go to this meeting only if you people are going to level, put your cards on the table and not have another social gathering. I will go, and I want the chairman to be there as well." I will tell you, we went from something like 6:30 until 1 in the morning. I listened to those who complained about assessments and a number of other items. I saw Dr. Little in action. When that meeting concluded I knew he was the man for the job. Nobody from either side was going to persuade him from the position he took or his board takes, which is fair to everyone.

As far as the ombudsman is concerned, I don't want to take up the time here, but I have three or four pages. I don't think a very major effort was made by the ombudsman to find out the real workings of the board. That is probably understandable too, because it is a fairly new appointment and has been in progress now for about a year. I hope that the ombudsman takes the opportunity to discuss in some detail all of the problems the board has and the difficult issues it must resolve.

I will make inquiry with respect to the Diagnosis Alert Program. I cannot say anything more at this time about it. Yes, I met with the injured and disabled. I have a detailed report on all of the demands which were made by them; I presume you have a copy of their demands. I thought that perhaps after our meeting and after the position taken by the board covering a number of the items was explained, most of the matters were adequately resolved, but I would tell you that not all of them, by a long shot, will be resolved to the satisfaction of all of those who are aggrieved. I think that's about all I will state, hon. member, on those items.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not reassured me at all with respect to the attitude and the approach taken by the Workers' Compensation Board to injured workers in this province. Time and time again the chairman of the board is quoted in the paper as putting the blame, in effect, on the workers. The workers may have a lot of stress at home, and that creates a problem; that puts the injury rate up. He talks about people having an attitude which is not very satisfactory in terms of the workplace; he refers to them as "pot smokers" or "cigarette smokers," or says that they're worried about their families. Instead of emphasizing and trying to concentrate on locating the source of the problem within the industry — the minister talked about forestry — the whole direction and thrust of the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board is putting the blame or tending to put the blame on the actions of the employee.

Let me give you one concrete example. There was a miner who was developing the signs of silicosis and was taken out of the mine. He developed silicosis, but he was turned down by the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Chairman, because he smoked cigarettes. I agree that cigarette smoking is not very good for your lungs, but it doesn't cause silicosis. That's the kind of cost-cutting and the kind of attitude that I think is indicative of the attitude of the minister and the government towards workers, the workplace, injuries and deaths.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, a lot of this attitude expressed by somebody like the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board is really a reflection of government. Many of the agencies and the boards and the commissions that are appointed by any government reflect the attitude of that government. They know who appointed them; they pick up through all kinds of subtle statements, attitudes and even silences by government people as to what is expected of them. They have picked up from this minister and from this government....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who has?

MS. SANFORD: It's the Workers' Compensation Board commissioners I'm talking about. They have picked up the attitude that, yes, it is important to keep down costs. It is important in my view for the Workers' Compensation Board to begin a program which develops an expertise on specific

[ Page 3473 ]

B.C. health problems, develops a cancer reporting system and does all kinds of things that would help cut down on the number of claims and the number of deaths occurring in the workplace in British Columbia. They're not doing any of that, and it's because of the attitude of that minister and of this government. "Cut costs, cut costs, cut costs." That's the message that's going out, and that's the message that Dr. Little is picking up and that's the message that he is carrying out. That's why he makes statements about workers and their attitudes, the problems that they might have with families and the fact that some of them smoke cigarettes. That's why they get turned down on the silicosis claim. Even though they worked in a mine and quite clearly developed silicosis there, they're turned down because they smoke cigarettes.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer the minister to the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board. He was worried about the figures. This is page 5. I was talking about the fatalities reported in this province. There is a whole list on page 5 indicating, right through from 1970 to 1979, the increase in the number of fatalities reported as quoted in the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board. In 1978 there were 208, in 1979 there were 260. That is an increase of 25 percent.

The minister did not answer the question with respect to his lack of interest and his unwillingness to fight for those employees who are losing their jobs in this province. He made some general reference to the overall unemployment figures in B.C., but why wasn't he up there saying it is not acceptable for Canadian employees to lose their jobs so that American employees can be employed to provide the same service that is already being provided to British Columbia? Why does he allow that to happen? Why doesn't he say it is unacceptable to him as the Minister of Labour? He must be weak.

I have a couple of other points. I hope the minister will get up again and respond to these. We did not see an increase in the minimum wage in this province for a period of four years. We saw a tremendous increase in the cost of living during that time. Politically, the previous Minister of Labour and the government refused to recognize the difficulty that people who are working for the minimum wage were put under because of the increase in the cost of living, and refused to accept the recommendation of the Board of Industrial Relations year after year after year that the minimum wage had to be put up. As a result, when the minister raised the minimum wage by 40 cents after a period of four years, that did not in any way, shape or form accommodate the needs of those employees who have had to face the tremendous cost-of-living increases in the previous four years. It doesn't nearly measure up. If they had assumed their political responsibilities and recognized the increase in the cost of living year by year by year, then employers would not be faced with huge increases all of a sudden in order to meet that cost of living. Forty cents was about all the minister figured he could raise the minimum wage, but it is inadequate. It is because the government refused to accept the recommendations of the Board of Industrial Relations year after year after year. They shirked their responsibility.

There are new appointees that are going to be made to the Human Rights Commission next month. I am again appealing to the minister to assure this House today that the people who are being considered for the Human Rights Commission are people who have some interest and understanding of human rights in this province. How many times have we heard human rights commissioners making statements which reveal that they have no interest in human rights and that nor do they particularly care?

I am also wondering if the 12-member commission is not too large. If you had maybe even half that number — if the commission were made up of people who understood human rights, who were willing to make the effort towards improving human rights in British Columbia — then I don't think you would need a commission as large as 12. I think it becomes quite unwieldy, and certainly the current make-up of that commission leaves a lot to be desired. I hope the minister is prepared to change that.

I think that I'm going to resume my seat at this stage and hope that the minister might make a few more comments.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to your last comments, Madam Member, I concur and I think that that is enough said at this time.

With respect to the minimum wage, I had comparisons drawn right across the country and, interestingly enough, the recommendations of the Board of Industrial Relations were slightly higher. But with the adjustment on December 1 you will find that they are in line and, as a matter of fact, leading most provinces in Canada. I haven't got the figures before me, but I don't think I'm too far out by saying that.

It somewhat surprises me — the constant comments with respect to attitude — because I thought that I was demonstrating a great deal of concern, and I thought that was reflected in recent appointments to the Workers' Compensation Board, particularly those of Mr. Parr and Mr. Miyazawa.

By the way, there is one item I would raise with respect to another point which you had raised, hon. member, and that is how the law stands today involving the board and the act. I would just like to read this item to you: "The Workers' Compensation Act places the responsibility for the interpretation of the act and for the enunciation of its policies on the board of commissioners." The act also says that the board of review, following its hearings, will recommend to the board what decisions it feels are proper. The board in general accepts those recommendations except when certain circumstances exist. Why I raise this with the House at this time is that the appeal process is a good one. I find it difficult for the ombudsman to find fault when in fact, generally, unless there are some particular areas that they cannot.... The appeal from a board of review does have to go back to the commissioners, but generally they always accept the board of review's decisions. I think perhaps there was an area in there which required some clarification with the ombudsman.

I think those are the items I've covered: human rights, minimum wage comparatives, Board of Industrial Relations, attitude, reappointments. The last items which you covered that have been touched by me, and I'll take my place.

MR. HANSON: I've enjoyed the comments of my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford). I think that the minister's remarks are a bit Pollyannaish, actually. What I mean by that is that we have an annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board which is full of information regarding fatalities, about the current trends in disease which is occurring in the workplaces of British Columbia, and what do we hear from

[ Page 3474 ]

him? Things are fine and dandy. No, he says that "we're working along, but the figures are down." I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, about something that happened to me today. The minister....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I guess I'm waking the gravel pit up over there.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you something that I did today. The minister knows I am interested in occupational health and safety. I'm interested in environmental health. Particularly I'm interested in what's happening in the forest industry, and how they account for such a large portion of the permanent disabilities, the fatalities, the medical claims, and so on. A lot of it is avoidable. But I'll tell you what I did.

I phoned the Workers' Compensation Board and I said: "Hello. My name is Gordon Hanson. I'm an MLA in Victoria. I don't want anything that anybody else couldn't obtain, but I would like to know how many people have died in the forest industry from January 1, 1980, until today." I was sent from the statistics branch over to the information services branch. I was informed there that it is a board policy that no statistics whatsoever are to be disclosed because they are embarrassing if they are disclosed to people or people give out different information. My point is: how do we monitor trends, what is happening, what particular industries are accounting for the claims, which ones run a safe shop, and which ones run an unsafe shop? It was pointed out to me that that is the board policy now. I guess it's been embarrassing, because somewhat after the IWA convention last year, when fatalities were an issue on the floor of the convention and there was a dispute about the numbers.... Perhaps that was when it was changed.

I conferred with my colleague, the former minister during the NDP period, and that was not the policy at the time. There was an annual report. Now there is a quarterly report, but they are lump-sum figures. They don't give any refined specific data.

My point is: if the minister feels that things are fine and dandy in the Workers' Compensation Board, then why aren't those figures open and available to anybody who wants them? I think any union occupational health and safety officer should be able to pick up the phone, phone the information service and say: "In class 1(2) I want to know how many medical aid claims and how many permanent disabilities. How are we doing compared with last year? Where is it happening?" I think it's their right to know that. It's not happening, and I would like to see the minister do something about that.

I'd like to see the minister expand the whole occupational environment area — the number of inspectors. We all know that people are contracting diseases that have long latency periods when they ingest dust, chemicals and the kind of thing that my colleague for Comox was pointing out. Have you, for example, said publicly that you're opposed to all the untested chemicals that are in the workplace? They're not marked or labelled. There's no information given to a worker when he comes on the jobsite saying that if he ingests some of that he's going to have a good chance of getting a liver cancer. How about that? We know that health care costs are largely environmental. Therefore the preventive area has got to be anticipating that and cleaning up the workplace. As the minister pointed out, in 1979 there were almost two million work days lost as a result of on-the-job illness and injury; it's in the annual report.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's roughly three times the work-stoppage loss.

MR. HANSON: Yes, it's two million days. I think in the annual report it says 144,000 new claims, but you said 180,000, so I'm not sure.

The forest products area, for example, according to the annual report accounts for 23 percent of all claims. The minister made a passing reference to being interested in chokermen and the fact that there was only one injury among the people who had taken the course. That should be self-evident then, and every person who works in the forest industry should have an employer-paid orientation and safety program before he goes into the field. That's the way it is in Scandinavia. Yes, they have smaller-diameter wood, but right away they cut down the high costs of injuries in the woods.

I'd like to read you some of the things that happened just in the forest industry, and how avoidable they are. There are many people killed in the forest industry as a result of falling wood, branches breaking off — fallers have a very high-risk job. Here's one, skidder operator: a rubber-tired skidder with a full load of logs left the road; the operator was found semiconscious under a log and had amnesia as to exactly what had happened. Bucker: as the skidder was blading off the limbs a small log or large limb swung around and struck the bucker's ankle. Chokerman: at the conclusion of the first day of his work the worker collapsed and died. This may be attributed to high temperatures and the worker's being unaccustomed to this type of labour. Another chokerman: worker staggered and collapsed at the end of a 10-hour shift in extremely hot weather.

What I'm trying to point out is that if you look at the annual report you will find that the majority of people injured in the forest industry are under 24 years of age. A large proportion of that occurs within the first 30 days on the job. It's self-evident again that the necessity to have pre-job training is absolutely vital. You can't hire somebody off the street and expect that he is going to be aware of all the hazards in the workplace. So I would like the minister to give a response, not just to talk about Camosun College and the chokerman, or Malaspina College, or wherever a community college has a program. I want to see an industrywide program in this province, to save the lives of people dying in the woods unnecessarily. With proper training it's avoidable.

Every coroner's report that I have seen — I haven't seen many, but I've seen some — called for training. I have one here, an inquest. People in the forest industry in Mission who worked for Millstream Timber were killed when there was a premature blast of some blasting powder, and the coroner calls for training for blasters. Is there not training for people doing blasting in the woods? If not, why not? I don't want to hear how rosy things are; I want to hear specific proposals about how this minister is addressing specific problems.

I'm going to sit down. I want the minister to address, if he would, the several proposals I have made: pre-employment training in the forest industry, and for the blasters; the opening to divulge.... I understand that people may call the WCB and put an onerous load onto an information officer asking for information that would involve a huge computer run, for example, for data. But I think that the statistics on

[ Page 3475 ]

fatalities and just general disabling injuries are kept on a monthly basis. They're there stored in the computer. The statisticians there — the computer programmers — have them. They could be made available to trade unions and to a person writing a letter to the WCB who has a reasonable request. I would like him to address that if he would.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To the member, as far as safety is concerned, it's self-evident. I'm certainly not in dispute with the comments that you raise. It seems to me that if it's not compulsory it ought to be so addressed in the logging and the forest industry generally, if we know that's where the greatest number of claims are. I've got with me every fatality for one year. The breakdown of these fatalities — of which I have been interested in for some time because of my obvious concern for it — is that we take the date of the death, inspection jurisdiction, type of industry, firm name and number, location, employee's name, occupation, age, date and nature of the cause of the injury.

The thing that worried me right off the bat was your comment that most of the injuries were involving people 24 years of age and younger. Did I hear you correctly?

MR. HANSON: Yes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As soon as you said that I thought I'd go through here and check them out. Of a total of 16 fatalities, two were 24 years old and one was 23. The others were all over 24. I'm amazed at the numbers in here involving 30-year old, 40-year old and 50-year old people. I would expect that men of this age who have died in the forests, sawmills or logging operations of one type or another have been people who've been in the industry for some time. I think that's a presumption which probably would be fair to make. The question then we have to address ourselves to is: why would somebody with that number of years of experience be the victim of a fatality? Then when I go in and look at what causes these accidents, I really begin to wonder. I take notice of what you said. If somebody starting off in the beginning has instruction in safety, I think it makes eminent good sense. I'm just checking my notes on here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I might interrupt the minister just for a moment. Hansard advises that perhaps you might raise your microphone.... They're having a little difficulty.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's me, not the microphone. My apologies.

With respect to disclosure, I'm going to make an inquiry into why.... I mean it seems to me that if somebody dies in the workplace, somebody's going to have a record of it. If it's convenient to secure those records or that information from the WCB, I think that it's worth inquiring into. I know that you could easily find out by going elsewhere, but I think the WCB is a convenient place of record. I will make note of that.

Blasters. I will take notice of that too. I can't answer that question right now.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other things I'd like to address to the minister. He's made a number of comments when times get tough politically regarding the WCB that the WCB is an independent body and so on. Certainly it's an independent body, but this body reflects the tone of the government. If he does not recognize that, then he is not aware of the reality.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me give you an example — the changes to schedule B of the Workers' Compensation Act. Schedule B, as you may know, lists a series of illnesses which are directly attributable to the kind of employment a person performs. For example, firefighters have a higher incidence of heart disease than almost any other occupation. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to know why. They are exposed to high temperatures and dust and chemicals which they inhale and which damage their lungs and in turn damage their hearts. Why did the board embark upon a plan to make it difficult for a firefighter to claim a work-related heart attack? Was there medical evidence? The medical evidence is well substantiated for the causal relationship of heart disease and lung damage and firefighting.

If you look in the annual report you will see that one of the highest cost items, and an exponentially increasing item, is claims for chemical burns and respiratory problems — costs, in other words. When Adam Little.... I have nothing personal against Mr. Little. I am talking about the policies of the board, which I feel should follow the intent of the act, which is to assess each claim on its merits and a balance of probabilities as opposed to one person's medical opinion. That is the bone of contention. It is a legal thing. We need a more legal definition of a worker's rights, and not one doctor presiding over two million patients. That's the point.

Back to the firefighters. When Adam Little announced on television, without any prior consultation whatsoever with the labour movement or any other interested party, that these changes were to take place, it just so happened that some people viewing the program were interested and wrote him a letter which said: "Further to your appearance on such-and-such a television show, where you indicated that Schedule B of the Workers' Compensation Act would be changed, would you please advise us, as we are very interested?" He then wrote back and said he had come to the Minister of Labour — either you or your predecessor — and was advised that he himself had the power to proceed.

Those changes did not result from medical research. They involved going to cardboard boxes in the basement of the Workers' Compensation Board to find out the numerical frequency of claims and where the costs were. Take a look in the annual report. It talks about a massive increase in tendonitis, a massive increase in tenosynovitis, and all these things. Guess which changes they made to make it more difficult to claim? Tendonitis, tenosynovitis, the firefighters, etc. It was based on costs, not medical research. What is that? Is that political? I would really be interested in hearing the minister's comments on that.

I have another sheet here which gives the employer assessment rates by class and by industry. It is clear to me that forest industry costs, due to the frequency of injuries, are increasing. But is the penalty on the industry increasing? No. In fact, it is staying the same. I would like the minister to give this House some kind of rationale for what the assessment structure is supposed to be. Is there a penalty on an employer who has a high incidence of accidents and runs an unsafe shop — in other words, a high risk industry? Is that money supposed to be a penalty to clean it up, or is it a cheap

[ Page 3476 ]

insurance policy to carry out his business without cleaning up the shop? I would like that cleared up. I think there are other members on this side of the House who would like that cleared up too.

I think the minister should show some leadership. When the Schedule B changes were proposed, I think a letter should have gone from the minister's office saying: "I would like to know what the medical justification for these changes is. Has extensive research been conducted? What is the rationale for it? What is it all about? As a minister of the Crown, as Minister of Labour, my role is that of advocate for working people in this province." That is your role.

You said you were going to look into the Diagnosis Alert questionnaire. You know what the Diagnosis Alert thing is now. It was to sit down and get from several doctors what they felt would be roughly the right healing period for an injury. In other words, someone has a hernia, someone has a cartilage removed, someone has some kind of injury, and they are receiving benefits. The doctors would come up with a standard amount of time which would be built into the computer, and if the person was not off benefits after that three-week or six-week period, that particular card would be kicked out of the computer and that person would be off benefits. That makes a number of assumptions about human health, anatomy and physiology: that we're all the same; that we all heal the same; that we're all of the same stamina and recovery period. No attempt was made to include ageing, general well-being, the nature of the industry a person was working in, etc. etc. In other words, it wasn't based on anything but costs.

Mr. Chairman, for the minister to say the WCB is not a political thing.... It is political in the sense that the tone, the general operation and orientation of the WCB is set by the government in power and by the minister himself in the sense of attitude, approach, statements that are made and so on. You know that as well as I do.

I would be happy to take my place and hear the minister's comments on Diagnosis Alert and what role he should have played in Schedule B changes.

Before I take my place, it just occurred to me that I would like to make another comment. I think that all of the medical literature as it relates to industrial occupational illness should be reviewed across all jurisdictions to see where we stand. Why do we have to rely, for example, on inspection standards from a private agency in the United States? Don't we have a University of British Columbia and a Simon Fraser University? Don't we have epidemiologists, doctors, other kinds of people? In fact, we have some of the most prominent people in the country working on asbestosis here in British Columbia.

For many of these things there is no safe level. Therefore I don't think we should be relying on two particles per millilitre of more than five microns, blah-blah. I think we should be aiming for "no safe level" for some of these hazards, because the social costs later on are going to be picked up by the Minister of Health. It's not a matter of the employers alone paying through their assessments for the costs; those costs are picked up in Human Resources, in welfare for people who don't qualify for one reason or another — somehow they can't fit into all the documentation, they fall between chairs, they're adjudicated against, or what have you. It's Human Resources, federal agencies and Health; it's out of the public purse. So it's not an issue limited specifically to this minister's portfolio.

I would like to see some leadership, speaking out on these issues that affect working people in this province. We don't hear it. We hear platitudinous, Pollyannaish statements about how figures are down; things are looking okay. It ain't good enough.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll take a couple of minutes, Mr. Chairman. I have to advise the second member for Victoria that I don't accept his statement. I will tell you my position, and it is the position of our government. I will not interfere in a truly political sense in the affairs of the WCB. I think that all members in this House are going to invite a great deal of difficulty.... I mentioned earlier in my comments that that doesn't mean to say at all there should not be some dialogue, but to try to effect a lot of policy matters in the day-to-day operations of the board is to invite chaos. I feel that way, and I think it's probably in the interests of all. You know, the board has the ability to set assessments. The government does not go to the board and say: "We want you to increase the assessments in one particular industry."

I sort of missed the impact of your question — unless it went over my head — involving the concept of penalty. It is not a concept of a penalty; it is a concept of insurance. But the fact is that the type of assessment that is levied in fact is almost a penalty, and deservedly so, because that is where — in the high categories, particularly logging — we find the highest rate per hundred.

With reference to the firemen and Schedule B, I think what is important is this: the board came forth with a proposed or revised Schedule B; the board asked for submissions; the board floated the first revised Schedule B. The board had to float that revised schedule because of the number of briefs that were submitted. I spoke with representatives from the firemen and I suspect they talked to you, probably the same day they talked to me. I know that brief was submitted. It was a very elaborate brief but there were a number of others. I know those briefs were read by the board. But as a result of all the discussion between members of the board and a review of the briefs which were submitted, there was in fact another Schedule B which came.

Interestingly enough, since it's come through I haven't received any complaints. Nothing has been registered with me at all. As a matter of fact, probably one of the strongest advocates on behalf of the employees had something favourable to say which I read in the press. I have not heard anything else. I remember there were questions asked of me in the House and I told you that I was concerned about the position which the board had taken — that is, whether there would be a public hearing. I accepted the position of the board with respect to the public hearing portion. I saw nothing wrong with them making an oral presentation in support of their submission. But I think what is important is this: the board did listen and it showed signs of sensitivity to which you have made reference. Their new schedule came out and I've not heard any complaints.

However, I am going to pass the other item you mentioned rather quickly; that is, shouldn't we have somebody in British Columbia that can prepare this material? I would like to think that we would have but British Columbia doesn't have the answer to all the problems in the areas of occupational health and safety. As a matter of fact, the firemen found that their best source of material, from their point of view, was to be found in the U.S. Rightfully, they went to the U.S., through their representatives, to get what they could to

[ Page 3477 ]

best support their case. There is nothing wrong with that at all. There is nothing wrong with anyone looking for other sources of information. It is not all going to be in British Columbia.

As far as tone is concerned, I think that the reflection and tone of the government is in the nature of the appointments made to the board that I raised before. There were two appointments made to the board. As a matter of fact, there is a fifth slot open right now. When the candidate arrives whom I think can really fill the job, it is going to be filled. I can tell you I've sent that message out a number of times. That is how I want the tone of the board. If you mention tone, it is by the government.... That is how I think it is best reflected.

MR. HANSON: The Schedule B changes were not circulated to any trade union until after they had objected. The firefighters then had to put together a medical brief which cost their membership over $15,000 just to keep the board from taking away their protection under Schedule B. Question number one: do you think it would be fair to reimburse the firefighters the amount of money they had to spend to stand still?

Question number two: yesterday or the day before I made a proposal to the Minister of Health that employment history be included in the medical record so that the long latency of many industrial illnesses and so on would be apparent. The whole adjudication process may be somewhat assisted by that information. I would like to hear your opinion on that proposal and then I am concluded.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Nice to see you, second member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. MAIR: You don't have to lie.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I always enjoy his company.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question of the member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not so sure I can answer the second question.

With respect to the first question — the brief, $15,000 first, I don't believe that the board has the authority to indemnify them, and from my own position I wouldn't support it. The reason I wouldn't support it is that there are briefs to government made by hosts of organizations throughout the province for just as many reasons. Are we then to subsidize every brief which is submitted to a Crown corporation or a government office? I think the precedent that you're creating would be pretty significant.

I cannot answer the second question, I'm sorry. I will read the Blues tonight and see what I can do for you.

MR. KING: I want to advise Hansard, first of all, that they should not be too concerned if they can't hear the minister, because what the minister is speaks much louder than his words, and I think we've seen an indication of what the minister is here this afternoon.

The last point that the minister seems to have some difficulty understanding is that he fears a precedent by funding those who are threatened and jeopardized by government action. Mr. Minister, you're a lawyer, and there is no precedent established in this case at all. It is not uncommon at the federal level or the provincial level to fund minority groups whose way of life is jeopardized by government action which erodes some standard that currently exists. That's what my colleague is talking about — a standard of protection which already exists with respect to occupational health and workers' compensation coverage, which the board proposes to unilaterally remove without consultation with those affected.

Then the minister suggests that it's very sensitive of that threatening agency to come along after the fact and listen to submissions. How wonderful!

Well, it so happens that one of the first firefighter cases was in Trail, British Columbia. It happened to be a friend of mine. It was a case in which my brother represented the worker and established protection for a heart attack. It's significant and interesting that that case was won by the boards of review, subject to appeal by the commissioners and then appeal by the employers, and is now resting dormant. In the face of that threatened litigation by the employer, to strip that unfortunate widow of the protection she had gained through the normal litigation process of the WCB, isn't it a bit significant and coincidental that all of a sudden the board, which is supposed to be an agency to protect workers, proposes to remove that very protection under which this firefighter's widow won a pension? That's ironic, Mr. Minister; that's highly coincidental, isn't it? It's highly coincidental that, in the face of pending litigation by the company to strip that widow of the pension, the board proposed a change in Schedule B which would make it much more difficult for a widow in similar, future circumstances to gain and win a pension.

The minister says: "Far be it from me to interfere in a political way with the board. It's fine and sensitive for the board to make these changes and then invite representations after." That's an old political trick, you know. If everything's going well out there and the government's not getting any good news, take something away from the people, create a furor, and then give it back to them and say: "Look at how wonderful we are." That's all the board was proposing. I suggest that if the board were really sensitive they would consult with the trade union movement, the working people of the province and the employers before they arbitrarily imposed this kind of threatening, retrograde step on the people whom they are supposed to represent. I suggest that would be sensitive.

I don't like attacking the WCB. I happened to sit in your chair at one time, Mr. Minister. But I must say that Dr. Adam Little's letter in response to admittedly fairly inflammatory and volatile statements made by the IWA — but with 49 fatalities involved there's reason to be a bit inflammatory — was anything but sensitive; it was insulting and abusive. I suggest that no public servant in the province of British Columbia should respond in that fashion.

Having once been the steward of that department and having great respect in the main for the employees of that department.... During the past year I have had occasion myself, after a telephone conversation with a regional WCB officer, to thereafter direct a letter to that individual and demand an apology for the abusive fashion in which he addressed me on the telephone. It was forthcoming; otherwise it would have been referred to the minister's desk.

I suggest that we have not got sensitive treatment from

[ Page 3478 ]

elected politicians and much less for the people who need it most, those injured workers in the province. I'm not very happy when the minister says: "Look, we don't interfere politically."

Mr. Minister, I'm going to tell you that it would be improper to interfere politically in the day-to-day administration or in the adjudicative process. It's not improper for you to give policy direction; that's why you were elected as a politician. Failure to do so is an abuse of your elected responsibilities, in my view. You have a responsibility and an obligation to monitor the policy performance and the administrative performance of those agencies which reside under your portfolio. If the performance is not up to snuff, you have a further obligation to take corrective action, if not in the field of policy direction and hiring or firing, then certainly in statutory reform. That is your obligation. So to dodge by saying, "Look, it's not my political responsibility," is cute, but it's not quite good enough. As I said, the minister is a lawyer and he should know that.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't get up to talk about WCB; that was not my purpose. My colleagues have articulated their concerns very eloquently and clearly. With his responses the minister did provoke some comments from me.

Quite frankly, I got up initially to ask for some information. There are two areas that I am a zit perplexed and confused about. Things have changed a great deal since I was Minister of Labour. I've been involved in other things, and perhaps I forget a little bit. So I'm looking to the minister for some help and guidance in terms of understanding what the ground rules are now.

The first area about which I want to consult with the minister is with respect to the hiring of non-union contractors by the government. As I understand it, the area of non-union contractors working for government is regulated by the Public Construction Fair Wages Act. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? I believe that was an answer you gave during question period one day. I'm just going to make some assumptions and ask the minister to indicate whether or not I am correct. If that is the case, I presume the Minister of Labour is the person responsible for the application and enforcement of that act. I further presume that the purpose and the main essence of that act is to guarantee a fair standard of wages and working conditions for unorganized workers who are operating in the public sector in terms of a contract with the government. How am I doing, Mr. Minister? Am I correct so far?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The member knows that particular piece of legislation to which I referred.... I subsequently found out — as a matter of fact, it wasn't too long after I had made that statement — that there are no regulations under that statute. So I wonder if it has any applicability at all.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his comments. The act has no regulations, and therefore it's unenforceable in terms of any meaning whatsoever.

This question arose because the Ministry of Labour contracted a non-union organization to do certain work on the ministry's offices in Burnaby.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Okay, BCBC contracted it. BCBC contracted the non-union contractor to do work on the Ministry of Labour offices in Burnaby at Deer Lake Centre. The minister was questioned in the House about this, and he said: "Well, they bid the lowest contract. Therefore I have to protect the public interest and ensure that we get the best deal for the taxpayers' money." He went on to say that non-union help that was employed on the Ministry of Labour buildings in Burnaby was guaranteed fair treatment by the Public Construction Fair Wages Act. The minister now admits that there are no regulations under that act so that non-union contractor was in effect able to pay the minimum wage if he so chose. Is that correct?

I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on this but I do want to draw to the attention of the House, for the sake of comparison, what happened to those union people who were affected by the acceptance of this non-union contract. The unions affected ultimately picketed the Ministry of Labour buildings in Burnaby, which was pretty embarrassing politically, I imagine, because the Minister of Labour is supposed to be the referee to ensure fair treatment, no unfair labour practices and minimum standards of protection in the province for all workers.

MR. MACDONALD: How long has he been in Labour?

MR. KING: I think the gestation period is still underway, Mr. Member.

After those union workers said, "Look, we don't want non-union people on this job," they finally put up a picket line. Lo and behold, I find that the Ministry of Labour took action immediately, through an application to the Labour Relations Board, for an expedited hearing to obtain a cease and desist order against that union picketing.

A complaint was filed by a lawyer representing the Ministry of Labour based on a sworn affidavit by Colin Kay. He is one of the high-profile industrial relations mediation officers often involved in sensitive bargaining between employers and unions in the province of British Columbia. After him now being a complainant, after him now establishing himself and his credentials on management's side in this process, I find it a little difficult to understand how his credibility is going to be preserved to carry on his historic role in industrial relations in the province.

In any event, the Minister of Labour commissioned this complaint against the unions for picketing against a non-union contractor doing work on the Ministry of Labour buildings. The minister said, "Oh, they will be protected by the Fair Employment Labour Standards Construction Act" — whatever the heck it is — with no regulations and no power of enforcement. Only now, months after, he gets up in the House and says: "Well, I found out subsequently that there were no regulations." Well, the minister wasn't reticent about taking action against affected employees who picketed. His ministry sought a cease and desist order before the Labour Relations Board and they found regulations to hammer them into line pretty quickly. But he had no protection to offer to those employees of the non-union contractor, none at all.

What is the Minister of Labour going to do about the fact that his colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), was brought before the Labour Relations Board last year and convicted of an unfair labour practice with respect to his utterances on Notre Dame University of Nelson?

[ Page 3479 ]

The point is simply this. Here are three examples. In the one case you had an opportunity, Mr. Minister, to defend the rights of and establish protection for working people. You now have to admit that there are no regulations to give any force to that act of yours, so non-union workers are completely at the will and the whim of the employer. As a matter of policy, you invite them in competition with organized workers to bid and do work, even on Ministry of Labour buildings, with no power of enforcement to assist them in any way. But when the trade union movement stepped over the bounds you immediately initiated action against them before the Labour Relations Board. You hammered them.

When your colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, breached the Labour Code, neither you nor your predecessor, who may well have been the Minister of Labour at the time, spoke out. Neither one of you took any remedial action to protect the rights of those employees of Notre Dame University of Nelson. That minister got away with complete impunity with an affront and a breach of the act that you are sworn to uphold, but not so the working people of the province of British Columbia. When they put, up a picket line in front of your offices in Burnaby to indicate their displeasure and their opposition, you hammered them. Some Minister of Labour you are! So I say your conduct does indeed speak much louder than your words.

I want to ask you some questions, too, on a second issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never worked a day in your life.

MR. KING: There's the magic mushroom again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all members please come to order — the members for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke continues.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if I could ever legislate an honest day's work out of any of those members, I would certainly proceed with it.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Oh, listen to them, Mr. Chairman; they're coming into full throat. It's getting late in the evening and they're waking up. Fred and Barney are doing their act. And the magic mushroom down there is starting to find his voice too. Isn't that amazing! The magic mushroom who never stands up to address the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I will ask you to contain your debate to vote 146, and I will ask all the other hon. members in the assembly now gathered to remain quiet, because the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor on vote 146.

MR. KING: Thank you for protecting me, Mr. Chairman; I needed that.

I want to ask the minister about his new approach to apprenticeship training. It's an area that is very difficult to deal with; I appreciate that. I know that the minister is deeply interested in it. I watched him very closely on "Capital Comment" last week, and I was really unable to discern any new and dynamic approach to that question of apprenticeship training. As I say, it's very difficult. But it's my understanding that one of the things that the minister has done — this seems to be a bit vague, and I would appreciate the minister listening with rapt attention.... I understand that minister has either announced or is on the verge of announcing a program of subsidy or financial incentives to employers who take on apprentices in the province and train them. I'm not sure what the criteria are, but it's my understanding that the minister either has announced or is on the verge of announcing a very substantial subsidy arrangement to employers that meet those certain criteria for industrial apprenticeship training. Is this correct? If so, I would like the minister to explain his rationale for that kind of approach to industrial training. I'm very interested in understanding what the background is and what he feels the results will be. Was it his own idea? Was this suggested by ministry officials? Was it something that the employers of the province or the apprenticeship training board recommended? How was the idea born in the minister's mind? I'd appreciate some information on that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the first item raised by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, at the time that I answered the question in the House I freely admit that I thought that this particular piece of legislation was effective. Subsequent to that time I have found that it is without regulation, and I so advised you. I'm not ashamed to mention the fact that I was in error, but it was inadvertent at the time. I hope you accept it in that spirit.

I might tell you that it is my understanding, and I'm relying upon other information, that the piece of legislation to which you are referring was introduced by the members opposite when they were government. I wonder about.... There may have been some amendments...

MR. KING: Oh, yes, there were indeed!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: ...to that piece of legislation, but I gather that's where it came from.

I'd like to mention only this. I can tell you that you've now told me something that I wasn't aware of, and that is an application which was made for a cease-and-desist by a Mr. Kay. I don't know anything about that, and I never did. I was wondering whether or not it makes reference to the particular contract that was raised in the House by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). But I can tell you that I was in a very difficult position, because this contract had been let by BCBC and, I understand, by the time it was brought to my attention it was half concluded. It was a very small contract involving some leasehold improvements. I admit that it was rather embarrassing for me because of the nature of the area where the work was being done. I was also faced with the other problem, and that is that the low tender was in the amount of, I believe, something in the order of $22,000 or $24,000 and the next tender was, I think, $36,000 or $38,000. So there was a substantial difference.

The real issue here is whether or not the employees of the contractor — company or partnership, I'm not sure what it was — that did the work did in fact receive a fair wage. I am advised — and all I can tell you is what I have been advised — that an analysis of that particular job indicated payment somewhere in the order of $14 to $16 per hour. I would have

[ Page 3480 ]

to think that an hourly rate of that amount must be the amount which was probably incorporated by the contractor when bidding on the job and not necessarily — I wouldn't go so far as to say — the amount paid to the worker. I can tell you I'm being as candid as I can be with you on it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I may have a point, but then I don't think that we should think that because the company was not certified nothing but evil is to be found there.

MS. SANFORD: Did you bring in regulations, once you knew there were no regulations?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not brought in regulations with respect to that piece of legislation.

With respect to the other question asked by the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) on apprenticeship, I will tell you this. The Apprenticeship Board was set up on January 1, 1980. The Apprenticeship Board consists of 12 people plus a thirteenth who acts as chairman. The chairman is Mr. Heywood from the Ministry of Labour. The other 12 are representatives from industry — six from the trade unions and six from the management side. That recommendation was made by them. That recommendation came through in a report filed with me, and I have no reason to think that it was not a unanimous report. In fact, I was delighted with the report. And I would say that there's....

You know, we've got to face some major issues. I'm sure it's as much a concern to the member as it to me. There's been total reliance upon immigration in order to fill the need. Members opposite are as well aware of that as I am. As a matter of fact, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) had something to say.

Secondly, we know that there are good trainers and bad trainers, and we know there are lots of poachers and stealers out there too. They're going to have a program too. So when I looked at it, I thought that we've got to provide some kind of leadership. I'm looking at a critical shortfall now of approximately 1,400 involving seven of the designated trades — those designated by order-in-council under the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act. I don't think I have to recite the seven trades in particular. But I think it might be fair to also say this. I don't think that it's just those seven trades. I think there are a number of others besides where there are some shortages. But the indications would be from all the surveys which were taken that those seven trades in particular need some immediate attention.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I might say that I've received tremendous support from a number of areas on this program. I think another thing has been important too. The figures were just run off for the last....

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, are you prepared to go along in debate or carry on over there? I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I tell you, hon. member, that I have had a lot of support from all areas on this, and I think we're moving in the right direction. In the last six months — the period ending June 30, as compared to the previous year ending June 30 — we've noticed an increase of something in the region of just under nine times the number of apprentices enrolled. I think we're moving in the right direction, and I think the important thing was to identify it and speak out about it and give it the profile that it deserves. I would like to see what happens. I feel that in about probably two years the number of apprentices enrolled within the province should increase very substantially. That's my objective, and I intend to deliver on it.

MR. KING: Just a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. For the minister's edification, if he was blissfully unaware that an employee of his own ministry had initiated action against a trade union with the Labour Relations Board, I will just read this briefly for him, so he might be attuned to what's going on in his ministry. This letter is dated March 25, 1980, addressed to the Labour Relations Board, attention Don Munroe, Ministry of Labour:

"I enclose herewith a complaint with respect to the above-noted matter: Ministry of Labour, 4946 Canada Way, Burnaby, B.C., and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, local 1251. This complaint is filed with the Labour Relations Board" — get this! — "pursuant to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act."

I better take the name of this lawyer — Bruce McColl.

"The picketing, I am informed, has been undertaken on behalf of the carpenters' local 1251 and apparently arises out of the use of non-union labour in the premises for work being done on behalf of the tenants, the Ministry of Labour, by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The statutory declaration of Colin Kay I expect to have completed and filed in your office by 12 noon today."

Now this action was initiated, I presume, by the ministry with a statutory declaration by one of the minister's employees, and I would have thought that perhaps he would have known something about it. Be that as it may, that's by the board, but I think the question that my colleague put forward.... Okay, we accept as naive your reference to the legislation you described — I forget the name of it; the name has changed since I was the minister, as well as the substance of the act. In fact you people virtually eliminated the protection which resided under that act when it was known as the Public Works Fair Employment Act. So it's a sham now, Mr. Minister, and if you're serious about it — you've demonstrated your willingness to initiate action against the working people of the province — then I think in good faith you should demonstrate your willingness to bring in regulations and give effect to that legislation. Otherwise it's a ruse and a sham and a cruel hoax on the working people of B.C.

Mr. Chairman, the question of subsidizing employers who should train in the province of British Columbia is one on which I totally and absolutely disagree with the minister; we're in absolute disagreement. Everyone agrees we need more specialized skilled tradesmen in the province of British Columbia — there is a very serious shortage — but the proposition that, because some employers in the province do not shoulder their responsibility to take on adequate apprentices and mount training courses which will ensure an adequ-

[ Page 3481 ]

ate supply of tradesmen to meet their own skill-requirement needs, much less other positions in the province, we should subsidize those who fail to take on this obligation is, in my view, caving in completely to those who have been abusing the system for years. You are penalizing those employers now who have done a good job of training for the last 25 years through mounting apprenticeship training courses — and at some financial cost to themselves — only to having the end product of that skill training robbed and pilloried and poached by a competitor who does no training whatsoever.

Now in you come and you say: "We're going to subsidize them all, and we're going to give you a financial inducement at the taxpayers' expense to shoulder the responsibility which you should have accepted in the first instance." I say that's a cop-out; I say that even the employers of the province of the British Columbia never expected that kind of gratuitous treatment by the minister. Here is the Employers Council bulletin, lo and behold, for July 15, 1980 — it's a current copy. At page 3 it has this paragraph, Mr. Chairman: "The single most critical issue in labour relations is the shortage of skilled labour, which is rapidly approaching the crisis stage. The skilled trade shortage will not be resolved unless many more B.C. firms make a commitment to voluntarily establish their own training systems." Listen to this, Mr. Minister: "Failure to do so will probably produce legislation that will establish some form of a training tax levy" — in other words, a penalty on those who fail to train rather than a subsidy for virtually all of those who want to get into the system in a new-found way. That's the Employers Council of British Columbia, representing every major and medium-sized firm in the province. They didn't even expect the kind of gratuitous subsidy that you're extending to them. That was something I advocated when I was Minister of Labour, and I told the employers frankly that unless they did an adequate job of meeting their responsibility in training there would be a form of collective liability imposed on them similar to the workers' compensation levies. What's wrong with that? Why pay out money to all of those who have abused the system for the last 25 years and who now, because there's a financial incentive, come rushing in because there's taxpayers' money to be extracted from the system? I say that's a cop-out, and I disagree completely with that approach.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to your last item, I can tell you I have raised the possibility of an apprenticeship tax. I have discussed that, and as a matter of fact it's something that will never be very far from me. I can assure you that I have discussed it.

I want to go back to one item you raised. The program which we have in mind is to zero in on a shortage of roughly 1,300 to 1,400 apprentices in seven areas, including diesel mechanics, instrumentation mechanics, millwrights and industrial electricians. That's to cover 1,400. The program we have in mind, as recommended by the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, is simply this: for the first two years of a four-year indentureship, an incentive, assistance or subsidy — whatever you want to call it — would be offered.

MR. KING: Social welfare to the rich, that's what it is — Social Credit welfare.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Interestingly enough there seems to be no opposition from the member when you talk about putting the money which you do in colleges and universities. Well, I'll tell you, I've got a strong feeling towards the trades, and I'm going to put some bucks in to help the trades and not the millions out of the colleges. Why didn't you do that when you had the chance? You had that opportunity to do something. I've been here six or eight months and I'm going to deliver it, somehow.

AN HON. MEMBER: They did nothing but fight the feds.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right, and as a matter of fact a program which we got rolling here.... Yes, the feds are in; we want to talk; we want to participate. This program's going to go ahead; I'm not going to wait for the feds.

But your point hasn't gone by with respect to a training tax — I referred to it as an apprenticeship tax. As a matter of fact, I'm on record to the Employers Council with a statement to that effect in a letter that went out some time ago. It's interesting that you should say: "What about those that do train?" Perhaps they ought to be entitled to some assistance in order to get over the critical shortage. I'm not talking about long-term, but I'll tell you I am going to talk about helping the trades somehow. I'll stick with that and stick with the program, and hope that we deliver and get our apprentices up to something in excess of 20,000 in the province instead of 12,000 to 13,000, perhaps pushing 14,000 now; it's just not enough. We ought to know, and every member of government is well aware of the shortage, particularly in the interior and the northern part of this province. Ocean Falls was a good example of that. Every tradesman there was spoken for three or four times, I'm told. I think there's a hole there which we're going to try to fill.

MR. KING: The minister shouldn't say: "What did you do when you were there?" We brought in a whole new Labour Code, a Human Rights Code, and a fair employment practices act; we raised the minimum wage — so much legislation I can't remember it all. There was a flurry of activity when we were there, so don't give me that. In fact, one of the most common criticisms flowing from the opposition side of that day was: "You're going much too fast; we can't keep up with all the legislation."

I don't want to be insulting, but it seems totally illogical to me to say: "I'm going to subsidize you to train, and I'm going to penalize you if you don't." I don't understand that. The Employers Council was expecting a collective levy of some kind, and they thought that would be equitable. I had discussed it with them. Instead, you bring in welfare for the rich, Mr. Minister: a subsidy to those who are not meeting the responsibility. I think that' s nonsense. That's not helping the trades; that's helping the employer, who doesn't need your help; he's doing very well, thank you.

If you want to help the trades, expand the instructional facilities in this province so that people can get a seat and get in and get some training. That's what to do. Part of the problem remains the fact that there are waiting lists a mile long to get into the regional colleges and vocational schools for skilled training. Many people in the province are prepared to undertake it themselves, without assistance from your ministry or anyone else, and they can't get a seat.

The minister indicates his great dedication to training and providing skilled workers. I'm advised there are 800 skilled

[ Page 3482 ]

workers in government service in the province of British Columbia. They are highway mechanics, carpenters and various other trades. Mr. Minister, you claim that you are the paragon of virtue and you are going to persuade all these private-sector employers to undertake the responsibility. Do you know how many apprentices you have, Mr. Minister, in the government?

Interjection.

MR. KING: Exactly: zero! Zilch!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I know it.

MR. KING: So I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that if you want to set the heather on fire and set an example, perhaps you could do it well by starting to accept the responsibility that the government should accept for training, too, if you're going to impose that burden on the private sector. I think that would be a first-class signal that you're prepared to be equitable and fair about it.

Further, Mr. Minister, I'm advised that in occupational training in the province, 1,099 women are registered as apprentices. Of this number there are 708 women registered as hairdressers' apprentices — 708 out of 1,099. There are 81 registered as barbering apprentices. That's well over 800 out of the 1,100, involved in hairdressing and barbering. Where is the access of women in this province to other skilled training, Mr. Minister? The distortion — this 7.8 percent of the registered apprentices in the province of British Columbia that are women — is a sorry record. Not only should the minister be addressing himself to the need for expanding training opportunities, he should be addressing himself to remedying some of the inequity that exists in terms of an ability to get entry for women into the workforce in the province of British Columbia. That is a terrible, shoddy record, and if the minister doesn't address himself to that with the same vigour that he claims to have for overall apprenticeship training, again, in my view, he will be a failure.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to reiterate the remarks most recently made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke relative to women in the apprentice field. Certainly it is a shameful record here in British Columbia and in Canada generally. We find women are delegated to do the jobs in the work ghettos, not just in the apprenticeship fields but in the jobs they do. Many of those women are single parents who are supporting a family. Certainly here in British Columbia we need to take some steps to correct that. We need to move and set an example in the government field in ensuring that we do have equal opportunity, with a program that will assimilate more women into jobs that are more meaningful and bring a greater degree of remuneration. Fair is fair, Mr. Minister, and we can set an example within the government service in providing just those kinds of opportunities to women. I would urge you to move in the field of apprenticeships and in the field of encouraging your fellow cabinet members to make that quality of opportunity available within the promotion in the ranks of the employees that work in these precincts and generally in the government service.

I wanted to talk particularly today about the health aspects facing workers in British Columbia and in Canada generally. If you look at statistics in Canada in relation to the rest of the world you find that in relation to the rates of 100,000 persons employed in the construction industry in Canada, say, we have 90 fatal accidents as compared to Great Britain's 19. That is a pretty grim comparison. What does this mean to us in Canada? It means that more than one million Canadian workers are injured annually and every day 14,000 Canadian workers are in hospital for treatment from accident-related injuries or illness. Every six hours a worker dies on the job in Canada. In 1976, for which these statistics are calculated, 13 million work-days were lost because of occupational injury or disease. That, incidentally, relates to something like 11.6 million days lost in strikes and lockouts. If we're concerned about the loss of productivity as a result of labour disputes, we should be far more concerned about the loss of productivity as a result of accidents and job-related illness.

In B.C. the picture is the same: job injuries and deaths are on the upswing. Statistics indicate that every year in B.C. there are more and more accidents and more time is lost in B.C. Every year it's more and more. It has been estimated that while we are now relating some industrial diseases to occupational causes we are still not beginning to see the tip of the iceberg. For example, in 1970 17 cancer claims were paid in B.C., 10 of which were for the rare form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

The American Cancer Society estimates that only one quarter of the deaths from lung cancer that are actually traced to an occupational cause are traced to their real source — occupational disease; the others are not traced. That relates to so many occupational diseases, many of which we are only just now beginning to recognize.

One that has certainly come to my attention very recently is the hazard faced by workers in the forest industry who are working in the mills where lumber is now, almost without exception, being treated with PCP — pentachlorophenol. This has the unique characteristic of stopping any greying, bacteria or deterioration in that wood, making it much more marketable on our export market. What studies have been undertaken by your ministry and the Workers' Compensation Board relative to the hazards of PCP? It is a hydrocarbon. It is proven to have some pretty disastrous effects. The WCB issues some regulations. They say to wash your hands and do this and that and something else. What kind of inspections are you making? Is the WCB following up to ensure that those regulations are followed?

The problem with so many of these things, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that the exposure to the particular element takes place and the actual symptoms occur so many years down the road that by the time the particular individual is suffering from cirrhosis of the liver they don't trace it back to the days when they were treating lumber with PCP. That kind of thing happens. It is your responsibility, Mr. Minister, not only to ensure that the regulations are very adequate, but also that those regulations are followed in the workplace. You are not only the minister responsible for the actual labour force in this province; you are also responsible for the environmental atmosphere of the workplace. Certainly you are obligated to ensure that the workplace is adequately inspected. When your Workers' Compensation Board makes regulations regarding any product and its use, then it is equally your responsibility to ensure that those regulations are followed.

I get a bit upset by the advertisements that we see so constantly on television sponsored by the Workers' Com-

[ Page 3483 ]

pensation Board. They indicate that the workers are really a rather burnbling lot, rather stupid and doing things a bit the wrong way. I really get upset with those ads because I don't think they're getting at the real problem. I don't think the worker is burnbling or careless. I think mostly he is uninformed.

One of the most tragic incidents of this occurred at B.C. Forest Products in Youbou, not too long ago. A young boy that I knew very well — he used to come down, in fact, and sit in this gallery quite frequently.... He was very interested in the politics of British Columbia and in the entire governmental procedure. His father had died when he was very young and he was really, apart from a small Human Resources allowance, his own support and supporting his younger brother to a degree, trying to get him through school. He was going to Malaspina College and he was working as a regular employee on weekends at B.C. Forest Products on the clean-up crew. They installed a new piece of equipment. It was partly automated. As a result of that this young man, absolutely unaware of what had happened there, was crushed to death. The inquest was held and the headlines in the local paper were: "Ignorance Was a Death Trap."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a ghoul.

MRS. WALLACE: You can call me a ghoul but I happen to know this boy very well. He was a good friend of mine. I know his mother and I know his brother. They still live in my....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why make a public issue out of it?

MRS. WALLACE: Why am I making a public issue of it, that gentleman asks. Should I call him a gentleman? I am making a public issue of it because his mother came into my office and said: "Patrick is gone but I hope you will raise this so other young men will not suffer as Patrick suffered."

The coroner's jury made six recommendations. The first one was that management personnel and union officials improve communications between themselves to allow information on safe and effective mill operations to flow smoothly. They went on to other recommendations providing for an education program among the supervisors. Then this program was to be passed on to the general foreman. Pre-prepared safety education material was to be supplied to supervisory staff prior to the installation of new equipment — that hasn't been done. "Ensure that all supervisory personnel are updated on a regular basis as to their respective job functions and responsibilities. The mill safety committee be responsible for implementing the jury recommendations." Well, in that particular case that has been done. But how many other cases are there where that's not happening? Mr. Minister, that responsibility lies on your shoulders. You have a responsibility to ensure that your staff acts before the fact, not after the fact. That relates to this, which was a rather sensational case, and relates equally as much — perhaps even more so — to the less sensational, the less obvious, such as PCP.

One thing that you, Mr. Minister, and your colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) could be doing is coming up with some alternate method of treating timber. I know the companies are making some efforts to try to come up with an alternative. They're concerned about the hazards of PCP. Surely there must be a safer method. If there isn't, then the decision we're going to have to face is which is more important: white wood for the export market or the health of our workers.

I was surprised to hear the minister stand in his place and extol the virtues and the great feats of the Workers' Compensation Board relative to injured workers. I've been in this Legislature for four or five years now and every year my caseload gets heavier and heavier. My colleagues say they are in the same boat. My office is inundated with people who are having problems with the Workers' Compensation Board, one after the other caught up in the bureaucracy, left dangling, not knowing where to go or where to turn, or how to proceed. Some of the cases are pretty heart-rending, Mr. Minister. Some of them are just completely unexplainable. I'm not going to bore the House with a great number of cases, but I want to tell you about one.

A young man had an accident back in 1979. He hurt his back. He was an employee up in the north. It was a WCB accident, and the WCB covered him for a while. Then they told him he was well enough to take a job — not in the logging industry perhaps, but he was well enough to go back to work. They discontinued his benefits. He needed money. His doctor told him he simply could not go back to the kind of work he was doing; but he had to have money. He couldn't find any other job, so he went back. This time he worked for Pacific Logging, and again he hurt his back. That was May 12, 1980.

He went back and they accepted the claim for a very short period of time. They told him that it was all his fault, because he went back and did work that he wasn't supposed to do. So they disallowed it. He went back later to WCB to see a doctor; I set up an appointment for him with a WCB doctor. He was told that his whole problem was that he had poor posture.

Here's a boy, not able to work because of a back injury, and he's told the problem is that he has poor posture. I have here a letter from Dr. Roque, who is a bone specialist in Nanaimo, and also one from Dr. Cameron, who is a well-known specialist in the Victoria area — he does a lot of work for WCB — both of them stating emphatically and unequivocally that his back problem is the result of the injuries. He's going to appeal, but here's a boy that is just completely unaware of how he should proceed, where he should go. When he goes to the WCB doctor, he tells him it's because he has poor posture. If it weren't for the auspices of my constituency representative, who has helped him get doctor's appointments and set these things up for him, he would probably just give up and go on welfare. That's not good enough, Mr. Minister. The WCB has to have a heart. Everything can't be tied to dollars and cents. As long as you sit there leaning back in your chair with your hands in your pockets, nothing is going to happen. You can talk all you like about not having political influence in the Workers' Compensation Board, but let me tell you that governments direct the direction in which that compensation board goes. That direction has changed since this government has taken office — it's changed drastically. It's tied to dollars and cents rather than human need, and I object to that very strenuously, Mr. Minister. If you want to make your mark in this province, you can do something about it because you're the minister in charge.

[ Page 3484 ]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister may wish to reply to the questions posed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

In my riding, of course, as every other MLA in the province, I too have these cases that are increasing every year — WCB cases coming on my desk in my constituency office and here. I'm not going to go into the whole case and articulate all the individual cases at this time; my colleagues have done that very well. I want the minister to know — and I'm sure this must be happening to government members as well — that our caseload is increasing and the minister must take action in terms of the WCB.

Mr. Chairman, from time to time I see government members making statements on television or in the press about how well that government's association is with labour. I want to tell you that the credit goes not to these people sitting across the way from us; the credit goes to a former Minister of Labour, the present member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who had the intestinal fortitude to bring in far-reaching, far-sighted legislation that is now being copied all over Canada and the United States. That's the only reason there has been a reduction in labour strife in this province.

However, that isn't what I got up here to talk about. I'm going to mention Ocean Falls. You mentioned it three times this afternoon. I wasn't going to raise that topic under this particular spending estimate debate. I appreciate the work that the committee did up there placing the majority of people into new jobs, but the fact is that Ocean Falls should not have been shut down in the first place by this government or any other government. Closing down Ocean Falls has cost nothing but taxpayers' funds. Witness the breach-of-contract negotiations and possible suit now taking place with the L.A. Times, which is going to cost your government $22 million of taxpayers' money out of court to settle, possibly, if it doesn't go to court. And you want to tell me about Ocean Falls? I'll get into that in some detail under the appropriate ministry, believe me.

I want to talk — I've only got 30 seconds left, according to the debate — about the press release put out yesterday by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). He says in that press release that over a thousand jobs will be lost within the next six months in the shipbuilding industry of this province, because this government did not have the intestinal fortitude to negotiate with the federal government. Instead they went Ottawa-bashing and Canada-bashing and did not negotiate to have that reduction in the federal subsidy remain at the 20 percent level. Subsequently, the federal government reduced that....

Just a little background here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member, if you could get to the estimates of the Minister of Labour, because we're all aware that....

The Minister of Transportation and Highways on a point of order.

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like that member to withdraw what he said. It's not accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unless it's offensive or grossly unparliamentary, hon. member.... The minister has risen and corrected a statement, which is allowed in committee. I will return to the hon. member for Mackenzie and ask the member and all members to maintain debate in committee with respect to the Minister of Labour, and if we could contain our debate that will be most appreciated. I will remind all hon. members that the May's seventeeth edition, page 739, says that in debate we cannot discuss action for which a minister is not responsible.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to correct the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, if I may read directly from his press release dated July 22, 1980, he says in part: "Employment in B.C. shipyards could decline by 1,000 people within the next six months." This is the minister's own press release, signed by the minister. "For further information contact whosits."

But as to my question to the minister, I think that figure is going to be higher. I think there will be more than 1,000 people unemployed. I think there will likely be — from my communications with people in the union and in the industry — more than 1,500 people unemployed in the shipbuilding industry in this province within six to eight months. I would like to quietly ask the minister how he intends to handle that situation. What is going to happen to these people? Are they going to go on unemployment insurance? There is 39 percent unemployment in the shipbuilding industry in the province as of today. I have seen this government make no move to get some of the major federal government contracts that are being dished out to eastern firms. What is this minister going to do about those people who are going to be unemployed? I would suggest to you he is going to do as he has done in every other case: absolutely nothing.

MR. COCKE: It is very interesting. I am going to observe that we are under the Labour estimate and we've got this labouring bunch of backbenchers who sit around in this House doing absolutely nothing on behalf of their constituents in either Labour or any other estimate.

AN HON. MEMBER: We just don't yap!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us where you worked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will maintain order. The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is advised of that, please.

MR. COCKE: I have just one observation. When we started the estimates there were three Social Credit members in the entire House. Now it is filling up because it is getting close to adjournment time. There is a great deal of concern over there about labour. I have a lot more concern about this whole area because there are many supporters on that side of the House of right-to-work. One of the great groups that is really pushing this right-to-work program in British Columbia is the Independent Canadian Businessmen's Association of B.C. The ICBA is pressing right-to-work all the time. We watch Social Credit conventions and we watch the right-to-workers doing their thing over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I wonder if I could have the attention of all members. I have indicated to the committee earlier today and at other times that we really cannot discuss action for which a minister is not

[ Page 3485 ]

responsible. If the hon. member could relate the statements to vote 146 the committee would appreciate it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I understand that you possibly do not know what right-to-work means. It is labour-busting, union-busting or whatever, and it provides whomever supports this particular concept with a means of breaking trade unions. That Labour minister is the spokesman in this province for government policy with respect to the whole question of trade unionism. He has been talking to us today about some of the things that he supports and some that he doesn't.

I would like to talk to that minister, because he is our chief spokesman with respect to this whole question, about the outfit ICBA. Not long ago — as a matter of fact as recently as last winter — just before a federal election, the ICBA put out a booklet entitled: "Can John Crosbie and Free Enterprise Do for Canada What Martinez de Hoz and Free Enterprise Did for Argentina?" They spend their whole time extolling the virtues of fascist Argentina throughout this publication. This is the group that wants to impress the Labour minister in this province with falling into their way.

The ICBA would like the Labour minister and this government to put forward right-to-work legislation in this province, that right-to-work legislation that you have in Alabama and some of the southern states where things are not going well. But the ICBA is not even content with that. They want us to follow the lead of Argentina. Imagine, Argentina! The London Economist could hardly be deemed to be a very left-wing kind of publication. What does the London Economist say about Argentina and its fascist system? It says: "...a tale of tactlessness and cynicism. Australia, Canada and even France now agree not to make up the 17 million tons of grain which America is refusing to sell to Russia as reprisal for the invasion of Afghanistan."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm having great difficulty trying....

MR. COCKE: Aw, for crying out loud, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I beg your pardon, hon. member. I'm having great trouble finding relevancy in your debate. I'm only bound by our standing orders.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not carrying any rule book. I'm using a statement in a union-busting paper in this province. I'm referring to the country that they are extolling the virtues of. I'm just giving you some quotes out of the London Economist about that fascist country.

HON. MR. MAIR: What's that got to do with the Minister of Labour?

MR. COCKE: It has nothing to do with the Minister of Labour if, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour has nothing to do with them.

HON. MR. MAIR: Of course not. Who would?

MR. COCKE: Your caucus — many of them. I can name a number. The minister sitting behind you has extolled the virtues of right-to-work.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will hon. members please come to order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'll try my very best to indicate to you that the Minister of Labour has to be aware of an attempt by a group of business people in this province, and Socreds within that caucus, to bring in right-to-work legislation. Right-to-work legislation is being championed by the ICBA — the Independent Canadian Businessmen's Association — who used as one of their arguments the coup that took place in Argentina. As a matter of fact, it printed an entire booklet on the subject. I don't imagine that Minister of Labour is going to get up and....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) will probably be looking at travel folders tonight, and those travel folders will likely have a destination of Argentina, because he'll want to know all about that.

I can cite you a number of instances of the kind of persuasion that's going on by this group that there's something virtuous in right-to-work legislation, that there's something virtuous in this whole area of union-busting, like they have done with clubs in Argentina, like they've done with a fascist dictatorship and like this group would like to see happen here. I just want to go back to: can John Crosbie and free enterprise do for Canada what Martinez de Hoz, who incidentally is their Minister of Economic Development down there.... It's a very interesting thing.

I just want to get back to the whole question of this ICBA. I have seen them distort the figures with respect to every right-to-work state in the United States. Somehow or another they managed to build a case for Alabama, Georgia and those states which have economies that are far, far behind the rest of the United States. So I'd like to know how the minister feels about (1) the champions of right-to-work legislation — that is, the ICBA, and (2) about the issue itself — that is, right-to-work legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On vote 146 the member talks about ICBA. I'm just wondering whether that's that phony businessmen organization headed by that NDP front Len Friesen.

MR. COCKE: I don't know anything about this particular case. Oh, yes, I know Len Friesen, a very decent chap who sold me a suit recently. I will say this: Len Friesen has enough brains to stay away from this outfit and that is something you can't say for many of the colleagues of that minister that just stood. If it wasn't so far from the last Socred convention I could remind you about my dear old colleague, the Whip of a Social Credit Party, running around and telling everybody: "For heaven's sake, let's don't upset the applecart at this time. Now is not the time for right-to-work legislation. Let's get rid of that motion." The then Minister of Labour was quietening it down at that convention — putting the can to it. It was a very close vote. There is another

[ Page 3486 ]

convention coming up so we have to keep warning the Socreds about this outfit.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.