[ Page 8789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Fire Services Amendment Act 1982 (Bill 63). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Report –– 8789

Indian Cut-Off Lands Disputes Act (Bill 58). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 1 –– 8789

Mr. Howard

On section 4 –– 8789

Mr. Howard

On section 5 –– 8790

Mr. Levi

Mr. Howard

Third reading –– 8792

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

On vote 57: minister's office –– 8792

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Ms. Sanford

Appendix –– 8801

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

By way of explanation, members will note that in the opening line of section 1 we have not specifically identified the Fire Services Act. This was an oversight. This amendment fully corrects the section to meet that technical requirement.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 63, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS DISPUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HOWARD: In "interpretation," section 1 identifies "council of the band." It says it has the same meaning as "council of the band" in the Indian Act of Canada. If the federal parliament alters the definition of "council of the band" in the Indian Act, what then is the position with respect to the definition as it exists now? In other words, are we making provincial law relating to a cutoff lands question that the province is involved in, and are we making that subject to what some subsequent action of the Parliament of Canada might be with respect to the interpretation of "council of the band" under the Indian Act, or are we, the Legislature of the province, now establishing in law that "council of the band" will mean what the Indian Act says of this moment? Are we making law in our own right or are we making it subject to some future decision of the Parliament of Canada which may alter the situation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that's a matter of the technicalities of statutory interpretation. If the government of Canada amends the Indian Act to change their definition of "council of the band," then this legislation will apply to that amended definition as well. The member will note that the purpose for such identification arises in section 2, which identifies the group with whom we can conclude the agreements which would be covered by both federal and provincial legislation. We want to be certain that we are dealing with a council, as it may be defined from time to time, and therefore be authorized under the federal legislation. As I indicated in second-reading debate, however, these agreements will also be required to be dealt with by referendum under the Indian Act, so that the members of the band are directly involved in the process. not just the council.

MR. HOWARD: I appreciate that, but I just think it's a bit unwise to have something hinge upon the uncertainties and unknowns as to what the Parliament of Canada may do at any time. If, for argument's sake, the Parliament of Canada, given the White Paper that was introduced by the former minister, Jean Chretien, in 1969, I believe it was — which is still, I understand, valid policy on the part of the federal government — at some point in the future decides to say there is no council of the band — that such a thing does not exist then the reference here is invalid, albeit that in part 2 we are talking about an agreement binding upon the members of the band. I think it's an unwise approach to make.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. HOWARD: Section 4 carries forward in law certain exceptions and reservations contained in an order-in-council of 1938: namely, the infamous order-in-council 1036, which finally settled the land question insofar as government was concerned. It didn't settle it insofar as the native Indian people were concerned. They still have a valid claim in that regard. However, one of the provisions in order-in-council 1036 is that land — up to one-twentieth, or 5 percent of reserve land — can be taken by the provincial cabinet without compensation. That has been a point which has rankled native Indian people ever since they heard about it. In other words, if the Highways ministry wants a piece of land for a highway, they can just simply expropriate it under that order-in-council without compensation to the Indian band itself. I think that's an unfair provision to carry forward.

As I understand the activity of the government of B.C. in that period from 1972 to 1975, while the provision was retained in the order-in-council, it was not used by policy. It, was discarded, and they said that in no instance would that

[ Page 8790 ]

take place, that if land was taken it would be paid for. But I still maintain that carrying that forward here is probably saying to the native Indian people, with respect to these cutoff lands, that the Crown reserves the right to take 5 percent thereof for other purposes without compensation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to assure the hon. member for Skeena that the policy that obtained between 1972 and 1975 still obtains today. The only time the provisions of order-in-council 1036 are utilized is in those instances that the policy which involves negotiations for compensation is resisted by the Indian band. We are preserving order-in-council 1036 in this particular legislation, which deals only with some reserves of 22 bands, because that order-in-council is still in general application. I believe it will have to await the resolution of the land claim situation generally before order-in-council 1036 disappears; it is the result of negotiations in 1938 between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia, and provides the basis upon which all reserve lands have been created. We would be revising the policy adopted in 1938, under which reserves have since been created, and under which there have been resumptions. We would then be in the process of making a change for these 22 bands, a change not available to the other bands, creating thereby a multitude of almost insoluble problems.

MR. HOWARD: I just wanted to get from the Attorney-General the commitment that the earlier policy to which I alluded is still in effect and still carried out. The Attorney-General has said that, and just to have it on the record is helpful.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to get an explanation from the Attorney-General with respect to the agreement that he tabled yesterday. On page 4, paragraph 2, is a section which reads as follows: "to pay for the use and benefit of the band, the sum of $13,217,118 in full compensation therefore, the amount of $352,685, thereof being capital moneys in the amount of $12,864,433, thereof being the revenue moneys within the meaning of the Indian Act R.S.C. as amended in 1970."

I want to ask the Attorney-General if I'm right in concluding that in some way we are paying the Indians with their own money. When it makes reference to revenue moneys within the meaning the Indian Act, some of the land was alienated to the provincial Crown. I'm not clear on this section as to.... I know that when the Attorney-General opened the debate he said that the provincial government is paying $1 million, and the rest is being provided by the federal government. In the section it makes reference to $12 million, plus there being revenue moneys within the meaning of the Indian Act — one-sixth is revenue moneys.

Is this money coming in any way from this revenue in respect to the band, or is this from the total revenue of the Indian groups themselves? All the money is in trust if they earn any money. I'm not clear as to what that section actually says. I don't know if the minister has it before him, but I got the feeling when I was reading it that somehow we were paying the Indians with the money that's already there having accrued from revenues for land that is being used. I'm getting a downer from the former Attorney-General. What does it actually mean?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This particular section is limited, of course, to the source of funds which the province contributes in the Penticton settlement or any of the other settlements which will be made. We pay it out of the consolidated revenue fund. But the member, having read the agreement — and I wish more would read it — is entitled to an explanation.

Funds held for the use and benefit of Indian people in their bands by the federal government fall into two categories: capital moneys and revenue moneys. The income from capital moneys is dealt with in a different way than the income from revenue funds. The income from revenue funds is available to the band immediately. It's their resource, and therefore they administer it. As I said in second reading debate, I hope the federal government will change its rules soon so the Indians have the opportunity to handle all of their affairs. At the moment that has not yet been achieved.

Let me assure you that these moneys are not coming from the Indians' own revenue funds. The section of the agreement to which you refer simply categorizes the funds, because in that way the income earned by the two kinds of funds is dealt with in a different manner. For example, the provincial moneys — $1 million — are held today on deposit in the Bank of Nova Scotia in Penticton in a joint federal-provincial trust account. They are currently held in a 90-day term deposit at 6 1/4 percent. As soon as this legislation becomes effective, and the federal legislation is in place, those moneys — which will be classified as revenue account moneys — will be transferred to the federal government for the use and benefit of the Indians, and all of the interest which has accrued up to June — some $51,000 — is immediately available to the Penticton band for such purposes as they may wish. Through the Indian Act they have the ability to utilize those other funds. Unfortunately, I think that the rules with respect to the availability of those moneys are a little rigid.

MR. HOWARD: When the lands identified as cutoff lands were taken, as a result of the McKenna-McBride commission, one of the arrangements was to sell it off and the proceeds therefrom to be divided, as I recall, equally between the provincial and federal governments, the presumption being that the federal government would use that money for the use and benefit of the band from which the land was taken. I can appreciate that there's an agreement involved here, but I think it would be much more appropriate and correct and respectful if moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund of the province of British Columbia were paid directly to the band affected, rather than paid to the Great White Father in Ottawa to handle as he may see fit. Rather than carrying on the old activity of the federal government being the saviour of the Indian people and handling funds for them and deciding by policy whether at one time revenue money is going to be handled by the band, that policy can easily be reversed and taken back to the old colonialistic attitude of the federal government. I think it would have been much more appropriate and leading the way if the province had insisted that any moneys payable out of the consolidated revenue fund of the province of B.C. were to be paid directly to the band affected, so that it would have the use of the money under its own authority and control, rather than paid in

[ Page 8791 ]

to the federal government for its handling — or mishandling, as the case might be.

MR. LEVI: During the negotiations that you've had — I realize that what I'm going to cover to some extent is an amendment to the Indian Act — has the province put forward a position as to how it would prefer to see the money dealt with? I'm not talking about the money which the province deals with — which is the $1 million — but the other money. As my colleague has just said, what we're really doing is having to feed right into a very ancient and somewhat discriminatory Indian Act. Can the minister tell us whether there was any indication in the discussions either from himself or from the federal people as to whether they are prepared to change this process? I know that opening up the Indian Act is not easy in this country. The federal government has continuously been very leery of opening it up, because there are a number of outstanding issues, particularly ones dealing with status.

Frankly, I cannot get away from the feeling.... I know the act is intended to resolve the cutoff land problem, but I'm not convinced that the compensation that they're getting is really the money that is there in any case. I feel that they are being compensated with moneys there, and there is no new money added. The money is simply being held in an account, and they haven't been able to get it. Now you're awarding them $12 million of the money from that account and they're still not going to be able to get it, because under the Indian Act they can't exercise any right over that without some great negotiation.

Back to the beginning, can the minister tell me whether, in the discussions with the federal government, the province advanced the idea that the money should flow in some way towards the Indians directly, rather than going through this very ancient paternalistic kind of fund that they have to keep applying to draw from? I'm not convinced, Mr. Chairman, that this money represents any form of settlement other than the fact that they are going to get what is theirs anyway. In all these years that they've not had the use of the land — and some of it has even been alienated — where is the compensation, if in fact there's any compensation at all? When I look at the agreement, I find that they are not addressing in any financial way.... Other than the money that's already in trust, there seems to be no attempt to compensate the Indians for the loss of this land.

I know we operate under a federal act. In a non-Indian society, no individual placed in a situation like this would be happy unless he was given compensation for the non-use of the land that was taken away from him. I ask the minister: were there discussions as to whether the Indians could get the money directly? Frankly, he has not convinced me that this money they're getting is not money that they had already in trust, and that no new money has been added other than the provincial money. That's the $1 million. But the $12 million was already in the account, so where is the compensatory aspect of this agreement, or was it not intended in the first place? I know that when I was involved in the early discussions — and we had no format then; we were attempting to work one out — one of the things that the Indians did discuss with us was the whole business of: "We never had this land. We couldn't use it." They talked about the possibility of compensation for their inability to use the land. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me say with absolute certainty, Mr. Chairman, that it is new money. It's not out of any existing funds which are held by the government of Canada or the government of British Columbia. The $1 million that we are paying is money which, under the McKenna-McBride concept, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has said, came to the province, and it is being paid back, with interest, to the Indians. But the $13.2 million is compensatory money, not coming from Indian funds but from the consolidated revenue account of the government of Canada.

The member asks whether or not, during the course of negotiations, we took the position that the money should go to the Indian band directly. The answer is yes. We did that during the course of these negotiations, as we did during the course of negotiations with the Fort Nelson band in the matter of their natural gas holdings. We were advised by the federal government that they could only conclude agreements and participate in them in accordance with schemes which are presently in place, and we were assured that the federal government was addressing this matter of the control of Indian resources by Indian bands themselves and were in the process of having discussions and meetings with Indian bands across the country for the purposes of giving them more autonomy with respect to the handling of their assets, whatever they might be. That process is still ongoing. I look forward to the day when the federal government and the Indian bands will conclude those discussions. Whether they're on the basis of the proposal that has been put forward by the Sechelt band, or some other concept or combination thereof, I would like to see this matter resolved. We did not wish to take the position that we won't make any settlement of this long-standing issue until that had taken place. We said: "Fine, let's clear up this particular problem, which is a serious one. But please, federal government, will you get on with cleaning up the matter of who controls the Indians' affairs."

As I said, I share the views expressed by the member for Skeena in this regard. I think the time has long since passed when the government of Canada should continue this paternalistic role. I say this, however, recognizing that there has been some experience, particularly in Alberta, of resources being made available to the Indian bands for their own control and some serious losses arising. I think there have to be some regulations to ensure that improvident steps are not taken, the result of which would place the band and its future in some jeopardy.

MR. HOWARD: I appreciate what the minister is saying, but it seems to me that we should take that deliberative step here within our own jurisdiction to make some decision with respect to what we, as the Legislature of the province of British Columbia, do about money paid out of our consolidated revenue fund in settlement of these matters.

It seems to me that the words "to Canada" in section 5 should be removed and the words "to the Indian band" substituted, so that where an agreement provides for payment of money out of the consolidated revenue fund of the province of B.C., it is paid to the Indian band, not to the federal government — that paternalistic group in Ottawa. I move such an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to section 5, line 2 to delete the words "to Canada" and substitute therefore the words "to the Indian band." The motion appears to be in order at this time.

[ Page 8792 ]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As I said before, I understand the position taken by the member for Skeena and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), but I cannot accept this amendment.

The agreement concluded with the Penticton band, upon which this legislation is predicated, contemplates payments being handled in precisely the way that this legislation provides. All the discussions with the other Indian bands held heretofore also contemplate payments being handled in the same way. Therefore it would be inappropriate at this stage for members in this House to interfere with what has been accepted by the band.

While we may find it very easy to suggest that all the arrangements should be changed, may I hasten to say that concepts of change with respect to the relationship of Indian bands in this province to various governments have made it clear that, in spite of all the complaints about paternalism on the part of the federal government, when it comes right down to it, a large portion of the membership of Indian bands in this province feel much more comfortable dealing with the government of Canada than they do with the government of the province, because it has been traditional in their history. This is changing. But I think it would be inappropriate for the members of this Legislature to suddenly say to the Indian people of British Columbia: "Well, we know that you're trying to work out your relationships with the governments of Canada and British Columbia but we're going to dictate to you what those relationships should be."

The member will well recall what occurred when the Hon. Jean Chretien issued the White Paper indicating what the government of Canada was planning to do with the Indian Act. While there was a great of support for some aspects of it there was major resistance on the part of the Indian people to having their future and their destiny interfered with by the government of Canada without their being actively involved in the resolution of those problems. Therefore I think it would be inappropriate to interfere at this level in this particular matter with an issue which must be resolved in a much broader sphere.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, there are two things involved here that I think need to be dealt with. One is that the Attorney-General seems to be saying that the agreement with the Penticton band is the foundation for the agreement with all the other bands; whatever that contains, that's what everybody else is going to get. The other thing you're saying is that obviously the provincial government, engaged in whatever negotiations or discussions took place leading up to that or other agreements, did not press the point that it was an obligation on the part of the province to pay moneys directly to the Indian band. As I know the native Indian people — in this province particularly — they would much rather, in their relationships with any level of government with respect to money and funds, have that relationship be direct with them rather than through the paternalistic element in Ottawa. It's obvious that the minister or the government — whoever was conducting this — was just not interested in the first instance in pursuing that particular direct relationship.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't accept that assessment of the matter by the hon. member. The general principles upon which these settlements will be dealt with were resolved on a tripartite basis between the federal government, the government of British Columbia and the committee representing all 22 bands. It is on that basis that this agreement with Penticton was concluded. This legislation comes forward only after those general principles had been resolved. It became a matter of those individual differences, one band from the other, by reason of the nature of the cutoffs and of their reserves, that the negotiations continued band by band. Throughout the entire exercise the Indians recognized that the moneys would be dealt with in this particular way. As I say, if there is to be a change, then let it be a change in the broader scope of all the relationships of the government of Canada with respect to the bands and their several resources.

Amendment negatived.

Section 5 approved.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 58, Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 57: minister's office, $152,517.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's a pleasure to introduce the estimates for this coming fiscal year, but before I get into my comments I would like to make mention of a number of recent appointments.

I think it would be most appropriate to bring to the attention of the House the passing of Gus Leonidas. Mr. Leonidas was the director of mediation and was involved in industrial relations in British Columbia for a long time. He'd been involved in some very significant disputes in British Columbia's labour history, and he was a distinguished mediator. He had been director of mediation services branch for some time. He was also a pillar of the Greek community. I well remember that the last time we were together was at a function put on by the Greek community for Gus. Taking Mr. Leonidas' place now is Clark Gilmour, who has had a number of years of experience in mediation services. He has been appointed executive director.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Having said that, I should introduce to the House members of my staff who are here to assist: my deputy minister, Doug Cameron; the new deputy minister in charge of

[ Page 8793 ]

women's programs, Isabel Kelly; the assistant deputy minister, Bob Gray, who is in charge of manpower, and who has been spending a great deal of time in the area of training, particularly apprenticeship; and my assistant deputy minister in charge of administration, Stephen Stackhouse.

A number of important appointments have been made over the past year. To the Workers Compensation Board: Glenn Hall, who came out of management; Herb Scollan, who is also from management — interestingly, however, his background is that of a journeyman sheet metal worker, so he has a great deal of experience on both sides of the fence. A very significant appointment was that of Arthur Gibbons, who was appointed as chairman of the Workers Compensation Board. They join with Bob Bucher and Mike Parr. The chairman has a long history and interest in the areas of occupational health and safety, and in industrial relations and dispute resolution. He has undertaken a major task and has made a significant contribution in his leadership of the board since his appointment.

A new chairman was appointed to the Labour Relations Board: Steven Kelleher took the place of Don Munroe, who has been with the Labour Relations Board for five years, three of those years as chairman and two as vice-chairman. It should go without saying that his contribution to industrial harmony in British Columbia was most significant.

We have also the appointment to the Human Rights Commission of Dr. Charles Paris, Renate Shearer and Bijou Kartha, who join Gloria George. Within the Ministry of Labour, I did mention Mrs. Isabel Kelly, of course, the deputy minister responsible for women's programs. She is a welcome addition and we're very pleased to have her with us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The former Minister of Labour is obviously quite enamoured with that recent appointment. By the looks of it, even your predecessor seems somewhat enamoured.

I would also like to raise in the House the appointment of an acting assistant deputy of safety service, Walter Flesher, and a confirmation of the director of human rights, Hanne Jensen.

The past 12-month period in the ministry hasn't exactly been an easy one, and statistics for 1981 aren't too attractive. I suppose they did receive a fair amount of attention, and there is not really very much that we can do, about it. In the past three years, I found myself drawing parallels; and over the last ten years we can see high periods and low periods. It's interesting how some difficult statistics follow some excellent statistics; I suppose that's the nature of collective bargaining. Statistics are something we have to live with. Interestingly enough, 1980 was one of the best in history; 1981 the worst in history; 1982 — 1 don't know. I think we've lost something like 30,000 or 34,000 man-days, and that's explainable for a number of reasons.

It's pretty difficult, when you get involved in some of the heavy negotiations, to compete with the Bank of Canada, the Federal Reserve Board in the U.S., interest rates and declining markets. I suppose everybody is having some difficulty, and that is understandable. In 1981-82, the bulk of the stoppage was certainly in the public sector. In the Canadian Union of Public Employees there was a carryover with respect to the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional District, CUPW, ICBC and B.C. Tel. I might mention that that accounted for approximately one-third of the number of days which were lost. Of course the big item was the summer forest industry shutdown. Upon reflection, we can probably think about readjustment of a lengthy vacation. The involvement of the Ministry of Labour, particularly in the pulp industry where there was a small problem at the end, was able, through a few days' work, to put them back.

In 1981, the mediation services carried on. Each year it seems to perform well. The batting average was roughly 83 percent resolution of disputes in which a mediator was appointed. We lost one of our key mediators, Vince Ready, who had done a commendable job: and he 's now involved with the compensation stabilization program. We got a very welcome addition in David Maclntyre, who had a number of years' involvement in the area of dispute resolution and bargaining. During my first two years in the ministry I had a fair amount to do with him in a number of settlements, and he was always most helpful. He was formerly secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and he's a most welcome addition.

From time to time we do get compliments with respect to the mediation service. Recently, Pacific Coach Lines and Western Transportation had a difficult set of facts. It's always nice to receive correspondence in the ministry, because as everyone knows, it seldom arrives. There is always a lot to say when there's a problem, but never when there's a resolution. I'd like to read the contents, because I think it has general application and it's typical of correspondence which comes from time to time.

"It gives us a great deal of pleasure to express our appreciation for the tremendous assistance and cooperation of the staff the mediation service branch provided us while reaching a successful conclusion to our first collective agreement. Throughout negotiations, both the company and the union were subject to an abundance of operational changes and insecurities that continually added pressure to both sides. We are certain, and we believe that everyone associated with the negotiations is convinced, that without the services and assistance of the mediation services branch we would not have been able to finalize the agreement without a strike or a lockout."

The other day I received a similar letter from the publisher of the Times-Colonist in Victoria.

Late in 1980, after being the Minister of Labour for a period of one year, I began to recognize some of the forces in the area of industrial relations. While those issues change, and our ability to deal with them develops, the basic issues remain the same. Often human nature wins out. I always conclude with an optimistic remark or two in the area of labour relations. I've seen a lot of good work and a lot of very hard work done by a lot of people. My views really haven't changed too much.

The thing that disturbed me probably most of all over a period of almost three years is that when things get tough at times, there are those who wish to challenge the institutions and their administration. It bothers me, as it would bother all members, of the House. In order to preserve the process of collective bargaining, there's got to be a fair amount of give and take, but there must also be the ultimate respect for laws, the administration, and particularly integrity of our institutions.

I think I'll conclude on that by saying that I have respect for the Labour Code, which I think overall is a superb piece of

[ Page 8794 ]

legislation. There are always those who wish to try to destroy something, or parts of it. I can assure you that I resist that, or anything like this. It must be flexible. There are areas where change is required from time to time.

Other important activities. The Employment Standards Act has been in place for a year. About $2.5 million was recovered on behalf of some 2,900 employees in back wages or holiday pay. We've had some difficulties with that legislation. One in particular involved notice with respect to people within a collective agreement, and particularly in the forest industry shutdown. I think that's a problem which is going to have to be addressed.

In 1981 in Human Rights there were more than 9,000 complaints. I think that's something people don't realize, as that is a large number of complaints. General inquiries received by the branch — 502 formal investigations were undertaken, and 453 have been closed. Eleven boards of inquiry were approved, of which ten were appointed and in the eleventh the respondent had left the environs. Most of these involved discrimination respecting employment.

In the area of women's employment opportunities — I think it's significant, but let's not push it beyond what it really is — the number of women in apprenticeship training has doubled. It's still a significantly small percentage, but there is a change. The women's office in the Ministry of Labour has become a focal point for activities relating to women's employment. I think you've probably seen the bimonthly newsletter on employment and training matters. A wide range of services are provided, and of course, with the appointment of Mrs. Kelly, I think we're going to give a better profile of what we're trying to do. There has been financial assistance to employers to train women in occupations traditionally held by males, and we've tried to expand these programs.

I think I would like to raise a few things in the area of apprenticeship. I'm not going to discount the probability that there are problems in this area. I've looked over the history of this particular part of the Ministry of Labour for the last ten years, and I can see the same problems have been encountered by everybody. I think we've made some significant moves, changes and improvements each year.

I'd like to make reference to a broadcast, which I viewed, that was put on by the New Democratic Party. There were comments by a number of members of that party, and I really think some of those comments should be challenged.

MR. KING: You don't sound too enthusiastic.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, you know, I've wondered. I've seen everybody pounding their chests and drums and everything else, and I look back and I wonder what you've all accomplished — sounds of fury with the pounding. I wonder at times if, perhaps, some dialogue might take place in this chamber in which we might really get an exchange of constructive information. It would be wonderful.

Your opening comment in that particular program was that we had reduced our manpower training by $1.5 million. That's, of course, incorrect. The money which we have identified for trades training has risen by $8 million, from $15.8 million to $23.8 million. So the comment which you make about a reduction is not true. I understand where you got the figures. You looked at the budget of the ministry's manpower division for last year, you subtracted the money which has been allocated for the employment development account and so you looked at a $1.5 million shortfall. But you didn't include within that calculation the $10 million which we are using for this year's summer employment program.

Another comment which was made was with respect to the import of large numbers of foreign skilled workers instead of training British Columbians for these jobs. I don't think that's quite correct. We know the position of the federal government with respect to immigration legislation — that qualified Canadians must first be given the opportunity before new or potential immigrants are considered for the jobs. I asked somebody to get some facts for me on this and I find out, for example, that in the first three months of 1982 there were 94 tradesmen brought into B.C. — according to our figures — most, if not all, of whom were specialists in new technology or working on a particular assignment. They were, for example, manufacturing representatives for new equipment, special stainless-steel welders, tile roofers working on a three- or four-day job, and a sheet-metal specialist on a one-month temporary assignment. I think that the allegation that we're relying on immigration is really not supportable, and I think that an examination of those employed in northeast coal.... I well remember everybody talking about the fact that northeast coal was going to import, and the press seemed to be going wild on it. Of course, that has not come to pass at all. As a matter of fact, I've even got figures available to me with respect to the percentage of local as compared to provincewide hiring.

In the area of trades training, we've increased the enrolment over the last two years something like 37 or 38 percent. In the last year the number has gone from 16,400 to 19,000. The significance of this is that the present level has been pretty well sustained. The number of new ones who have signed up in 1982 is 1,347. That's not an insignificant number when you consider what's going on in the economy, and particularly when apprentices are 90 percent trained on the job. I must add that the number of unemployed apprentices in British Columbia is now roughly 2,100, approximately 1,200 of whom are not in construction — 895 are in construction. From what I gather, in construction there are normally 300 to 400 who would be unemployed while moving between jobs. I don't really think now is the time for us to start asking more employers to take on more apprentices. It's a difficult time for everyone. I think we have to keep that in mind. It's admirable, though, that we've got the number of apprentices up to just under 19,000; it's dropped somewhat now because of the recession in some places in British Columbia. It has sort of reached a plateau. I think that is fairly significant. As soon as the economy starts rolling again, I think we've got a springboard from which to jump.

I noticed one other thing. The members opposite made some comment they had set up a training commission to get action on apprenticeship and job training. I quote: "The commission would develop a way of reliably forecasting the skills we will need, advise on problem areas and propose solutions. It would provide funding for 3,300 new apprenticeship positions in critically short occupations." I'm somewhat taken aback by that statement. First, you say that you're going to get in and fund 3,300 new apprentices. You are very much aware that we did this with respect to a skill-shortage program covering seven specific trades, in which approximately 1,100 apprentices were enrolled. As far as forecasting is concerned, the fact of the matter is that we started this about two and a half to three years ago. The report lists phases one and two. We're in phase three right now, and I

[ Page 8795 ]

think we're working on our fifth report with respect to forecasting. So it's nothing new. You mentioned the number 3,300, and I have a very good idea where you probably got the number from.

When specific items come up, I'll get into the details. No doubt you are going to have some questions about the WCB, boards of review, farm labour and perhaps occupational environment. You may have some problems with respect to the youth employment program. I think I'll conclude my remarks on that. This year the Ministry of Labour has tried things in some new areas, and a lot of things have been done.

Before I sit down, I want to mention one thing. Someone I do not know.... I understand from my deputy minister that Charlie Stewart passed away last week. He was a mediator for ten years in British Columbia, and most of his working life was as a member of and actively devoted to the old Street Railwaymen's Union, now the Amalgamated Transit Union. Mr. Stewart was well known in the area of labour in British Columbia. I think he should be recognized.

MS. SANFORD: The Minister of Labour made some complimentary remarks concerning the work done during the NDP administration; namely, he expressed his confidence in the current Labour Code. He expressed a sentiment that's not often expressed in this Legislature: that is, a compliment across the floor to members on the opposite side, and in this case, mainly to the former Minister of Labour, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

I don't know what sort of pressure the minister is under these days to have that Labour Code changed. He made some reference to the fact that there are a number of pressures to change the basic provisions of that Labour Code. I was really pleased to hear the minister express confidence in the Labour Code as it now exists and in the basic thrust and provisions of that Labour Code. I am assuming that he is resisting at this point whatever pressures there might be on him to bring in changes to the Labour Code. We agree that the Minister of Labour between 1972 and 1975 did an outstanding job in many areas, particularly in the area of introducing the Labour Code and doing away with all the old anti-labour legislation that was in the province at that time.

However, I don't know why the government has decided that this minister is worth only half as much as he was last year. We have a budget last year for the Minister of Labour of $63.8 million, but this year the budget is only $30.9 million. Why is it that he's worth only half as much as he was last year?

MR. KING: He's a half-measure minister.

MS. SANFORD: Is he a half-measure minister, half-price minister? Maybe it's like all those half-price sales we see all over the province representing the bankruptcies that are taking place: half price here, half price there, and here we have a half-price minister, based on the estimated expenditures for this year.

Maybe the government is right in putting only half a price on this minister this year, because he really has not shown much in the way of leadership in many of the areas he is responsible for. He's very indecisive. We've known that over the years. But in areas of human rights, farmworker legislation, health and safety, boards of review, the whole question of unemployment and the minimum wage.... On none of these things has the minister taken action, been decisive or given us any sort of direction. He drifts. The problems build up and compound to the stage where, in the case for instance of the Workers' Compensation Board, we have 3,000 people waiting for at least seven months to be heard before the board of review. By the end of the year we can fully expect that injured workers will be waiting a year to have their cases heard before the boards of review.

I do hope that one of the first tasks the new deputy minister responsible for women's affairs has will be to correct the minister's language. We no longer speak about workmen's compensation. That's been changed to workers' compensation, The minister has accepted that, but he has not yet accepted worker-days in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Workers?

MS. SANFORD: Yes. It's man-days lost no more than it's workmen's compensation in this province any more; there's one of the first tasks that the new deputy minister can take on.

MR. SKELLY: Clean up your language.

MS. SANFORD: That's right. Come into this century, Mr. Minister, in terms of the terminology that you're using.

I do think that the minister should have a very close look at the kind of training that's given and the decisions that the adjudicators at the Workers' Compensation Board are making. We have a situation in this province where people who are dissatisfied with the decisions made by adjudicators of the Workers' Compensation Board go to the boards of review. I mentioned the backlog and the time it takes to be heard before the boards of review. But the thing is that 45 percent of the original decisions made by the adjudicators at the Workers' Compensation Board are being overturned. That, to me, is a clear indication that there is something radically wrong with the initial decisions that are being made at the Workers' Compensation Board. What is the problem there? The minister has not looked at that problem; he has not made any changes; he has not made any recommendations; and to my knowledge he has not made any statements whatsoever on that particular problem. If the minister were to ensure that the decisions initially made are correct ones, then we would be able to reduce that backlog significantly. If the minister at this point — I know he has told me time and time again that he has no intention of increasing the number of boards of review — were to increase those boards we could do something about that backlog. That backlog was being reduced when we had all of the boards operating, plus the additional chairman who could write decisions while the boards of review were hearing cases. It was since they lost the one and a half positions that the backlog began to build again.

Why is he so indecisive in reappointing those positions? Why is he taking so long? If he wants to make some basic changes with the boards of review structure, why is he taking so long to accomplish it? He is very indecisive in these matters, and what we need is strong, definite action in order to cure some of those problems. It's a tragedy when injured workers have to wait all of that time to have their cases heard before a board of review. It's a disgrace. I think it's completely inexcusable on the part of the minister. Other provinces don't have that kind of backlog; they have appeal procedures, but the backlogs aren't there. Has the minister looked at what's happening in the other provinces in order to

[ Page 8796 ]

determine how we can begin to deal with that particular problem?

I must say again this year that I do not think the Workers' Compensation Board itself should be able to overturn the decisions made by the boards of review. After all, it is the Workers' Compensation Board and the adjudicators who work for that board that have made the initial decision. We then have an independent board of review set up with a chairman, a representative from labour and a representative from industry to act as an independent appeal board. Once that appeal board makes a decision, it then goes back to the Workers' Compensation Board itself and gets overturned. It doesn't happen that often, but I don't think it should ever happen if we're going to have an independent board of review. The whole purpose of setting up a board of review is to review the initial Workers' Compensation Board decision,

I think we should have a greater rotation of the medical staff — the doctors — who serve on the Workers' Compensation Board. I think that they should be appointed for a definite period of time, as they are in some provinces in this country — say three years maximum. In that way we could have a continual rotation of the medical opinions that are offered to the Workers' Compensation Board, and workers themselves would feel more at ease with the medical decisions made on their behalf.

What a shame that the workers' advisory group — these are the people appointed by the minister to assist workers to prepare their cases before the boards of review or the Workers' Compensation Board — are so overworked and understaffed that they are not able to give the assistance that they should be able to give to injured workers. Where is the priority of the government that allows this backlog to develop so that the staff people appointed to assist workers — and very often those are the only people workers can turn to for assistance in making an appeal — are so overworked and understaffed that they are able to provide very little assistance to the injured workers when they need it? If you're going to have a system of assistance and advice, then let's make it work instead of this half-hearted approach. I certainly don't blame the people who are providing that service. They can't do any more than they are already doing. The workload is such, Mr. Chairman, that it becomes an impossible task for them.

The minister has still not expressed any deep concern over the industrial health and safety of the workers in this province. One of the recommendations that came out of the construction industry inquiry as a result of the tragedy at the Bentall tower was that we immediately increase inspections at the worksite. Nothing has been done about that, Mr. Chairman. We have not had the increase in inspections; and tied in with that, of course, is an increase in the penalties awarded against companies that are not following the regulations and guidelines laid down under the act. We still have people in this province being maimed and killed because we have an inadequate number of inspectors, we don't have adequate penalties for those companies not complying with the regulations, and we have inadequate regulations with respect to the kind of workplace that we in the opposition would like to see.

If you took at the statistics of what's happening in Canada today, with respect to injuries taking place at the worksite.... I recently read an article by Harry Glasbeek, who is with the Osgoode Hall Law School. I don't know if the minister has read that article as well. Every year in Canada we still have 10,000 workplace deaths. In addition to that we have 20,000 workers permanently disabled. Why do we still allow that to happen? I'm talking about Canada as a whole now. The statistics show that coal-miners have 16 times the chance of developing TB and dying of that disease than do mine managers. Construction workers have seven times greater chance of bronchitis death than supervisors and the managers. Per 100,000 workers, 134 die in mining accidents every year, 41 in construction, one in finance, and seven in police. We think of being a member of the police force as being a very dangerous occupation, but if you look at the figures, seven die each year, whereas in mining in a year we can expect 134 people will lose their lives. The homicide rate in Canada is three per 100,000, but the occupational death rate is 33 per 100,000.

I think those figures are very significant, and I want to impress this upon the minister, because it's an area in which he has never demonstrated any interest. I have yet to read a speech the minister has given expressing his concern about industrial health and safety in this province.

Assaults in Canada. We have a huge police force, and we have concerns expressed by citizens every day of the week concerning the violence that happens in the streets, and we must have more law and order. We hear this all the time, Mr. Chairman. In Canada we can expect 446 assaults per 100,000 people per year, but in job accidents we have 10,570 per 100,000 per year. Those workplace casualties really are another form of violence, and it's a form of violence that this minister and this government must direct their attention towards.

This professor from Osgoode suggests that perhaps we should lay criminal charges in order to focus attention on the fact that so many people are being maimed and killed in the workplace in Canada today. He suggests that it will dramatically make the point. There's a lot of drama surrounding assaults and other kinds of accidents. This law professor suggests that it will raise awareness, help safety committees have a more effective voice and may scare governments into doing their job of ensuring that there is a safe workplace, that inspections are carried out and that penalties are adequate.

There is one change that I'd like to recommend. I suppose this is a small point. In July 1982 there was an article in the Globe and Mail which indicates that Newfoundland recently granted workers the right to sue if, in fact, a company is not covered within that province. What I'm suggesting here is that in the Bentall accident the fly-form which gave way was not constructed here in this province, and therefore the employer was not covered under the Workers Compensation Act of this province. When people wish to sue a company — in this case for, I would assume, negligence — they are not entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits in this province. I raised this earlier with the minister. In Newfoundland they've now changed their legislation so that people who are suing a company that is not covered within their province will be entitled to receive benefits under their Workers' compensation act. Maybe I should send this article over to the minister so he can have a look at it and consider it for this province.

The minister is right: we do intend to raise the issue of farmworkers in this province, and to point out to the minister that the situation with respect to the conditions under which farmworkers work in this province has not significantly altered under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. The minister, with great fanfare — we had headlines in the

[ Page 8797 ]

paper — announced the fact that farmworkers were now going to have protection, the same as other workers have protection in this province. Those statements made by the minister at that time were misleading, because we have not seen the kind of changes that the farmworkers or we, as the opposition in this province, expected as a result of his pronouncements at that time and the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

We proposed a number of amendments at that time which would have corrected some of the omissions as far as farmworkers are concerned. They still are not covered by the basic minimum wage. They still have completely inadequate housing in which they are living when they have to live on the farms. May I point out that most of the farmers in this province do attempt to pay their employees a decent wage, provide them with adequate housing and ensure that if they have to be transported to work they are transported in safety. But there are still very serious problems of exploitation of farm labour by the farm-labour contractors.

The section in the Employment Standards Act according to which the farm-labour contractors are to be bonded and licensed is completely inadequate. We still have 31 to 35 people being hauled in an Econoline-type van designed to hold 12 people. We still have barn-like structures that have stalls put in for the habitation of farm labourers. We still have the situation in which it is very difficult for the Canadian Farmworkers Union to talk to people on the farms, because the owners say no. We probably need changes in legislation there to ensure that the organizers do have access and can talk to them about their basic rights in this province — not that farmworkers have many. It's tragic to think of the kind of work that the farm labourers are expected to do — it's very difficult work, it's dangerous work; and that they still are not covered by the minimum wage. I see absolutely no reason why the minister cannot bring in minimum-wage provisions in addition to piecework rights to ensure that that minimum wage exists.

I think that the minister should look, at this point in time, at the whole question of farm labour contractors to see whether or not we can eliminate the farm-labour contractors in this province. For instance, the farmers are paying $4.40 a flat for the work that's being done, and yet the farm-labour contractor, who receives this $4.40, passes on to his workers only $2.25; he keeps $2.15 out of each $4.40. There is nothing to prevent him from doing this. If there are complaints laid, he just simply changes his name and gets a licence again the following year under a different name. That's happening.

We have inadequate laws with respect to the transportation of these workers. Mr. Chairman, following the death of that baby in a bucket of water that we all heard about a couple of years ago, the government indicated that they would immediately set up a committee — and I think that there are four cabinet ministers on that committee — to bring in interim regulations with respect to living conditions. Two years later we still don't even have interim regulations. We have regulations for people who are living in logging camps and people in the mining industry who have to live in camps — basic minimum regulations. Why do those regulations not apply to farmworkers? Why is it that all this time is allowed to go by and that those people are still having to put up with deplorable living conditions? Why doesn't this government take some action? Again, because we have an indecisive minister who is just not prepared to take the kind of action that we must have if we're going to cure some of these problems.

What has the minister done about the video display terminals? Again, we're getting information about the dangers that these terminals are presenting to workers — and I'm not going to spend much time on it. because I'm taking a lot of time this morning, Mr. Chairman. What has he done? Has he made any provision for the testing of radiation levels? What protection is he ensuring that the workers of this province who use these video-display terminals have? Let's face it, they are here, they are everywhere, and they are growing at a great rate.

Mr. Chairman. I have barely started, and I see that I have only two or three minutes left. I have not yet dealt with unemployment and the problems that the people of this province are facing. We heard again this morning on the radio the serious difficulties that people are having with bankruptcies and the fact that the debt counsellors just cannot keep up with the workload, as a result of the fact that there is no work for people in this province. There has been no leadership from that minister responsible for labour and matters that relate to labour. I've not dealt with manpower training — maybe we should change that word too — I've not dealt with the human rights problems, with youth employment, the Essential Services Advisory Agency or women in apprenticeship. There's a whole list of things that I would like to deal with, but I'll take my seat at this point and ask the minister if he would give some responses to some of the issues that I have raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the opening comment the member made with respect to the boards of review.... I'm very much aware of the backlog, and I have said on more than one occasion that I do not believe the expansion of the number of boards — consisting of a chairman and two representatives — is really going to handle the number of cases adequately.

In 1981 there were 197,000 injuries reported. The boards of review now have approximately 3,000 cases; approximately 40 percent of these are modified in some form. So we're looking at, roughly, 1,200. Based on the 1981 caseload, they have about four-tenths of 1 percent. That's not just over a period of one year. That is over a period of more than a year — I would suspect probably two years.

I have discussed this problem, in some detail, with the current chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. One of the reasons that I did is that concern is often expressed by the confederation of Canadian unions and the B.C. Federation of Labour, to mention two. They believe that the problem is with the adjudication of these particular cases. But when you look at the total number of cases involved, I would say that the results are very good and remarkably high. The percentage is in excess of 99 percent.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I have before me the last report on this issue — from which I'll take some comments — from the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. He is also of the view that the appointment of further boards is not the answer, but he does agree, as I do — and I know the member certainly agrees — that the appointment of one and a half positions should be made immediately. I can assure the member that it is being done.

[ Page 8798 ]

There are occasions when the adjudicator.... You can't say the adjudicator has made the wrong decision, or not the totally right decision, or cast blame, because what happens is that new information always comes up. When you're dealing with injuries, we know very well that you don't know what the residual damage is until a certain period of time has elapsed. However, he said:

"In recognition of the fact that there are occasions when the adjudicator is provided with new information but cannot, due to policy, reconsider the original decision if the worker has already appealed to a board of review...the WCB has now made a change in its policy, effective immediately. When an adjudicator is provided with new information following a decision, whether the worker has appealed or not, the adjudicator will now be in a position to reconsider the original decision on the merits of the information provided."

This he feels should contribute to a lessening of appeals going to the boards of review. It is important to point out that this change provides for the request to readjudicate the claim to come from the adjudicator. In this way the change will be distinguished from other internal reviews or appeals, where the adjudicator's work is being reviewed by another person. I accept the sincerity with which the comment you make, hon. member, is offered. There are times when in fact new information does come, and previous policy precluded review by that adjudicator; that's one of the areas. We in the ministry have been concerned with this problem for many months. My view is that the act — the Workers Compensation Act — ought to be amended. I believe that regulations ought to be put in place to allow both written and oral appeals. It might be advisable to consider having members occupy the position of chairman and have single panels handle these particular cases. I question whether or not there ought to be an oral hearing on every appeal. I think we ought to use the Labour Relations Board idea of a registrar; I think that's a good idea, and it certainly helps. The question is: why not? Well, when you're dealing with an injured worker, who is usually represented by an advocate for a trade union....

MS. SANFORD: Usually?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. My point is that you're dealing with consensus here. It's fine to turn around and say okay, this is the way it's going to be. But it's just like other legislation which involves a number of interested people: there ought to be some form of consensus. I can tell you categorically that there is a fair degree of resistance to this particular idea, which I have had for some time. I have discussed it in some detail with my ministry and with the chairman of the board. There is resistance to this particular idea that we have.

MS. SANFORD: The one person.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The single-member panel, review registrar. One concern is this — this argument was thrown out to me, and I fail to understand it. The Labour Code as a parallel, and the way the Labour Relations Board operates, is a good one, I think. But no, the objection put forth by trade unions is that the Labour Code plays an adversarial role. I don't believe it does. I think it plays a conciliatory role. That's exactly what I believe boards of review do as well. So I don't see the objection to that particular type of structure. However, it's consensus legislation. To be very candid with you, I think there ought to be some consensus before you start hammering something through.

With regard to the comment about other provinces, Paul Weiler, who is doing a fair amount of work on the compensation legislation in Ontario, expressed a very positive comment about the appeal process through boards of review for injured workers, that it probably has the seeds of the best system in Canada. I don't dispute that. But I do think that there must be a change administratively.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Your other comment, hon. member, was about appeals. There is a policy that decisions of boards of review will remain intact and will not be touched unless there is an error in law or in the policy of the Workers' Compensation Board. It happens very seldom. I realize the position of the member opposite is that it should never happen. If you want to draw parallels to the court system in British Columbia, where you can go through the full run, the Supreme Court of Canada often comes back in support of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, much to the astonishment of the court of appeal; but it does occur.

The workers' advisers perform a very important and admirable function. I acknowledge that they are working very hard. My information, though, is that they are able to handle the backlog. That is not to say that there should not be some assistance. I think you have made your point in that regard.

Occupational health and safety was mentioned. We have done something in that area. I think the member is aware that we got permission from Treasury Board to spend $300,000 on safety training at Malaspina. A great deal of work was done on the pilot project by Paul Petrie in the Ministry of Labour, who is a coordinator of occupational health and safety. That appointment was made in November 1981. It was a pilot project in the forest industry. It was administered jointly by the Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board, and offered through Malaspina, Nanaimo.

A curriculum was developed through the six-month project. A number of representatives attended. An evaluation was done by the B.C. Safety Council, and their comment was as follows: "....the single most effective safety-training program available for a specific industry in British Columbia. By mid-July the program will have provided an intensive, one-week training course to 150 forest-industry workers." It doesn't take long. If 150 people are involved under a program which the B.C. Safety Council believes is doing a good job.... The official from the Ministry of Labour is a most devoted and dedicated civil servant, and has done an admirable job. In my view, 150 people here, spread throughout the province of British Columbia.... You have to start somewhere. It doesn't take long for those seeds to spread. Each one of those people is bound to have some influence on the safety committees and programs in logging operations and sawmills.

It's fine to be critical of it. It's fine to say that it's not enough. But the fact is that it was started, the money was made available, it's been given a blessing, it's had good reviews, and a number of people have come through. I don't think we can knock it. I'd like to do more. A number of these people involved will obviously be back in the forest industry

[ Page 8799 ]

when it turns around. There will be a number of individuals promoting and ensuring safety. This program could possibly spread out to cover a number of areas. If it's successful now and receives endorsement, I wouldn't be surprised to see support for it come from a number of quarters, including financial support. Probably the best thing of all that could happen is that government make seed money available, and allow the parties involved to recognize it and cherish something like this. If it became their project, it would be that much more meaningful.

The Construction Industry Advisory Council and their report. Yes, the member is correct that that particular report, or study, and all the hearings arose out of a most tragic event. The tragedy of that event was recognized by the Ministry of Labour, and it wasn't very long after it occurred that this government appointed an inquiry. As I recall, there were nine people. The chairman of it was Claude Heywood, who is the construction industry coordinator of the Ministry of Labour and also the chairman of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board. The research people in the Ministry of Labour spent a long time going over the material and assisting in its production.

As a result of this particular report, concurrently with the appointment of the new chairman of the WCB, there's been a lot of activity in that area. That report was released on April 26. I will quote one of its items: "The objective is to see that any and all lessons we can learn from this tragedy are applied effectively towards safety in the workplace. We want to do everything we can to prevent such occurrences." All I know is that while this was going on, the chairman and commissioners of the WCB were leading an extraordinarily active life.

I also know that as a result of a number of their recommendations that I have received, there has been a fair amount of critical comment from the construction industry. One of the first things they always ask for is the appointment of a royal commission or an inquiry. I am generally of the view that commissions often result in putting the problems on the back burner.

MS. SANFORD: Because you don't act on them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just a moment and you'll have your turn, Madam Member.

The idea is to get responsible and concerned people in these particular positions and to see what can be done.

Since the new board has been on stream, the WCB issued a report and in response to the report of the British Columbia construction industry safety inquiry in April 1982. All the recommendations in that particular report have been reviewed, and they complimented the committee for the work it had done. It's a thorough and well-thought-out report. They don't necessarily agree with everything, but the fact is that they did put positions across which were reasonably thorough and represented a point of view. The ideas will stimulate discussion on a wide range of health and safety issues within the industry. We hope we'll be able to spring a significant change of attitude in the new effort to make the B.C. construction workplace as safe and healthy as possible. They gave me a response to every one of the items in this report, which is almost an inch through.

I'd like to tell you a number of things the new commissioners have done. They altered the management structure so that decisions which formerly had been made by the executive committee are now handled directly by the commissioner of interest.

MS. SANFORD: Well, that'll sure make a safe workplace.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I just wonder. I think that perhaps if we could continue through and spend some time with them you might find it helpful.

Each commissioner is responsible for various areas of the WCB's operations and able to recommend policy and procedure changes in the face of his direct experience. I think that's worthwhile. They're putting a commissioner of interest on stream. If somebody's responsible for safety, finance, occupational health or assessments they become knowledgeable in that area, instead of constantly having to be advised by long-time permanent employees. Certainly I think the better job is done by the commissioner and the chairman if they have some feeling for what's going on.

The health and safety division has been reorganized to make it more effective and efficient. The occupational medicine section has been upgraded to a department and transferred to the industrial health and safety division — the increasing emphasis placed on industrial health. They've had innumerable meetings with trade union and management groups in B.C., and their purpose is threefold. They are doing their best to work towards some form of tripartite approach to health and safety so that the board, acting as a catalyst, can join with labour and management to set up a constructive, rather than a confrontational, method of improving health. I think that's what has happened in British Columbia for a number of years. How many times does a grievance, a stoppage or bad morale arise out of something involving occupational health and safety? I really don't believe those problems can be resolved by using the adversarial method, which everyone seems to be most familiar with when it comes to negotiating a contract. They seek advice from labour and management in dealing with the issues that directly affect these groups. I know that the chairman has met on several occasions with the occupational health and safety committees of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Upgraded regulations have just come through from the WCB, and a good-sized segment of the construction industry is not very happy with them. They've taken a fairly hard line following the tragedy at Bentall. It is something they can always back off a bit on if the regulations are felt to be too severe; that's within their discretion. Remember, it's an independent, autonomous body.

With respect to farmworkers, I recognize the concern of the member. The transportation conditions for those people to farms in the Fraser Valley is unconscionable. Let's not beat around the bush; it is. The problem we have is trying to get control of these people, or at least to find out what they're doing. Have them licensed — we made provision in the Employment Standards Act for licensing. But the motor vehicle branch has provision for licensing, and how many people do you know who drive without licences? The only way we can find out about them, unless people begin to comply with the provisions of the law, is when they register with the Ministry of Labour as labour contractors. That information is fired over to the WCB, because farm-labour contractors are responsible for WCB assessments. In this case, as soon as that occurred and it was found out, the WCB

[ Page 8800 ]

worked in conjunction with the RCMP to see what they could do about it.

When the recent release came out, roadblocks were set up to stop the contractors from overloading. A team of five WCB inspectors accompanied the RCMP officers from Abbotsford who were pulling over vehicles they suspected of being overloaded. They cracked down on Friday morning; the RCMP laid charges against 12 of the 14 drivers they stopped, and the WCB wrote safety orders. The chairman said that the labour contractors will not be allowed to continue risking the safety of farmworkers, and failure to comply with the safety orders will result in penalties from the WCB.

Also, penalties will be imposed on labour contractors who should have registered with the WCB and failed to do so. At the present time, WCB coverage is optional for farm operations. We know that those with a high risk elect to be covered by compensation; those with a low risk take the chances. I think all of that will be coming to an end. We had a number of discussions last fall, and the WCB is conducting hearings with the objective of compulsory coverage for farmworkers next year.

With respect to that, it's mandatory that farm-labour contractors be assessed. People kept talking about the regulations. But the fact of the matter is, Madam Member, under the WCB the regulations are there in black and white. Noncompliance with these is no different than non-compliance by any other operator in any other business who falls within the jurisdiction of the WCB in the province. When you look at the regulations, you'll see that it covers all of these items. We have just got to ensure that these people start registering. As a matter of fact, I have pictures of the van involved.

With respect to accommodation, yes, the Ministry of Labour was involved, one of four. A report was prepared. When it comes to matters of accommodation and health, we have a National Building Code, and it may be that that particular question could be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

MS. SANFORD: I really despair for the farmworkers of British Columbia, with that minister. Maybe we should ask the Minister of Health about accommodation recommendations and so on. The minister sat on the committee. He is the Minister of Labour, and he says that perhaps I should ask some other minister about what's happening there. Good grief, we had a six-month-old child die two years ago because of the inaction of this government. I really despair that we're going to get anything done whatsoever.

He did not mention minimum wages for farmworkers. The other thing is that certainly at the present time when the farm-labour contractors are licensed, the Workers' Compensation Board is notified. But the first safety inspections of those vans were carried out only last week. That's the first time that any Workers' Compensation Board inspector had even looked at any of those vans. And that was because we had a serious accident with an overloaded van. The minister does nothing about these issues. He knows about them, but he does nothing about them until we have a serious accident. Even then, what do they do? They set up a cabinet committee, and two years later there's still nothing done to ensure the safety of those employees and to ensure that they have adequate living conditions.

He talks about the RCMP laying charges. Those charges are laid against the driver of the vehicle, and the driver is not necessarily the farm-labour contractor at all. In fact, in many of these cases the driver is informed that he must say that he is working for the farmer, and the farmer, of course, is not necessarily covered by the WCB. It's not mandatory yet. As a result, these drivers are getting charged, and the penalties are so inadequate that it's not going to do much in terms of altering the situation. I really despair.

I made a number of comments with respect to unemployment under the bill that was brought in in which the government puts forward $132.9 million. I'm not going to say much more about that today because I know a lot of my colleagues want to raise this, but I hope that this minister is embarrassed as well by the fact that he sits on that committee and they have put forward this bill. It says $132.9 million when, of course, it's not $132.9 million for job creation at all. Most of that money comes from existing programs, and it's an attempt to deceive the public of the province. I hope he's embarrassed about it, because he certainly should be.

The minimum wage in this province has not changed since December 1, 1980, and even then it had not been changed for a long period of time prior to that. I do not understand how people are able to survive on a basic minimum wage of $3.65 an hour. It is not the highest in Canada at the moment and yet we in the province of British Columbia have one of the highest costs of living. The minister has pointed out that we ought to do this, we should do this, the legislation should be changed and there are problems here and problems there. But this is the minister. He is the one who is responsible, he has the authority, and yet he takes no action in any of these areas. What about that minimum wage? Are there going to be any changes? I know he looked at it months and months ago, and we have still heard nothing from him.

The minister referred to the Malaspina College safety program. That program was nearly eliminated until both the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and I got involved in writing letters. The program was about to be cancelled. We wrote letters requesting that the program be reinstated. I'm pleased that the government did respond to our representations. That program was on the verge of being cancelled. Seven instructors were about to be laid off, until we got involved and, hopefully, helped convince the government that they should continue that program.

Human rights. We had a publication presented to the minister. Here again, it points out the indecisive nature of the Minister of Labour we have. Over a year ago, in June 1981, we had recommendations for changes in the Human Rights Code presented to the minister. The minister knows how inadequate many of those provisions in the Human Rights Code are. I've forgotten the figure, but he talked about how many complaints about discrimination there were in this province before the Human Rights Code. Yet we all know that the present code is inadequate to deal with so many of these human rights issues that come before the branch. It's over a year ago, and we have not yet seen a single, solitary change to the Human Rights Code that would improve the situation. He's an indecisive minister, who is just incapable of taking action, even though he has the authority to take the necessary action. We've had pleas from the disabled. We gave him a whole booklet of suggestions that would improve the code, yet there's been no action whatsoever from the minister. I don't understand. As I said, I despair when I see all the proposals I've made to him. All the suggestions are there. The answers are obvious. It has been thoroughly looked at by the Human Rights Commission. We've had public hearings, and people from all over the province have

[ Page 8801 ]

made recommendations. But there's not been a single, solitary move by the minister.

There is one provision not included in here which I think should be, Mr. Chairman, and that relates to a particular case before the minister at the moment, related to the Army and Navy Department Store. The code does not provide for a class action to take place. I think the minister knows what I'm talking about. This was Beverly Anne Yaworski, who appealed on her own behalf with respect to the payment of wages. Any decision made there apparently will not apply to all the other employees similarly affected, because there is no provision in the code for a class action to take place. The only way that that problem could be rectified, in terms of payment of wages due there, would be for each one of those employees to take an action. I hope that someday, within the next hundred years, when the minister might take some action with respect to changing the Human Rights Code, he will include some provision for a class action. It has become very clear that that is necessary at this point.

Mr. Chairman, why was the youth employment program cancelled in the first place? What on earth made the minister decide that he would not proceed with it? "Student Job Scheme Cancelled" — it was reported all over the place that it was cancelled. I fail to understand, particularly in view of the extremely high levels of unemployment, that government would even consider cancelling that youth employment program. What pressure was on him? Was it his own decision? Was it one of the few decisions this minister has made, that he would proceed to cancel the youth employment program?

Women in apprenticeships. I assume the minister is going to tell me that the new deputy minister is going to ensure that this changes, but 71 percent of all of the women in apprenticeships are still involved in hairdressing, barbering, baking or cooking. I've raised this year after year after year, and I feel that the minister.... Perhaps through that new deputy minister we might get some action. There should be a program, a thrust and an initiative through that Ministry of Labour to ensure that that particular situation changes. I don't particularly want to hear about the WEAT program in the minister's response when he gets up.

The Essential Services Advisory Agency. In my view, it's a waste of money on the part of this government. I know they're looking at cutting costs all over the place and I think that's one area where they could certainly save themselves some money, because that agency is not providing any assistance to anybody in this province.

If the minister would respond to those few comments, I will take my place at this point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the last item, the Essential Services Advisory Agency, I hear what the member is saying. It's been of some concern. I just have one problem: We don't get rid of the fire department because there are not fires. We just never know what will come to pass. However, I accept your comments.

On the Army and Navy department store item, I did not have — until last night at least — any cases on my desk involving this. I don't recall any of these items.

Regarding the youth employment program, how many times do I have to repeat that this program was never cancelled? It went into the employment development committee. I can assure you that the infrastructure was there; it was ready to go. The important thing is that I and a number of colleagues on that committee had the opportunity to review the program. We got more money, as a matter of fact, in that particular program than we had in the ministry before. That particular program has done extraordinarily well. Each one of our objectives has now been exceeded in the four categories which we fund.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with getting — in fact I encourage — contributions and input from my colleagues when it comes to this area, just as Industry and Small Business sits on Economic Development, or Environment on Economic Development, or Health on Social Services. Because they're involved in these things, you get the benefit of a number of other people's views. I don't really dispute that. I think it's probably a good idea.

The other point which I have to take exception to was the member's comments on the Malaspina program. What the member said is not correct. They had a program at Malaspina to train loggers. That was the program that was cancelled. The safety-committee training program and the whole idea for it came from our ministry. We used it, as well as the WCB, which trained the two faculty members who would otherwise have been displaced. Our program has absolutely no relationship to the former training program, and I think we should make that clear.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

63 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 63) intituled Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by adding "of the Fire Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 133," after "Sections 48 and 49".