[ Page 6425 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Groundwater Licensing Act, 1981 (Bill M214). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 6425

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6425

Tabling Documents

McAlpine report on the activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6425

Oral Questions

Ward system in municipal government. Mr. Barber –– 6425

Funding of post-secondary institutions. Mr. Lauk — 6426

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barber

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

On vote 140: minister's office — 6427

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981 (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6447

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Petroleum Resources annual report, 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6448

Appendix –– 6448

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure of presenting this year's Premier's Athletic Award Scholarships to five outstanding high school athletes in British Columbia. These students were chosen from more than 300 applicants for the Nancy Greene scholarships, of which 25 were awarded, and they represent both academic and athletic excellence. I'm sure that each of these fine young British Columbians will put their $2,500 scholarship to good use as they continue their post-secondary education. I would like to introduce them to the House: Rick Dove, a wrestler from Centennial School in Coquitlam; Sandra Espaseth, a basketball player from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary; Rod Prat, a badminton player from Spectrum Junior School in Victoria; Glen Steele, a football player from Notre Dame Regional Secondary in Vancouver; and Rhonda Thomasson, a swimmer from North Delta Secondary in North Delta. They are in the members' gallery with their parents and members of their families. I would ask them and their families to stand up and be recognized and welcomed by this Legislature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the members' gallery today from Newport, Vermont, is my brother Maurice, his wife Fernande and his daughters Yolande and Chantal. They are accompanied by my wife. I wish the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Further to the Premier's introduction of Sandra Espeseth, the Premier also mentioned that Howard Espeseth and his wife Grace were in the balcony with their daughter, who has done so well in achieving the Premier's award. I want to say that Howard Espeseth and I have worked together in the same business over the past 20 years. He is one of the finest citizens of British Columbia, and I can't help but remark on such a great.... I really and truly believe this is greatness when we see a man who does his work over the years, studies and raises that kind of family. I think this is the fibre that the province of British Columbia is built from.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's my day for introducing visitors from Holland. Today we have with us Mr. Stel, from Langley, a good friend of ours who brought with him Nels and Anne Van Pelt. They are visiting beautiful British Columbia from Holland and are enjoying the sunshine as of today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the absence of our caucus chairman, Bill Ritchie, I would like to ask the House to welcome Mrs. Margaret Rempe from Clearbrook.

We also have some very fine volunteers from the Victoria Social Credit constituency office on Blanshard Street. I would ask the House to welcome volunteers Violet Stanyer, Ella Munroe, Alfred Christiansen and also the office coordinator, Sharon Jackson.

Introduction of Bills

GROUNDWATER LICENSING ACT, 1981

On a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M214, Groundwater Licensing Act, 1981, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, that concludes my legislative program.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the report arising out of the activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia, by John D. McAlpine.

Oral Questions

WARD SYSTEM IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can the minister confirm that he announced this morning the intention of this government to revoke the authority municipalities currently have under section 87 of the Municipal Act to opt for a full or a partial ward system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I said this morning that this would be a matter for review by the Municipal Act Review Committee, and I hope that they will look at this very carefully. Certainly I have my views on this, and I will be pleased to discuss them with the hon. member at any time.

MR. BARBER: This time is a good time. Would you tell us what your policy is in regard to allowing municipalities to retain the historical right they have had under section 87 of the Municipal Act to exercise freedom of choice in determining the system of their own governance, specifically full or partial wards? What is your policy?

MR. SPEAKER: If it's a question of future policy, it's not in order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question, because I'm sure there will be requests from areas from time to time seeking the provision for a ward system in their community. This generally comes about when there is an expansion of boundaries and a new area comes into the municipality. Someone may be running for office who isn't known, and the area may want local representation granted to them. This is often the method adopted, and it is provided for in letters patent, wherein a time limit is often provided for. Although we have had no requests for ward systems in other municipalities, it's possible that this may come about. Certainly there could be an area.... I don't know of any area, nor do I think there will be an area, particularly wanting this. Most municipalities — at least when I have had opportunities to meet with them, through UBCM and others — indicate that they are not about to take on an approach to govern their own areas. It would mean an expansion of government, bringing in more council

[ Page 6426 ]

members and the growth of bureaucracy. For the most part, municipalities are very responsible when it comes to this sort of thing, and they do not want to expand the bureaucracy.

MR. BARBER: Whether or not the minister heard the question, he certainly didn't answer it. The minister knows full well that section 87 of the act provides that regardless of the conditions of letters patent a municipality may apply, if they wish, for a ward system. The minister's comment about letters patent is bogus and irrelevant. I ask the minister again what his policy is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to....

MR. BARBER: And to provide information to ministers who don't know what they're talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that the purpose of question period is to ask questions and not make statements.

MR. BARBER: I ask the minister again: what is your policy with regard to the continuation of the historic right of municipalities, under section 87 of the act which governs them, to make local choice and to exercise it freely in regard to a ward or a partial ward system? What is your policy with regard to continuing that historic right and freedom?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is, of course, a provision in the act which allows municipalities by bylaw to elect some or all members in wards. These bylaws require the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I'm sure the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would want the advice of the minister when such requests come to the ministry. I would have to consider each request on its own merits. But if in fact the request only provided for more government and more bureaucracy, I would turn it down and advise against it.

FUNDING OF POST
SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The vice-president of the faculty association at Cariboo College has charged that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) is misinformed and is misinforming about funding cutbacks at the college. Has that member made any representations to the minister on behalf of that college?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, indeed, that member has. I've had a number of discussions with him. Like me, he's concerned with the education of students at Cariboo College.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we entertain many questions of that nature, I would refer hon. members to section 171 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne regarding communications between members and ministers, which are not a subject of questions in question period.

MR. LAUK: I'll approach it differently.

The cutbacks for Cariboo College first announced in late May have resulted in nine instructors being dismissed, affecting over 500 students. Has the minister decided now to intervene and ensure that these cutbacks do not take place?

HON. MR. SMITH: As the first member for Vancouver Centre knows, I don't intervene in the affairs of community colleges. What I do is meet with the administration and discuss any planned reorganizations or any alterations of programs that they want to bring to my attention. I have done that on a very lengthy occasion.

MR. LAUK: The minister intervened when he started tinkering with the boards of the colleges, Mr. Speaker.

The vice-president of the faculty association at Cariboo College says that the faculty feels quite strongly that the board is dominated by government appointees. Has the minister decided to expand the board to include more representation from the community rather than from the government?

I have a further question for the Minister of Education. We learned today that several counsellors and staff providing student services at BCIT have been terminated, while the administration of that institute has increased its administration budget considerably. In view of the fact that the BCIT governors are government appointees, has the minister decided to investigate the board's budgetary priorities?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the question is argumentative, and the preamble is inaccurate. If this member read the BCIT act he would understand that the number of appointees to that board is fixed by statute. They come from the students, the alumni association, the faculty and the government. So the premise upon which the question is based is erroneous. I have met with that administration as well and I have also met with the student association of BCIT. I've reviewed the budget in both instances.

MR. LAUK: If the minister is trying to leave the impression that the government does not dominate the appointments to that board, he is erroneous. The second point that should be made by way of a question is that these individuals who were fired yesterday were providing student counselling services both in the institute and around the province. Are you going to sit by while the administration increases its budget for its own administrative bureaucracy and sacrifices student services that are sadly needed in the institutions of this province?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Education. Nursing instructors at BCIT tell us that the province's ability to meet future health-care programs will be jeopardized if cutbacks are made in the nursing program as planned. Has the minister decided to intervene to prevent these cutbacks occurring?

HON. MR. SMITH: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the notion of the role of a Minister of Education that is held opposite is a novel one — that he is a figure that butts into everybody's affairs and tells them what to do. In my discussions with BCIT I have reviewed some reductions in programs. The nursing program is one of those. It is the intention of BCIT, as I understand it, to re-order some of its priorities, but it is not the intention that the system will have less nurses trained. If there are reductions in the number of nurses who enter the BCIT program, it is hoped and expected that those will be picked up appropriately by one of the community colleges in the lower mainland.

[ Page 6427 ]

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have another question about cutbacks in staff at community colleges across British Columbia, and it's directed to the Minister of Labour. Three faculty and five support staff at the College of New Caledonia were terminated in their employment on June 15. Of the five support staff in question, two were prominently vocal and had a public profile in recent salary negotiations. Has the minister decided whether to request an investigation on the possibility that this might be an unfair labour practice?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more properly directed to my colleague the Minister of Education.

MR. LAUK: It's an unfair labour practice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have you got any evidence?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development please come to order.

MR. BARBER: Another question to the Minister of Education. Has he decided to take any action whatsoever, either to supplement a budget or to request different spending priorities, in order to restore the former level of teaching and support services at the College of New Caledonia and thus prevent the harsh and unfair impact of these latest cutbacks?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm by no means certain that the facts alleged in that preamble are correct, but I will look into that matter. I've had no meetings, nor have any meetings been requested by New Caledonia, but I'll certainly look into that matter.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question on the issue of cutbacks and community colleges. Vancouver Community College has indicated that it will cut some 90 classes at the Langara campus because of insufficient government funds, at a time when fewer high-school graduates are attending post-secondary education in British Columbia than in other parts of Canada. Has the minister decided to take any steps whatsoever to prevent the elimination of roughly 90 classes at Langara, affecting nearly 2,000 students, by finding and providing to them additional funds?

HON. MR. SMITH: I realize that there are members opposite who believe that cutbacks are a reduction in wish lists. I do not consider a 19.4 percent increase in the budgets of colleges and institutes to be a cutback; it's a very significant increase.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's not my answer. My answer is that program reductions have occurred in community colleges. That is known. Also, increases in new programs have occurred at community colleges, and there have been a number of new programs, Community colleges reorder their priorities, and on some occasions they reduce the number of choices available to students because they're increasing other opportunities and courses. There has been quite an alteration in the clientele of the community college system over the past three or four years. For instance, there are more and more career technical students entering the colleges on a part-time basis. There are fewer entering on a full-time academic basis. Bearing these things and budget priorities in mind, community colleges make decisions. These are not all decisions that I perhaps would concur in, but they're their decisions to make.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 140: minister's office, $147,796.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will attempt to keep my opening remarks reasonably brief. Before introducing the estimates for the Ministry of Labour I would like to mention some recent appointments. In March of this year James Matkin left his position as deputy, which he had held for eight years, to become Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. My new deputy is Doug Cameron, who was the assistant deputy minister in charge of the mediation services branch, labour standards and occupational safety. He came in in April of this year.

Another recent change has been the appointment of Stephen Stackhouse as my assistant deputy minister in charge of finance and administration. Prior to his appointment he served as the ministry's legal officer.

Sitting behind me I have Doug Cameron, Bob Gray, who is the assistant deputy minister in charge of manpower training and apprenticeship, and Stephen Stackhouse.

Perhaps it might be of benefit to list a number of the important developments which have occurred in the past year. The first item was the introduction of the Employment Standards Act, proclaimed March 14. I think the significance of that particular legislation was the coverage of farm and domestic workers; and farm labour contractors must now obtain licensing. We've also passed the regulations with respect to the piece rate so that it coincides with the minimum wage. One other addition was the improved maternity-leave conditions lengthening the period of entitlement. Also, those who are absent for maternity reasons now receive the benefit plans as well as reinstatement to the same job or a comparable position. The last item which came through — and the reason I raise these items now is that the legislation was proclaimed in March of this year, subsequent to the House adjourning last year — is the notice of termination, except for dismissal for just cause.

I think the House will be interested to hear that the legislation has worked very well. Some 10 previous statutes were reduced to one, and 93 regulations were reduced to one regulation. I think the reduction in the number of regulations was as effective as could be expected. We've just begun working with the new act. You probably recall seeing an extensive campaign. The response has been significant, Probably the most important thing is that the decline in inquiries which come into the labour standards branch is significant, although they did increase rapidly at the time of the introduction of the legislation followed by the advertising campaign. I really think the important thing is that the community at large is aware of the contents of the legislation.

[ Page 6428 ]

The appointments to the Employment Standards Board have been completed. It's chaired by Jim Edgett, who's been an official with the Ministry of Labour for a long time. The minimum wage was increased to $3.65 on December 1. There have been a number of new appointments to the Workers' Compensation Board, Labour Relations Board, the boards of review where we appointed a sixth panel to handle the number of appeals, and also the new Employment Standards Board and the Human Rights Commission.

Of all the disputes which the ministry was involved in in 1980, I'm only going to raise one particular dispute at this time because of the significance and the progress which we have been able to experience over the past year. You recall that we had a difficult time with the British Columbia Railway over Christmas 1979 and January 1980. I think what is significant, though, is that since that dispute, which lasted for approximately five and a half to six weeks, depending on the location, we've had a vice-president appointed in charge of industrial relations on the BCR. There was a decision of the Labour Relations Board which treated the railroad as one unit for the purposes of rating. The Strand commission was dissolved, and fact-finders were appointed. It's interesting on the item of the fact-finders that we did try an experiment. There was some risk involved, but I think it was well worthwhile. That particular risk was to appoint somebody from labour and somebody from management. The report they came up with was unanimous.

I think I can report that since that time the industrial relations on the railroad have improved substantially. As a matter of fact, with each of the member unions of the joint council, negotiations have proceeded extremely well. Their particular contract expires in January 1982. I only wish that more people would do the same in the areas of industrial and labour relations: that is, address the problems of collective bargaining and negotiations well in advance of the expiry date of their respective contracts.

One of the purposes of the Ministry of Labour is really to promote the harmonious and productive labour-management relations. I think we all agree that it's probably one of the most important elements of the B.C. economy. We're also aware that during negotiations, cooperation and confrontation sometimes exist side by side. As in any relationship, there is always the potential for conflict. We've seen that over the last few months. Inevitably, though, that conflict makes headlines, tending to overshadow the underlying achievements of securing agreements. It must be remembered that disputes and their resolution are signs of a free democratic society. From time to time there is a great deal of shouting, but I hope that cool heads prevail, because that's the only way these matters are going to be resolved. We're not in favour of disputes and labour strife, though we recognize that free collective bargaining almost inevitably involves some conflict. There's a lot at stake.

In the uncertain times in which we live, these confrontations between labour and management are inevitable. However, many disputes are resolved without work stoppage. We never hear about these. I'd like to make reference to the analysis of the mediation services division of the Ministry of Labour for the calendar year ending December 31, 1980. The interesting thing was the batting record: it was 83.5 percent. All of the appointments which came in — some carry-over from 1979 plus all the appointments in 1980 — total 395. All the way down the line the mediation service has been effective in resolving or assisting in the resolution of something in excess of 83 percent. I think that's to be commended.

Government has an important role to play in this area, but a role which differs from what many people seem to expect. From time to time that assistance is offered. The Labour Code is used. For the most part it has worked out very well, together with the Labour Relations Board and, as I mentioned, the mediation services of the Ministry of Labour.

I think we should mention as well that when things get out of balance there is often a call from either or both sides for government to intervene. There is usually public pressure for the injection of a third party. Prior to intervening, government is careful to gauge when negotiations have reached the point of no return and the public good is threatened. Often in the Ministry of Labour we experience one or the other party requesting intervention. My response from day one has always been that collective bargaining works when there is a genuine commitment by both management and labour to make it work and when professional attitudes guide that bargaining.

The process at times demands that both sides suffer a little bit of pain. That is often what brings movement and ultimately resolution. So it's not government's role to intervene in disputes simply to relieve that pain. Caution is necessary, because the more often government intervenes, the more often it will be expected to intervene. If this should come to pass, the integrity of free collective bargaining will be undermined. We have proven our willingness to stand by the concept of bargaining in the true sense, and we recognize the delicate balance which must be maintained. Recently, however, that balance has been tested by inflation, interest rates, energy costs, uncertain international markets and other factors beyond our direct control.

I have some statistics here which I think might be of interest to the House. Prior to raising them I would like to say that our industrial health depends heavily on the degree of stability which we are able to achieve. Continued capital investment in our province thrives in an atmosphere of stability and responsible industrial relations. When we look back to 1980, we were very fortunate, with a lot of hard work and a lot of understanding. Primarily I would like to compliment those in the field. In 1980 both the public and private sector put on record one of the best years for the province of British Columbia in over a decade. It worked out to something like this: only two out of every 1,000 man-days worked in the province were lost as a result of either a strike or a lockout.

What has happened in 1981? The interesting thing in 1981 is that we've had a bulge, and it's been somewhat difficult: 1.235 million days in the first five months. I wonder if an analysis of that might be appropriate. For all of British Columbia, the figure is roughly 881,000 for those under provincial jursidiction. But I'm finding that in excess of 89 percent — almost 90 percent — of the man-days lost are attributable to the public sector. In the private sector it's 91,500. It's almost an unbelievable record in the private, goods-producing areas. Our problem has been in the public sector, and it's been somewhat difficult. Interestingly enough, when you look at the public sector — and I don't think it really comes as a surprise to anyone — primarily it involved the GVRD and the Capital Regional District on one side and the Canadian Union of Public Employees on the other. Of course when we add the problems there together with B.C. Tel — B.C. Tel was perhaps 350,000; I'm not sure

[ Page 6429 ]

of the exact number of man-days lost — those two areas are what really hurt us.

MS. SANFORD: Worker-days. He's in trouble already.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, you'll have trouble with me with that from time to time. I do confess it, Person, son of Per — I can't get away from it. I'll stick with chairman.

It's interesting to note that the settlements achieved in the metal-mining and transportation industries have been superb — and the food industry this week. There are, however, some major settlements to be concluded, primarily in the forest industry, the pulp and paper industry. I trust that, as in years past, all parties will make the bargaining process work. I'm sure this House wishes success for those presently involved in negotiations. We must remind ourselves of what is often forgotten: there is going to be a little bit of noise and a fair amount of press coverage; but we know that discord and harmony often work together, so let's keep things in perspective.

I'd like to conclude my remarks with respect to the labour relations portion of the ministry with the following comment. I attach considerable importance to these comments, and I think something we should all be concerned with is the respect we have, or should have, for the institutions our society has established for the regulation and conduct of society's affairs.

Encompassed within the range of this concern are our parliamentary — I repeat parliamentary — institutions, our courts and our administrative agencies. We can legitimately take exception to the law and the lawmakers — the institutions we have created for the administration of the law — but we cannot afford to denigrate those institutions and those who serve them, frequently at great personal and financial sacrifice.

We must also support the sanctity of the contract. We violate or ignore the rules at our own peril. We have policy reviews in our province; they are called general elections. Government and the law is not some form of sociological smorgasbord at which we choose things we like and disregard the others. We should not attempt to subvert our institutions by boycotts or sympathy strikes or attempt to secure our ends by involving government in matters of individual conscience.

Labour relations in B.C. at this point in time are not as successful as I personally would like them to be, but they are not an isolated phenomenon, as any perusal of a daily newspaper will tell you. We have an obligation to make our collective bargaining system work in the public interest. We have engaged in great legislative experience in B.C. In the past 15 years, and the present Labour Code and the Labour Relations Board, charged with its administration, have achieved the greatest success. Within the context of a difficult, persistent world-wide inflation, the right of any party to a collective agreement to pursue its goals in free collective bargaining carries with it a corresponding responsibility to act lawfully.

Another area of the ministry, and one to which we have attributed a great deal of importance, is apprenticeship training in the trades. We have taken steps to encourage improvements in this area, and it's evident that there are manpower shortages. I repeat, it is evident to everyone that there are shortages in a number of skilled trades in British Columbia. One of the most satisfying ways for everyone to share in our province's prosperity is to have a marketable skill. The challenge is offered to both industry and labour to provide the opportunity for our young people to acquire those skills, During the last year considerable progress has been made: the appointment of the provincial apprenticeship board on January 1, 1980; the appointment of the assistant deputy minister with full responsibility for apprenticeship; preparation of a report from the Provincial Apprenticeship Board identifying critical trade shortages — and this is the one which has been circulated for a while now. We identified 1,400 tradesmen in seven specified trades where there was in fact a critical shortage.

To follow that up we introduced a wage assistance program totalling $14.4 million, and we are aware of what it has done. More about that a little later. The thrust of it all, however, is to help the first two years of a four- to five-year trades program. It really works out to be approximately $5,000 per year. I've always had the belief that when we start looking at people in the trades and those people who certainly make an equivalent and many times a greater contribution to our economy and the welfare of our respective boroughs throughout the province, I attach equal importance to that as I do to any university training.

Identification of the need for more field counsellors in the Ministry of Labour. Since I wasn't able to bring in charts or anything like that, Mr. Chairman, I've got a few Polaroid snaps of the charts which I can pass over to my critic opposite in due course. We certainly addressed the shortage of counsellors, and we looked throughout the province. You know, I looked in the northern half of the province and in one particular area of 240,000 square miles. Each counsellor had somewhere between 300 and 400 apprentices. Can you imagine what would happen if the teachers who had 300 or 400 students had problems in one school, never mind half of the province? So there is a problem here, and we are addressing that. We have conducted two apprenticeship forums, one in Prince George and the other in Vancouver. Both, I might add, have really worked out very well.

Probably something which hasn't been done before and we are continuing to move on it — is the forecasting requirement. I mentioned phase 1— a critical shortage of 1,400 tradesmen. We've also just released report 1 of phase 2, and that's quite important too, because it demonstrated what the critical requirement is going to be by 1984. That particular study did not look into the major projects or megaprojects of the construction industry or public bodies, but this is coming along.

I think the message really is that we can assist, but we cannot as government alone ensure the delivery of skilled trades to meet the growing demands of B.C.'s industry. The recognition of their responsibilities on the part of employers and unions in the area of trades training, and a commitment from each to meet these responsibilities.... Sometimes it's like pulling teeth, because we have good and bad employers. We have people who take seriously their responsibility for training and others who are quite prepared to pirate and steal at any cost. Sometimes it's difficult. But when I look into the bureaucracy we would have to implement either by legislation or a grant-levy system, I think that it would be a worse evil.

I say to the trade unions and employers: if you can't adopt any other motive, adopt a selfish motive and you will stand to lose if shortages continue in skilled trades, because it is certainly going to affect the orderly economic development

[ Page 6430 ]

of the province. Why not treat the training of young people as a capital investment instead of an operating cost? A piece of machinery that's in a plant for five or ten years is treated as capital on the balance statement, but when it comes to employees it's an operating expense. What happens to someone who is trained in a particular factory, industry or construction company? It's a lifelong career. To me, that's a very worthwhile investment.

The reason we have to look at it is this: in British Columbia right now the average age of tradesmen is believed to be 47. I don't know how accurate that figure is, but an analysis of any construction site, factory or industry in most areas in the province will certainly give you the feeling that that's the case. Then if we look at attrition, mortality, retirement and those leaving the trade, unless attitudes change we will continue to be in a deficit position.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's not all bleak. Through the emphasis we placed over the last year it has become apparent that we are having some success. On December 31, 1979, 13,800 apprentices were indentured. As of May 31, 1981, with the help of the trades, labour, management — employers generally — and with the assistance of government, there are now 17,182. I think that is a significant increase. But I might mention one thing about that. In 1980 the number who decided to drop out or leave the training at some stage of a four-year program was more than 1,200. That bothers me. Why would that many people, some of whom may have waited or have had difficulty in securing an apprenticeship, wish to leave? I suppose that's life, and it's sometimes difficult to address.

There was some comment with respect to the critical skills program which we put in. I would like to make reference to the number of skilled tradesmen indentured under the first program — the incentive program involving $14.4 million. As of May 31, we signed up 727 apprentices under that program. Over the same period of time — from September 1980 to the present — 497 apprentices were signed up, but they are not registered under the plan; as of April 1, 1980, there were 562. We addressed the critical-skills shortfall of 1,400 in seven designated trades — millwrights, machinists, instrumentation mechanics, industrial electricians, etc.; we now have about 1,786. That was a problem we saw. Some pressure was placed on institutions as well as on those who carry some degree of responsibility. I think we have fulfilled that requirement, but that's not the end.

There are a couple of other items which I think I should mention, because I know there is going to be some comment with respect to the Work in Government program. The Work in Government program has been under the Ministry of Labour for some time. If you analyze the program, it becomes quite evident that it was to look after summer employment to some degree. That alone has a great deal to commend it. But government has only so much money. How do we get the biggest bang for the buck? This year we shifted our priorities to job-creation programs. It wasn't easy, but we assessed the alternatives and determined that the broadest interest would be served by promoting the creation of private sector jobs which have the potential of becoming permanent. There are two major advantages in directing job-creation funds to the private sector. First of all, funding is on a shared-cost basis with employers, and more jobs can be created than through a program like Work in Government. Private-sector jobs initiated through the youth employment program also have the potential to become full-time permanent jobs. When we consider that the unemployment rate among people between 15 and 19 years of age is 14.5 percent, it seems to me that we should concentrate our efforts on giving these young people job skills and work experience, and encourage the creation of permanent jobs for them.

The last item is obviously related to finances. The average cost of each Work in Government job in 1980 was $3,529. We created 1,515 jobs at a cost of roughly $5.346 million. In 1980 — and this is where the comparison is drawn from — the private-sector programs created 9,460 jobs at a cost of $8.31 million. So they represent an average cost of $878 per job of similar duration. The cost-effectiveness is really self-evident: it's $3,529 per job versus $878.

With respect to the Year of the Disabled, I appreciate that there are some items to be raised. I have some further notes on this particular aspect of the ministry, but I think for the time being, during my opening comments, I will say the following. In recognizing 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons, our employment opportunities branch, in cooperation with organizations for disabled individuals, has created a new program of funding employment in non-profit organizations. About 200 disabled people should receive job placements this summer.

Since time is running short, I think I will make reference to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, a women's office has been created in the ministry, and I'll go into further particulars later on.

In the area of human rights, there were three board appointments in 1980. It seems to me that in the first five months of 1981 I appointed nine or ten boards. In the vast majority of the cases, settlements are achieved because of the conciliation efforts of the human rights officers. In 1980, the branch handled over 800 formal complaints.

I'll close my remarks with the boards of review under the Workers Compensation Act. No doubt there will be some inquiries, but we did appoint another appeal panel. There was a sharp increase in the number of appeals, and delays were experienced. Roughly 1,200 decisions were upheld, while claim adjudicators' decisions were reversed in approximately 900 cases. So roughly 900 appeals were successful.

I think I will close my remarks now, Mr. Chairman. No doubt there will be some comments with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board, and that would take a fair amount of time to answer. So I will sit down, leave my remarks at that, and let my critic have a turn.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to congratulate the newly appointed people in the ministry upon their appointments, and welcome them.

The minister made one comment during his opening remarks in which he said that one of the jobs of the Ministry of Labour is to promote harmonious industrial relations. I certainly concur in that. It's the job of the Ministry of Labour, and government generally, to promote harmonious industrial relations. In order to do that, you have to have strong leadership, it seems to me, in the Ministry of Labour so that those harmonious industrial relations can be promoted. This minister, unfortunately, has not demonstrated that he has that

[ Page 6431 ]

leadership capability, nor an ability to handle himself in the Legislature, answer questions in this House, and deal with legislation when it is before the House. We on this side have the distinct impression, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is very unsure of himself. He is hesitant, he stumbles around, and he really is not able to make definitive decisions or to handle himself in the way we expect a Minister of Labour in this province to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you're doing a fine job, Jack.

MS. SANFORD: I'm speaking only of his administrative role as the Minister of Labour. I have never seen a minister as ill-informed about legislation being piloted through this legislature as he was last week and the week before. Those are his administrative responsibilities, Mr. House Leader.

Surely he has to be well informed; he has to be capable of understanding what he is doing as Minister of Labour in charge of the administration of offices throughout the province and in bringing legislation through this House. That's his administrative responsibility. He does not handle it well. He is unable to make decisions. The Ministry of Labour itself is in chaos as a result of it. For instance, we have a human rights branch that is very demoralized at the moment because they're not getting the kind of decision-making and leadership necessary for that branch to function effectively.

We have a Minister of Labour who is reluctant — in fact, he avoids commenting on the disputes that are taking place in this province. He doesn't want to give any information. We are certainly not seeking details of agreements or of negotiations. we just want to know that this minister is interested and involved in providing some kind of service in order to ensure that there are harmonious industrial relations in this province. That's not happening. The minister avoids making any comments; he hides from disputes. I think he runs into his office and closes the door each time he hears the word "dispute." The only time we have heard the Minister of Labour comment on a labour dispute is when it was a federal dispute. Then he called on the federal Minister of Labour to do something. Of course, I'm talking about the situation with respect to B.C. Tel, where the jurisdiction is federal.

What is this minister doing about the ICBC dispute? I haven't heard him say a word about it. I'm not even sure that he's interested. He has certainly given no indication at any time as to how his ministry is involved, or what kind of action he is taking in order to resolve that long-standing dispute. Do we hear anything from him? Not a word. He's reluctant, he's quiet and he's hiding. He doesn't want to talk about the issues. He is unable to take definitive action where it is required.

What is happening with the Windermere Lodge dispute and the Hospital Employees Union? Those have been ongoing. It is a very sad situation for those employees, who are being replaced with employees from outside of this province paid at a higher rate than was being paid when the labour dispute came about.

What is happening with the cement dispute? When I drive home every weekend, I see all the pickets out there. What is the minister doing there in order to resolve the problem? He has just finished telling us that the Ministry of Labour is there; it's supposed to be doing something for labour relations in this province. What has he been doing? He doesn't even talk about it. We never hear him make a statement about the state of labour relations in the province as it applies to the various disputes, or about how he is involved and what he is doing.

MR. BRUMMET: Some people talk and some do their jobs.

MS. SANFORD: Well, let's just have a look at that, Mr. Chairman. We've heard from the member for North Peace River about the job that's being done. I assume he means that the Minister of Labour, working quietly in his office, is able to resolve all of the problems that exist in the province, as far as the labour disputes are concerned — or to assist in resolving them.

We had a copy of the Social Credit newsletter recently, in which the figures were given about the number of worker days lost in B.C. The minister himself made some reference to that in his opening remarks. For instance, in 1976 there were 1,470,000; in 1977, 648,000: in 1978, 754,000; in 1979, 869,000; and in 1980, 482,000. But that Social Credit newsletter forgot to mention what is happening in B.C. in 1981. The figures up to the end of May 1981 are 1,235,783. I wonder why the Social Credit newsletter would neglect to mention what's happening in 1981; or is that information that the members of the Social Credit Party are not supposed to know about? I wonder if the MLA for North Peace River has that information. I'll give it to you again; you write it down. Up until May 1981 it is 1,235,783.

I'm concerned because we have a Minister of Labour who has lost his self-confidence, who is unable to make decisions and who is unable to give leadership. It has not gone unnoticed. There have been comments in the three major newspapers of the province about the problems the Minister of Labour is having with respect to giving leadership, making decisions and taking initiative in that very important field. It's tragic, because that's an important portfolio. Personally I am very concerned about it.

The minister is always talking about addressing issues. He does a lot of addressing, but he doesn't get much done. The action is not forthcoming. The ministry is really dormant at this stage because of the fact that we don't have the initiative, leadership and strong personality required in that difficult portfolio. For instance, at one point the minister talked about industrial health. I thought, oh, we're finally going to have something on industrial health from the Minister of Labour, but what he was talking about was stability as far as investors are concerned. That's his view of industrial health, and I was not surprised that that was what he meant by industrial health.

What action has he taken about the situation at the Workers' Compensation Board? It is two years since we called for a complete public hearing and a royal commission into the operation and function of the Workers' Compensation Board. We have a massive deficit. We have workers being gassed and poisoned — 49 recently in the Prince Rupert area, and I have one in the Crofton area which I'm going to be bringing to the minister's attention later. We have the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association. It's growing, because they're not able to receive satisfaction from the Workers' Compensation Board. In fact, they're now getting to the stage where they're actually putting out a newsletter to keep their members informed about the kind of actions they are attempting to take to ensure they get some justice through that Workers' Compensation Board.

[ Page 6432 ]

I have an example of a case which has been turned down three times by the commissioners after it was accepted unanimously by the boards of review. I will certainly be bringing that to the attention of the minister as well.

We have seen the lack of action in the whole area of human rights, and most recently the dreadful situations of the cross-burnings and the KKK.

The minister mentioned problems in the public sector. I'm assuming that he's also referring to government employees and not just to CUPE, the VRMEU or the civic workers in Vancouver and that regional district.

What about the government itself? What interest does the minister take with respect to harmonious industrial relations between the GERB and the employees of government? We keep hearing about issues such as 500 grievances that remain undealt with by GERB. If you're going to have harmonious relations between employers and employees, the minister can certainly play a direct role here. I don't think he's even looked at this issue or done anything about it. If you have 500 grievances waiting to be heard, that does not make for harmonious industrial relations. That's what we have right now with the B.C. Government Employees Union and the employers' group representing government. What action has the minister taken in there? Surely he can't be happy with 500 unresolved or unheard grievances from the employees of the government.

The other thing the minister mentioned, in talking about industrial relations, was that we must leave choices up to individual conscience. I made the assumption that he was talking about crossing picket lines. Maybe the minister could indicate if that's what he was referring to. I know he was reading from prepared notes; I'm not sure that he prepared them and would be able to answer that. If he does know what the reference was, perhaps he could let me know. When he mentioned individual conscience, I immediately thought of the labour representatives on the boards of review and the difficult position they found themselves in with respect to the labour dispute at Deer Lake in the Labour office and other offices related to legal services. Surely the Minister of Labour cannot expect that worker representatives on the boards of review could be expected to cross a picket line. Of course, they were ordered to do so by the Deputy Minister of Labour, who I assume was supported by the Minister of Labour, because no change was made there.

One of the long disputes this year was the civic dispute in Vancouver. One of the issues that kept recurring, and was a thorn in terms of getting the settlement negotiated, related to the fact that women would like to get parity; they would like to have their contribution to the workforce looked at in a whole new light. We have not addressed that issue at all. We're again using the word "address" that the minister likes to utilize. I'm wondering how he has addressed that issue. What is happening within his own ministry related to research into the issue which came to the fore in the civic dispute in Vancouver and also here in the Victoria area? We still have women in this province earning only about 58 cents for every dollar that's earned by a man in the workforce. That's an issue that has to be changed in this province. I'm wondering what action or research is taking place in the Ministry of Labour to ensure that that situation is changed.

The comments made by Mayor Mel Couvelier, the chairperson of the Greater Victoria Labour Relations Association, are disturbing. He says — and he's quoted today in Monday magazine — that this issue of equal pay for work of equal value is an argument based on emotionalism. We have court cases in the United States now trying to rectify the situation that exists regarding the amount of money that women who are in the workforce earn compared to that earned by men. What is the minister's position on that? Where does he stand? Is he doing anything to correct that matter? All these years after International Women's Year, when that issue was raised time and time again, we find that, instead of the gap narrowing, it is widening in terms of what women earn in this society and what men earn.

Most women who work in Canada today have to work. They don't work for the fun of it. They are out there because they have to work. They have the right to work in our society, and they have the right to a decent income when they enter the workforce. I think it's a disgrace that in this year of 1981 for every dollar that a man earns in this country a woman earns about 58 to 60 cents. What is the minister doing about it? He talked about the women's bureau. Is that one of the issues that is being dealt with there? If so, what kind of research is going on? What studies are being undertaken? What action is being planned so that it can be changed?

It's not just a matter of negotiations, because there are number of people in the workforce who are not covered by collective agreements and don't have the right to negotiate. There may be changes that are required, such as those which have taken place in other parts of the country — namely, changes in wording to legislation. I know I should not be bringing that up at this stage. In Ontario the Human Rights Code refers to similar or substantially similar work, so that work done by people working in clerical positions on the inside can be compared to the value of work done by those in other jobs, either within that building or outside. I'm wondering what work the minister has done in order to rectify the problem that exists there.

Women cannot, on their own, feed young children on the wages they are making in Canada today. Many women are required to bring up a family on their own, trying to run the household and raise the kids on a salary that is not much above minimum wage. I wonder if the minister would comment on those issues at this point.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a couple of short questions for the Minister of Labour. But first, here's a quick synopsis of some of his programs. We've seen some of the programs which have been slashed, and I'd just like the minister's statements regarding this.

The first one is grants under "ministerial management and policy development." That's been cut right off, and I wish the minister could give the reasoning for that. Secondly, the labour education program has been slashed, and that will have a drastic effect upon many of the young people in this province. I would like to hear the reasons behind the labour education program being slashed in the ministry budget. Thirdly, employment opportunity programs have been slashed by over $4 million. It's a cutback of approximately 20 percent. Fourthly, "fees and allowances — boards, courts" has been cut back by 50 percent. One of the problems with some of these cutbacks under the minister's estimates is that we see "advertising and publications," which had nothing last year, has been increased to $335,000 — almost a third of a million dollars — while we see some definite programs, such as labour education, cut back. Another one I'd like to bring to the minister's attention — if he could elaborate on it — is the $7,000 for grants in the human rights program. I'd

[ Page 6433 ]

like to know the reasoning for that. We see programs like labour education employment opportunity cut back, and grants slashed, and we would like the minister to elaborate on the reasons for that.

On the four constituency problems, I suggest to the minister that there is a need for some type of trade school or apprentice school up in the far north, a place where young people and women and natives could take some type of training; they could take their skills training in the far north. That's where the mines are, where the economic benefits are, and there should be some type of regional training in the north, Mr. Minister, instead of having the training hundreds of miles away from where the mine and the development aspects are going on.

The second constituency aspect that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is a bulletin from the steelworkers' union dated January 22, 1981. The statement starts off: "Northern Companies Driving Employees from Their Homes." Just to quote the union representative of the steelworkers' union:

" 'If you listened to the mine company management recruiters you would think the roads are paved with gold,' says Steelworkers staff representative Bill Rudychuck. 'Promises of high wages, low rents and terrific housing are used to entice workers north. But, once they have moved up here and set up in these isolated communities, then it's just another company town and you are at the mercy of the mine-owner.'"

Why I raise this, Mr. Chairman, is that in the constituency of Atlin we have a major mine, Cassiar Asbestos, which will be closed down this summer. I'd like to know what the minister can do in particular to the Cassiar shutdown. Maybe he could elaborate what his ministry has found out — why it is being closed down and why it is putting hundreds and hundreds of men out of work this summer.

The third constituency problem I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the grievance procedure. Often, Mr. Minister, we find the need for a fairer cost-sharing agreement when workers and unions have to take companies into arbitration, whether it's WCB or LRB.

The last constituency aspect I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the.... He is the minister responsible for human rights, and I'd like to know if the minister is doing anything in his role of overseer of the human rights branch to ensure the protection of human rights with regard to the Nishga on the Amax deal. We have seen, Mr. Chairman, that to a certain degree there has been cultural genocide brought upon the Nishga people. I would like the minister, if possible, to state what his ministry is doing regarding the human rights issue and native rights in issues like Stikine-Iskut and Amax. In particular, I would like to know what the minister, in his role of overseer of human rights, is doing to protect the native people on Alice Arm.

Those are four short questions, and I would hope the minister could respond to them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps I'll go back and try to address some of the concerns expressed by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

I sometimes wonder what exactly you expect from government with respect to the profile in labour-management disputes. I think I can assure the member that the least government involvement, the better it is for the parties.

When they have to square up to the issues themselves.... Our function certainly is to preserve the integrity of free collective bargaining. I can assure the member, Mr. Chairman, that every time government is requested to intervene, you put one more notch in the handle of the system which we have always thought to be the foundation of industrialized democracy. I can mention to the member that if they are running to the government and to the Minister of Labour to intervene as soon as there is a problem on either side, and even before the doors of the plant have closed, we are going to encounter difficulties.

As soon as I was appointed, I took the position with respect to the British Columbia Railway that nobody is going to run to us and expect us to make their agreement for them. What I would do if I were to follow the member's suggestion would be to subvert the process which members on both sides of the House have been a part of creating. Anyone will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the system is going to be destroyed if parties feel that they can get from government that which they cannot get for themselves. In addition we've got the mediation services, and many times.... I mentioned in my opening remarks that close to 400 appointments were made. That's what we call assistance. Mediation is assistance, and mediators are used all the time. But from time to time we have to gauge what the problems are and we then will make appointments, whether it's a special mediator, an industrial inquiry commissioner, somebody who's going to conduct a mediation arbitration — commonly known as med-arb process — or even somebody from a bench. We've done that. I might suggest that it's rather interesting to note that in 1980 I remember the number of disputes in which we were involved. Let's not make any mistake about it, many of them were very high profile. There was the railroad from north to south in the province. I'm not about to destroy the process and system that people must learn if they believe in our foundation and the integrity of our system. Let's not whittle away at it. I can assure the member that a substantial amount of pressure was brought to bear upon the government, and me in particular, involving the tie-up of a railroad from north to south. I'm not about to destroy the heat we went through in order to preserve a system.

The Vancouver police was another one, and of course there were the public and registered psychiatric nurses. All of them bring to bear additional problems. There was the brewery industry and the construction industry. In the construction industry right at the zero hour we did do something. There's also the Victoria police, and I've just been through another one with the firefighters for the lower mainland. Interestingly enough, a number of those involve the public sector.

I don't intend to change either my policy or my approach with regard to labour disputes. It seems to me that we met with a considerable degree of success in 1980. I don't want the member to lose sight of one side; I know she certainly will not lose sight of the other, The number of stoppages and man-days lost in 1981 was primarily attributable to the public sector. I think I might say that after this experience, perhaps there's another way of addressing that particular problem. But a lot of thought must be given to it, because for every action there's an opposite and equal reaction. There's legislation in place for all those people if they wish to use it, and interestingly enough there are a number of employees who are quite prepared to use that legislation; hence its presence.

[ Page 6434 ]

You mentioned something about the cement dispute: why aren't we doing anything? Good heavens! Canada Cement LaFarge and Genstar and its two subsidiaries, Inland on the mainland and Bamberton over here on Vancouver Island, are the companies involved. As a result of that dispute we're having a great deal of difficulty. The government undertook some expense and got an extremely experienced practitioner in industrial relations by the name of Edward Peck. He was appointed at the request of both management and labour. They voluntarily came through with a memorandum and said, please do this. Both parties agreed to the appointment. We could go ahead and have a good look at it and we did. It was a very lengthy report, and as I recall it was tabled around May 1. As a matter of fact it was picked up by both sides of Canada Cement LaFarge, but it was not picked up by Inland Cement workers. However, I can report that that dispute is subject to a memorandum of agreement and is in the process of being ratified. I will not diminish the member's point. That has been a long, difficult period with that particular company and union, make no bones about it.

Another question was raised with respect to the boards of review. Those who are appointed by order-in-council to a quasi-judicial tribunal are just that. They in fact operate in many ways similar to a court or the Labour Relations Board. They have the power to make decisions. They are independent members of boards. Those panels are selected on the basis of impartiality and to make decisions on the basis of merit. That is important.

We encountered a problem at Deer Lake Centre. In response to the member's question — I have some notes and obviously anticipated the question — at no time were members of the boards or other public employees — we're talking about support staff — threatened with being discharged because of events associated with the strike of the Legal Services Society. The dispute, if it can be categorized as such, did not deal with the board and with what the boards do — that is, their quasi-judicial function — but rather where, under what circumstances and at what costs their duties are performed. So that attention does not become diverted from more important issues, let me summarize what the facts were.

There was a strike against the Legal Services Society commencing May 1. Picketing commenced at Deer Lake Centre and was respected by the employees of the Ministry of Labour, who are members of the Government Employees Union. Perhaps excluded personnel on the boards of review also honoured the picket line, but I have no information in this regard. GERB applied to the Labour Relations Board for relief, pursuant to section 86. Section 86, as the member probably knows, is the common-site section. It was put in there for the purpose of stopping hardship from being created. Relief was granted by the Labour Relations Board on May 12 following formal hearings. The order restricted pickets to the Ledger Avenue entrance to Deer Lake Centre or in effect to the premises of the struck employer — the Legal Services Society.

Interestingly enough, all of the Government Employees Union members employed by the Ministry of Labour returned to work on May 13. Subsequently both the B.C. Federation of Labour and the GEU issued bulletins to affiliates and members in effect boycotting our premises and insisting that a picket line was still around Deer Lake Centre, albeit an invisible one. This is stretching it, believe me: boycotting an invisible picket line, although for some philosophical reason, which presumably only they can explain, the so-called invisible picket line was not operational after 5 p.m. or before 8 a.m. — you can see how ridiculous this is getting — or on weekends and paydays, which seems to be an extraordinarily convenient way of evading legal obligations under the Labour Code. It was an invisible picket line that certainly wasn't there between 5 o'clock at night and 8 o'clock the following morning or on payday.

Then I questioned the decision of the Labour Relations Board. I raise this in response to the member's statement involving matters of conscience.

Associated with the foregoing, both the union's communications contained the remarkable statement that the GEU members employed at Deer Lake Centre had been ordered back to work by the Labour Relations Board. No such order was ever issued by the board, nor was such an order ever solicited by any of the neutral third parties affected by the initial picketing. Six members of the boards of review who had trade union associations prior to their appointments failed to report for duty as a result of the trade union edicts. Consistent with the policy of my ministry, all supervisors were reminded by my deputy, with my blessing, that those employees who did not report to work in these circumstances would not be paid until they were prepared to resume their duties in a normal manner. Their refusal to comply with the Labour Code of this province and an associated order of the Labour Relations Board created the controversy, and nothing else.

In summary, while there is an increasing tendency of late for some elements of labour and the employer communities to ignore the labour law of this province, and indeed, in some cases, to flaunt it, it will not be said that the Minister of Labour or his ministry is prepared to repudiate the Labour Code or the agency charged with its administration. I leave that to others but remind them that much good can come from a generous respect for our rules of conduct for labour relations and much harm can come from disregard and disrespect.

In conclusion, let me read you a brief excerpt from the LRB's decision in this case, because it is important that this fact be understood by the members opposite, since that's where the question came from. This is about the purpose of Local 66's broad-based picketing:

"It is appropriate to consider this factor first, since it is not in dispute. Local 66 candidly admits that its picketing is directed not only at the Legal Services Society but also at the applicants, for the purpose of disrupting the government. As indicated earlier, Local 66 stated before the board that it is not relying on the ally or common-employer provisions of the Labour Code in order to justify the picketing against the applicants.

"The union's admitted purpose for the broad-based picketing does not fall within the definition of picket as set out in the Labour Code; rather, the union's purpose for the picketing identifies it clearly as secondary picketing, which is not provided for."

That's an excerpt from the decision of the Labour Relations Board.

I'm not going to bother commenting on the speculation in the press that the member referred to, Mr. Chairman. I think I'll let my record and performance be the judge of that.

MR. NICOLSON: Resign.

[ Page 6435 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That reminds me of something that I read about from the member for Nelson-Creston — something to the effect that: "Well, if I'm going to lose, I want to lose for something which I've done."

MS. SANFORD: Then so something.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's so easy to be in opposition.

MS. SANFORD: Why don't you try it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll tell you what: the electorate won't let me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hang around for a little while.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll be here.

One of the questions that the member made reference to is GERB and the number of grievances. I'm aware of the concern expressed....

MS. SANFORD: You've done nothing.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, you can say what you like, Madam Member, but I'm not prepared to discuss in the House the contents of any discussions I've had. As far as your comment with respect to the minimum wage is concerned, yes, I realize the minimum wage is now the third-highest in Canada. I think you're requesting that it be reviewed, and I'll take notice of what you said.

I'm a little at a loss right now on a couple of items which I've attempted to get some information on, and those are questions asked by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who's concerned about this. I'm having my people check into a number of items which he raised. As far as employment opportunities are concerned, I will repeat what I said in my opening statement. The Work in Government Program was cut, and substantially. The reason for it is that it costs four times as much to create jobs through the public sector as it does through the private sector. Frankly, we can get more people employed by using the private sector because of the shared-cost provisions. I'll get particulars and get back to you with respect to advertising and publication, the cutbacks on fees and allowances, and the labour education matter under ministerial management.

I will take as notice your concern with respect to the cost-sharing and grievance procedures. I might mention that's a problem, Mr. Member, which seems to be a common denominator in a number of trade unions. But I'm talking about small locals in municipalities, in which we find they have 15 or 20 in their membership and they're responsible for a number of.... You know, you can imagine what the assessment against them is like in the event of a difficult grievance; in fact, it becomes almost unconscionable. I'm aware of that. I might tell you that sometimes, to assist people in that regard, we in the ministry will absorb the cost of an arbitrator for various purposes in struggling to secure an agreement, and often that assists. That has quite a significant impact on small locals.

I'm not aware of this item on Atlin and the Cassiar shutdown this summer. I will check into it, if in fact that is going to come to pass. I don't know the reasons for it. I'm not sure whether the member is referring to the summer only or whether it's permanent.

MR. PASSARELL Summer.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make the appropriate inquiry. I'm not going to stand here and make a commitment that we'll do something, because more often than not it's difficult.

The member for Comox referred to the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board. This is a much misunderstood area. It's very difficult to explain or to pick up the first time around. I really confess that I had some difficulties with this for a while, but I think perhaps I understand it. I'm quite prepared to give an explanation. If the member wishes to bear with me, I think this should be a matter of record. It's sufficiently important, particularly when one is talking about a company with assets of over $900 million and liabilities of about $1.3. I might mention at the outset that there has been an impression that the unfunded liability — a word which seems to be preferred over the word "deficit"....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In 1971 everyone recognized that the unfunded liability of the board was zero; in fact there was a small surplus. From about 1972 to 1975, depending on how the calculations are done, it moved up to $188 million, but of course that has to be recalculated because of the effect of retroactive legislation and cost-of-living indices. I've had it calculated both ways. What is important is the percentage relationship between the unfunded liability and the assets. In 1975 — I'm not pointing fingers; I just want to keep this in perspective — liabilities calculated on the present basis were $580 million; on the old basis liabilities were $476 million. In 1975 the unfunded portion, on the present basis, is $216 million; on the old basis it was $97 million. On the present basis we're looking at 37 percent. In other words, the unfunded portion represents 37 percent of the existing liability of $580 million, but if you want to go back and use the percentage under the old calculation, it was roughly 20 percent. I'm quite prepared to let the member have a copy of this. To keep it in perspective, we'll go to 1980, when the liabilities were $1.294 million on the present basis; on the old basis it would be $1.113 million. Then we go to the unfunded liability portion on the present basis and find the figure which is now being bandied about, $391 million; on the old basis it is $210 million. It's roughly 30 percent, using present accounting methods; on the old basis it was 19 percent. The only reason I raise these figures is to put them in perspective. In 1975 the unfunded liability portion represented 37 percent of the total liability; at December 31, 1980, it was 30 percent. Those are significant figures.

Why was this increased? It's clear from reading the annual report. There's a 14.6 percent increase in days lost from work, and a 10.4 percent increase in the number of wage-loss claims. The main reason for the increase in the unfunded liability is a sizeable rise in the present and future compensation benefits. Expenditures for compensation claims rose 21 percent from $180 million in 1979 to $234 million in 1980. We've got to remember that the Workers Compensation Act provides for full cost-of-living indexing pension benefits. These benefits and long-term wage-loss payments are adjusted twice yearly to match increases in the consumer price index. I repeat, adjustments are done semi-annually. Since 1974, when full indexing was introduced, the CPI increased 68 percent. What happens is that this obviously adds to the

[ Page 6436 ]

unfunded liability. So we now understand that the classed deficiency of $391 million — again, the unfunded liability — is the estimated shortfall in funds that would be required to meet pension and unfinal claims payments only if the board ceased business.

So it's large in absolute terms, but it must be placed in clear perspective. Viewing it from the standpoint of annual revenue, it represents approximately 80 percent of one year's revenues. This amount of money is the amount which is going to be required up to 50 years from now. The board pays disability pensions to workers and pensions to dependents of fatally injured workers, but it pays all the medical treatment costs in the future for all compensation claimed. One of the biggest problems we have is how to determine what the cost will be in the future. This may be a simplistic way of drawing an analogy, but how about looking at a young couple who are starting off in their careers; the total cost facing them over their lifetime together will be $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 or what? This is a difficult subject, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you that much is made about it. I have gone to great lengths to see if I could put an explanation in, but I see my time is up. I'll have to sit down and continue later on.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, to assist the minister on those four questions on the cutbacks, they're on pages 179, 180, 181 and 182. That's just to help the minister and his staff to find those cutbacks and the reasons why. Secondly, you mentioned assistance for small locals. Could you state how many small locals you help out in a year? Is there a figure for that? You never answered the third question from my earlier debate, concerning the trade school program up in the far north. I'd like those answers.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, as far as locals are concerned, you don't offer to help out with a direct funding contribution to locals. I can give you an example with police, fire and nursing locals. When we're dealing with services involving health, life and safety, and we have some difficulties in reaching agreement, we are quite prepared to absorb those costs. That's the only indirect way I can do it.

As far as a trade school in the far north is concerned, that is something that I would take under advisement, but I think you were talking about the Ministry of Education. Our responsibility is to encourage friendship. But I think it's a valid point. Perhaps more training on the site of the mine might be of some help, because that in fact is being done. We've been looking at that in the ministry in one area of the Kootenays.

You mentioned labour education. There was a $21,000 decrease. That was accounted for by a $5,000 reduction in professional and special services, and $15,000 in grants and subsidies. The reduction has been made because the proposed figures are closer to demands that have been made on the services in the past several years. In fact, that's what's happened. Obviously, there haven't been demands made and so it was reduced.

One other item I'd like to make reference to for the member for Comox is the matter of GERB. I understand it's now gone to the Labour Relations Board.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know as well as I do that that's just about impossible to address.

There's another provision under the Labour Code, and I hate to say it but it's very seldom used. It's section 112 of the Labour Code — where assistance can be offered. You might look at the closing portion. It says: "...the Minister of Finance, on the minister's requisition, shall pay out of consolidated revenue fund one-third of the cost incurred by the parties for payment of reasonable remuneration, travelling and out of pocket expenses of the person named...." We've got to be careful with that, because you're going to find it's discretionary. You can rest assured there's not going to be a run on my ministry for something like this.

I'd like to try to wind up that matter on the board. I've mentioned that this has been restated, and it's important that it be restated for the year 1975-76 to determine what the class deficiencies really were. The allegation was that in fact the unfunded liabilities have gotten out of line. The truth of the matter is that as a percentage they are lower than they were in 1975-76.

There's a very interesting item I think I have to raise. Prior to this administration there was a policy which came out of this question: should the unfunded liability be shown as an item of information in the financial statement or should it be injected into the balance sheet?

MS. SANFORD: Are you now back to WCB?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. I thought we'd continue on that, because I think it's probably one of the major issues we've got.

The point really is that I prefer the former. It may be like a class in mathematics or calculus, but the fact of the matter is that big issues are made out of it, and the opposition has certainly had its run. What would the consequences be if the difference were portrayed as a figure in the balance sheet? Is this not of some concern to you, Madam Member? The question is whether the policy of the previous administration was not to disclose the unfunded liability as part of the balance sheet. The interesting point about it is, I'm not so sure; it may be right, it may be wrong. I'm not going to be the one to pass judgment on it, but what I am going to do is find the truth. There was a reasoning, and the reason given for not showing the true unfunded liability as part of the financial statement and only appending it as a footnote is this: the consequences will be a feeling of discomfort with the amount of unfunded liabilities, and decisions that those liabilities should be funded by raising assessment rates and establishing reserves for the purpose. The reasoning may have been sound; the fact is it's not commonly known.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I say that what you would be doing is generating a pressure to establish reserves to meet those future costs without first considering whether it would not be cheaper in the long run to meet them on a current-cost basis. That might be sound too, but the fact of the matter is that we've got to incorporate them one way or the other. Don't say that all of a sudden, since 1975, the unfunded liabilities have shot from less than $100 million to $391 million, without explaining the reason why. I'll repeat that all we have to do is go back to the financial statements recalculation one way or the other. In my opening comments on this I made it clear: I drew comparisons as a percentage — the unfunded portion as a percentage of the total liability.

[ Page 6437 ]

I'll quickly hit these points with respect to those increases. Under the WCB we know we've got indexing. From 1975 to 1981 the maximum wage rates have risen from $12,100 to $22,200. It's interesting that you can add to this too. It's strange how actuaries work. For example, reserves for pension purposes show that whereas in 1975 a worker aged 40 who suffered 100 percent disability required a reserve of $206,200 and an additional $90,000 for actuarial adjustments in 1981, that same worker in 1981 would require a reserve of $378,400. That's an increase of $172,000,

There's one other thing too with respect to the assessment rates and how they are calculated. When we want to look at the 1980 rates, for example.... They were set in 1979. They take into account the board's experience in 1976, 1977 and 1978. The question comes up as to whether or not they are sufficiently current. We know that there were a number of amendments which went through in 1974, some of which were not proclaimed until 1978. When they are proclaimed.... They trace back to the beginning when the injury took place. Consequently, we find it affecting the unfunded liability.

How do we address that problem? Obviously, there's a real issue in addressing it — that is, whether or not you want to increase assessments substantially in inflationary periods. If you do, the capital funding during inflationary periods will be eroded even more quickly than it would be if it were left in the hands of those who paid. For example, when inflation exceeds the return on investment of those moneys which are now an asset of the board, there doesn't seem to be much sense in moving to increase assessments to that degree. There has to be a compromise, and there has to be some increase. That's going to depend on the size of the workforce in British Columbia, the change in payroll and the rate of inflation.

I came across one interesting thing which I'd like to point out to the member. This is one of the problems which we have. I can assure the member that this problem was incurred directly by your administration between 1972 and 1975. In fact, the inflationary rates which occurred in 1974-75 are almost identical to those which we're experiencing right now. Interestingly, at that time the chairman said that if we were to experience these inflationary times in 1986 — looking ten years down the line.... What happened is that we experienced them five years earlier.

Everybody, including the board.... Perhaps you didn't catch that; we'll go over it again. I'd like to mention something to you, Mr. Chairman. All boards have to rely upon some of the counsel which they get from their actuaries, We look at the number of claims that are coming in. It's interesting that there was quite a rapid acceleration of injuries sustained. Believe it or not, there was a time, starting in mid-1953 and going through to 1956.... It's interesting how they went up and then shot down. Then suddenly it was a fairly even keel all the way along. The actuaries turned around and looked at 1976 and said: "Okay, this is going to last for two or three years." What in fact has happened is that it's gone much longer. It's gone for almost four and a half to five years. I might mention to you that there is a decline. In the first five months of 1981 a plateau has occurred in the increase of claims. That might bode well for the amount of the unfunded liability decreasing.

I'll leave that one alone — probably to the member's pleasure. I felt that, with the amount of concern which has been expressed by industry, trade unions, the opposition and the press, and the number of comments which have been passed, we ought to go in and have a look at it in some detail. I think I'll sit down on that and try to get a couple of answers.

MS. SANFORD: Out in the hallway earlier today we saw the minister with a huge briefcase. I assume it contains all the voluminous documents that have been prepared for him to read during these estimates. I hope he's not going to read all of them, because....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You want the information; you're going to get it.

MS. SANFORD: Really, Mr. Chairman, this is very interesting. Before we really get to the subject.... The minister is reading to us and giving us lessons about the unfunded liability and the deficit and so on, in an attempt to indicate to us that all is well at the Workers' Compensation Board. I can assure you that there are serious problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and I'm about to outline some of them.

From the Workers' Compensation Board annual report, let me just list this for the minister. In 1976 the deficit was $8 million; in 1977 it was $185 million: in 1978, $222 million; in 1979, $248 million: and in 1980, $185 million. That comes from the board's own failures. I know he's indicated to us the difference between the deficit and the unfunded liability, but if you look at what's happened to both the unfunded liability and the deficit at the Workers' Compensation Board, you have to realize that those actuaries and the commissioners themselves are reluctant to take the action that is necessary. The minister is reluctant to take any action, as is the Premier. He indicated that to us in the Legislature the other day.

Surely if the commissioners and the actuaries who work on behalf of the Workers' Compensation Board were doing their job, they would not allow this situation to develop. It's been developing over the years, and it's clearly outlined in the Workers' Compensation Board itself. The lesson we had today about the difference between unfunded liability and deficit does not excuse what has happened in terms of the lack of action of the commissioners in setting those rates for the industries of the province. It’s a shocking deficit. Either they are unable to face reality over there at the Workers' Compensation Board, or they are not willing to do their jobs.

The minister talked about the various changes that were made with respect to pensions and the reasons that these have gone up. The Workers' Compensation Board commissioners were aware of those changes. Those changes were made by the Social Credit government. Back in 1966 they indexed the pensions to inflation. That's a long time for those commissioners to have a look at what's happening in terms of indexing and how that affects the unfunded liability.

Another factor is that the time that injured workers have to wait in order to claim compensation benefits has been reduced from three days to one day. That was done in 1972, before the election. The other aspect that the minister referred to is where the NDP government attempted to do something about the old pensions. That section was passed in 1974 or 1975, but was not proclaimed until 1978, and those pensioners had to wait all those years before any action was forthcoming from this ministry, because it was the minister who had to proclaim that particular section.

What do we have happening at the Workers' Compensation Board? The injured workers of this province are not

[ Page 6438 ]

being protected by that board. Their interests are not being looked after. Let me give you some examples. Safety inspections: in 1976 there were 22,000; in 1977, 22,000; in 1978, 18,000; in 1979, it was down to 16,000 inspections. What kind of protection is that? What kind of interest is the Workers' Compensation Board showing in safety in the workplace, with those kinds of figures? The minister is giving us this big lesson in unfunded liability and trying to tell us that all is well at the Workers' Compensation Board. How much time did he spend talking about industrial health and safety in this province? He said virtually nothing.

How many penalties were levied over the last few years by the Workers' Compensation Board because of violations? There were 253 in 1975; in 1976, 289; in 1977, down to 126; in 1978, only 52; and in 1979, 58. What kind of interest is being shown by the minister with respect to those figures as far as worker health and safety are concerned in this province? It's an area in which he has failed miserably. If you look at figures about disabling injuries per 100 workers — and these are all figures from the Workers' Compensation Board — you find that in 1975 there were 6.5 disabling injuries per 100 workers; in 1976, 6.4; in 1977, 7; in 1978, 7.5. In 1979 that figure is up to 8.3, when we should be making every effort to ensure that we improve the industrial health and safety in the workplace in this province. The same kind of figures apply to on-site consultation and the number of instructors being certified in industrial first aid.

The figures are lousy in terms of the protection of the workers in this province, and the minister has done nothing about it. We talked about those Prince Rupert people. People are being gassed and poisoned, they are developing cancer and being hurt every day of the week in this province, and the minister has never once indicated that he is working to try to improve that situation. Instead we have worksite inspections going down. We have the unfunded liability going up. The figures for seriously injured workers are going up. The figures for those who are being killed on the job have been raised by the IWA time and time again; they keep going up and up and up.

What do we have the board chairman saying? The chairman of the board, Dr. Adam Little, spoke to the forest industry executives, and he said to them: "Some are lax in enforcing safety on the job. While those in the majority have a good performance, some of your group resent any activity in safety. I don't know if it's the bottom line, or if they don't care." This is an address given by the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia. That attitude is not acceptable to the workforce or society. What are the Workers' Compensation Board chairman, the commissioners and the minister doing about it? Making speeches. That's about the extent of it. Their worksite inspections go down; the number of injuries go up; the number of people trained in industrial first aid goes down. It's a dismal performance. We have problems with PCPs, as has been mentioned by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on a number of occasions.

I have other concerns too. We have, through the Ministry of Labour, consulting services for those who are going to appear before the boards of review. The information I just received in the last couple of days comes from the ironworkers, who attempted to get the information that is usually available to these people when they make inquiries. They're allowed to get a summary of the injured worker's files so that they can prepare their case for the appeal. Do you know what's happening now, Mr. Chairman? The appeals are being turned down because the staff is unable to handle the volume of requests coming to them. One hundred and forty-five similar requests were ahead of this one from the ironworkers. There is no way that staff can handle the requests for assistance so that injured workers can prepare their cases for the appeal board.

The minister shows no interest in this area. It was mentioned last in the list of projects he talked about in his opening remarks. Has there been a sufficient increase so that we can have some decent service for those injured workers so that they can go before the boards of appeal? One of the reasons there are so many cases going before the boards of appeal is that the initial decisions are erroneous. Nine hundred were overturned last year, the minister stated in his opening remarks. The sad part of this whole procedure is that injured workers, following the adjudication, can go to the boards of review and have the decision overturned in their favour, only to find the commissioners overturn the board of review's decision. That's a disgrace. The whole concept in setting up independent boards of review was that injured workers would have an independent appeal procedure, aside from the Workers' Compensation Board itself, where they could go to have their cases heard. These independent boards of review are now being overruled by the commissioners. That the commissioners would be able to overturn their decisions was never the intention of the boards of review when they were established. They're supposed to be independent of the Workers' Compensation Board, and we find commissioners overturning their decisions.

We get complaints day in and day out about the doctors who are attached to the Workers' Compensation Board. Perhaps there should be some system whereby the medical staff that work for the Workers' Compensation Board can be changed more frequently so we have a rotating system where medical people attached to the board can spend some time there and then be moved on. There are so many complaints that come in with respect to decisions that are being made there, again overruling decisions of the local doctors of the injured workers, and in some cases specialists as well.

The United Injured and Disabled Workers Association has made representations to the minister. One of the issues they raise — and I would like the minister's comment on this — relates to the fact that some disabled workers cannot receive training or retraining in order to get back into the workforce. Because of the fact that these injured workers are drawing a pension, which is completely inadequate to meet their needs in terms of accommodation, food and the necessities, they are forced to go on welfare. It seems to me that if an injured worker is not able to be trained and is not eligible under that particular chart they have established at the Workers' Compensation Board, he should be able to have an adequate pension other than the one that fits in on the particular chart that's drawn up. Otherwise they have to go on Human Resources assistance. If a worker has been injured in this province, that's the least we can expect for him.

I mentioned the situation at Crofton, and I have not discussed this with the minister. There was a carpenter at Crofton doing some repair work on one of the buildings. They were working at quite a high elevation and found they were affected by fumes coming from the stacks at Crofton. One of the workers, suffering pain in his chest, had to be given oxygen and was off work for a week. His doctor advised him not to go back if he had to work under those same

[ Page 6439 ]

conditions near the stacks with his lungs affected. When he applied to the Workers' Compensation Board for wage-loss benefits for the week he had to be away as a result of this, he was turned down. This is the kind of thing we're finding time and time again with this particular Workers' Compensation Board and the direction that's coming from this government with respect to injured workers and the treatment they get.

I mentioned earlier that the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association are now at the point where they're putting out a newsletter to try to keep their members informed of the activities they're involved in in attempting to get justice from the Workers' Compensation Board. Why should injured workers who are not able to be retrained have to turn to Human Resources assistance in order to survive? I think the point they make is a very good one, and I certainly would like the minister to comment on that as well. The minister mentioned that another board of review had been appointed. Well, what we have now is a situation where people are waiting from four to six months to have their cases heard before a board of review, once they make application, as part of that appeal process. I don't know what this minister expects from this additional appointment of a board of review. The other thing is that they can't even get the information summary of the files to prepare a case to go before the board of review. They are now being turned down because of the pressures on that staff.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the minister feels — and I wonder if he would comment on this — about the commissioners overturning decisions of the boards of review. I have one case — it's an IWA case — where a worker appeared before a board of review on three separate occasions. On each occasion a unanimous decision was brought down in his favour, yet the commissioners overturned the decision made on three separate occasions by a board of review. That's unacceptable, and it's contrary to the concept of the boards of review when they were initially established. I would like to know what comment the minister might have on that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a few quick answers. I find it somewhat alarming that the member would quote in the House reports up to '79; I think if the member would be good enough to have a look at the annual report for 1980, she may very well find a reversal in some of the concerns she has. For example, the point the member makes with respect to inspections is a good one; I don't dispute it for a moment. In 1979, according to my reading of the material, inspections were down to 16,690, but I don't know why the member neglected to refer to the 1980 annual report, which shows inspections to be 20,313 — an increase of 22 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the point is well taken, but the member didn't go far enough. Since 1979, we've got another year under our belt, and that year shows an increase of 22 percent. I just thought perhaps we should throw that in.

I don't know why inspections in industrial hygiene was forgotten; it's on the pages right next to the report on the accident-prevention inspections. Completed inspection of industrial hygiene went from 1,009 to 1,857, for an increase of 84 percent in the last year. The member may say that's not enough, but I would respectfully suggest that's a lot better than the previous year.

Then we get into the old idea of how to make the best of statistics for our own best interest. Well, let's have a look at the annual WCB report for 1980, claims department. I think the member made reference to the increased number of fatalities. I said last year one fatality is one too many, and that's not in dispute. But we should keep the figures together with the facts: fatalities in 1971, 222, or a 0.20 percentage of new injuries reported; 1975, 246 or 0.18; 1980, 220 or 0.11. Now you can't use these things to justify a fatality, but I am going to raise them to tell the House what the facts are as a percentage of new injuries reported. So, in fact, they are down. The only thing which bothers me — and it's the same pattern — I suppose is a factor of the workforce and the increase in the workforce from 1971 to 1980. The fact is that we've gone from roughly 109,000 new injuries reported to roughly 197,000 in 1980. When you look at it, it averages something like 9,000 per year, which is far too many. But we also know that the workforce has increased substantially. I suspect that since 1971 the workforce may very well have increased by 50 or 100 percent. I don't think it has, because it seems to me that last year there was quite an increase in the number, according to the claims. I just raise those as facts that we should not lose sight of.

With respect to the boards of review, before I forget, if you look in the 1981-82 budget, you're going to find a 30 percent increase to handle an additional officer as a worker's adviser.

I'm aware of the number of appeals which go to the boards of review. First of all, as I was concerned about this last year, we have been re-examining what is occurring there. As a matter of fact, a new three-member panel was appointed. We commissioned a study by Price Waterhouse to see whether we could get some outside influence or ideas — to see if we could help it. That has now been sent to the officials in the ministry. It's under review. There isn't any question that it's under review. Believe me, there has to be some system for the productivity of six boards of review, to assist them somehow so that they can handle more cases and be involved in a number of approaches.

There were 197,000 cases this year, and out of that roughly 2,500 to 3,000 cases, depending on the year, go to the boards of review each year. If the adjudicators made an error — if it was an error — in 900, being the number of appeals which were allowed, that's a pretty small amount when you look at the total number of claims handled by the board.

With respect to the boards of review being the final court of appeal, I suppose there may or may not be an argument for it. I know you're referring to section 90 of the act, as I recall. I'm also aware that in Ontario that recommendation has been made. I'm not too sure if that's the Weiler report for the Ontario provincial government. I'll be candid and open: it's a matter for consideration. I certainly have no intention of making any decision or giving any commitment other than the commitment to review and understand and see whether such a policy would be advisable. That's really all I can say on that matter.

You said that the number of workers per 100 who have been disabled or injured went from 6, 5 percent in 1975 to 8.3 percent in 1979. I don't know what it was in 1980. If the member has a figure for 1980, I'd be pleased to know what it is. I'll have a look at that matter to see what we can do. But one thing I think I should leave with you is that the thrust should be in the direction of increased inspections. I don't question that for a moment. I think your point is well taken. I thought that this year you would have seen some evidence in the annual report that we had increased them.

[ Page 6440 ]

MR. HANSON: Sitting back listening to the minister in this particular ministry's estimates, I sort of feel like I'm in the sixteenth century, where someone is standing back and making a statistical analysis, counting up people who are dropping off the end of a conveyor belt, weighing them up and sizing them up without any appreciation of the overall picture. If there's one thing that this minister has clearly demonstrated in his time as Minister of Labour, it is that he has no sense at all of the big picture of labour relations and the way the health and safety of the workers are affected. He has none whatsoever.

In reference to that sixteenth century thing, it's been since about the sixteenth century that we've known that people contract disease as a result of influences at work. We've known since the studies of the chimney sweeps that people could get cancer from their contact with coal tars. British Columbia has one of the worst records in days lost, and one of the worst records of any jurisdiction in the numbers of people killed and injured at work. The broader picture is this. Over the last couple of hundred years the increase in the number of chemicals, toxic substances, dusts and agents in the workplace has increased exponentially. In fact, there are millions of substances in the workplace, and only a very small number have ever been tested.

In earlier debates and question periods in this House I have proposed to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that testing should be done following the mortality atlas studies done by the federal government. The mortality atlas studies of the distribution of cancer in Canada indicated that there were places in British Columbia that should be studied to see if there's a correlation between the kind of work performed in that area and the incidence of cancer. My appeals fell on deaf ears with the former Minister of Health. I did some research myself and looked at the closest geographic area to British Columbia to see what kinds of studies had been done in Washington state.

I would like to tell you a few things about that study, but first — to set it in the context of a province with a terrible accident rate and a massive industrial illness incidence that is at present undetected because of the long latency period before cancer and other kinds of things manifest themselves in the working population.... It is well known that a third or more of all cancers are contracted at the workplace. I'm sure British Columbia is no different than any other jurisdiction.

MR. MUSSALLEM: How do you know that?

MR. HANSON: Dr. John Marshall of Dalhousie University stated that one in five deaths in Canada results from cancer, and between one-quarter and one-third of these have been contracted at work — for the benefit of the member for Dewdney, who asked the question.

In 1979 in Canada we had 90 fatal accidents per 100,000. In the U.K. It was 19. Five times as many fatal accidents per 100,000 population as in the United Kingdom. Incredible! We hear a lot of statistics in this debate, but what I would like to do instead of citing innumerable statistics is try to indicate to you the kind of studies and approaches they're attempting in other jurisdictions where they see it as a serious problem.

I report to the Minister of Labour of British Columbia that volume 1 of Occupational Mortality in Washington State was a comprehensive study carried out between 1950 and 1971 analyzing the deaths of 300,000 males in the state of Washington during that period, and looking at the occupations they worked at and where they resided in the state of Washington. It contains some very interesting things. I want to cite a number of occupations which are of particular interest in British Columbia. I want to look at the pulp and paper workers, orchardists, electricians, woodworkers, hospital workers and so on. The reason I mention orchardists is that some time ago I asked the Minister of Health to look into the high incidence of lymph cancer among men and women in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. This relates directly to questions regarding the kind of work performed by people in the Okanagan. This is what the Washington state study says. First of all, I'm going to tell you how they conducted the research among these 300,000 males who died, in Washington. They looked at the number of deaths and the number of expected deaths within that particular occupational grouping.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I see people in the gallery today from the organization of disabled workers. I'd like to welcome them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must remind the member that references to members outside of the Legislature are not in order. It is the Chair's remissness that it did not advise this member prior to this on numerous occasions; I do so now.

MR. HANSON: Quite right, Mr. Chairman. I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON: In the gallery today are a number of officers and representatives of the disabled workers of British Columbia, and I'd like the House to welcome them.

I made my remark because I know that these individuals in particular will be very aware of the kind of thing I'm trying to outline at the moment. It's very complex, and it's not understood by the public. But it's probably one of the most serious problems facing the working people of our province.

This is what they say about the people who work in the orchard industry in Washington state. They looked at the number of people expected to die in a particular industry and the number of people who did in fact die, and they come up with what they call the mortality ratio. The figure 100 represents the normal incidence — where there's nothing alarming or significant. If, for example, the number was 200, then it would represent twice the number of deaths you would normally expect in that population.

Let me just tell you about the orchardists. The pattern of mortality of orchardists in Washington state differs markedly from that of farmers. They found that orchardists have significant excesses of both lung and large-intestinal cancers. Also they note that the area they were looking at is east of the Cascade Mountains, localized primarily in Chelan, Okanagan and Yakima counties. They suggest that this area saw a very heavy use of lead arsenate as an insecticide until 1940, and heavy use of DDT and other insecticides in the years since. Arsenic exposure has been linked with lung cancer, and lead arsenate exposure may be considered among the causes to explain respiratory and other types of cancer in orchardists.

[ Page 6441 ]

I'm saying to the Minister of Labour that information is available to him which says that there are high incidences of cancer in certain areas, and he should be saying to his own ministry officials and Treasury Board: "I want money to do studies to find out what the relationship might be to the kinds of work that people perform in that area and the incidence of cancer."

Let's go on to another one — electricians. We've heard a lot from electricians recently about their concerns on polychlorinated biphenyls. A coolant, it is a chemical that is particularly desirable for industry because of its tolerance for high heat. But once it is ingested by the human body the body cannot get rid of it, and it causes cancer. The electricians in British Columbia are saying they don't want to handle it any more, but have we ever heard the Minister of Labour make statements on polychlorinated byphenyls? No, we have not. Let me just tell you what they found out in Washington state about the cause of death among electricians. Electricians show increased mortality from cancer of the bronchus and lung, cancer of the kidney, cancer of the urinary bladder, cancer of the brain and acute leukemia. This is our sister province, our friendly neighbour, immediately to the south. The studies they have done indicate there are high incidences of cancer among electricians. Electricians should be falling under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.

I might point out to the minister responsible that in his own budget estimates he has not increased the staff of the occupational environment branch in his ministry. He has increased the amount to be spent by $15,000 in a total budget for this government of $6.6 billion. A $15,000 increase doesn't even cover inflation from the previous year. The number of staff is 27 people — to cover a workforce of we don't know how many people.

Let me just tell you the conclusion on the electricians. "The exposure of electricians to electric cable may explain the bladder cancer excess. Davies" — a particular researcher — "has shown that electric-cable workers have increased incidences of bladder cancer due to carcinogenic substances present in electrical cable coatings." Have we heard this minister say anything about the health hazards to the electricians? Not one word.

I want to tell you a little bit about the pulp and paper workers and our brothers and sisters working in Washington state. What do they say in this study about the pulp and paper workers? It's one of the major industries in our own province, as you know, Mr. Chairman. "Men in this group show a very interesting pattern of mortality. Cancers of the small intestine and cancers of the lymphatic tissues show excess deaths."

I asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) on earlier occasions if he would please investigate why we have high incidences of lymphatic cancer in theSun shine Coast and Comox areas of British Columbia. He came back and said that the report I had cited did not demonstrate without any doubt that there was any link or any statistical significance, The fact is that the mortality atlas put out by the federal government had asked provincial governments to conduct studies to see what the relationship may have been between working in a pulp mill and getting lymph cancer; working as an electrician and getting bladder cancer; and working in an orchard and getting lung cancer. This is what they say for the paper and pulp workers in Washington state. They say: "It is possible that the excess of fatal anemias is related to the increased mortality from cancers of the lymphatic and haemopatetic tissues. Environmental agents cause fatal anemias and are good candidates for carcinogens of the lymphatic tissues." In other words, here is a study just south of our border which indicates there may be a causal relationship between the kind of exposure that a person is subjected to in a pulp mill and a lymph cancer. Have we heard the Minister of Labour say one word about this possible jeopardy to the workers working under these conditions? No, we have not heard one word. I could cite page after page of the relationships they have demonstrated with a sample of 300,000 dead workers in Washington state. Tinsmiths and copper workers.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Three hundred thousand dead workers?

MR. HANSON: Yes, 300,000 dead workers. This is a mortality study. The member for Dewdney is interjecting, but he's asking good questions. In case it is unclear to the members of the House, the study is based on the deaths of 300,000 workers in Washington state, which is a very large sample, and it indicates high correlations between the kind of work they performed and the kind of death they finally met. My point in raising this is that we have a large workforce in primary industries in British Columbia — forestry, mining, pulp and paper — being subjected to environmental agents that are damaging their health. They are damaging their health, and this government doesn't give a darn. It really doesn't.

I want to tell you briefly about a chemical in the forest industry which is extremely dangerous. It is the chemical that all wood is dipped into when it is cut to protect it from a mould. The chemical is pentachlorophenol, an anti-stain chemical. Every person working in a sawmill in this province is subjected to it because it is not handled properly, it is not labelled properly, and it is not tested. Have we heard anything from this minister on this subject? Not one word. It is the most pervasive chemical in all of British Columbia used in an industrial setting, Do we know where it's being disposed of? No. It is dumped helter-skelter all over the province. There is no permit available for its disposal. Often it is burned in hog-fuel boilers. When it is burned in that manner it creates a toxic gas. Unless it is burned at a temperature of between 3,000 and 5,000 degrees centigrade, it creates toxic gases, one of which is dioxin, which is the most deadly chemical known to man. Have we heard a word from this Labour minister?

In the preamble to vote 142, which covers occupational health, which has a staff of 27 for a workforce of over a million in an area of 365,000 square miles, he says that the particular vote is for a safe environment for persons in British Columbia by means of standards, education, inspections and so on. What a farce! It's incredible. It's a farce. We haven't heard him speak on PCBs — polychlorinated biphenyls — for electricians. We haven't heard him call for epidemiological studies to see if workers in certain areas are subjected to higher risks, which they are, of course. I would like to find the incidence here for aluminum workers, of whom we have a large work population in Kitimat. I'll just try to find that, because it indicates that aluminum workers are subjected to a higher incidence of all cancers. They run the risk of every single cancer increase. Have we heard from the Minister of Labour about the possible damage to the health of the workers of Kitimat? I have not heard him say one word in this House or even in the press on this particular subject.

Also, the safety record within the provincial government is absolutely a disgrace. One thing I think the public and the

[ Page 6442 ]

workers in the workplace are not aware of is that people who work for the provincial government do not come under the scrutiny of the WCB to the same extent. The provincial government is a pay-as-you-go assessment. They are not assessed as a sector according to the terrible record they've had in the previous year. They pay according to the fatalities or the injuries as they occur.

I would like to refer to my earlier comment about aluminum workers, because I think it's very important. To many members of the government side, this is boring. They feel this is not a sort of sexy item. But I think it's very important to the people and the workers of this province. The total deaths in Washington state — there were 583 aluminum workers in this sample; men in this group show an increase in cancer of the pancreas and of the respiratory system, and malignant lymphomas show significant increases in death. Cancer of the testes, brain and esophagus showed insignificant increases, based on the small number, but cancer of the pancreas and malignant lymphomas showed mortality increases in the study of the members of the American Chemical Society. Aluminum workers are exposed to coal tar-pitch volatiles. The reason I mention the coal volatiles is that it has been known since the sixteenth century that that substance gave cancer to chimney-sweeps; and, you know, we haven't moved ahead one inch in the last 250 years since that was discovered. Those workers are still fighting to have their health safeguarded. This is a complicated topic. It is very difficult to present it in a stand-up way, because it involves so much research, and we don't really have the research capability to present it in all its complexities.

I want to return to my comments about the government’s service and its safety record, We know that the Premier's Safety Award was cancelled earlier this year because of the terrible performance in a number of heavy ministries, such as Highways, Forests and so on, where the accident rate has actually increased by 146 percent. It's just incredible. Agencies of government are asking for exemptions under the WCB so they don't have to comply with ordinary, standard regulations, which are weak and unresearched; they are drawn from United States research labs which, as we now know, doctored reports on chemicals, on animal testing and so on. So the whole thing is a sham from start to finish.

We have not heard the minister speak out on this most terrible cloud on the horizon of the health of the people of the province. It is not just the worker in the workplace who is subjected to these things; his own family is subjected to them when he goes home — when he embraces his family or when his clothes are washed. We know there is a higher incidence of asbestosis and mesotheliorna in families of workers who are exposed to asbestos. It used to be called the kiss-and-cuddle syndrome: if you were married to an asbestos worker you had a greater chance of getting these diseases because of being exposed to asbestos fibres on the clothing.

There is a great debate about whether it is the long or small fibres that cause asbestosis, and about how many are too many. The regulations now state that two ingested per centimetre of air.... That's an awful lot of fibres to breathe in every day. They're like little spears that puncture your lungs, and your lungs can't get rid of them.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) says: " Oh, come on!" He doesn't like to hear this, but it's a fact.

Do we expect any action from this government? No, we do not. But we're hoping that the working people of the province will educate themselves, that the organizations that represent them will educate them on this issue. Health and safety in the work environment are the most crucial issues facing the workforce today.

I referred to pentachlorophenol and said that all of the wood is soaked in it. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that chemical is banned in Scandinavia? They don't allow their workers to be subjected to it, because they know that when the worker is subjected to it and has to go into the hospital, or has a long and painful death, that expense encumbers the entire society and that responsibility is absorbed by all of society. There are probably no members in this House who know better than the representatives of disabled workers that when those workers injured at work go through the cycle of WCB and welfare, the broader society is absorbing the cost of poor safety standards, poor training, poor education, and poor safety and health programs in industry. They know that. The public has a right to say: "We demand good, safe and healthy working conditions for our workforce." It's a cost that is passed on to all citizens. Industry has that responsibility. It is known in other jurisdictions. Japan does a better job; Scandinavia does a better job. Here in British Columbia we do a terrible job, and the Minister of Labour says nothing about it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I find it difficult to address the remarks just made by my hon. friend. It would appear that he would suggest to this House that the government is a heartless group of people, that they're out to get the workman at any cost. The electricians are working with various substances which are dangerous to their health; the orchardists are spraying with sprays that are dangerous. But to give the impression that the government or the minister are heartless is unfair and crude in the highest sense. It is regrettable that any member in this House would charge things like that against an hon. minister without any facts whatever, simply reiterating a litany of what happened in Washington state. What's wrong with the figures for British Columbia — which I do not have them with me and do not have prepared, but which I could bring tomorrow — if he would take the trouble of looking at them? It's a glowing report on the low accident and low problem rates in British Columbia. One of the finest provinces in the workplace of Canada.

That second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has never been on the receiving end of that minister's inspectors. I have, and I'm telling you that you'd better be right in the workplace. That second member for Victoria doesn't know what he's talking about, because he's never been there. He doesn't know, and he recites a litany of garbage that has no basis in fact. And the closest he can come to the facts in British Columbia are the facts that he says he gets from Washington. Well, what are we interested in Washington for? I'm telling you, the facts here show a glowing report of all the ministry has done. Its staff are incredible in their work.

One of the biggest problems an employer has today is to encourage his staff to use the safety apparatus available to them. I'm telling you that one of the simplest of tools is a grinder — and goggles are there, safety equipment is there — but unless you're careful and attentive, someone will go there to grind and when the boss comes back to check on those goggles he becomes offended — "I'm just doing it for a minute," and he sometimes loses an eye. Several years ago in

[ Page 6443 ]

our own establishment a man was using an automatic metalshear, and he was told strictly that he must have on his goggles. The foreman told him: "Get on your goggles." The fellow said: "Oh, get out of my way," About within one second he lost his eye.

MR. HANSON: Blame it on the worker.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm not blaming the worker; I'm telling you the problems at the workplace. Listen to the problems at the workplace. Give us answers about how you overcome this problem, how you can make people take the safety precautions that are required.

I know the asbestos thing is a very serious matter. It's only recently that medical science has established the fact that asbestos is dangerous, and today it is an injury for which one can receive compensation, as it properly should be. That ministry is in the forefront of inspection in this area. Whether you go to the aluminum factories in the north or the lumber factories in the south, you'll find them interested in one thing, and that is the safety of the worker.

Everywhere I go I find that number one is not the safety of the manager, not the safety of the office staff, but the safety of the the worker in the mill. You should see how they clean up the floor in these mills — like just in any house — after the work is done for the day. Safety in the saws, safety in what they should do, how to use hammers.

The biggest problem this opposition should address itself to is how to encourage a workman to be safe. It must be continually policed. When we drive our cars on the highway we know how to be safe. But tell me, do you obey the rules of the road? Do you follow safety procedures? No. It is one of the failures of the human system.

MR. NICOLSON: Does the Premier wear a seatbelt?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, of course. I do, and I'm ashamed of anybody who does not wear a seatbelt.

That ministry has done a particularly good job in the workplace. And if these members on this side only knew what they're talking about. They don't know anything about the workplace. That member in particular doesn't have a clue what's going on there, and yet he tells us....

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I know, I'm sorry if people.... My heart goes out to people who are suffering disabilities because of injury in the workplace — disabilities that perhaps were not their fault, not always by any means.

MR. NICOLSON: Occupational disease; not just back injuries.

MR. MUSSALLEM: All those things. Our great sorrow goes out to them. But I tell you, it's the responsibility of the workman and the boss together; it must be a team operation. What this ministry encourages through their own inspectors and through the Compensation Board is a team effort between the worker and management. That's why it's successful. That's why the records in British Columbia are better than the records in Alberta, much better than the records in Ontario. I haven't got them with me; I'm just speaking off the top of my head on these things, but they can be proved. I've seen them many times. I'm amazed that anybody on that side would bring out figures from Washington when there are figures available from British Columbia and they fail to bring them forward.

I'm amazed, yet my heart goes out to those who are suffering. He looks wistfully at the gallery and talks to the people up there as if they're the champions. "We've come to save you." Well, we are as sorry and our hearts are in the same place as theirs. We are sorry for people who are hurt and injured. Of course we are; of course you are. What heartless person is not? But to stand up and pretend that you love them and they've been hurt by this government — I think that's disgusting, terrible and shameful. I stand here in my place amazed that I hear that kind of diatribe which sickens the stomach. I stand here in sorrow for those who suffer.

My friend lost his eye. We cry for that guy. I'm not blaming him. I've done things in the workplace that should not have been done; we all do it. The question is: how do you get the employers and the workmen to work together to prevent accidents? It's in their interest to do so, because if they prevent accidents they save their costs. But leave costs out of it. Human suffering and human problems are way beyond costs. I do not know of a single employer who is not doing his utmost to save his workmen. I do not know of a single workman who wants to walk into an accident. But it's the cooperation of the two that we must ask for. To criticize that ministry is all wrong. The thing to do is to build up that ministry. This is the workplace, and I'd like to bear from somebody who understands the workplace before we hear such nonsense that has no foundation in fact.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we've heard it all now. We have really heard it from an expert.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You're an insurance salesman. You don't know anything about it.

MR. COCKE: His research is so beautiful. Those people over there are the only ones who have ever known anything about the workplace. I'm going to tell you a few things, and you had better listen. He's the most uninformed person. He is probably the best advertisement for early retirement for politicians that I've ever seen in my life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that remark was really not called for, in the opinion of the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Is that so?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, hon. member. I would ask the member if he would withdraw.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, having regard for where it came from, I disregard the remark.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remark, but I draw to your attention the remarks that he was making about the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), who did a very thoughtful presentation in this House. As far as I'm concerned, that was a disgraceful display from the member for Dewdney. Period. Amen.

[ Page 6444 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I walked into the chamber as the member for Dewdney was speaking. He used words to describe the second member for Victoria — like "disgusting" — that were very repugnant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Possibly, hon. member....

MR. LAUK: May I finish my point of order? The hon. member for New Westminster merely said that the member for Dewdney was an argument for early retirement. Now I ask you to make a judgment about the two. I did not hear the hon. member for Dewdney called to order at any time by the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the opinion of the Chair, remarks made by the hon. member for Dewdney were not made in the same context, hon. member. For the information and the benefit of all members, the Chair will undertake to review the Blues. In that case, if the Chair has made a misjudgment, that misjudgment will be corrected.

In the meantime, hon. members, we are on vote 140. I would commend our standing orders, which indicate that we should address ourselves to the vote presently before us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that members of the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association, who are very interested in this debate, would have been very interested in the remarks of the member for Dewdney with respect to the whole question of blaming it on the workers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He didn't say that.

MS. BROWN: He did say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that was my interpretation. If the House Leader has anything to say about it, he can get on his feet and say it.

I just want to remind the House about a responsibility that is a responsibility of a government board, and that's the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Chairman, you have had a review of some of the figures with respect to the whole question that the member for Dewdney seemed to overlook. Naturally the member for Victoria was dealing with Washington figures, because there are no comparable figures available here. Let me give you some figures that are available here in British Columbia. Just let me remind you that in 1975 there were 22,412 inspections by Workers' Compensation Board inspectors. In 1976 there were 22,957. In 1977, funnily enough, the inspections went down to 18,164. In 1979 the inspections went down to 16,586.

Let's review the violations. In 1975 there were 50,141 violations found. In 1976 — we're not paying quite so much attention — there were 41,800. Listen to this, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt): in 1977 there were only 32,000 discovered violations. In 1978 there were 26,000 violations, and in 1979 there were 23,000 discovered violations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's a good record. What do you want — too many violations?

MR. COCKE: They reduced, as did the inspections. Listen to all these figures carefully, if you have any kind of concern for workers.

The next figures are penalties. In 1975 there were 253 penalties imposed; in 1976, 289 penalties imposed; in 1977 — suddenly things are much much better in the workplace — 126 penalties imposed; in 1978 there were only 52 penalties imposed. What happened? Did we have a revolution of the mind? In 1979 there were only 58 penalties imposed. Listen to this, though — this is the significant part. Disabling injuries in 1975 were 6.5 per hundred. In 1976 it was 6.4 per hundred. In 1977 it was 7 per hundred. Interesting. In 1978 it was 7.5 per hundred. In 1979 it was 8.3 per hundred. I'm trying to educate this place. The fact of the matter is....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for New Westminster has the floor and should be afforded the courtesy and the right to speak that is due him in committee.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as the inspections were reduced, the disabling injuries increased. If you think an increase from 6.5 to 8.3 per hundred is minuscule, I'm here to tell you it is absolutely unacceptable — a two per hundred increase in a matter of four short years. I charge that that is because of the reduction in inspections, the reductions in found violations and the reduction in penalties. I could go on and take you into the different areas — building construction, dam construction, and so on. It all reflects exactly the same situation. The fact of the matter is that, in order to make it a little bit cheaper to run the administration of the Compensation Board, they took it upon themselves to reduce their impact on the workplace. That's precisely in opposition to every thing that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said. We are not concerned about the worker in the workplace; otherwise, this sort of thing would not be happening — pure and simple. Now we hear of massive overruns in the Workers' Compensation Board. No wonder. Even the Compensation Board, which squeezes every nickel and tries desperately to pay as few claims as possible, is going overrun after overrun just by virtue of the fact that we're not putting our money in the right place. The right place is to make the workplace safe in the first place. Damn it, the workplace is not safe in many instances.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I came into this House in 1969. What was my major contribution to my constituency office and constituency work from 1969 to 1972? Two areas: welfare and compensation. Then compensation began to dwindle, in terms of being a major problem, by virtue of the fact that we had a government that was really taking a hard stand on this whole question. We also set up boards of review, etc. to give the worker a chance. I'm not suggesting they've been disbanded; but I'm saying it's getting hard-nosed again, because I'm right back to where I was in 1969. When I go to my office now my major problems are the same as they were in 1969. We're right back to where we started.

This minister, a relatively new minister in this area, had better get on with it right now, because the Compensation Board is running away with it. It's getting away with far too much, as far as I'm concerned. They're not doing a job on the

[ Page 6445 ]

workplace, they're not doing their inspections on the workplace, they're not making charges on the workplace, and when it comes to getting a claim processed they put every road-block in your way that they can possibly find. I say that with a good deal of authority, by virtue of the fact that I have people coming into my office day after day and writing to me with exactly the same story.

The delays are unconscionable — driving people who were hurt on the job onto welfare, burdening that poor Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) even more, when that money should be coming out of the fund from the Compensation Board. They're pooling the employers' money. All right. If you've got such a love affair with the employer, then maybe the government would like to participate. I don't think they should. I think the employer should pay the shot, and that will get the employer to make his workplace a lot safer than it is presently.

When the member for Dewdney composes himself, I would like to see him come back into the House with those figures he alluded to that made B.C. look so great. I have not seen them at all. The member for Dewdney was talking about asbestosis and the fact that this is a new phenomenon just discovered. I can remember when Dr. Scott Wallace was in this House. From 1969 until the year he left he talked constantly about asbestosis. What's been done? Some moves. At least now it's being accepted as a claim for compensation; but I'll tell you, you'll have to really work your head off. We're not making the workplace safe enough. We're finding asbestosis coming out of areas that we never suspected before, because of insulation and so on.

I'd like to get off that subject for a moment and talk to the minister about another area. I know that the minister is in a tight spot in terms of dealing with labour disputes, but this is a labour dispute with his own government. It's one of the most uncomfortable situations, because of who it hurts. I'd like to read into the record a letter that I received with respect to the Legal Services Society right across the province.

"As I'm sure you are aware, Legal Services Society staff (members of Local 66, BCGEU) have been on strike since May 1, and negotiations appear to be at a standstill. This is a very small group (only 85 members and 19 offices across the province, hence not much bargaining clout). I understand they are asking 14 to 15 percent, the rate of inflation, which does not seem excessive. The employer's opening offer in April for a two-year contract was 10 percent in the first year and 10 percent in the second year, from which he has moved only 1 percent in more than two months of bargaining to a final offer of 10 percent in the first and 11 in the second year, hardly an example of flexible negotiating."

Here's the problem:

"Some of the legal services lawyers are not crossing the picket line, which I find admirable. However, this does mean that the poor in this province (as a matter of conscience they also honour the picket line) are being denied the right to legal counsel. While this may not seem a big deal to the board of directors of the Legal Services Society nor to the Socred government and those of their supporters who can afford the benefit of highly paid lawyers, I'm concerned that the underprivileged are once again being discriminated against because of the employer's rigid bargaining stance."

Then this writer goes on to end her letter by saying:

"Do you have any means of informing the members of the Legislature of the plight of some of their constituents and of bringing pressure to bear on the employer to get back to the table and negotiate in good faith?"

All I ask of the minister is that whichever of his colleagues is influential in this particular area, for heaven's sake, get them to try to get the Legal Services Society back to the bargaining table and end this dispute, because it is a hardship on the many people who are being denied justice for one reason or another. I would very much like to hear what the minister has to say about that,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the remarks of the member for New Westminster; I really did. But that particular dispute to which you refer was settled approximately two weeks ago. I don't know what the date of your letter is, but that was settled with the mediation service about two weeks ago.

MR. LAUK: Check the facts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, my facts are right, Mr. Chairman, because there was some difficulty. I'm not about to say anything other than that the matter was resolved approximately two weeks ago with the assistance of the mediator, Ken Albertini. There was some other involvement as well. Anyway, it's put to rest.

I can bring some good news, too, because I can tell you this. The member for New Westminster is right; so is the member for Comox with respect to inspections. I have noticed — and I noticed this in 1979 and throughout 1980 — that as inspections increase, injuries in the workplace decrease. The member was not in the House earlier when I was answering this question from the member for Comox, but in 1980 there was a 22 percent increase of completed inspections by the accident prevention division of the WCB. I also mentioned earlier that the number of completed industrial hygiene inspections increased by 84 percent in 1980. But I've got some even better news, because, to ease the concern of the members opposite with respect to inspections, I will tell you the following: to date in 1981, the accident prevention inspections have gone up another 52 percent and industrial hygiene inspections have gone up 172 percent. I leave this with you to demonstrate that there is considerable interest and concern in the Ministry of Labour with respect to inspections.

I will tell you something else that's happened. As a result of these inspections, we have found out that there seems to be a trend towards a plateau in the first five months of 1981 involving the increase in accidents. This levelling off was predicted by the actuaries for the Workers' Compensation Board to occur approximately two years ago. That never came to pass. Earlier I presented a chart indicating where we had a bulge in the middle of 1953 up to about 1956 showing the increases in injuries in the workplace. For a number of years the figures settled down, but starting in 1976 they climbed. Even though the facts and the statistics will show there were inspections up and down, these things seemed to come to pass. But I don't just buy that. Obviously if there are more inspections the number of injuries should decline. In fact, I point out to you that there is a trend towards a plateau in the number of injuries right now, and I have mentioned to the members of the House the tremendous increase in accident-

[ Page 6446 ]

prevention inspections: in 1980, 22 percent over 1979, and for the first five months of this year, up 52 percent. In hygiene, I repeat, it was up something like 84 percent in 1980 and for the first five months of this year up 172 percent. I think that should reflect upon the concern we have as a government and a ministry, and which the WCB has.

I appreciate the sincerity of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the concerns which he expressed involving PCBs and the other chemical used, pentachlorophenol. I would only ask of him — he seems to have done a fair amount of research in this area — why he doesn't raise this with me during the course of the year. Why doesn't he request that I set up for him the opportunity to make a presentation before the commissioners of the WCB? I'm here to help in this regard. While I appreciate the way estimates are handled and the purpose of the opposition in the role of critic, I still think it would be important and most helpful if he would.

Another matter was raised regarding the labelling of industrial chemicals. I can advise the House that this is under active study right now by the occupational environment branch of the ministry, by the federal departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Labour, and by both the federal Department of Transport and the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Highways. While I appreciate that the second member for Victoria had some information with respect to the state of Washington, some of that information is available in British Columbia. The WCB, as well as Simon Fraser, conducted a thorough and exhaustive study with respect to asbestos at Alcan. That report was available. As a matter of fact, I remember a press release on it, and I remember the report being released. Interestingly enough, the finding of the particular report I'm thinking about was that it wasn't quite as severe as was thought.

Another question was asked by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) about Cassiar Asbestos. Yes, Cassiar Asbestos at Atlin will be shut down in July for vacation purposes, not a plant closure. This is not unusual, by the way. Also, a new ore dryer has to be installed at Cassiar Asbestos plant, which would normally disrupt operations. Often, with a number of plants — I certainly know this is the case in my own community, where there are some major plants — you will find one of them shut down if major repairs are required. That, of course, would disrupt operations.

Another thing which I think should be brought to the member's attention is that they have just concluded negotiations for a new collective agreement. There was a loss of staff, I might say, because some of the employees anticipated a strike. Of course in some of our northern communities, with that type of anticipation, you often find an exodus for a while. Our mediator from the Ministry of Labour mediation services, Vince Ready, assisted in achieving a settlement. The company is still faced with some problems of recruitment. During the summer tradesmen cannot be secured for construction purposes, which is also a contributing factor. The mine is scheduled for reopening in early August.

While the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is still here, I would like to point out that, while he may be somewhat concerned about the unfunded liabilities — he thinks they're running away — the fact of the matter is that, if he were to look into Hansard and see my earlier remarks in that regard....

I think that pretty well covers the points you raised.

MS. SANFORD: I want to bring to the minister's attention that there are a number of issues that were dealt with today that have not been responded to. One related to women and the matter of equal pay for work of equal value. That issue the minister overlooked entirely. I don't think he even mentioned it.

The minister also did not deal with the medical staff at the Workers' Compensation Board. And I don't think he dealt with the matter of pensions for those who are not able to be retrained. The pensions are very inadequate. I'm not sure if that's the issue he said he was going to look into. Of the 400 members of the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association, most have back problems, and many of them just cannot hold down a job again. Yet the average overall pension of those workers is $35 a month. That's a joke. For people who are attempting to meet the cost of living today, $35 a month is just about meaningless. And many of them are unable to accept any kind of work or retraining because of the back injuries they've had.

I also want to bring to the minister's attention that one of the reasons the ombudsman in this province is so busy is that he's trying to cope with the volume of complaints that are coming to him with respect to Workers' Compensation Board cases.

I have another question. Has the minister considered extending the compulsory coverage? The number of firms today that operate in the province who do not have to provide compulsory coverage for their workers is really quite high. I'm wondering if the minister has looked at extending the Workers' Compensation Board compulsory coverage. For instance, farm workers really have one of the most dangerous jobs there is. They are required to work in fields that have been sprayed with poison of various types. Many of them develop skin allergies and respiratory problems as a result of that. Yet there is no provision for compulsory coverage for farm workers. Domestics are not covered either.

I really do think that the minister should address some of these other problems. I'd also like to have his opinion on the issue of the claims files being made available to the people who wish to see them. What we have now is the case. I know it's been heard before the supreme court. I would like to know the minister's own view on this situation and whether or not he feels that the information contained within a Workers' Compensation Board claimant's file should be made available to that claimant. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be made available to that claimant? After all, it seems to me that the person who was injured is the one who should have the most knowledge about that injury. All of that information should be made available to him or to his representative. I would like to know what the minister has to say about that as far as his own personal view is concerned.

We've suffered a serious cutback in the youth employment program. The minister anticipated that we would be raising this with him today. It's now called the employment opportunities program. It's been raised by the member for Atlin. In his opening remarks the minister indicated that some sections of this program had been eliminated. But at a time when the university fees are going up and when it's becoming more and more difficult to obtain funding through the Ministry of Education and any of the programs that they have because the regulations are becoming more stringent, it seems to me that the minister should not be cutting back on this program. I suspect that what he's doing is scrambling for funds and trying to make more money available for the

[ Page 6447 ]

apprenticeship training program. It has $25 million this year. They're throwing money at that problem, but the minister admits they're still going to be very short in the areas of trained workers in this province. As a matter of fact the minister now recognizes that we have first of all poured first $14 million and now another $25 million into that program and that the program is not going to solve the problem. In an article not too long ago the minister is quoted as saying that he may have to consider bringing in legislation. That's an obvious admission that his own attempts at improving the apprenticeship training program picture have failed. They're not going to solve the problem in this province and he's now going to have look at legislation.

When the minister first brought in this program, applying $14 million initially and now $25 million, we said at the time that there is provision in the Apprenticeship Act for the minister to resolve the problem. If he proclaims section 7 of that act he can then go ahead and apply a levy and give out grants to those companies that do cooperate and do accept their responsibilities to train the skilled workers that they need, but he insists on putting $25 million into this program this year, and is finally saying: "Well, it's not working; we'll probably have to consider legislation." If he'd considered that legislative route two years ago when he first embarked on this program, I think he would have been far more successful if he'd made the levies and grants adequate for those companies who are willing to accept their responsibility. Surely the companies of this province should accept that responsibility without grants, levies, $14 million or $25 million programs. That's their responsibility.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I don't know if the minister wishes to respond to any of these at this point or whether the House Leader is waiting for a motion for the committee to rise.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You want to carry on. Well, I think we'll have the minister respond to some of the issues I've raised again.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the last item, reference was made to $25 million. Incorporated in that sum you'll see a move from $14.9 million to $24.4 million. Incorporated within the $25.4 million is roughly $6.5 million for this year's cost to fund the wage incentive program for apprenticeships. Secondly, I mentioned earlier that I felt we had considerable success in that program. We looked at a critical skills shortage of roughly 1,400. It seems to me I mentioned a figure somewhere between 1,700 and 1,800 right now in those seven designated trades. I don't call that failure; I think it has worked well. As a matter of fact, the number of apprentices who have since indentured in that program — I gave the figures to the House earlier — is in excess of 700. There are some 400 who in fact have become indentured as apprentices and who are not on the program. When I made reference to either legislation or a grant levy system, I said that I hoped that we would never have to do anything like this, because of the bureaucracy it would entail. I still look to labour and management as the people who will make this system work. Since apprentices have gone from roughly 13,008 to just under 17,200 in a very short period of time, I really don't think we have to apologize for those statistics. The only thing I did say that I was not pleased about was the number of people who had dropped out during 1980, which was in excess of 1,200.

With respect to the youth employment program, I repeat that I felt that our policy should be changed so that we could get more value for the money spent. When we can spend $800 for someone who is employed in the private sector compared to $3,500-plus per job in the government service, I don't really think we have any alternative.

With respect to the exposure and opening up of files, it is sub judice. I don't think it's appropriate, despite my own personal feelings on this, to make a comment. On the extension of compulsory coverage, as far as the WCB is concerned, I will take that as notice because it involves a major policy change. Our experience is that across the country the same difficulties are encountered as we in British Columbia would encounter.

As far as the ombudsman is concerned, I think a further reading of the annual report might indicate to you that a large number of the claims are unsubstantiated.

On rehabilitation, I appreciate there is a problem for those who either do not have the desire to work or are precluded from working by virtue of health reasons or residual disability. That's a difficult problem, and it's hard to square with. I might mention that the WCB has one of the finest rehabilitation wards in the country.

You ask a very difficult question with respect to women and your reference to equal pay for work of equal value. Probably the marketplace will be the best test for that. I have some difficulty incorporating that particular policy within any form of legislation which the government could bring in.

With respect to women working in non-traditional roles, the officials in my ministry are meeting again on July 2. I remember having one particular meeting with a group from across Canada this year, and we're putting together a lot of information on women in the workforce. This is a very wide issue and there are some difficulties, but we are meeting with some success in the ministry in that regard.

I've covered all of the points that you had. You may not appreciate some of the answers, but they are candid.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6448 ]

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report for 1980-81 of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled answers to questions standing under his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

Appendix

37 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food the following questions:

1. What was the total amount received by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia through the payment of driver penalty premiums, (a) for the period October 1, 1973 to February 28, 1974; (b) for the year ended February 28, 1975; (c) for the year ended February 29, 1976; (d) for the year ended February 28, 1977; (e) for the year ended February 28, 1978; (f) for the year ended February 28, 1979; (g) for the ten months ended December 31, 1979; and (h) for the 12 months ended December 31, 1980?

2. What is the estimated revenue to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia from driver penalty premiums for the year ending December 31, 1981?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. (a) Nil; (b) $732,000; (c) $6,189,000; (d) $7,467,000; (e) $7,275,000; (f) $10,899,000; (g) $12,121,000; and (h) $15,732,000.

"2. $18,570,000."

41 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Food the following questions:

During the fiscal years 1976-77 to 1980-81

1. What pesticides did the Ministry purchase in each year, in what quantities and at what cost?

2. What quantities of each pesticide were used in each year, for what purpose and what was the total cost of each program?

3. What amount of each pesticide remained in storage or was disposed of at the end of each year?

4. What pesticides, in what quantities are presently in the possession of the Ministry'?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. The Ministry purchased only small quantities of pesticides between 1976 and 1981. Almost all pesticides used are provided by other agencies.

"2. The Knapweed control program used approximately the following quantities of Tordon (picloram):

The herbicides are purchased by the Ministry and in addition it funds approximately $18,000-$20,000 per year for summer students. Most control programs are administered locally by regional districts and municipalities assisted by grants from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The following is a summary of the grants issued since the fiscal year 1976-77 and approximate quantities of herbicides purchased

[ Page 6449 ]

by the regional districts and municipalities: total grants (1976-1980) $937,736.74; total herbicide purchases: $180,531.73. (Breakdown of amounts attached.)

"Except for Tordon used in the Knapweed program and rodenticides — deer repellents — and bird repellent, only small quantities of pesticides for test purposes were used by this Ministry from 1976-1981; for experimental use only:

DEER REPELLENTS (Began in 1978-79). Kelowna.

RODENTICIDES

BIRD REPELLENT

"3. Approximately 10 gallons of Tordon are left over each year from the Knapweed program. This is used the following year and none is disposed of. Only small quantities of other pesticides are held over each year at the district offices. Almost all are used during the year in tests or demonstrations. (See foregoing list of deer repellents and Chlorophacinone at Kelowna.)

"4. 311 gallons of Tordon are presently being held for the 1981-82 Knapweed program at Kamloops. Only very small quantities of other test materials are being held at district offices. The following rodenticides are being held at Kelowna:

[ Page 6450 ]

GRANTS-WEED CONTROL (General)

[ Page 6451 ]