[ Page 6683 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 51: minister's office –– 6683

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Davis

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hanson

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID: On behalf of the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) and myself, I'd like to welcome to the precinct today William and Zena Wimmer from California, Richard and Trudy Terpstra from California, and Bill and Mae Good, retired, from sunny Surrey.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, hopefully there will be 30 grade 7 students here shortly from Assumption School in Powell River, along with some teachers and parents. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, firstly I would just draw to the attention of all members that we will he sitting tomorrow afternoon. That being the case, I ask leave that the Public Accounts and Economic Affairs Committee might meet while the House is in session, commencing at 3 p.m. precisely.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 51: minister's office, $210,175.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), before adjournment yesterday evening, brought up the question of the report on the future apprenticeship in British Columbia. I've had an opportunity to review the report, and the area that the member talked about, consideration for giving funding to employers across the province to assist in maintaining the traditional number of apprentices in our system, is under active consideration in the Ministry of Labour. The member is quite accurate in saying that British Columbia has one of the finest apprenticeship programs in all of Canada, which has been the model for a number of other provinces across the country. All of the participants are to be congratulated for making it the fine program that it is.

The member also came up with an innovative idea, I thought, and one that will be given consideration, and that is in the area of public compensation for individuals who go out and risk themselves in the form of rescue of other individuals who are in impending disaster. So I will take that under advisement from the hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: There were, I think, just two other things that the minister hasn't dealt with. One was the correspondence that I mentioned from the Teamsters in respect to armored car staff levels. The other issue is the whole question of builders lien and definition of wages and first priority on moneys and bankruptcies — that kind of issue.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I thought I answered the question to the hon. member yesterday with respect to the builders lien and wages and pension benefits and so on. It is a very complex area. My caucus colleagues have been meeting with members of the construction trade unions on this and have passed me some information that was presented by them — in particular by Fred Randall from the operating engineers. We are currently reviewing that situation. It involves the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and provincial legislation and so on. I have sent a letter to the federal minister asking him to give consideration to changing federal statutes, and my ministry staff are currently reviewing the situation with respect to how it impacts on the province. So that is currently under active consideration within the ministry, and I have passed along to the government of Canada our request for them to consider it as well.

The area of Loomis is again one that is a bit complex. It involves the provisions of collective bargaining, and the parties are currently going through that process. I hope that they will be able to resolve the issue through the collective bargaining process.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as probably some of the more astute people in the chamber have noted, we have divided responsibilities now in terms of different aspects of ministers' responsibilities. I was the lucky one in the draw, and I caught WCB on its way by, probably the last government service that anyone would want to criticize. One would love to find WCB in a plus column, but you can't. It was set up in such a way as to see to it that there would be no tort, no suing over accidents of employers by their workers. If there's anything that's ever told me that, when we think of ICBC and no-fault in that particular situation, all we have to do is look over our shoulder at WCB and think in terms of the troubles that every MLA in this precinct has with that operation. They've been at it since 1969, so that's 16 years; and if I had a dollar for every case that's come across my desk, I could very easily retire and live like a Socred.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're going to retire anyway.

MR. COCKE: The member from Columbia is wishful thinking at the moment. We've been looking across the floor at one another for so long in this assembly that we would be sorely missed, Jim. When you go, I go.

Mr. Chairman. there has been some potential for improvement. To begin with, the boards of review were a good concept, but the boards were themselves reviewed in 1981. In 1981 it was suggested by Price Waterhouse that if nothing was done to resolve the problems with boards of review, we would have, in 1985, a list of 4,000 people waiting to have their appeals before the boards of review. And guess what. We have 4,600. So not only was nothing done, it went backwards. It got worse.

[10:15]

It got worse. I suppose it's not really fair to talk about the departed, but I don't think that the last chairperson of the boards of review did us any good, and I understand he's been removed from that position. If he hasn't, then he should be. I say that, and I very seldom speak out in terms of a public servant. But I'll tell you, that process.... The WCB has been going down the tube because of the fact that the workers in this province haven't access to a proper appeal procedure.

[ Page 6684 ]

It's worse than it was years ago when they didn't have that appeal procedure, because at least then WCB used to have to carry the can themselves. Now they've got the appeal structure to fall back on.

I suggest that this has to be improved very quickly. Now I've heard what the minister's been saying, and I've noted that he's been going around talking to different groups — health and safety committees, trade unions, management and others — that are directly involved in this particular situation. But now is the time for action. I noted that the minister has announced.... I suspect that the minute his estimates are gone, he'll be bringing in the legislation that he announced yesterday. That legislation, it would appear, will not be the legislation that was rumoured earlier this year — and thank heaven for that.

I want to talk to the minister for a moment or two about the regulations. The new regulations that came down on December 24 were to complement other legislation that hasn't come forward, and I think that the minister had better re-examine the December.... I know it was very close to Christmas: a very smooth bit of footwork, Mr. Chairman. You'll note that that's very close to Christmas, and people aren't necessarily reading their papers, nor are they politically involved at that moment. That's one of the times of the year when governments often see fit to do things that they might otherwise not do.

I suggest that those regulations are not complementary, and they are certainly not complementary to a constructive, productive direction that I suspect just may be the result of this new minister. Thankfully, for a change, we have a minister who has not only been directly involved in the workplace but also the recipient, no doubt, of a great many WCB concerns and actual cases. You couldn't represent a very large area such as the Kootenays without the obvious number of WCB claims.

Mr. Chairman, I have many of the same concerns that I've had for a very long time. For instance, farmworkers are completely outside the ambit of WCB — not only WCB but also any kind of health and safety provisions. I know that there has been something of a Mickey Mouse setup whereby there is to be some educating of farmers as to what safe procedures are and so on. But as members of this assembly we continually get reports about people going onto a farmsite and finding, to their dismay, pesticides out in the open, without any kind of control, and people applying those pesticides without any kind of training. The Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) said some one or two years ago — I won't quote him directly, but I will try to paraphrase what he said — that Hydro is not the great danger in this province in terms of pesticide use; it's the farmers. If that's the case, then the health and safety branch of WCB had better get to work. I believe the minister should see to it that they get to work.

It's interesting to me that yesterday we got another report from the ombudsman. They're flying pretty heavy right now — one a day. Let's see what happens today. This one concerns a number of Workers' Compensation Board cases. I'm not going to go over them, but I have read them over yesterday afternoon and last evening. This is the kind of thing that I think brings to our attention the problems that we face with this whole area of WCB.

Too many times they have ignored their responsibility. You can't blame the WCB, as far as farmworkers are concerned; it is a government responsibility to put them into that particular area. You can blame the WCB for safety in the woods. I shouldn't say "blame," but I think that you can talk about what they're doing and not doing. I don't think that they're out there in the numbers that are necessary to keep down the accident rate. There has been an improvement in terms of the accidents in those areas, but not enough.

I think in terms of the police in our country. I have a brother who is a superintendent in the police force, so I know a little bit about the police and the dangers that they face, but they're relatively safe compared to people working in construction or people working in the woods. I've seen actuarial tables that show that. I think, Mr. Chairman, that that's something that we'd better be cognizant of.

I noted that there have been some meetings between the president of the IWA, Jack Munro, and the minister. And I've noted that there has been a little bit of friction, not real tough friction but a little bit of friction. I think it's because of things like "safety in the woods stressed by WCB managers" that we're always faced with in this province. That particular union is particularly faced with those problems. So I would suggest there are two areas — and many more — as far as beefing up; and that would be in the woods and then getting onto the farms.

There are a few areas that I wanted to discuss for a moment or two as well. I believe it's time to get rid of every single solitary board doctor — every single solitary one of them. Now that sounds funny coming from this side of the House, but I would rather contract that work out to a larger group than that group that's in there now. I have seen so many cases where it's dead evident that it's a compensable case, and what do we find? We find those board doctors do nothing but spend all of their waking hours trying to figure out ways of squirming out of it.

MR. GABELMANN: They'd starve if it was fee for service.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: That's right. They would starve to death.

I see my green light is on. I think I'll give the minister some time to give me a couple of replies, but I really wish.... I know it's going to be tough, but I really wish somebody would take that whole question in hand about those board doctors. They've been there.... It's a sinecure. They're there for life, or as long as they want to be, and they keep the claims down. I just don't think that's fair to the workers in this province. I think that if a person is injured and it seems to be compensable, then you don't have to have a bunch of employees sitting there trying to rationalize reasons for not paying them.

There are lots of specialists out there, and I bet it would be far, far less expensive for Workers' Compensation to just send the claimant to a specialist or for a second opinion or whatever. I don't think you need that bunch of doctors. Maybe you need one for just giving a general idea about how things are done and so on and so forth in medical practice, but to have that flock in there.... I think that we're really, really on the wrong street.

So there you are, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to hear from the minister a bit.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I want to thank the member for New Westminster for his comments, and I beg leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 6685 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In the precincts this morning, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Carl E. Sorensen, Oregon director for the United States Department of Labor. I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome.

Mr. Chairman, to the member for New Westminster, the member and I have had a number of discussions about the boards of review, and he has expressed his concern to me both inside the House and outside. The member is aware, of course, of the discussion that I had yesterday with representatives of industry and trade unions — the parties of interest with respect to the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board and the boards of review. Over the course of the past three months, since my appointment as Minister of Labour, I have undertaken that particular area as a high priority and have gone out out across the province and talked to the individuals who work on the shop floor across the province of British Columbia in many industries, many hospitals, plants and factories, and I intend to continue that process even after the Legislature adjourns.

The area of the boards of review was a concern of mine, along with all of my colleagues in caucus and, I know, many of your colleagues as well. In fact, all MLAs have had visits to their offices by individuals who have had to wait far too long for an appeal. So what we have decided to do is to move forward as quickly as we can to streamline the appeal process, and that act, I hope, will be coming to the Legislature today or tomorrow. I hope we can get it passed before the House rises. So it's my hope that once appropriate personnel are found, we will be able to put in a system that will respond to the needs of all of our constituents across the province.

Some of the other areas that the member brought up in discussion. The member talked about regulations and the use of pesticides, the area of accident prevention and so on, and even doctors in board offices. That is why, in a sense, I wanted to get more participation by the various representatives of the constituents of interest on a board of directors that would run the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board, thereby giving both constituents of interest an opportunity to set regulations, and an opportunity to improve the accident inspection and prevention process across our province and to implement regulations and so on and so forth. There is still a bit of fear out in the community with respect to how the board of directors should operate, so we've decided not to proceed with it at this particular time, and will retain the current commissioner process at least for the time being.

[10:30]

What I have asked is that the constituents of interest set up an ad hoc committee that would be available to give me advice and give the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board regular advice on areas where they see that we should be moving and in what direction. I hope that they will pick up on that offer and perhaps develop a trust that will be able to see the direction given and hope that we will be able to put aside the old suspicion and emotion that exists out in the community with respect to labour-management problems, which quite often can be resolved if we have an opportunity to sit down and talk about them.

So I want them to undertake that, and I told them yesterday that I will facilitate any resolution that they bring forward that will help all of our constituents, theirs and ours. I think our feeling is mutual in that area.

Pesticides is a serious problem, and it's an area that I haven't had that much time to spend on since I've become minister, but I will have time to spend some time on it once the House adjourns.

The ombudsman's report that the member talked about and a number of reports that will be coming into the Legislature over the next little while.... I have set up a process whereby the ombudsman will be able to come to my office, come in and sit down and discuss the nature of his report. The process that we have set up is that the ombudsman must initially take his report to the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board for discussion. Failing resolution at that level, then the ombudsman will come in and sit down with my ministry staff and me and go over the report, and if there are areas in that report that we feet that the ombudsman is justified in criticizing, then we will accommodate the ombudsman's concerns.

One of the areas mentioned in the report that the member talks about is an area, quite frankly, that.... I have a lot of sympathy for an individual who got bad advice from an adjudicator in the Workers' Compensation offices and had to go out and spend $900 of his own money to take it to court. I have a lot of sympathy in that particular case. The question then comes up: how do you pay? There is, I guess, an opportunity in the act to go out and pay that particular bill. But at a time when everybody is concerned about rights and freedoms, how do you go and pay it without opening the door and the floodgate to other groups or other parties of interest that would want the same thing? In that particular case, I've got a great deal of sympathy for the individual and would like to be able to accommodate that. It's an area that is of ongoing discussion within the ministry and my staff.

The board doctors. I have asked for an analysis of each Worker's Compensation regional office throughout the province to see where the buildup of appeal cases is. While the board doctors don't make decisions with respect to whether an individual should get compensation or not, without question they are in a position to influence the adjudicators and give them advice in a particular area. So that is currently under review, and where action is required it will be taken.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, first let's deal with that case that the minister is talking about: the person who was broke, got a lawyer and charged up the time. He didn't do that to go after a claim with WCB. He was told by an employee of WCB that they were going to charge him with fraud. The only way he could defend himself was to get a lawyer.

I don't think you're opening up any floodgates either. I think that there is a lot of merit in a number of these cases; I'm not saying all of them. But I'll tell you something, that's one that I think.... You have the power in your act to pay that bill. There's no question about that. Even if you haven't, as a minister "ex gratia" is always a word that they use, and it can be done.

I just can't believe it. Here's a guy that was told that he was going to be charged with fraud. He knew perfectly well he was absolutely innocent, and what are you going to do at a time like that? Broke or not, you're certainly going to have to get a lawyer, because that is not a charge that one takes lightly. So he had no choice. He was caught in an absolute trap. Mr.

[ Page 6686 ]

Chairman, I agree, and I can see why the minister is sympathetic over that one particular case.

Anyway, I'm not going to deal with all the cases that the ombudsman did. We can all read, and I think a lot of thoughtful work has gone into that report and other reports that he's done. But anyway, that's as far as I want to go with that particular thing.

It's interesting too, on this ombudsman situation — let the record show that he was denied access to the boards of review. He had to take them to court. It cost $45,000 or more. That was the decision made by the chairman of the boards of review, and it was a predictable loser. Naturally he has access to Workers' Compensation. If he doesn't, what's the good of having an ombudsman? When that is probably one of the most sensitive areas of government responsibility, to say that the ombudsman shouldn't have access would be nonsense. Had the act that was brought in by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations not permitted the ombudsman access to WCB, it would have been a weak cup of tea indeed.

I'd like to talk about another aspect of WCB. First, let me indicate an editorial that was in the Vancouver Sun about a year and a half ago — I think it was January 1984 — talking about strings attached. Maybe the minister doesn't remember it. It certainly wasn't during his time. The Vancouver Sun editorial writer said:

"The speed with which the new chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board moved to freeze assessments on all employers all but confirms the worst fears about the government manipulation of the WCB. There seems little doubt now that Walter Flesher was put on the job to carry out orders refused or resisted by his predecessor, Art Gibbons."

Then it goes on to talk about the difference in terms of approach, and so on and so forth. It winds up by saying: "After this, Mr. Flesher will have a hard time living down the impression that he moves by the aid of strings pulled from Victoria."

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things I would like to criticize about the kind of decisions that have been made since Mr. Flesher has taken over. He's closed regional offices in Williams Lake, Fort St. John, Penticton and Chilliwack, giving less access in well-populated areas. I'll bet the minister from Boundary-Similkameen is sympathetic to what I'm saying. Penticton is a relatively big city, and yet Workers' Compensation sees fit to close down a regional office there, driving people further afield to make claims and have discussions. He dismantled the hearings branch. There have been layoffs in engineering, industrial hygiene and the rehabilitation branch, cutbacks in vocational rehabilitation, restrictions to the boards of review — that was in December 1984 — and capping of the pensions. WCB really needs to be looked at.

I'm not going to harangue this minister — he hasn't been the minister in charge for very long — but I'll tell him right now that if there aren't some major signs of improvement by next year, the debate we're having this year will be a flash in the pan by comparison, because there are so many needs out there for a fresh approach to the whole question of workers' compensation. I think, Mr. Chairman, that when you build a place like the WCB rehabilitation centre out in Richmond — a pretty good facility — and then start cutting back in the midst of all sorts of cases that require rehabilitation.... I've had people phone me and say: "You know, it's just not doing any good at all. If I have access here, I don't have access there." It's a great wide wonderful world where people on both sides — adjudication and rehabilitation — are watching one another and watching clients exchanged from one to the other. I believe that a lot of smartening up has to go on in that particular department.

It seems to me that WCB has really fallen from grace. Not that it was ever glorious, but it's certainly fallen from grace during the tenure of the immediate chairman. Whether he's on orders, as the Sun speculates, or whether it's on his own, then the government must make up their mind what to do. But I'm here to tell you that workers' compensation is a right. It was set up, really, to accommodate industry, the companies, because if every time a worker was hurt on the job and took his employer to court, we would have a costly process in this province. We would have a bunch of fat and happy lawyers, but nobody else would be in that particular shape. So having assumed that responsibility, let's get on with the job and see to it that everybody's treated fairly and squarely. They're not being treated fairly and squarely by Workers' Compensation in our province.

One other thing, there is accommodation being arranged right now within WCB for guess who? The workers' advisers. Mr. Chairman, the workers' advisers work for the Department of Labour; they don't work for WCB. The workers' advisers are people who are there to advise a person with a compensation claim as to how that person should go on with that claim. If they're going to be moved right into the Workers' Compensation building, right into the heart of enemy territory, so to speak, they're no longer....

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll be compromised.

MR. COCKE: Of course they're compromised. They are no longer free-wheeling workers' advisers. It would be the same thing if you had the boards of review in the Compensation building. Who would go there with confidence?

I believe — and certainly I was around before we set up the boards of review, and the only thing you had going for you in those days was the workers' adviser — that that's a real saving to the Workers' Compensation Board and to the Ministry of Labour. It's a real saving because those people, for the most part, are dedicated. They know what to go for and what not to. They know how to advise the workers. They don't put extravagant ideas into anybody's head; on the other hand, they talk about their rights, and that's what should be talked about.

So, Mr. Chairman, if the minister goes on with the plan.... Because I know the plan is there. Now, it's not his plan; it's a plan, I'm sure, from a past minister. But that plan is...and they've got space for them in the Workers' Compensation buildings, and if they go on with that, I believe it's a mistake. I think it's a sad mistake, because even though we've been told that it'll be a different phone number, so what? It's in the same building. You don't get the feeling of an arm's length situation under those circumstances.

[10:45]

So, Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on, but I think for the moment I've given the minister a few thoughts. I think that we need Workers' Compensation properly funded and properly manned — or however you want to put it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Personned.

MR. COCKE: Personned. That doesn't sound right.

[ Page 6687 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Staffed.

MR. COCKE: Staffed. Good shot. Finally bailed out by a feminist.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, we must get back to earth on this whole question. We've got newspaper after newspaper showing that people are very dissatisfied. There's no reason why they should be. I know that this is a real project for the minister, and I know that he's interested in it, so I'm just here to wish him the very best of luck and hope that next year we can have a very nice, happy exchange across the floor. With a little bit of luck and a lot of perspiration, I'm sure that can happen.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I really appreciate the member's comments and the discussion that we've had even before my estimates began.

Just to point out to all members: 96 percent of all of the claims that go to the Workers' Compensation Board are approved. You're dealing with that remaining 4 percent or thereabouts of outstanding claims in dealing with the boards of review.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a lot of people.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It's a lot of people, and it has accumulated over a period of time. Certainly I hope that by this time next year we will be able to bring out some good statistics from the efforts that we've all taken to try to reduce that particular backlog.

In discussion with the MacLean group recently, we talked about the moving of the employer and workers' advisers and the boards of review into vacant space at the Workers' Compensation office. I have put that on hold. I don't know what contractual arrangements have been entered into with the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board; but I have put it on hold, and I want a review of that. If possible, we will look for a neutral space, to have the boards of review, workers' advisers and employers' advisers not only independent but also seen to be independent. I do appreciate the member's comments. That is on hold, and we will try to look for neutral space.

MR. DAVIS: In speaking to the estimates of the Minister of Labour, I have difficulty knowing where to begin. Labour isn't everything. There is a widespread theory of value which says that the only thing of value is labour; and certainly this was Karl Marx's belief. It's the belief of many people who don't invest, and the majority are not heavy investors in the economy; they are workers, in their own eyes; they are labour.

In Ottawa, for many years, the Minister of Labour was also the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In these days, especially with the Charter of Rights, mobility is one of the important elements of national and provincial policy. So a Minister of Labour has to be concerned with mobility; he has to be concerned with the movement of people into and out of British Columbia, for example; he has to be concerned, in my view, with immigration from the rest of Canada and from the rest of the world, the flow of people leaving the province for other parts, particularly the United States; he has to be concerned with opportunity. So manpower and immigration are linked. Immigration, I believe, has to be a matter with which the Minister of Labour for British Columbia is concerned.

Years ago labour and education were linked under a single minister for a period of time. The youth of the country must be concerned and are very concerned with job opportunities. Clearly education opportunity for young people must also be a concern of the Minister of Labour. So the Minister of Labour not only has the flow of people into and out of the province to concern himself with, but also opportunities for our own youth, for young people who are educated here to obtain gainful employment in the province.

He's faced with a high cost structure in this province. Wage rates here typically have been among the highest in Canada for this entire century. We not only have a high cost structure; we have a relatively inflexible one. Wage rates tend to rise and never to fall. Certainly organized labour, to the extent that it is effective, tends to keep wage costs up and tends towards a rigidity in the price of labour. In a province in which there is great mobility, where wage rates are high, which attracts people from outside, both because of the amenities of living here and wage rates, there's a problem. Certainly there's a problem if full employment is a goal.

I think full employment is an impossible goal in an economy like that of British Columbia. It's an ideal towards which we can strive, but it's a virtual impossibility where we offer high rewards. Doctors are among the highest paid in the world, certainly the highest paid in Canada; that's simply an example. And we attract more than our share of professionals. We attract more than our share of people in virtually all occupations, and yet we have this structural problem. We don't seem to be able to adjust downward in periods of cyclical depression, during a period in which the prices of the products we export fall. We have an economy which lacks flexibility. It's attractive in many ways, attractive in terms of the price of labour, but not one which at the same time can offer full employment for everyone.

We have greater equality in British Columbia between the sexes, as opposed to most other parts of Canada, certainly other parts of the world. So we also have many women who, properly, are in or want to be in the commercial labour force.

We will always have, I think, more people offering their services and looking for gainful employment in this province than we can economically or efficiently employ. So full employment is a term; full employment is an objective, no doubt. But I doubt very much whether it has to be, or should be, the prime objective of the Minister of Labour for British Columbia. It can more properly be an objective for the national Minister of Manpower and Immigration. We don't have all the levers of power in this province: we can't print money, for example. Certainly that is a federal power but not a provincial one. We can't control the flow of people in and out of the province, to any degree. We have less control today under the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms than we had a few years ago.

I believe in an open economy. I believe in a minimum of interference with the right of the individual to find gainful employment. If I believe in that, I must say to myself that full employment is an objective — perhaps. It's certainly not one which a provincial government can achieve under current circumstances, and there are undoubtedly other objectives which are also important, some of which conflict with full employment.

I read in the newspaper this morning a recommendation to Canada's Minister of Employment and Immigration that

[ Page 6688 ]

refugees, when they arrive in Canada, should be able to obtain social assistance, free legal aid and educational opportunities while they're here, pending hearings which are required under our new Canada charter. We're inviting people in. We can't possibly offer full employment to everyone under those circumstances. I want us to have a relatively open and competitive economy, and I want people to be able to move freely across the country and throughout the province.

These are matters which the Minister of Labour has to address. I think he also has to address the admissibility of young people who desire training into our labour force. The opportunities to enter some of our training institutes — the Pacific Vocational Institute, for example.... The intake is regulated in some measure by the trade unions in this province. I believe that's wrong; I believe that's retrogressive. I believe that the Minister of Labour should be concerned with all labour in this province and not just the 40 percent represented — and many of them effectively — by their trade union representatives. Organized labour is perhaps 40 percent of the total B.C. picture; it's certainly not 100 percent. I'm concerned with the rigidities which organized labour introduces into an economy. At the same time I realize that labour should have the opportunity not only to associate but also to organize and attain its objectives. But the Minister of Labour must be at least as concerned with the 60 percent who are not organized and who are not protected by contractual arrangements with their employers.

Young people with limited experience — perhaps with considerable education, but certainly a limited track record in the workplace — are at a serious disadvantage in this province when attempting to enter many vocations. They must offer themselves at a price which has been negotiated by the unions, which is sometimes double or treble what they're worth for several years. Summer employment programs are hampered because organized labour insists that summer students be paid at trade union rates. They're not worth trade union rates, at least while they're learning on the job, but they can certainly make a useful contribution. I'm concerned about this structure we have which is high-cost, protects those who are organized, and is very hard on those who are attempting to enter the labour force or coming from outside, and who may well be equipped in terms of training but haven't developed a track record of experience here, not being in the organized area as far as labour is concerned.

These are general comments, but they touch on a number of matters which I believe must be of concern to the Minister of Labour. I'd like to see the provincial government concerning itself more, for example, with immigration and the suitability of people to an economy which has considerable unemployment; and also with the opportunity of our young people to enter the workforce, obtain trades and make a useful and early contribution in an economy which has to be open and should be more flexible.

[11:00]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to say very clearly and directly to the minister that I for one — and I think I speak for quite a number of other people — very much appreciate the approach that he's taken in the last few months in respect to the WCB. We had developing in several aspects of compensation the makings of a very real crisis situation. It would have been very easy for the minister to have carried on with the work that had been prepared for the previous minister and to have just proceeded. He didn't, and he deserves credit for that. I think it should be said publicly. We usually are very free with our criticism, all of us, and not so free with our compliments. I don't want to put a "but" on it. I was just going to say I hope it continues, but that's unfair. The record to date is good, and deserves to be left in that light.

In the best sense of that word, the preoccupation of the minister with the boards of review in the last while is appropriate. That was clearly the biggest problem, the one that required the most urgent attention. I had some very serious reservations about the proposed single-member boards, even those chosen voluntarily, because it really isn't a voluntary choice. A worker faced with waiting 18 or 24 months for a three-person board as opposed to waiting perhaps a few weeks or a few months even for a single-person board isn't really faced with a free choice. So it's an artificial kind of freedom. I think it would be appropriate to continue with the directions that appear to be coming in respect of the changes in structure of the three-person boards and to try to work through the backlog with that approach and not proceed with the single-member boards. I think I'll leave it at that. I just want to say that my strong views are in that direction.

There are other problems in the WCB that need to be faced up to. If a PWA jet crashed at the Vancouver airport every year and killed as many people as are killed in the workplace in this province, I suspect very few people would fly. I suspect people would start taking trains and buses and cars and other forms of transportation and would not fly.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The dramatic impact of a plane crash causes all kinds of attention, causes investigations that cost tens of thousands of dollars and create responses in terms of airline safety that are monumental. Think, just for example, what's happened in the airline industry since 19 people, I think it was, died on that Air Canada plane that went down in Cincinnati a year or so ago. Millions of dollars have been expended and are continuing to be expended in the airline industry as a result of that case. Two or three times that number of workers in the woods industry die every year in this province, and we don't spend nearly the emotional attention, much less the dollars and cents and the efforts at various levels of government and industry and workers. We just don't spend the same kind of effort because it's not so dramatic. Fallers die every week almost, but they're not even reported in the newspaper anymore.

But a plane goes down, one person dies, and it's front page. That's human nature, and I understand why that works that way. But we really do need to spend much more time and effort and emotional energy on the question of workplace safety. It's not just the deaths. That's the dramatic, and that's the tragic element. But there are obviously tens upon tens of thousands of people every year whose lives are affected by workplace injury and accident and disease. Let's not forget disease in all of this. It has an impact not only on those workers and their families but also on productivity and the state of our economy.

That's the other interesting thing. Airplanes are one thing. Strikes are another. You get all this attention to strike. The number of days lost or productivity lost from strikes or lockouts is minimal in comparison to what is lost from workplace disease or accident. If the public had a full understanding of the contrast, they wouldn't concern themselves

[ Page 6689 ]

with the odd labour dispute. But they would be incensed in a major way with the workplace safety habits.

I just want to say that I trust that the whole question of inspection and emphasis on workplace safety will become a major priority once some of the problems of the WCB have been eliminated. I understand — and I stand to he corrected on this — that when the minister wanted to send a letter to all of the joint safety committees in the province, the WCB wasn't able to give him a printout of address labels on demand because they didn't have such a list. If that's the case, it's absolutely astounding that such a list wouldn't have been in place and regularly used. I trust I'm wrong, that the information I was given is inaccurate, but it seemed to me to be absolutely astounding.

Just a couple of other things. The farm lobby has altogether too much influence with cabinet in respect of workers' health, safety and compensation coverage. I say that, having come from a farming background with brothers still in the farming industry as farmers — as the employer, as it were. I come at it with that bias, because that's my experience. There is no reason whatsoever that my two brothers, as employers in the farming industry, shouldn't be required to have full compensation coverage in the same way as any other employer in this province — period. There should be no exception. Obviously you have different methods of application, but that's true industry to industry anyway. But the idea that farm work is somehow outside the scope of compensation is mind-boggling. It's a carryover from an earlier age that no longer should exist.

I hope that we put an end soon to this whole idea that somehow people who work on a farm are different from people who work in a factory, in an office, in the bush, in a mine or wherever else. Speaking of mines, I still don't understand why we have mine inspections separate from the WCB. I've proposed in several estimate debates over the years to previous ministers that the mine inspections should go into the WCB, and it's been the policy to date of the government not to make that change. I don't understand why that integration doesn't take place. While it's not a major or early priority for the minister, I hope that is an element of the continuing review that needs to take place.

The final thing that I think I'll mention is long-term; with the state of our current economy it almost could he characterized as pie-in-the-sky. But I think some work should begin to be done in a research way into universal accident insurance along the models, for example, of the New Zealand scheme, so that we end this idea that if you're a worker and you break your leg, it matters where you broke your leg. Then you have an argument about: did you break your leg at work, or was it on the way to work, in the bathtub or playing golf? So what? The leg is broken. You can't go to work. You need compensation.

I'm not going to make the long argument; that's for another day, I think, but a universal accident insurance scheme makes a lot of sense to me. It's cheaper. You'd end this whole question of adjudication. Most of the WCB cases that MLAs end up dealing with relate to questions about: was the person's back-which is now no longer strong enough disabled at work? Or was this just a continuing deterioration of the person's back? Did he slip a disc playing golf, or did he fall in his bathtub, or whatever? So what? It doesn't matter where it happened. The fact is that some insurance needs to be applied.

I think New Zealand, among other countries — that's the best-known example — has worked out a way in which they can demonstrate that the costs are reduced. It has to be based on an insurance program. There's no question about that. But that's something that I think, for the longer term, the government should have a careful look at. If you fly to New Zealand, you are covered the moment you walk down the ramp of the airplane. You're covered, tourist or not; everybody's covered. It's an excellent scheme. You don't have this crazy process of adjudication that we have now that ties up so many people's time and creates so many tensions and headaches and....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, litigation in other areas; that's right.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Would you do the same thing with motor vehicle accidents?

MR. GABELMANN: That's a discussion for another day, but I'll nod my head, Mr. Chairman.

That's all I have to say on these estimates, but I want to conclude with what I started in terms of the WCB. I appreciate, and I know many other people appreciate, the approach the minister has taken in recent days to the boards of review. We appreciate the approach he has taken to the other questions that require resolution. I can say, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister continues in that approach.... He won't always have full agreement from everybody, obviously, but if people feel they've had an opportunity to participate in the decision that is finally reached, the minister is going to have very easy sailing. I hope that we'll have, next year, just as easy sailing in these estimates.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Again, to the member for North Island, the area of job safety has long been a priority of mine, and for many years has been a priority. One accident in any industry across the province is too many as far as I'm concerned, and it's an area that we can't pay too much attention to. I appreciate the comments made by the member and his will to cooperate and work with us in this area. Without question, we can't do enough to eliminate the human suffering that comes from industrial accidents across our province.

I would like at this time to congratulate and thank all of the safety committees across our province. A total of 46,000 plants across British Columbia are covered by workers' compensation, and most of them have safety committees that are made up of front-line supervisors and employees of the plant. Without their help and their cooperation, we wouldn't achieve the success that we have achieved to date.

We have to look at ways where we can assist those committees to do a better job at the plant level. It's sometimes particularly difficult for working people to go to their colleagues in the workplace and say, "Look, put on your safety goggles or your glasses or you'll lose an eye," because they're not always met with a great degree of cooperation in those areas. Many times they're told to get lost and the individual continues grinding a bolt or something without safety goggles. Individuals working and participating on safety committees have a tough job to do, and we have to look at new tools and education programs to put in place to help

[ Page 6690 ]

them do a better job, because unless attitude changes, all of the work that they do sometimes is in vain.

[11:15]

When I requested the list of safety committees across the province that I wanted to send a letter to, knowing that I had the deadline of the Legislature coming to an end, I wanted to get some sort of legislation passed with respect to the boards of review, I wanted to get their advice, and I was told there were 46,000 plants across the province and it would take me that period of time to sign all the letters. I thought that for now we'd stick with 1,200 to 1,500 and in time we'll get around to the 46,000. So it wasn't the fact that they didn't have the total number; it was the fact that I was looking at time constraints and the need to get on with getting some sort of changes made. So that in a sense is what happened there.

I will get a copy of the New Zealand insurance program and ask my ministry staff to review it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk about this minister's responsibilities for women in the labour force, because I think it's a very important responsibility that he has. We recognize that the whole question of women and poverty is not going to be solved through welfare or Human Resources; in fact it is going to be solved through employment. That this minister is responsible for addressing these issues I think is very crucial.

So I want to make a couple of general comments first, and then I'll ask some questions after.

I have a copy of "Women...a World Survey," which was put out, I guess, because this is the end of the UN Decade for Women, and it really takes a look at some of the goals that have been set by women over the past ten years and some that have been achieved and some that haven't. I think that the report on women in the labour force very accurately reflects what is happening here in British Columbia, even though it is a world report. I don't know whether the minister has this or not, but I'm quite sure that the women's office has a copy of it.

It points out that according to the ILO projections for the world, 675 million women are currently at work or seeking work in the labour market. They represent more than one third of the total labour force. Their numbers have doubled since 1950, outstripping the relative rise in the female population of working age and in the number of women workers as well. One women in two between the ages of 15 and 64 is in the paid labour force.

It also points to some of the reasons why women work, and puts an end to some of the myths about women working for the fun of it, or just to purchase frills. Around the world, as here in British Columbia, one-third of the families are headed by women as the sole breadwinner, and now during times of high unemployment we are finding that of a number of families that have both father and mother in them, the woman is the only one that's working as a result of it. So the employment situation is really very, very crucial.

Despite that, the report finds that the earning differential between men's wages and women's wages still exists. For example, it says that comparisons of men's and women's salaries show a large gap between them, even when the samples are matched for training and experience, which is by way of leading into.... I'm going to be talking at some length about equal pay for work of equal value. It also points out the fact — and this may be of interest to the minister — that as a rule women work longer hours than men, because often they carry the triple load of household labour, working in the labour force and the reproductive roles as well.

Then it talks about the fact that so many women are still segregated in specific areas of the labour force and these are your low-paying job ghettos. I know that the minister has been trying to do something about that, and I want to deal with that at some later date. It says that additional information indicates that women's large influx into the labour force has not appreciably changed the nature of work for the vast majority, or reconciled women's productive roles and reproductive roles. It has not significantly narrowed the gap between men's and women's wages, nor has it stemmed the rising tide of poverty now engulfing women the world over. That's the real problem that we face, for a number of reasons: the wage gap; job segregation; and the third one has to do with the unemployment situation.

I want to deal with the wage gap first, because I think that really is the avenue we have to go through. The ILO report points out that there is a persistent and substantial gap in earnings between men and women; that although there's been some differential in recent years, in no country do women appear to have reached a broad parity with men in wages and salaries. If we compare that with the latest women-and-labour report out of Labour Canada, we find that that is certainly the case in Canada, and even in British Columbia. On the same issue, the Economic Council of Canada reports again that the financial status of women is a major concern. The male/female earning gap has diminished somewhat, but women's earnings still remain well below those of men. It goes on to give a number of reasons for that.

We really have to start addressing the whole question of equal pay for work of equal value or substantially the same, whatever term you want to use. It makes no difference. We really have to start being serious about our commitment to closing that wage gap. The first equal pay legislation was actually passed in British Columbia in 1953, and provided equal pay for the same work. As women and men really perform the same work, the act as it stands is virtually meaningless. The British Columbia Human Rights Act provides for equal pay for similar or substantially similar work, with skill, effort and responsibility being the criteria to evaluate work performed. However, by 1981 women working full time earned on average about 60 cents to the male dollar, so that didn't work out either.

Public sector unionization has been a great impetus to the promotion of women's issues in the workplace, and it is no accident that the assault on collective bargaining rights has been initiated in the public sector, where affirmative action and the promotion of equal pay for work of equal value have challenged the existing system of wage allocation and the assumption that wages reflect a fair compensation for a day's work. Equal pay for work of equal value implies that wage rates have reflected characteristics of the worker rather than of the work performed. Equalization of base wage rates as a first step towards equal pay for work of equal value represents a new approach by unions in British Columbia. During 1981, major gains in achieving equal base rates were accomplished by a number of unions — the steelworkers' union at Cominco in Trail, for example, the Office and Technical Employees at B.C. Hydro, several CUPE locals, including Vancouver, and the VMREU.

Introduction of wage controls in the form of the Compensation Stabilization Act undermined these gains by limiting wage increases on a percentage basis. We went right back to

[ Page 6691 ]

the situation where we were benefiting the workers at the top of the scale and leaving the workers at the bottom of the scale, and the gap started to widen again rather than the other way around.

I think that the minister has to recognize, first of all, that this is not a B.C. experience. We know that. I'm not saying that this is the only place in the world in which it happens. It happens everywhere, as this points out, and it certainly happens across Canada. But I think that here in British Columbia we have to be serious about what we're going to do about this question of equal pay for jobs of what the ILO refers to as comparable worth, or what we prefer to refer to as work of equal value, which means pretty much the same thing.

One of the ways of doing this is to attack the whole question of job segregation, which I'm very ambivalent about. My personal feeling is that the work that women do has much greater value than what they are presently being paid for it. I believe that we should do something about paying real value for the work that women do. But I realize that in the whole area of economics, this is not the way in which it can be addressed successfully, because I know the Economic Council of Canada says that one of the things that you take into account, in setting value on a job, is supply and demand. If you have a job area where you have an oversupply of workers, then it follows that the wages are going to go down, and I recognize that too. I notice, for example, in reading about the labour force, that in British Columbia, if you really break down the jobs, you find that there are ghettos. There is no question about it when you see that, for example, of students enrolled in household sciences at the university 96.7 percent are women. So we are going to have a ghetto when they volunteer. In the fine arts 73 percent of those enrolled are women; in education, 72.8 percent are women. Compare that, for example, with the number of people enrolled in engineering, where 5.3 percent are women, or the number of students enrolled in architecture, where only 22.1 percent are women.

While I recognize that it is possible there could be an oversupply, I still want to make a pitch for those areas where women work, such as nursing and social work, where it is shown that in the medical services 83.3 percent are women; in clerical work, 70.6 percent are women. In those areas where women work I still don't think they're being paid full value for the work which they do. I don't believe that this Legislature, for example, would shut down if all the MLAs didn't show up. But if the clerical staff didn't show up, this Legislature would shut down and stay shut down until they came back.

In terms of real value, I think we have to start reassessing the value that we place on the work that women do. That's my first pitch. Then, taking into account the whole question of supply and demand in the job market, the results of what has been happening in moving women into what are known as the nontraditional jobs are not too impressive. I know that the ministry has been doing a lot of work there, but the statistics are still not looking all that good. In construction, for example, 3.4 percent are women; forestry and logging, 4 percent; mining, 3.4 percent; transport equipment operators, 5.7 percent. It goes on to say that in participation in critical trade skills, 1983-84, women as a percentage of the total were 4.4 percent. So for whatever is being done I want to congratulate the minister but go on to say that it's not good enough. I think we're going to find the reason it's not good enough when we look at the estimates and see what the minister has budgeted to be spent in this area. It really is quite inadequate. I had it here a minute ago, but it's so small it got lost; the amount of money budgeted for the area is so small I can't find it. Ah, found it. I'm embarrassed even to mention it.

[11:30]

The women's program had a slight increase this year. I guess, compared to Education and Health and Human Resources, it's a big increase, but when you start with a small amount of money, a 10 percent increase really still leaves you behind the eight ball. When you're trying to shift a large group, in terms of attitudes.... That's what you're trying to do: you're trying to convince women that nontraditional work is something that they can do. So when you're trying to make that kind of major shift....

Is my green light on already? I just started. There's a conspiracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time flies when you're having fun.

MS. BROWN: Are we having fun here?

Even a 10 percent increase, Mr. Chairman, brings the budget up to $673,000. We're talking about an increase of $62,000. That's not real money when you're talking about the job which the women's program is supposed to do. You aren't talking real money there. I don't want to be nasty about this, but we blew $500,000 on a party at Expo. And you expect us to really move women with $673,000.

Then the grant and contribution area, which is really essential to the support of the employment services, was decreased by 5 percent. So what he did, Mr. Chairman, was to give with one hand and take away with the other. The job isn't going to happen as long as that is done. If we're going to deal with the job segregation issue, which is where the money comes in, of the equal pay for work of equal value as a legislative issue.... That can be dealt with by legislation. But if the women's office is going to deal with the job segregation issue and education and the changing of attitude and what has to be done there, you need real bucks, and you haven't got real bucks in the budget to do that.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I want to thank the member for Burnaby-Edmonds for her comments, and I'd just like to respond a little bit. Since coming to the ministry, I mentioned that I had spent a great deal of time dealing with matters relating to workers' compensation, but I have spent the rest of my time with my deputy minister in the area responsible for women's programs. The member mentions a number of statistics from across the country and around the province, and I have asked my deputy minister to collect some data and information and do some surveys within the provincial government itself, and to come back to me with a number of ideas that we can put forward for implementation.

I'm fortunate in that I am the Minister of Labour, responsible for women's programs, because I see it as an opportunity to look at designating appropriate funds for women in particular to get into the area of nontraditional jobs, and to look at programs that we can provide for women who take time out for child-rearing years to be able to get back into the workplace, and, where there are no opportunities available in the field of their expertise, to look at new ways we can retrain people to become fully participating members of the community.

[ Page 6692 ]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member mentions the amount of money in the budget for women's programs. While she's quite right in saying that there is $673,973 set aside for the budget for women's programs, there is also in the Ministry of Labour $600,000 for the area of nontraditional jobs. We have put that aside for that particular purpose. It doesn't also include other ministries of government where we have now in each ministry of government a staff person at the senior level responsible for women's programs. Of course this is important, because it allows an opportunity for discussion and debate within that ministry, and an opportunity to have women's programs recognized in every area of opportunity at the ministry and cabinet level, and not just at the ministry and cabinet level but when the Premiers and Prime Minister meet at the First Ministers' Conference, or I meet with my provincial counterparts, or the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development meets with its provincial counterparts or federal counterpart. Women's programs is represented in every area of opportunity. So while we do fairly well above a number of other provinces in Canada, I agree with the member that we have some way to go. I hope to be able to make good progress in that area over the course of the next year.

MS. BROWN: I certainly agree that it's a good idea to have someone in each ministry responsible for women's programs. That's certainly a good first step.

The minister did not respond to my request for some kind of legislative commitment about equal pay for work of equal value. Would you like to do that now?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It's an area where there has been a lot of discussion and debate — depending on your point of view, which jargon you use, and so on and so forth. Quite frankly, I'm trying to catch up with the jargon, if I may say so. The government of British Columbia has a policy of equal pay for work of equal value — or whatever the jargon is that we're going to use. But the provisions of the collective agreement...has negotiated that policy with B.C. government employees.

The other area, which has been an ongoing debate, is whether somebody in a hospital cleaning outside the operating room has the same job value as a lady cleaning the operating room itself — or the individual cleaning the operating room itself, not necessarily a lady. So those debates are going on, and they will continue to go on, I guess, for some period of time. I'd have to be honest with the member and say that it's an area in which I've asked my deputy minister to bring forward some ideas on how we can approach it.

But in the meantime, there are a lot of other things that we can do and must do to provide opportunity for women in particular to get into nontraditional jobs and re-entry in the workplace. We could spend a great deal of time and effort — in fact, full time — trying to define equal pay for work of equal value, but a lot of the other things would go by the wayside while we're doing that. So I think we have to pay equal attention to both. I intend to do that.

MS. BROWN: Most of the work has been done, in terms of the measurements and the criteria. It's there. The research is there. Your deputy has it, and if she doesn't have it, she can get access to it. It's been done in Portland, Oregon. The federal government has done it. The federal human rights commission uses it, so the actual work itself has been done. What hasn't been done is the ideological discussion, and the argument around that is poverty. I mean, are you or are you not serious about addressing the poverty that locks in 50 percent of the population because they are not paid the true value of the work they do? So the ideological discussion still needs to take place. Maybe it should take place publicly. When you and your deputy have the discussion on this, maybe you should invite submissions from groups in the community — employee groups and employer groups, as well as women's groups. But in terms of designing it, that's been done. That's not a problem, especially in these days of computers and this kind of thing. You don't even have to think; just feed the computer and it will give you the answer. No problem. But there is a difference between equal pay for equal work, and equal pay for work of equal value.

I have a couple of questions. The Abella report had a number of recommendations in it. Have you had a chance to peruse the report? If so, what plans would your ministry have in terms of addressing the recommendations around affirmative action and part-time work, and those kinds of things?

My other question has to do with the inclusion of sexual harassment as one of the provisions in the Human Rights Act; if you can't do that — would rather not do that — the possibility of reinstating the "reasonable cause" clause. Either one or the other would cover sexual harassment. Either spell it out or else put the clause back in which dealt with reasonable cause. The code has its greatest impact on unorganized workers, as you know, most of whom are women. They can't file a grievance with their shop steward or whatever if they feel they are being harassed, because they haven't got a shop steward. They have no access to redress except through the code, and as it now stands the code really doesn't give them enough protection. The other is sexual orientation. Maybe you could deal with those two at the same time.

What provisions have been established or implemented by the ministry to retrain those women whose jobs are disappearing as a result of technological change? We're into the microcomputer. It's helping some and it's hindering others, and I'm wondering if you'd let me know what kind of plans, either through the women's office or through your ministry.... The kind of work that has to be done through the women's office, I want to repeat, really needs a heck of a lot more money than you have there.

It was brought to my attention that the program which goes into the high schools to speak to young women concentrates on the whole concept of business — young women entering into small business and this kind of thing. Since a large number of these women end up in clerical and service industries, I'm wondering whether — this has been suggested to me — the women's office would not be fulfilling a need by sending in, along with the women's office representative, someone from the labour movement to talk about women and trade unions, and women in organized labour. This is just an idea that maybe you can respond to.

The other area that's primarily, again, a women's ghetto is the whole question of domestics and even farmworkers. We often tend to forget how many farmworkers are women. There is not good enough legislation to protect them. Certainly for domestic workers, when it comes to working overtime, the employment legislation doesn't go far enough. I want to know what's happening as far as that is concerned: domestics and farmworkers, but primarily domestics. I know that the minister has heard my speech on domestics often

[ Page 6693 ]

enough that I'm not going to give it again, but they really need, absolutely, the maximum protection against exploitation, because they are isolated and segregated. They do not belong to a union. They have no recourse, except through the legislation, and it's not good enough.

What's happening to the mentorship program? I wonder if you can tell me what you hope to accomplish through it. I was very interested to read this, and in passing I want to say that I find the women's programs newsletters very interesting. I enjoy receiving them, and, I certainly hope that you'll keep me on the mailing list.

I also want to congratulate the ministry on the report of wife assault in British Columbia. It's absolutely top quality. A lot of research obviously went into it, and it was long overdue. I really appreciate it and wonder to what extent it's been circulated. Could you give me some statistics as to who has received it and what you're doing about ensuring that it is widely circulated.

I notice the student venture loan program for 1985 put out by the Ministry of Labour, and I'm wondering if there's any consideration of a similar kind of program for women.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I apologize to the member; I may have lost some of the things that you brought up in discussion. If I've lost them, I would beg your indulgence to maybe repeat them.

The assignment of a senior staff member in each ministry of government has been a very important step forward, I feel, and one that will serve us well in the next little while.

The current Human Rights Act has a section in it where you can file a complaint where there is discrimination based on sex — not necessarily sexual harassment, but sex.

[11:45]

MS. BROWN: It's not necessarily sexual harassment I'm talking about.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Yes. That's the only provision that's there at the present time, and my staff people tell me that it would be covered under that particular section. So we'd have to have a look at that and see.

In the area of jobs disappearing through automation and technological change — clerk-typists, telephone operators, and so on and so forth: the traditional employment opportunities for women — that's an area, hon. member, where I feel we should be able to use the services of the Ministry of Labour to provide new skills and new opportunities for individuals who have lost their jobs due to those automation and technological changes. You're right — they've created new opportunities for some and lost opportunities for others. The Ministry of Labour is currently working on a program that I hope will be able to assist in that area. In my discussion with the federal Minister for Employment and Immigration last week we discussed this very issue, and the need to include it in future manpower provincial agreements that I hope we will be able to negotiate successfully before the end of the month or thereabouts.

Going into the schools, the women across British Columbia have played a very important part in the business life of British Columbia. It's not new. They have done it over a long period of time, and again, with automation and technological change replacing a lot of the traditional jobs for women, our survey shows that many women are interested in going into business themselves, opening up their own store or shop and so on.

I'll take under consideration maybe, along with the representative from the women's program, sending somebody from small business and the labour force into schools with them to have a good discussion and open that dialogue. I intend to do quite a bit of that myself this summer and fall, with the hope of being able to go out and meet many of the women's groups across our province and open up that dialogue with them and see what opportunities we can provide as a government beyond what we're already doing in the area that you suggested with the Ministry of Industry and Small Business pamphlet. That is under discussion at the present time, and I have sent a letter to my colleague with respect to that. They're looking at that at the present time.

The employment standards legislation. I'd appreciate receiving your views and ideas on how we can change that to accommodate the discussion that you just carried out.

MR. PARKS: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: I have just noticed that two gentlemen have come into the precincts this morning. I am very pleased to introduce the mayor from that growing megatropolis of Coquitlam, and along with His Worship Lou Sekora is our municipal manager Mr. Jim Tonn. Many of us remember Mr. Tonn as a former Your Worship and also former president of the UBCM. I'd ask the House to make them both welcome.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: There's one area that I missed, and that was your comments on the Abella report. I have assigned a staff person in the ministry to go over the Abella report and see where British Columbia can fit into that particular process. I have assigned a staff person to it.

MR. HANSON: I would like to raise a matter under the Minister of Labour's estimates that is also of great concern to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). It has to do with the closing of Seaspan's Point Ellice shipyard in the Inner Harbour area of Victoria. As the minister is probably aware, there are 72 employees engaged in the shipyard itself and 12 support staff, a total of 84 employees. It has a payroll of approximately $3.5 million, with an expenditure in the local economy of $1.5 million. It is a part of the strategic shipbuilding and fishing industry here in the area. It not only has a direct linkage with the fishery and shipbuilding part.... This particular operation is not a shipbuilding company; it's a maintenance and repair operation. It does work for the Ministry of Highways and B.C. Ferries. It goes outside its own internal Seaspan operations for 90 percent of its work. The Seaspan operation here is a very important link with the maritime industries in the area.

Its parent company is Genstar, and Genstar has a ship maintenance operation in Vancouver called Vanship. It is Genstar's intention to close the operation here. There are discussions taking place among staff and so on. I want the minister to see if he would give us some indication of the extent to which he would be prepared to look at this situation. It's a loss of 84 industrial jobs that are linked to a maritime application. It means that the fishing industry can't get their draggers, trawlers and so on out of the water here; they'll

[ Page 6694 ]

probably have to go elsewhere for maintenance. This particular operation can take fishboats from 30 feet in length to 600 feet in length out of the water. In other words, it's of great advantage for the fishing industry located here to have that Point Ellice operation functioning. Now they occupy leased provincial land. There is some modest federal lease, but it's leased provincial land they're occupying. There could be a provincial involvement, through your own ministry, in a commitment to work towards sustaining that employment here.

As the minister knows, many industrial operations are in the process of leaving, or have left, this area. It is certainly an unhealthy trend that we don't want to see continue, particularly in light of the fact that the marine orientation of this region could be one of the economic and job-creating strengths that we do have.

My question to the minister is: to what extent is he aware of this particular problem? There is a proposal to close this yard on August 2. That doesn't give us a lot of time; it's been coming very quickly. To what extent would the minister involve himself in securing that employment, or having discussions with the principals involved, with the employees involved, and with the agencies that are taking lease fees and various taxes and so on, bearing in mind that it will be a disadvantage to the provincial government, because Highways ferries are repaired there? It's convenient. A job that is presently underway is the ferry that runs between Comox and Powell River, which is a Highways vessel. So they're capable of doing very large vessels, as well as, as I stated, fishing boats down to 30 feet in length. So it is a very versatile yard. It's an asset that we don't want to lose. We don't want to lose the employment. We don't want to lose the spinoff from the payroll benefits into this community.

It's a multifaceted problem, and it is, as I stated initially, of great concern to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). I think the minister has an opportunity at this juncture to play a role in having discussions with his colleagues in Lands, Parks and Housing that have the control of the provincial lease there, and with Industry and Small Business, and other aspects of the provincial responsibility that could assist in avoiding this loss, which we really cannot take. We have this hemorrhaging of industrial operations from the region. It doesn't make sense. I'm sure it must be of interest to the Minister of Labour to lose employment in an area where we shouldn't be losing employment; in other words, the maintenance and repair of fishing vessels and other vessels, both government and private; that this operation, with some close examination and discussion with provincial representatives, perhaps could be saved. I would appreciate the minister's comments on this particular emerging problem.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd like to thank the member for Victoria for his comments in that regard. Certainly the loss of any jobs has to be a great concern not just to the member for Victoria but to all of us in British Columbia. We have to do whatever we can to maintain those jobs. So I'd be pleased to take what the member has said and ask the commissioner of critical industries to contact the parties involved. Certainly myself and my colleagues will provide whatever assistance we can to the commissioner of critical industries in an effort to keep that particular operation running.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, that response from the minister is most appreciated, and he can count on the assistance of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I'm sure, and the two members for Victoria to work towards a resolution of that matter. We appreciate him forwarding that to Mr. Phillips. Thank you very much.

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 11:58 a.m.