[ Page 9571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On the amendment to section 1 –– 9571

Mr. Stupich, Hon. Mr. Gardom, Mr. King, Ms. Sanford, Mr. Howard, Hon. Mr. Richmond, Hon. Mr. Waterland

Division

On the amendment to section 2 as amended –– 9579

Mr. Stupich, Mr. Howard, Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Division

On section 2 as amended –– 9582

Mr. Stupich, Mrs. Wallace

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill S9). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Mr. Howard –– 9583

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9585

Appendix –– 9585

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

MR. PASSARELL: I rise on a point of personal privilege. What started as a northern tall tale blew out of proportion, and I would like to correct the record regarding the situation. It's a fact that a woman was not involved in hitting me on the head. But the story about killing the bear and what transpired started as a northern tale and blew out of proportion. I would like to correct the matter by simply saying that there was no grizzly bear killed by me or my press secretary, Mr. Jean Godet, who probably had the greatest line: "The only thing I stand by Mr. Passarell on in this grizzly story is that it was all B.S." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On point of order, Mr. Speaker, does this House deal with fairy tales? I'm wondering whether there is such a thing as a point of personal privilege. I wish you would clarify whether the member who just told us a fairy tale was trying to correct an erroneous report he'd made to the press, whether that's a point that should be accepted in this House, whether he's violating the standing orders of this House, or what. I think it's important, because we've got to refrain from the kind of fairy-tale episode we get from the member for Atlin.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, several members on this side of the House have spoken on this, and I think others will want to speak on it again this morning. We had hoped the minister would delete the reference to the Workers Compensation Board. We would welcome some expression from him this morning on the reference to the Workers Compensation Board. We've raised the question about the deficit that the board already has. We've raised questions about the attitudes of employers whose assessments vary according to their own accident rates. If their increase is limited, we're concerned about the effect this will have on employers' attitudes, but we're primarily concerned about the effect on the employees. I raised a question in my earlier remarks about the very serious situation with respect to the appeal-board system. If they're going to be trying to live with lower revenues than they require to operate the boards, just what effect will this have on claims? I know others of my colleagues will want to add to this discussion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr Chairman, without in any way attempting to limit the member's discussion of one of the agencies to be limited. I wonder if this amendment is in fact in order. I look to the Chair for a ruling in that regard. I emphasize that it is not to limit the debate in committee which could occur on section 2. I would think. I ask specifically about the amendment which the member has placed on the order paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just supporting a point made by my colleague, Mr. Chairman. It appears to me that this is essentially a detraction, not an impost, and that could only be moved by message or on the government side.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An impost on the Crown moved by a private member would be out of order, but what we have here is a decrease, which would be the same as a decrease in, say, an estimate of the minister. The amendment is in order.

MR. KING: We discussed this particular provision in second reading of the bill in general fashion, but I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance that there are indeed some serious implications if the provisions of section 1 are to include the Workers Compensation Board. Certainly I support the amendment deleting the Workers Compensation Board.

I want to put this particular set of circumstances to the minister. The Workers Compensation Board has the authority, indeed the obligation, to assess penalty applications against an employer who might be found guilty of flagrant disregard for safety standards set by the board. In those circumstances the whole theory of penalty assessments is to induce compliance, and to persuade and require employers to respect reasonable standards of safety for their working people in factories and plants throughout this province. If the board's ability to set and enforce those penalty assessments is restricted, as it will be by this bill, to a mere 6 percent increase, then the impact, effect and deterrent imposed through penalty assessments is eroded, and indeed nullified, in my view. That is a very serious implication.

The working people of the province of British Columbia have the right to expect compliance by their employer with standards of safety set by the board. In the case of normal protection for the use of toxic materials — poisons and pesticides — the employer can now find it cheaper in some circumstances not to comply and simply to assume a 6 percent penalty assessment, which is a very modest assessment. The deterrent impact, which is the whole premise of penalty assessments, is eroded by this provision.

Mv colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the general assessment increases which occur each year in order to maintain the integrity of the workers compensation fund. The unfunded liability of the board is a matter of concern to the commission and certainly has been to those who have the responsibility for ensuring that we have a secure workers compensation fund in the province of British Columbia. The notices have been mailed out, by and large, to employers indicating what the assessment increase would be for this year, and it is my understanding that it was in the range of 10 percent. That is based upon actuarial requirements for the fund. I believe this very government appointed a firm of chartered accountants to conduct an inquiry into the unfunded liability of the Workers Compensation Board a few years ago. It was pointed out that that unfunded liability had

[ Page 9572 ]

to be brought within manageable proportions. There is only one way that can happen — that is, through increases in the general assessment rate. Now the government is denying the board the authority to impose the necessary increase in assessment rates which would bring that unfunded liability under actuarial bounds. That's unacceptable. What we have here is, first, an incursion by the government into the board's administration, a minimizing of the impact of penalty assessments; and, second, an erosion of the financial and actuarial viability of the workers compensation fund. There is no way the Workers Compensation Board can pass along their requirements for funding other than through assessments on the employers. By taking this action the government is seriously jeopardizing the board on those two particular points.

The other area that I'm terribly concerned about here is with respect to the benefits accruing to working people. An injured worker who is on time-loss benefits — that is, on temporary-injury benefits — is entitled to 75 percent of his normal earnings. But should he be incapacitated to the point where he can no longer go back to his job and earn a livelihood, he is entitled to either a partial or a total disability pension. Those pensions are calculated, as are time-loss benefits, on a formula which includes cost-of-living-index adjustments.

As I read this particular section, unless the amendment is accepted, those cost-of-living-rate increases will be curtailed by the bill that's before the committee now. I find it difficult to believe that the government of the province wishes to impose 6 percent ceilings on widows, dependent children and, indeed, upon handicapped and incapacitated working people who, as a result of injuries in the workplace, find that they are no longer able to earn a livelihood. What is the rationale for denying those people who most need help in our society the benefit of at least reasonably keeping pace with the accelerating cost of living? All of those things, in my view, are contained in this bill.

Hence we move the amendment which would set the Workers Compensation Board apart and leave it to run its own affairs. It would leave the board to set their own assessments as required by their own actuarial needs. The Workers Compensation Board has historically been an agency that was set apart at arm's length from government and free from political intervention by government. I submit that this particular provision, unless the amendment is accepted, represents a political incursion into the sound and effective administration of the Workers Compensation Act in this province. I think that is a dangerous precedent to set.

I would appreciate hearing the minister's response to the points I have raised. There are basically four points: (1) the security of the unfunded liability and the ability of the board to service that outstanding debt by receiving the necessary assessment level; (2) the question of penalty assessments that are set from time to time by the board where there is a flagrant disregard for safety standards.... Are they to be limited to 6 percent also? Is that the intention of the government, in so doing to erode the safety and health standards of this province by removing protection? The third and fourth points with respect to the normal time-loss benefits, which I believe are also subject to cost-of-living adjustments, but more importantly the whole range of pension benefits that are available through the Workers Compensation Act, both partial-disability and total-disability pensions for claimants and their dependents.... I would very much like to hear if this is the minister's intention, or is he not aware that the bill would do all of those things? Perhaps if he was not aware, he will be ready to accept our amendment, which relieves the board from interference under section 1 of this particular bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Nanaimo, who moved the amendment, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who has spoken to it, the government is not prepared to accept the amendment. The Chair will note that we are dealing with section 1, which speaks in this context of "workers' compensation," and obviously the members opposite, if that is their wish, will continue to discuss in section 2 the advisability or inadvisability of adding "Workers Compensation Board" to this restraint measure. Mr. Chairman, if we could reflect for just a moment, the bill was introduced on September 21 and attracted quite widespread attention in the 24, 48 or 72 hours immediately following that. We now are at October 5, and therefore I think the agencies, the Crown corporations, the boards and commissions which are affected by the Rate Increase Restraint Act have had a reasonable opportunity to examine their position vis-a-vis the restraint which is put in place.

I noticed by CBC radio report this morning, which is the most recent information I've heard, that a spokesman for the Workers Compensation Board indicated that they were thoroughly familiar with that which was proposed in this bill, and that in the short term — and I will speak on that in just a moment — it would, while imposing some discipline on the Workers Compensation Board, in its entirety.... I paraphrase the report to the extent that it appeared to me as a listener that the Workers Compensation Board could manage with this limitation.

I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, "in the short term." That is a fundamental point that I think is not lost on members of the committee. This is in place until September 30, 1983, although in second reading I did not commit that it would not be extended for some time. I did that because I did not want to mislead the House in any way, nor do I want to mislead the committee. If I had to make a definitive statement, Mr. Chairman, I would expect that the bill will live its life to September 30 of next year and will not be extended. The security of unfunded liability, or the whole question of unfunded liability, with respect to workers' compensation is a matter which obviously the board and its senior management and government have examined over a good number of years. The members opposite have examined it in the course of their time as government. I am satisfied that this measure, again in the short term, will not significantly affect the unfunded liability or impair — more correctly stated — the board's ability to reduce the unfunded liability over the next several years. I believe it is their intention.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke spoke about penalty assessments where there are "flagrantly poor safety practices." Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention of the government in the implementation of this bill to exempt an employer where — to use the member's phrase — "penalty assessments are well deserved." Since we are on section 1, the interpretation section, I would draw the committee's attention to the fact that the word "penalty" does not appear, whereas "assessment, budget, charge, collection, fare, levy, premium, tax, toll, workers' compensation and other items as may be prescribed...." Quite clearly it was our intention....

[ Page 9573 ]

MR. KING: Nonsense!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm trying to give a logical and straightforward answer to the member, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: That's not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will be allowed their chance to debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The word "penalty" is not there. The member is exercised by my response, but I was indicating the government's view with respect to the question of penalty assessments in the context which he described, and I cannot make the government's position clearer than that, Mr. Chairman.

The second member who spoke referred to an expectation of 10 percent in assessments for the coming year. I think that debate could continue for some time; so be it if it does. I am informed, and it is my clear understanding, that 10 percent would be the high range of the projected increase. Again, it's been indicated that on average the increase in assessments would be something less than 10 percent. That again, Mr. Chairman, leads me to an observation which would be perhaps more appropriate in section 2, but I'll simply allude to it: the 6 percent maximum described in another section of the bill was drafted very carefully. A zero percent increase in this context would have been absolutely unworkable and would have severely interfered with the agencies who are being asked to conform to this aspect of restraint.

MS. SANFORD: The minister's explanation is completely inadequate in terms of what this is going to do to the Workers Compensation Board this year. The interpretation says that "'rate' includes assessment," but now he's made an exemption. Surely he's going to bring in his own amendment to clarify that assessment, according to his interpretation, doesn't include penalty assessment. I thought an assessment was an assessment.

Mr. Chairman, this government is operating so much by the seat of the pants that it just doesn't know what it's doing. This is another political bill. He's trying to convince us that this won't affect the unfunded liability of the Workers Compensation Board.What nonsense! It's obvious that this was dreamed up on some weekend for some political purpose. It's obvious that there was no consultation with the commissioners of the Workers Compensation Board, or they wouldn't have been mailing out all of those assessment notices. If they had been aware of what the government was up to, they wouldn't have put all those in the mail and incurred that extra expense. What it means, Mr. Chairman, is that the unfunded liability is going to grow by at least another $14 million this year; that's not even talking about the assessment that they have applied with respect to the hospitals and the surcharges that they're applying there. That's an attempt to fund the hospital programs by putting a surcharge on the Workers Compensation Board.

The employers who are going to be joining the Workers Compensation Board in the next few years — starting up a business, getting covered under the WCB — are going to be paying higher assessments than they should be paying because of this kind of political move by the government. They're going to have to pick up the difference. Everybody's been concerned about that unfunded liability. The commissioners have been grappling with the problem, and they've been attempting to reduce that unfunded liability. Then the minister comes along, after they've mailed out the assessment notices, with this bill that limits them to 6 percent. They're going to have to recall all those letters and incur more expense to mail out new assessment notices, all for the political benefit of this government that's desperately trying to cling to office.

The minister did not deal with the effects of this particular legislation on the injured workers. What's going to happen to those who are now covered by a disability pension? Are they going to be affected by the 6 percent? He didn't make that clear in his earlier comments.

The other thing about this bill is that the pressures on the public purse from the employers of the province are going to increase. They're going to come and say: "Look, our unfunded liability is over a half a billion dollars at this stage. It's going to increase with this kind of legislation because of the surcharge applied against us for hospital costs. We need help from the public purse in order to bail us out of this predicament we're in." That kind of pressure is going to increase as a result of this political legislation before us today.

I would like the minister to respond with respect to the effects of this bill on injured workers and their incomes over this next year. I point out again that the minister is very wrong in his assumption that this will have virtually no effect on the unfunded liability, because it will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I defer to a member opposite who is about to speak.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to hear what you have to say.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll defer. I can say it later.

MR. HOWARD: The minister had an opportunity to correct the erroneous information he gave to the committee earlier, but he didn't take advantage of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I want to Submit that it is erroneous, meaning that the minister was in error when he gave that information to the House in response to the argument put forward by my colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

The minister said: "It isn't the intention of the government" — as I understood his words — "to exempt an employer from penalties where that employer is running an unsafe operation." He then proceeded to read section 1, which is the one before us, and said: "It doesn't say anything about a penalty." That indicates one of two things. Either the minister hasn't the foggiest notion what the Workers Compensation Act says with respect to unsafe working conditions and places of employment where the employer is not performing his duties under the act — either the minister hasn't a clue what the Workers Compensation Act is all about — or he does understand it and he was trying by verbiage to give the committee an impression of something which is not in fact so.

[ Page 9574 ]

Let's read the precise words back to the minister. The minister said: "Yes, Mr. Chairman, section 1 does not contain the word 'penalty'." The minister read it out. Let's read it again, just to ensure what it does say. The proposed clause 1 says: "In this act 'rate' includes assessment, budget, charge, collection, fare, levy, premium, tax, toll, workers' compensation" — which is what we propose to take out — "and other items as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." Two significant words in that definition that apply here are the first one, "assessment," and the second one, "levy." Section 73 of the Workers Compensation Act uses those two precise words.

Section 73 is the section of the act which says: "Where the board" — that is, the Workers Compensation Board — "considers that (a) sufficient precautions are not taken by an employer for the prevention of injuries and industrial disease; (b) the place of employment or working conditions are unsafe or the employer has not complied with regulations, orders or directions made under section 7" — where the board considers that there are unsafe working conditions and that the employer is running a show where injuries are likely to take place or where he has not complied with any regulations — "the board may assess and levy on the employer a percentage of the amount of the assessment for the preceding year or the projected assessment for the current year, and may collect the amount so assessed and levied in the same way as an assessment is collected."

The purpose of that is basically to penalize the employer for running an unsafe show. I use the word "penalize" because the minister used the word "penalty." We normally look upon it in the ordinary, everyday working world as that being a penalty against the employer, but the words in the act are that it's an "assessment" and a "levy," precisely the words that are used in the section before us. So it's just arrant nonsense for the minister to stand up and say: "Oh, this doesn't apply to unsafe working places; that's a penalty." Of course it applies — absolutely, clearly and without question.

In other words, what the minister is saying in this bill is that as far as he's concerned unsafe working conditions in the workplace are okay with him. As far as he's concerned, an employer can disregard orders of the board. He doesn't give a hoot about injury or industrial disease visited upon employees in the workplace. He is saying that the board may consider that there's an unsafe working place, that an employer has disregarded orders given under section 71 of the act, that workers in a plant or out in the logging camps or wherever else in this province are working in unsafe conditions and are liable to get injured or liable to contract an industrial disease — silicosis or asbestosis, or whatever. Whatever the board thinks is the necessity of imposing a penalizing levy or assessment to correct that situation, the minister doesn't care, because he's going to limit it to 6 percent. So in other words, what's a 6 percent levy on an employer who may, by the Workers Compensation Board's own decision, be obliged to pay, say, a 25 percent levy to correct an unsafe working condition in the workplace?

This government has got a record of attacking those who cannot defend themselves. It's got a record of picking on the defenceless, right from the time when the Minister of Education attacked working mothers, single parents, individual women by themselves, with children, having to rely on social allowance. In addition to the attack on the sick by the Minister of Health, we now have an attack on the injured, under this particular bill. We now have an attack upon the employees and their compensation payments, and upon those who may be working in unsafe working conditions. I'm sure the minister can see that.

If he says that it's not the intention of the government to exempt an employer from a levy or assessment where unsafe working conditions are involved, then let him say so in the act. Let him clear it up with an amendment. But so long as this stays the way it is proposed, unless he accepts our amendment to remove workers' compensation from that, and accepts a subsequent amendment to part 2 — which I only refer to in passing — to remove the words "Workers Compensation Board" from section 2 of this bill.... Unless he's prepared to accept those amendments, and I suggest that he should, because if he accepted them his argument that it's no intention of the government to intrude upon or to exempt employers who are operating premises in which there are unsafe working conditions.... If that's really the intention of the government, then I say accept the amendment and that will satisfy it. Then we will be together and unanimous on that particular point, and the bill can proceed and pass, and no problem.

The minister says, though, right from the outset that the government doesn't intend to accept the amendment. He went on to talk about the necessity of discipline on the board, how this brings an element of discipline to the board, and the $500 million unfunded liability position of the board, and so on. It's got nothing to do with those things at all — bringing discipline to bear upon the board. If the board needs to have a discipline imposed upon it by this Legislature, if the Workers Compensation Board has been undisciplined in that regard, then I suggest to you that the discipline that should be applied to the board is by law to require the board to wipe out that $500 million unfunded liability deficit within a certain period of time, and put them in the position of saying you have to collect these assessments within whatever period of time seems reasonable.

MR. KING: Nine years.

MR. HOWARD: Nine years — that's what the board has said at some time or another. I think every year they say nine years and yet they don't do it. It was nine years when I first heard about it in 1979, it seems to me. It's now 1982 and it's still nine years, and it's still not there.

Now this bill is going to make that situation worse. So if the minister thinks that the board needs to be disciplined, and needs to run a tight ship, and needs to have a balance in terms of its own internal financing, then it should move to deal with that $500 million unfunded liability that exists there by saying: "You have a certain number of years to work that out and to assess in order to collect it." If they don't do that, this bill is just going to make it worse. It's going to add to that $500 million. They will never be able to collect it — or even start to collect it — during the time this particular bill is in force. I think the minister said it was for one year.

So all it's doing is adding the difference between a 6 percent assessment and whatever may be necessary in one year out of nine to wipe out that $500 million unfunded liability deficit that the board has on the books. All it's going to do is to add to whatever that difference might be, and make the situation worse. We see there's nothing more to supplement the four points put forward initially by my colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and very ably dealt with as well by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). We

[ Page 9575 ]

need the four points to be answered. If the minister sincerely believes in what he says about no intention by the government to exempt employers, then I suggest he is to accept the amendment and that will do it. They then accept a subsequent amendment to remove the Workers Compensation Board from the impositions imposed upon it by this act; and we can get on from there.

I don't want to reiterate the other points made, but I thought it worth while to put on the record what section 73 says, so that the minister will see that his earlier argument about the application of section 1 has no validity in fact, and that the minister was giving erroneous information to the House when he spoke earlier.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the amendment to section 1, in developing his point I wish the member would not reach the conclusion, which is also erroneous, that I am not concerned about injured workers in the province of British Columbia. It's fair enough to enter into debate....

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I was talking about the government of which this minister is a part, not about him personally. I'm sure that personally his heart's in the right place, but he belongs to a government which has a record of attacking those who can't defend themselves too well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena was not recognized.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Skeena quite clearly indicated that he was speaking of me, and I simply assure the committee that that is not correct. If you want to debate as to what he meant by that for the rest of the morning and this afternoon.... I just want him to understand that in debating the amendment which the opposition has put forward, it is incorrect to assume that because the Workers Compensation Board is among those agencies which will experience short-term — ie. approximately one-year — restraint.... We can debate that; but I would ask him to reconsider the observation, for reasons which I could explain to the committee at some other time. The benefits accruing from workers compensation are very well known to me, as apparent, I need say no more.

I think I have a reasonable understanding of the workings of the Workers Compensation Board. I do not pretend to be an expert. Again, looking at the amendment which the opposition has advanced, and looking at this section, in developing this short-term 12-month restraint program, the question was posed, "Would this limitation do serious harm to any of the agencies so covered?" and our answer was no. Again, I emphasize the brevity of the restraint. I would refer members to my comments in opening and closing second reading debate, where we indicated that this was yet another step in necessary restraint in the province of British Columbia. With regret, the government cannot accept the amendment with respect to workers' compensation.

MS. SANFORD: The minister still has not dealt with the points we have advanced this morning with respect to the effects of this political bill on the workings of the Workers Compensation Board. I would like to know why the board was not consulted about this particular limitation. Why, if this was not a last-minute bill that was thrown together for political purposes...? Everyone anticipated an election, but the Premier has become so indecisive on this issue that that point is not clear at the moment. Why was the board not consulted in advance? A lot of time and effort is spent by the commissioners and their economists in drawing up the assessments required for the year. Working on the reduction of the unfunded liability. It's the same kind of thing they've been doing with education. It's exactly the same. The school boards and the Workers Compensation Board....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are in committee on an amendment to a specific section. I've accepted the amendment; it deals with workers' compensation. I would ask all members of the committee to be specific to that amendment.

MS. SANFORD: The Workers Compensation Board, like the school boards of the province, is spending all its time these days not improving the education system or the workers' compensation system of the province but redoing the budget, reworking the figures. There is no consultation with groups in this province.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right: a straight political move by this government in order to....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: No, they don't care.

With the effect of this 6 percent limit on injured workers, still the minister did not deal with the unfunded liability and the fact that new businesses coming into operation over the next few years are going to have to pay an increased Workers Compensation Board assessment because they are bringing in this legislation at this time. All their boards and agencies are being treated in the same way. Everyone has to knuckle under to the needs of this government.

The minister made some comment about having heard on CBC this morning that the board could live with it. I assume that school boards can live with the impositions on them as well. They spend all their time trying to figure out what the government is up to. They can't deal with the issues they are supposed to deal with. I suppose they can live with it. The minister has not answered. They have no choice; they have to live with it, don't they? If it's law, it's law; they can live with it.

The kind of treatment this government is giving to various boards and agencies throughout this province, without any consultation whatsoever, is an indication of their political desperation.

I wish the minister would answer the questions posed to him with respect to the effects of this legislation on injured workers and particularly on the unfunded liability.

MR. HOWARD: It's very interesting to watch the minister shy away from the valid questions that are put to him. It's very interesting to see how he attempts to divert attention from the realities of this particular bill, this particular section and the amendment that we put forward. It's very important to keep that in mind. The minister took personal umbrage at a reference that he happens to belong to a government that doesn't care about injured workmen, the workplace and so on. He went off in the direction about something about his

[ Page 9576 ]

own family and so on, which I think didn't have anything to do with this. It's important to note, first, that he said there would be no penalties, that this doesn't apply to penalties. It was pointed out to him that "penalty" was just in the use of the word, that in fact it included the words "levy" and "assessment," which are contained in section 73 of the act, the section dealing with unsafe working places. When that was brought to the minister's attention he ignored it completely. He went off in some other direction and made a statement of significant ignorance with respect to what we're dealing with here. The minister said — I wrote his words down — that when they were developing this bill they asked themselves — I assume he means the draftsmen and the government, or whoever it is that asked these questions; "they, " which probably included him — the question: "Will this bill do serious harm to the agencies so covered by it?" And their answer to themselves was: "No, it would not." That's the point that I want to make, Mr. Chairman, that we are not here now dealing with the agencies so covered by this bill — that is, the Workers Compensation Board. We are dealing with human beings, individual people about whom the minister says, in his heart, that he cares. Oh, he cares about people on workers' compensation, but he didn't answer that question. Injured workmen — working men and women — is what we're talking about. Workers' compensation — this compensation to workers who are injured on the job — that's what we're talking about, not serious harm to the agency so covered for a year. Of course it won't mean that, but it will sure mean serious harm to injured workers.

Let me read to you another section of the act, as to how this is seriously going to harm injured workers in this province. Compensation — which is the word we want to take out of here — within the definition and the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act includes medical aid. So a person injured on the job is going to have anything that he receives from the Workers Compensation Board, if there's any increase in it, limited to 6 percent. But his medical aid is going to be restricted to a 6 percent increase over what the medical aid might have been before. Now suppose bandages go up by 18 percent — one of the hospitals in my constituency tells me that. What do they use? Do they use one-third the amount of bandages to put it within the 6 percent limit? Suppose a plaster cast for a broken leg has increased by about 12 percent, covering the materials that go into the plaster cast, and hospital coverage, medical attention and that sort of thing have increased by 12 percent, but they're permitted a 6 percent increase. What do they do? Do they only put on half the cast? Do they put it on half of the leg and leave it off the other side, or do they put it just halfway down and don't do the full portion of it? What's he talking about?

MRS. WALLACE: Every other leg.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe that's the way they'll work it out. So, Mr. Chairman, you may be, figuratively speaking, one of the unfortunate ones who breaks a leg and you're left out because the person there before you got the full cast. Is that what they're talking about?

They're talking about an attack upon the injured workers of this province, not whether or not it would cause serious harm to the agencies so covered — to the Workers Compensation Board itself. Of course it won't cause the board serious harm for one year. We know that. We were pointing out the impact upon the board, that was all. But the major thing here is injured workers and the medical aid available to them. That's why we say the government doesn't care about injured workers. The minister, if he wants me to say it — he sort of wanted me to say it to him so he could deny it — doesn't care about injured workers. If he did, he wouldn't have put up such an insipid, weak....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We must be parliamentary and not make personal reference to another hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: He started on this. It's his argument in support of the bill and against the amendment they're proposing. I'm only responding to it. He got his family involved in this for some obscure reason, which we don't know. I'm not interested in finding out, because those are matters which should not be injected into discussion in this chamber, even obliquely. But the minister did that, and that's his business. All I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment speaks for itself. He's the sponsor of this bill, right on the front page: "Hon. Hugh A. Curtis, Minister of Finance." That's the fellow who brought the bill in and is piloting it through the House. It's his baby. He's taking the full responsibility of the government on his shoulders. He brings in the bill, and the amendment: he uses specious arguments to object to the validity of the amendment which we have put forward. Not once has he answered or even attempted to answer the valid criticisms we've made of his position, so I think I'm entitled to say that he, by this particular bill before us and the arguments he puts forward, doesn't care about the effect that this bill will have upon injured workers and upon unsafe working places in this province.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I too want to make it very clear that the Minister of Finance has not responded to one of the arguments advanced by the opposition. It has been demonstrated clearly and it has been demonstrated without contradiction from the government that this particular provision of the bill will have a serious adverse impact on safety in the workplace and upon the benefits which injured workers in the province of British Columbia would normally expect to receive. It will adversely affect the benefits which widows of workers who have been killed on the job, and their dependants, would normally expect to receive. All of those things are without contradiction and it's not good enough for the minister to try to avoid those basic truths through the use of bafflegab.

If the minister and his government wish to proceed with denying injured workers and their dependants in the province of British Columbia the benefits which are now provided to them under the Workers Compensation Act, if they are prepared to proceed with this bill without the amendment, it has been clearly demonstrated that some — those few irresponsible employers — who choose to ignore decent and safe standards of work in their factories and enterprises will be freed by this bill from the normal penalty assessments which would otherwise have been applied. That's the reality, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's a very nice thing to do. I don't think it's a very humane thing to do. I think it ill behooves the minister to plaintively say, "Well, I care for these people," when by the very essence of refusing our amendment he is imposing a very serious punishment upon the safety environment and, indeed, on the benefits which injured workers and workers who are suffering from industrial disease at present

[ Page 9577 ]

enjoy in the province of British Columbia. That's what's happening. This bill is not designed to injure the Workers Compensation Board. The consequences of it will fall directly and heavily upon the working people who make up the workforce of the province of British Columbia. That is who is being affected. That is who is being disciplined, as the minister refers to it. The minister, by his comments, wants to discipline injured workers and their dependants in the province of British Columbia. The board is going to continue to function. The commissioners will continue to receive then salaries, as will the claims adjudicators and the rehabilitation staff. It is the working people who rely on that agency for their benefits, and as the enforcement agency to provide a safe working environment, who are in jeopardy here. The minister, with all of his significant skills in sliding past the question, cannot avoid that basic truth. He, in addition to his government, will be called to account for this very inhumane approach to penny-pinching.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has once again put forward a series of points selectively and reached incorrect conclusions. That happens fairly often when he is debating, and I reject the straw man which he has.... He squirms in his chair. He's uncomfortable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the minister, as I've already advised other members of the committee, that we should avoid personal reflections on a member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, so long as it is evenhanded I abide by your request and wishes.

MR. HOWARD: Poor little Hughie!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, there were no interjections when the members opposite were speaking, and now....

MR. HOWARD: That's because you've got a bad case and you're on the defensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the member for Skeena to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in speaking earlier this morning about the effect that this might have on the Workers Compensation Board.... It will not be lost on the committee, and it is surely not lost on the people of British Columbia, that in speaking of the Workers Compensation Board one must obviously speak of those who require the services of board. Again, the interpretation by the member opposite is so unbelievably narrow that I think his case collapses immediately. The Workers Compensation Board will not be significantly interfered with in the short term of the 12 months and the few days during which this bill is likely to be in effect. If I have to expand on that statement made earlier this morning I shall — that the clients of the Workers Compensation Board will also not be interfered with by the imposition which has been applied here.

I do admit, Mr. Chairman, to perhaps not having answered a point — although I thought that I had in second reading. Let me make it very clear for the committee, because it has been one of the important points raised in this discussion. It is not the intention under this legislation to limit increases in benefit payments to injured workers, which, as we all know, are currently indexed to the consumer price index of Vancouver. I make that very clear and fundamentally apparent to the committee. It is not the intention of this legislation. What we are doing is limiting the revenue of the Workers Compensation Board to a possible maximum of 6 percent in the course of the 12 months commencing September 20 of this Near.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I want to enter into debate on this amendment for just a brief moment to present the other side of the case. I've had several meetings in the last few months with the interior truck loggers — independent operators in the interior of this province — as have other ministers and MLAs on the government side. The purpose of bringing the Workers Compensation Board under this section is to prevent the type of increases that they've had over the last year — indeed, the last two years, but especially this last year where some of their rates have gone from 3.6 percent to over 15 percent of their wages. To back up what the Minister of Finance says, this bill will not affect the claims of workers' compensation victims. It will not affect those who are suffering from diseases or affect the death benefits. As the minister said, these are indexed. What it will do is perhaps bring the Workers Compensation Board into line and into some sort of reality so that these independent operators in the interior — and probably elsewhere — can survive. If some sort of ceiling is not put on the increases that this organization is allowed to put forth every year, there won't be jobs for the workers to work at — it's as plain and simple as that. I want it to be clear and on the record that the workers' compensation increases have to be brought in line and this section of this bill is the vehicle by which we can do that.

MR. KING: Quite frankly, I wish that the Minister of Finance had been as forthcoming as the Minister of Tourism is, because now we receive the real motivation for this particular bill. That motivation is to prevent the increase in levies to employers in the province. The minister acknowledges that by limiting those assessments and unfunded liability increases to the point where it has been demonstrated it is actuarially unsound, the unfunded liability is too high. If the employers are not going to be assessed enough to service that unfunded liability and bring it within actuarial bounds, the next step is for the government to say to the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia: "You pay it." It will ultimately be loaded on the backs of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Nonsense!

MR. KING: Well, obviously you can't have it both ways. It's similar to ICBC. The government tells us that they have to charge us rates commensurate with the experience rating. So the rates for automobile insurance accelerate each year to service the cost of the claims. That is precisely the purpose and the practice of the Workers Compensation Board. They have to collect the necessary assessments to service the calls on pension disbursements on injury time-loss benefit claims to the workers.

It's an experience-rating, system with a penalty for those who flagrantly disregard safety standards. In the same way that we have a safe-driving benefit for automobile users.

[ Page 9578 ]

Those who flagrantly defy the rules of road safety lose their safe-driving discount. So it is with employers. If they flagrantly violate the standards of safety in the workplace, they are assessed a penalty. It is all, to an extent, an experience rating system.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) says the board is not going to be allowed to collect enough assessments to service the debt and the projected call upon funds to disburse pensions for widows, injured workers and their dependants, victims of industrial disease and for all those things which the Workers Compensation Board was established back in 1937.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You weren't listening when I was talking.

MR. HOWARD: The government has admitted that their concern is to prevent the employers from paying that insurance fund to protect the workers' benefits. If they freeze it at this level, the unfunded liability increases and the security of the pension funds for the claimants is jeopardized. There's only one other area from which the money can come to fund and secure those benefits to the workers of the province: from the general revenue fund of the province of British Columbia; from the taxpayers' pockets. Direct taxation to bail out the employers that the Minister of Tourism plaintively moans about.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Have you talked to the loggers up in your riding?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed. For those employers classified in groups who feel that they are being rated too high, there is an appeal mechanism, on which I have represented employers in processing. I doubt that the neophyte member for Kamloops has, or perhaps he is not even aware of that appeal process.

The point is that the rating system is set on experience. If you have a good record of safety and a low ratio of accident experience, then your assessments are adjusted accordingly. This government, by the rather naive comments of the Minister of Tourism, who gave the game away, is saying: "Look, there's no free lunch for anyone else. You have to pay your automobile insurance on the basis of your driving record. You have to pay your life insurance on the basis of what your age and experience rating for that classification is. But when it comes to safety, industrial disease and the loss of limbs in the workplaces of the province of British Columbia, that's not the employer's responsibility anymore. We're going to have the taxpayer bail them out." I disagree with that. That's what the minister said.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I did not.

MR. HOWARD: The minister said: "We are going to limit the assessments on behalf of employers, in defiance of the reality of the experience." He didn't say that it was going to come out of the tax fund, but where else can it come from? Either you defer it so that employers in the future will have to bear a heavier risk, or you bail it out of general revenue on the taxpayer's back, unless what we have here is a throwback to Major Douglas's Social Credit and they're going to manufacture some other kind of currency. I suppose that that's a possibility: the A plus B theorem.

It would have been better had the Minister of Finance been forthcoming enough to acknowledge that this was just a straight move to relieve the employers of assessments necessary to fund their own performance in terms of safety in the workplace. They can't have it both ways. They can't have him, on the one hand, say, "Yes, we're concerned and sensitive about the security of pensions and benefits to injured workers throughout the province," while on the other hand he says: "We're going to relieve the burden of real experience from the employers." That's a bit too crass for anyone to accept.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I feel that since the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has taken what I said and seen fit to twist it to suit his own needs, I must respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask you to withdraw the word "twist," please. It's unparliamentary.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: All right — convoluted to suit his own needs. It's quite obvious to me that he hasn't talked to the independent operators in his riding, as I have, because I made no mention of an increase that had anything to do with the performance of the private operator as to safety. I'm talking about an increase in assessments, where the employer's safety record has not changed at all; it is as good this year as it was last year, yet his assessment has tripled and quadrupled, and in some cases is five times higher than in the previous year. I also mentioned that we have no intention of trying to alter benefit payments for those injured, those diseased, etc.

I should also point out that I was putting this remark on the record to echo the sentiments of the independent truck loggers. I met with about 30 of them, and they are very concerned about their livelihood and the livelihoods of the hundreds of people who work for them. I think this section of the bill will enable many of them to stay working and in business. It's a short-term bill, as has been pointed out many times. If the Workers Compensation Board has to live within these guidelines for a short period until the economy of the forest industry turns around, I think that will be a good thing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I listened with some dismay to the comments made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). I guess that member has not yet got the message that constraint is necessary in all endeavours in British Columbia, that some difficult economic times exist not only for government but for people in all sectors of our economy. He seems to think only two factors go into determining what Workers Compensation Board levies must be: the money coming in and the claims paid out. There is another very big factor: the cost of running a workers' compensation board in British Columbia. By constraining their revenues, perhaps we can enforce some efficiencies in that organization so that funds can be saved.

As the members know, I worked for a number of years for the inspection branch of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources in British Columbia, where we were amazed at the seemingly bottomless pit of money that the Workers Compensation Board had to pay out in the operation of their business. Certainly there are many efficiencies that could be

[ Page 9579 ]

brought into their operation, which would have no detrimental effect whatsoever on the safety of workers in the workplace or on the amounts of money paid out to claimants under the Workers Compensation Act. If all we accomplish by doing this is to force some semblance of efficiency on the Workers Compensation Board, that in itself would be very worthwhile.

I must reject the amendment and I support the bill as it stands.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.] I think the committee will appreciate the need for the amendment. It adds the words "including any interim rate level in place" after the words "rate level" appearing on the fifth line of the section.

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

MR. STUPICH: I move the amendment to line 13 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

I was intrigued when the Minister of Finance was responding to the comments that were being made with respect to section 1. He kept saying that perhaps some of this argument would be more appropriate in section 2. It led me to believe that maybe he would have some response to these arguments in section 2 that he thought wasn't appropriate in section 1, and I wonder if he wants to say anything at this point.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the amendment, perhaps I did not convey completely or accurately what I had in mind. I expected that there would be further debate on section 2. The member was not in for much of the debate on section 1, but perhaps he was listening. We did have quite a spirited debate, and I don't want to reflect on that vote. The government does not accept the amendment proposed by the member for Nanaimo. I refer to line 13, section 2, the deletion of the words "Workers Compensation Board."

MR. STUPICH: Just to clarify, I did move the amendment to line 13 first because if this fails I intend not to move the other amendments. The situation with respect to the Workers Compensation Board is so bad in the event that this legislation is implemented that I wouldn't want to proceed with the other amendments. So I am moving this amendment. I'm not sure whether any of my colleagues want to discuss it any further. I thought the arguments were very well raised during the debate that I listened in to. I also though, the arguments were much better than the responses. At this point, all I can say is that I do wish the minister would delete the reference to the Workers Compensation Board. I can't put the case any better than it has been made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment, the Chair will recognize the member for Skeena. First of all, I'll clarify two things for the record. The amendment as proposed by the hon. member is in order, but the Chair must observe that it is a companion amendment to another amendment that has failed. Perhaps debate could be brief.

MR. HOWARD: What do you mean by that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could be offending standing orders, which advise us against tedious repetition, hon. member. That is my only comment and only an observation to the committee.

MR. HOWARD: We certainly wouldn't do that. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might — he's noted for that kind of activity — but we wouldn't.

Over quite a number of years the Workers Compensation Board has been building up and increasing the amount of unfunded liability with respect to pensions. It has been increasing year after year. The reason that it has been increasing is that the board has not been levying assessments appropriate to the injuries caused and the demands that those injuries will place on the fund for pensionable earnings and pensionable income in future years. That has been happening consistently, whether times were good or times were bad. One would expect, in a period of high economic activity with lots of money rolling in, when industry has so much money that they don't know what to do with it, that the board would have looked at it and said: "Now we can move to reduce some of this unfunded liability." But it didn't do it and it's now to the level of some $500 million: at least, that is how I read what the Workers Compensation Board itself has set.

Insistently, Mr. Chairman, over that same period of time, particularly over the last six years, different employers' groups, and maybe even individual employers, have made the case to this government — and have made the case and the argument publicly, but have made representations to this government — that the amount of that unfunded liability of

[ Page 9580 ]

$500 million should be covered out of the public purse. Employers have made those arguments. This government has on record in its files letters and correspondence, documentation to that effect. It's a case that has been pushed for quite some time. The Provincial Secretary knows that. He's seen some of that correspondence, and maybe even participated in the discussion with employers' groups. They said to him: "Look, the unfunded liability can't be covered by industry, it's got to be covered from the public treasury;" in other words, a tax load upon the people of this province to pay for injuries caused to workmen working in workplaces...where the employer — or groups of employers, where a group assessment existed — should have taken place.

The evidence given to this committee earlier by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), both of whom are conspicuous at this moment by their absence from the chamber, indicates that that's the direction in which this government is going. It is not interested, apparently, in having industry, which is responsible under the Workers Compensation Act for providing sufficient funds to pay pensions for workmen injured in the workplace.... It is not interested in covering it in that fashion; it's interested in giving in to the pressure of various employers' groups, much of it presented in private to this government that's giving in to that pressure. We will see the taxpayers of this province picking up the tab for that unfunded liability if this government either has its way or continues in office. I think that has to be put on the record as a countering comment to the inaccurate information given to the House by the Minister of Forests, and the very accurate information given to the House by the Minister of Tourism when he stated the purpose of this particular amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm rising to speak against this amendment. We've heard arguments this morning dealing with benefits, and heard the incorrect, uninformed expressions of opinion from the members of the opposition on the backs of the workers of this province, saying they won't get their benefits. They brought their argument that the families of the workers will be affected, and the working working people will be affected by decreases in the standard of benefits. One comment was that those people who rely on WCB for their benefits would be affected in such a way that they could not meet their living expenses.

The standards of protection, which have been mentioned time and time again by the Minister of Finance and others, are not to be changed, and that should again be for the record. I'm only repeating what the Minister of Tourism has said, what the Minister of Finance has said, and what the Minister of Forests has said. We must recognize that this is a short-term interim measure, no different from that for other Crown corporations and the Crown agencies mentioned in this bill. It's a challenge to those corporations and those commissions, in this case the workers compensation commission. It says to them: "Maintain your assessments within reason on this short-term basis." It doesn't say anywhere in here that benefits to employees are going to be changed.

I find it very disconcerting on this side of the House to listen to the balderdash that comes from the member for Skeena and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. They use the people, and it's not right, Mr. Chairman. It's unfair to the public of this province to hear that type of debate. If they want to argue the point as to whether or not you change the assessment or you should maintain the current assessment, I'll accept that, but don't ride on the backs of the working people, the injured and the sick in this province. You do it time and time again, and it's unfair to the people of this province to hear that type of business.

Let's look at the rationale of why we're putting this short-term measure into place. The Minister of Tourism was dead on. He said that the truck loggers whom he talked to have had excellent records of safety on the job. They haven't had an increase in the frequency of accidents or in the cost of accidents, but they've seen their assessment go up and up. In this particular period of time, when their revenues are down or almost non-existent, we as government are saying to the WCB: "Keep your assessment within reason, because the people who pay the bill — employers, small businessmen, truck loggers — can't afford to pay the bill. So this year we give you at the Workers Compensation Board a challenge to keep your increase within reason, because the man who has to pay the bill in the end can't afford it. Look to efficiencies to achieve that goal." It's the same with ICBC: the challenge went out to them. They don't control the accident rate — but let's look to efficiencies and how we can do it. The WCB has been asked to do the same thing: try to achieve the goal of no more than a 6 percent increase.

It is a short-term measure and, as the members across the floor know, it specifies right in the bill that it's for the next 12 months. It is reassuring to those employers — truck loggers and other small businessmen — who look at their revenues.... If we can give them some reassurance that we're not going to hit them again and again with massive increases, maybe they can survive the short-term downturn in the economy; then, as their revenues increase, they can look forward to meeting the costs if their safety record indicates that they should pay more. They're the guys out there — the small businessmen and the truck loggers, as mentioned by the Minister of Tourism — who pay the cheques to the employees. If they aren't there, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — and you don't seem to understand this — they don't pay the employees' cheques, because they're out of business and their employees are out of work. One thing happens then, I guess, and that is that they aren't exposed to accidents on the job. Maybe that's what you'd like: everybody to go out of business so there is no risk of accident on the job. Is that what you want? Would that satisfy you? It probably would, because then you would think that the government would take care of everybody. You still don't understand that the government only pays out what it takes in from an economy that is working. You must recognize that, Mr. Member for Skeena. It's very difficult to get that message across to you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for straying off the particular amendment.

The point I want to make is that it is a short-term measure. It is put into place to give assistance to those people who in the end pick up the tab. I think that not only the employers out there who pick up the tab but also the employees who work for them should say: "Thank you for a job well done. You've given my employer some breathing space during which he can recover."

I guess the key to all this, in meeting this challenge, is that the Workers Compensation Board — its staff, employers and

[ Page 9581 ]

employees — should look at how to educate the employee or the employer on how to make the workplace a safer place to live. If we can do that, maybe we can see some reduction in the cost of workers' compensation premiums, because we've made the workplace safer.

I support my colleagues, the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance. In speaking out against the previous amendment and this amendment. In trying to put these amendments forward, all that the opposition has attempted to do is play politics, present their arguments on the backs of the working people of this province. I'm against this amendment.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs just now said that he wants to see a move in the direction of making the workplace a safer place to live. What does he mean by that kind of insulting remark? Obviously he thinks that people sleep on the job instead of work on the job. In any event, it indicates how little he and the minister know about it, especially when he referred to the Workers Compensation Board as the Workers Compensation Commission. I think it should go on the record, indicating that the minister is completely out of touch with reality, talking froth and foam, hopefully to assist the Minister of Finance in this shortsighted, not short-term, legislation. If I could put a word to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, you'd be better off without that backbench help from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I'll remind the committee once again that personal allusions and reflections on a member are not permitted. All members of the committee are aware of that, Perhaps we can return to some relevant debate.

MR. STUPICH: I didn't intend to go any further on this, but to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs try to do away with the arguments raised by the members of the opposition by saying, "That's balderdash; they're ill informed," and that we're simply playing politics.... I would suggest to him that the people speaking on this side of the House in this debate know a good deal more about Workers Compensation Board problems than does a Toronto-born accountant. Certainly the debate in this House so far would indicate that to be the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. members, personal reflections are not necessary and are not relevant.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I take away the statement that he's an accountant.

I wonder if that minister would consider the remarks on the Workers Compensation Board from the WCB chairman, Art Gibbons, to be ill-informed — if he would consider those to be the remarks from an ill-informed person who is simply playing politics. Certainly he had something to say about the subject as quoted in the Province, Friday, October 1:

"A government decision to restrict next year's WCB rate hikes to 6 percent will add at least another $14 million to the deficit. Gibbons said continued uncertainty over the extent of the proposed 6 percent limit is extremely frustrating and makes the planning of board operations difficult.

"At the same time, Vancouver lawyer Craig Patterson, who specializes in compensation cases" — that certainly doesn't indicate that he's ill-informed on the subject. Mr. Chairman: it would indicate to me that he has had some dealings with Workers Compensation Board problems — "said the deficit undoubtedly would skyrocket because of the assessment restrictions. He said this would have a chilling effect on decisions by WCB claims' officers."

That's the concern we have on this side of the House. It's not the concerned voice of people who are ill-informed, who lack information, who are playing politics; it's the voice from people who are concerned about the effect of this on the whole working of the Workers Compensation Board and in particular upon the claimants. That's why we moved this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Environment on a point of order.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Could I have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Today in Victoria a group of people are having a convention. One of them is my former boss, and he's in the gallery. The group is the Canadian Association of Retired Aviators, who will be meeting this evening, at the Empress Hotel. I'd like to introduce Captain Art Adamson, Captain Bill Marr and Captain Russell, all of whom are in the gallery. There are more, but I don't recognize all the faces right now. I'll also make an introduction at 2 o'clock. when I expect even more of their illustrious members to be here. They've invited me to join them tonight — I don't think there's a secret message in there. Thank you.

[ Page 9582 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, I was just wondering about the division list that was read out. Only 19 members of the opposition voted, and I'm sure that there must be more than them around....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. That is not a point of order. The division lists were read out, recording was asked for, and the record stands for itself.

MR. HOWARD: The opposition knew that the government was going to vote against workers' compensation probably, and they thought: "Why waste our time?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, both points of order are not points of order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the minister's boss that he keep the job open.

With respect to Section 2, I indicated earlier I would not move the remaining amendments because it would not be consistent with the arguments we've made with respect to the Workers Compensation Board. However, I would like to ask the minister: since the wording in this section is entirely permissive, what authority does this legislation give him in this section that he didn't have without this legislation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm pleased that the hon. member for Nanaimo has raised the point, because.... It was dealt with in second reading. We were quite clearly advised that in a number of areas, without this legislation, an order-in-council would fail. That does not apply across the board in all matters dealt with in section 2, but is sufficient to have indicated that the need for legislation was quite clear. I trust that answers the member's question.

MR. STUPICH: It does in the legal sense, but may I ask the minister: is the cabinet not represented on every one of these authorities with one or more cabinet members? Is there not message-bearing back and forth? Does the cabinet not in fact have control over these situations, even though the legal advice may be that an order-in-council, as such, would fail if the board of directors had the temerity to disagree with the cabinet will?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Specifically, the cabinet is not represented on all of the agencies or Crown corporations listed here. One in particular has been the subject of relatively lengthy debate this morning. At the same time, the message, I think, which we wish to carry in this message bill is one which we wanted to be absolutely upfront with with the public of the province, with the people we serve, with the chairmen, directors and senior management of the several corporations concerned. Quite apart from the legal necessity for this legislation, on the basis of our legislative counsel and advisers, we also wanted to highlight it in order that that which we are frequently accused of — that is, decisions made in the closeted secrecy of cabinet and in the closed boardrooms.... We wanted to be very upfront with this legislation. That is why it is before us.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to hold it up any longer. What I heard the minister saying was that it is really an illustration of deathbed repentance. Having increased most user rates by something like 50 percent, having increased all of the other government services and fees of one kind or another — we don't have a better figure yet, but it's estimated that it will bring in an extra half billion dollars this year from taxpayers — they've now said that they've gone so far and they're not going to go any further for a little while, and this is our insurance that we won't.

MRS. WALLACE: I get a bit perturbed when I hear the minister talking about this being upfront. Certainly that's exactly what this bill is: a piece of political manoeuvring to get this in front of the public at a time when they're planning an election. I know just how direct the controls of expenditures were in the years that I worked with budgets at B.C. Hydro. The government laid it on, and we had to follow those directions. It came right out of cabinet. I remember the kind of directions we received during the Columbia River fiasco as a result of cabinet decisions on how our financing would be accounted for. We were asked to raise special job orders to charge out to any unexpended or underexpended accounts that we happened to have so that that money could be funnelled into Columbia River. That was a direct order out of cabinet. Those are the kinds of things that the government has always been able to do with Hydro and with all these organizations. This is nothing but a political piece of legislation for partisan political purposes. It really bothers me that the government can come out with this kind of a bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would just say with all kindness to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that times have changed with respect to B.C. Hydro. I indicated the Workers Compensation Board. In answering the earlier question posed by the member for Nanaimo, I neglected to mention that clearly, if you would examine the municipalities and regional districts with respect to rates imposed under British Columbia Transit, that is yet another example of where there is not direct control available to the executive council.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Rate Increase Restraint Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the discussion proposal for a new expropriation act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 9583 ]

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: This bill, probably more than any other that we have seen, is a political bill, drafted in political terminology and phrases and not drafted in the normal, standard legalese used by learned gentlemen who draft legislation. It's a bill prepared by those evil geniuses in the Premier's office rather than by people in the Ministry of Education.

Let me relate a story to you. Mr. Speaker, a week ago this past Sunday, before the bill was introduced, I had occasion to speak with someone in the government service who knew what was going on. He said: "If you think what the Minister of Education" — he used his name — "has done to education so far, wait till you see what Bill Bennett is going to do to it."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some undisclosed secret source making up stories?

MR. HOWARD: Well, I know the minister would like me to tell him who told me that information, because the first thing the Minister of Forests would do would be to jump on that public servant and have him fired. He wants me to disclose sources of information so he can visit upon defenceless public servants the full force of his office — just the same as his government has done to other people in the public service who dared to express opinions about government and disagreement with government activities.

That's what I was told: "If you think Vander Zalm has dealt unfairly with education, wait until you see what Bennett does to it."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: I quote what the person told me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member. I appreciate that, but we have certain rules that we must abide by, and one of them is that....

MR. HOWARD: All right. I am prohibited then from reading a letter in which the names of those two gentlemen are included. You see, it's a....

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. member, but reference....

MR. HOWARD: This is what the person told me. That was a week ago Sunday — before the bill was introduced — from somebody in the inside who knew what was happening.

It is a political document. Read the phrases in it. It talks about such things as quality and diversity — beautiful phrases, not found in law, not found in a statute, nothing unless you identify what you mean by quality of education. It's of no consequence in a legal sense or in an interpretative sense of a statute if you don't identify in the statute what is meant by diversity of education. In this particular bill, there is no such interpretative section that tells you what quality and diversity means. It's unclear. It's political declaration, which is fine as long as we recognize what it is.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I understand — reading a portion of the bill — that the definitions in the School Act and the regulations apply to this act. The School Act in its definition has no indication about what quality or diversity of education is. No. Mr. Speaker, it's a political document written by a politician for crass, partisan, immediate political purposes — hoped-for political purposes. It didn't come off.

The political purpose was to divide. They would have such a state of division out there they would have allies on one side but not allies on the other, and the government would be able to move in and function in that kind of atmosphere and expect some support. Mr. Speaker, the minister probably knows this better than anyone else, but that's one of the things that the communist party does and that the communist forces like to function on: chaos, misery, turmoil — and then they come along as the saviours. In this instance we've got the chaos, the misery and the turmoil created by the same guy who hopes to benefit by it.

I said yesterday that I intended to relate something to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and how he has contributed to this. We're talking about a S60 million cutback in school board budgets, a $60 million cutback in funds normally available from the government to school boards. Why $60 million — an arbitrary figure? Is that what the Minister of Finance told us — "you can't have $60 million" — or what? Let me tell you why it's $60 million. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the reason for at least $45 million of that $60 million; let's set this out in clear, simple terms.

On March 31 this year, in order to cover up the real costs of northeast coal; in order to cover the fact that the taxpayers of this province are going to subsidize the Japanese steel industry and provide jobs for workers in Japan in the steel industry; in order to cover that up, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development on March 31 spirited $45 million out of the public treasury. He wrote a cheque and sent it over to B.C. Rail on March 31. Never mind what B.C. Rail did with it. They didn't know what to do with it, because they did not get a covering letter to say what it was for. Here the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, intent upon covering up the subsidy that the taxpayers of this province are making to northeast coal and the Japanese steel industry, took $45 million out of the public treasury — took it away and gave it to B.C. Rail. They're $45 million short that way.

In July, along comes the Minister of Education, who says: "Hey, we're short that $45 million. I wish I had it." He didn't have it. because it had been given away to B.C. Rail. If he'd had the $45 million, for argument's sake, that he, the current Minister of Education — he wasn't the minister then — approved to send to B.C. Rail, he would't have had to be looking for $60 million here. He could have found the extra $15 million, and there would not have been any cutbacks in education or any chaos created and added to or any turmoil developed within the educational system.

Who's going to pay for that? School kids, who need to have the best possible education they can get, and school boards through the turmoil and confusion that's existed in school boards. I've talked to school board managers, secretary-treasurers who have done nothing this year except try to rework their budgets as demanded by the provincial government. They haven't had time to deal with what they are charged to deal with; namely, the administration of the delivery services of education. No wonder they get frustrated.

[ Page 9584 ]

Another order comes along every week: change this, work that out, do something else. The ones I've spoken with have gotten to the stage of being fed up with the intrusion. Education is suffering because those administrators and the school boards themselves have had to put their regular, normal commitment about the delivery of educational services to one side, all to rework their finances as demanded by the minister.

Education demands some careful, rational thought. It demands planning, coordination and projections into the future as to what we expect will accrue to children who start at kindergarten, grade 1 or even preschool. What do we expect will accrue to those children when they get through their education, at whatever level it might be that they decide that that's enough and they have reached their objective? That requires preparation, coordination and planning. It requires long-term concern and commitment. It requires a philosophic commitment towards education, ourselves and to our society. That is virtually non-existent, and has been virtually non-existent in this province because of actions of this government, going back over quite a number of years.

In 1975, before this government came to office, we had an election campaign. Social Credit — that amalgam of the flotsam and jetsam and leftovers of other political parties like the Liberals and the Conservatives and the hangers-on and everybody else who wanted to get in on the act, or sell out their own party — ran an election campaign. Even the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who at one time cuddled up to Pierre Trudeau — we have pictures showing that — felt it was better to divorce himself from Trudeau. I don't blame him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You lost in '75 and '79, and you're going to lose again.

MR. HOWARD: We lost in '75, you said. Yes. And the Social Credit government won in '75. One of the reasons that Social Credit won, Mr. Speaker, is that they told a lot of falsehoods to the people. That's one of the reasons Social Credit won. Falsehoods! Here's the 1975 policy of Social Credit — that conspiracy of anti-democratic forces. This is what they would do. "We would return authority to local school boards."

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's right. Point number one.

"We in the British Columbia Social Credit Party believe that meaningful educational policies can only be developed in cooperation with local school boards."

Vote for us and we'll have cooperation, they said. The first thing they did was appoint that brain from the University of British Columbia as the Minister of Education — Dr. McGeer. He did more to injure education in this province than all the Ministers of Education put together since we entered Confederation — if we had them in 1871. That's the first thing they did.

"It can only be developed in cooperation with local school boards. After all" — and this is in italics, drawn to your attention so that it leaps out at you out of this election leaflet of 1975 — "the local school trustees have been elected by the people of their own area. They know the area and they're responsive. We would therefore return authority to local school boards."

Now they're taking it away, not returning it. And it's this kind of falsehood that was presented to the electorate by the Social Credit Party and people.... I can't mention his name, Mr. Chairman; that's contrary to the rules. I'll read it:

"The following is a copy of Blurp, Blurp Talks About Education."

Blurp-blurp currently holds a seat in this Legislature. Blurp-Blurp comes from Kelowna; he talks about education. This is the statement of the leader of the Social Credit Party in 1975. It goes along on that kind of theme. How they would increase direct payments, decrease costs, decentralize bureaucracy, return things to the local level — "better quality of education for our young people," etc. Now that's 1975.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member should be advised that his time is nearing the end.

MR. HOWARD: I'm keeping my eye on the lights. I have to watch those, like traffic signals, and they don't indicate to me what you were saying just now.

Here's a letter from Brian Matheson, chairman of the board of school trustees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise the hon. member that the lights went on by mistake. There is more time for your speech.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government has got control of the lights. They go on by mistake. That's the whole function of this government — whatever it does it does by mistake. We're dealing with a bill here that can't be classified as a mistake. It's a deliberate intrusion.

Here's what School District 19 says: "Our district staff had to set aside much of its normal educationally-oriented workload to deal with this government-generated crisis." That's not me speaking; I'm quoting from a letter from Brian Matheson, chairman of the board of school trustees, addressed to the Hon. Blurp-Blurp-Blurp — I can't mention his name — Minister of Education. In case there is any doubt, it goes to Victoria. It says: Dear Mr. Blurp-blurp-blurp.... Financial resources, school districts." The letter goes on at some length: "In summary, the board was not pleased with your ministry's management of restraint. We recognize the need to live within our means. We also believe we have a responsibility to our public and our employees...that we will honour our commitments and deliver a service commensurate with our public mandate" etc. I have letters like that from school districts in my constituency, all saying substantially the same thing — namely, that this bill is a political document, written by evil geniuses in the Premier's office, if not by the Premier himself; that it places education in jeopardy; that it attacks school children and their possibility of acquiring a meaningful education. It does nothing in any substantive way to get us on the road to paying attention to that which we are all committed, at least on this side of the House: an educational system of which all British Columbians can be proud.

They are not now proud of the educational system, because there have been politically oriented intrusions into the delivery of education. They are not proud of it, because school boards — witness the letter I just read, and many other letters of that nature exist.... They are not proud of it, because they see their school boards having to spend all their time reworking their budgets, as demanded by the ministry I don't know how many times this year. They are not proud of the type of educational system that we have, because they see

[ Page 9585 ]

school boards being forced to put aside their normal commitments to the quality of education in this province, in order to deal with the demands placed on them by a government that has scant interest in a decent educational system in this province. The people in this province are not proud of the educational system when they see the attempt, through this bill, to foment trouble and discord between teachers and school boards, of an attempt being made through this bill to develop lack of harmony and disharmonious relationships between parents and teachers and between parents and school boards. That's why they are not proud of it. That's why I couldn't possibly vote for this particular bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's certainly been a pleasant change to see the opposition get up and take part in the debate for the last day, and for just a little now. Certainly up until Friday it appeared as if they not only wanted to avoid debate, but wanted to see the bill passed without their really being attached to its passage in any way. I guess they got the message over the weekend from the BCTF, saying: "Look, fellows. Get into the debate. We have to hear you say that in fact you side with us, the BCTF. In our attempts to kill the bill so that we'll not have to participate and contribute to the restraint program in any way, shape or form."

I suppose what we saw yesterday and again today was a plea by the members opposite, on behalf of the BCTF and from the people of British Columbia, for more money, which the people of British Columbia unfortunately don't have, but which the opposition wishes not to recognize. It's certainly good, however, to have them come out in the open and see that given the choice between the BCTF or the people of British Columbia and a reasonable approach to restraint and an economic recovery in British Columbia, they'll give in to the pressures put on them over the weekend and side with the BCTF.

I want to continue this debate, Mr. Speaker. However, as we've run out of time. I move we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

81 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 81) intituled Rate Increase Restraint Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 2, by adding, "including any interim rate level, in place" after "rate level

81 Mr. Stupich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 81) intituled Rate Increase Restraint Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, line 2, delete the words "workers' compensation''.

SECTION 2, line 2, delete the word "may" and substitute therefore the word "shall".

SECTION 2, lines 3 and 4, delete the words "one or more".

SECTION 2, line 13, delete the words "Workers' Compensation Board."