[ Page 7221 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Cocke –– 7221

Mr. MacWilliam

Electoral redistribution. Mr. Hanson –– 7223

Ministerial Statement

Wilderness preservation. Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 7223

Mrs. Wallace

Private Members' Statements

Human Resources ministry policy on students. Mrs. Dailly –– 7224

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

SkyTrain. Mr. Reynolds –– 7226

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Job-creation policies. Mr. Stupich –– 7227

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Property taxes at B.C. Refinery. Mr. D'Arcy –– 7229

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 68). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7230

Mr. Cocke –– 7231

ML Skelly –– 7232

Mr. Mitchell –– 7233

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 7234

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7235

Mr. Stupich –– 7236

Mr. Lea –– 7238

ML Mitchell –– 7239

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I do know that every member in the House would like to extend very best wishes to Mr. Peter Comparelli. I understand that he is going to be away for a year's sabbatical. I'm not too sure what the word "sabbatical" means, but it has a very interesting connotation. I think we all look forward to his return following that year away from us. I think that every member in this House would certainly congratulate Mr. Comparelli upon his integrity and the fairness of the reports, and his dedication to his profession. We wish him well. Arrivederci.

Oral Questions

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I know that one of my colleagues said "a point of order" — and it is rather a point of order, when you look at the seats over there, on a Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. We had some very fond hopes, at the appointment of that minister, that there would be a clean-up at the Workers' Compensation. There were signs that there might be. But we expected something more positive from the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

MR. COCKE: I'll get around to it when I feel like it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: That's right. The only person that has authority over me in this House is the Speaker, not you, Mr. House Leader, or any of your colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's failure to achieve the results, has he decided to back off and appoint a royal commission into the operation of WCB?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour said publicly that he was unaware of the background of Joe Miyazawa before he appointed him on November 14 as chairman of the workers' compensation boards of review. What steps has the minister taken to rescind the appointment?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I haven't taken any steps to rescind the appointment. All appointments made between now and the end of December are temporary appointments, and the individuals will be assessed on their qualifications and their ability to do the job, on the establishment of the new boards of review, which we hope to have in place come January 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that's news. According to the appointment that I see, it was an appointment that goes on and on and on. It was an order-in-council.

Mr. Speaker, because of the minister's total abdication of his responsibility with respect to these appointments — in effect Mr. Gray made the appointments — has the minister taken steps to inform Mr. Gray that the minister and the government are responsible for these appointments, rather than officials in his ministry?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in selecting the panel to do the interviews for chairman, vice-chairman or wing members to the new boards of review, I took great pains to set up a committee that would look at the people based on their ability to do the job, to adjudicate disputes in a fair, compassionate and impartial way, and not based on their politics. While it is true that the minister does make the final decision, along with his cabinet colleagues, I hope we will continue to be able to assess people based on their qualifications and ability to do the job.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the administration of WCB has been further compromised by the release of a 400-page package of proposed regulations regarding health and safety. Will the minister advise who requested the drafting of the new regulations, and why they were circulated to B.C. employers?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: In 1983 or thereabouts, a lot of discussion went on between the parties of interest with respect to the development of regulations for industry in British Columbia. Those regulations had a lot of discussion between the parties of interest. At one point the union representatives walked out of the meeting in protest against the way the regulations were being drafted. That was prior to Mr. Flesher becoming chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. When I became minister, I talked to a number of industrial health and safety committees across the province, which expressed concern that the regulations would be put in place because they already had the benefit of public hearing; and the Workers' Compensation Board, when they had the public hearing process complete, would have had the authority to implement those regulations.

The chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board committed those regulations to the incinerator and made a decision to start anew. There is a draft now ready for distribution throughout the province. I made a commitment that those industrial health and safety committees across the province — the people who would have to work with those regulations — would have an opportunity to discuss those regulations in draft form, and to make their comments and send them back to the Workers' Compensation Board for drafting again and to be sent out then for public hearings. Mr. Speaker, it's my belief that if we use that process we will have the best industrial health and safety regulations and process in all of Canada, because it will have been developed by the people who work with those regulations every day of the week, not by some individual who is in the bureaucracy of the Workers' Compensation Board or who is in a top union position with a particular union or company in British Columbia who are often insulated from the operational problems of the day-to-day workplace.

MR. COCKE: That sounds lovely; it sounds marvellous. He hasn't circumvented the hearings process. He's more compromised now than he was before. On June 10, Harvey Linton, manager of education and training in the occupational safety and health division of WCB, in a six-page memo to Bill Greer, manager of occupational health and safety, said

[ Page 7222 ]

that the new regulations will be in effect by mid-February. Does the minister intend to implement his predecessor's proposed amendments to the Workers Compensation Act and get rid of the public hearing process? His last question didn't indicate that. What's happening in mid-February? You've got a whole trained staff.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member will well know that no act came before this Legislature to amend the Workers Compensation Act that would eliminate public hearings. Anything that would suggest different is purely for political reasons.

MR. COCKE: Everybody in this country that has anything to do with health and safety has a handful — a 400-page document of new regulations. Do I understand that the minister is promising this House that no regulations will be put forward until they've gone through the hearing process?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: What I said was, and the commitment that I made to industrial health and safety committees across British Columbia since February — and I've been out visiting a great number of them, and they've reduced the number of accidents in British Columbia by their hard work and effort by 21 percent over the course of the past two years The commitment that I made to them....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, if you can get the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) to come to order, I'll answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment that I made to industrial health and safety committees across British Columbia was that they're the individuals who work with these regulations on a day-to-day basis. We will do everything we can to help them do their job better. We will circulate the draft copy of the regulations to the industrial health and safety committees across British Columbia. They will have an opportunity to work out those areas of interest to their particular plans and forward them back to the Workers' Compensation Board, at which time they will be distributed for public hearings across British Columbia. It's a long process, but it's one that's worth going through to develop the best industrial health and safety program in all of Canada for the people of British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would think if the minister would read the regulations.... How counterproductive this process is going to be, if that's the basis for regulations. Those regulations were circulated by Mr. Flesher. Has the minister decided to can Mr. Flesher and give the world a break?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the regulations were not circulated by Mr. Flesher. They were put in place before Mr. Flesher became chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, and they had the benefit of public hearings at the time when he became chairman. Those regulations at that time.... Mr. Flesher last week put out a statement saying that those regulations will not be implemented. He got criticized for it by some parties who put a lot of work into the development of the regulations, but because there was some apprehension and fear in the community with respect to those regulations, they were committed to the incinerator long, long ago.

The process now is to develop regulations, send them out to the parties of interest for their comments and discussion and debate, and only when the public hearing process and everything else has taken its course in compliance with the laws of British Columbia will those regulations be put in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, these are all new questions. In any event, this particular question is: since people with a labour background are presently underrepresented on the board, has the minister decided to correct this?

[10:15]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the fact of the matter is I'm an MLA and I'm dealing with Workers' Compensation claims every day because of the incompetence of Workers' Compensation in this province.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement in the act to have any parties — union or employer groups — represented as commissioners on the board. However, in good faith I did give an invitation to the B.C. Federation of Labour to make an appointee to the board, as well as giving other union organizations an opportunity to do the same thing.

I got the recommendation of Bev Korman. She is a union representative and a member of the operating engineers. She has given me a lot of good advice since February when I became Minister of Labour. Bev is now a commissioner on the Workers' Compensation Board, and I have no doubt that she will be able to do a fine job for her party and her constituents of interest.

The B.C. Federation of Labour was offered an invitation to participate in the commissioner process at the Workers' Compensation Board and forward a name of an individual to me that they thought would represent their constituents of interest. Mr. Speaker, his appointment was subject to my making a deal with the president and executive of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and I will not, today or any other time, have a deal in my drawer for one group or another in British Columbia.

We must be able to deal with all groups in an open and even and fair-handed way. That is the way this government and this Minister of Labour will carry out the administration and responsibilities of his office.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have a question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Six months ago special report No. 12 on the Workers' Compensation Board was tabled in the House. The report cited the case of a Mr. Ben Temnoff in Vernon. He has been denied compensation since 1982, pending the outcome of an investigation and subsequent appeal of the case.

Will the minister advise whether his ministry has taken any special action to resolve this particular case and in general to clean up the administration of these overdue cases in WCB?

[ Page 7223 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, we have a process in place by which we are reviewing all of the reports that were submitted to the Legislature. In fact, I have some people waiting in my office today to discuss a number of the ombudsman's reports to the Legislature, and I hope to be able to report to the Legislature on all of those cases in the very near future.

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Attorney-General. In the United States it is a long tradition that the courts would safeguard the public in terms of any political abuses in redistributions in the United States. Recent B.C. government statistics indicate that the electoral district of Central Fraser Valley has virtually identical population to the neighbouring district of Coquitlam-Moody, but the Social Credit government has chosen to award Central Fraser Valley two MLAs, while awarding only one MLA to the citizens of Coquitlam-Moody. Coquitlam-Moody, by the way, is larger, in addition to having the same population.

Has the Attorney-General, who has a specific responsibility beyond politics in British Columbia, investigated whether this extreme imbalance in representation between neighbouring districts constitutes a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that question has been raised before. It is, of course, a bill that was debated in this Legislature. The distribution is based on a formula; it is not based on the decision of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: A phony political formula!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: A phony formula formulated by crooks.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A question was asked to the Attorney. The person asking the question was given the courtesy of proposing the question. The House will now afford the same courtesy to the minister, who will respond.

HON. MR. SMITH: It must be lunar Friday, Mr. Speaker I know that the members opposite would want to elevate the tone of the debate to the last foot above the mud.

American decisions, where the courts have looked at redistribution and been far more involved in scrutinizing policy-making, have not been the trend of the courts under the British system or, indeed, to that degree under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this member would like to refer any political decision that he didn't like to the courts, and claim that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being violated. But our courts have generally taken a more restrained view under the British parliamentary system and have left policy-making and decision-making to parliament, where it should reside; and where majorities, properly democratically elected, make the decisions on formulas for representation.

MR. COCKE: I got carried away. I would like to apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Ministerial Statement

WILDERNESS PRESERVATION

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Just before I start I would like to assure everyone, particularly those colleagues opposite, that this is not a filler. I have a very sincere, deep feeling that this has to be said, and I would just ask your indulgence while I say it. I will make it as brief as possible.

Since I assumed the responsibility for the Ministry of Environment and the chairmanship of the Environment and Land Use Committee, I have been very impressed with the willingness and cooperation of various government ministries, Crown corporations, industrial organizations, environmental groups and the general public to help resolve the difficult decisions that ultimately occur between conflicting land uses in this province.

The competition and the demand for high value areas is accelerating. Where we once considered that multiple-use management would be generally acceptable, we now see disagreements emerging in our province concerning both the scope and the specifics of pure wilderness preservation. Most of us accept that wilderness preservation is essential, but that the associated costs must be considered. What we must do is consider all options and determine what is in the best interests both of today's citizens and of future generations. The real decision today is how we are going to integrate the environmental decisions and the economic ones. We must eliminate the ongoing conflict between economic development and the preservation and enhancement of a healthy environment. We must be more innovative and sensitive than we have in the past. We must also accept the fact that we cannot have everything, nor can we satisfy everyone.

Because governments must accept the ultimate responsibility to ensure that land-use conflicts are resolved without damaging the economy or the environment, this government has established a special advisory committee on wilderness preservation to review land use issues. This committee is comprised of eight very prominent British Columbians, and when I say prominent, Mr. Speaker, I mean it in the most flattering sense. The chairman, Mr. Bryan Williams, is a prominent lawyer. Dr. Derrick Sewell and Dr. Peter Larkin are educators with enviable reputations. Les Reed is a prominent Canadian with wide experience in government and industry and today is a professor of forestry at the University of British Columbia. Valerie Kordyban, Roger Stanyer, Saul Rothman and Ken Farquharson are individuals who can likewise make major contributions based on their respective professions and experience.

There has been a great deal of rhetoric evolving around this committee, and to ensure that we are perfectly clear about its mandate I would like to emphasize what is expected of the committee. They have three primary objectives. The first one is to investigate and to make recommendations about the existing supply of and demand for wilderness areas in British Columbia. The second objective is to provide recommendations on specific land-use allocations for the 16 wilderness areas that have been specified that they should

[ Page 7224 ]

look at. In their deliberations in this area they are expected to consider such factors as environmental capability, socioeconomic impacts, existing natural resource tenures and public and private property rights. The third objective is to examine the possible opportunities for making appropriate adjustments in the boundaries of seven provincial parks.

Although this committee is not primarily a research body, they have hired a research director in order to ensure that the best information possible will be made available to them. The committee is accepting briefs and submissions from the public, and its recommendations will be made public. This report is expected to be received near the end of February.

I would hope that logging activity will be kept to a minimum in the areas designated for review by the special advisory committee. It is anticipated that logging on Lyell Island will be minimal during the time the committee is sitting. This means that literally all the Moresby area identified by the original study team as a potential wilderness area will be untouched at the time the committee makes it recommendations to the government. The decision for minimal logging — and I'm sure all members will agree with this decision on this basis — was made because the livelihood of a number of loggers was directly dependent upon continuing forestry operations on the island and in view of the legal commitments made to the forest company.

A similar situation occurs near Manning Park: the Cascades wilderness area proposal. In this case the government made a decision on integrated logging for the Paradise Valley area in 1982, and on the basis of that decision some $350,000 has been expended to construct a road into that valley. Minor logging is taking place in this area at present — again to provide jobs and to meet promised commitments. I would anticipate that limited permits will be let during the time this review is underway.

In the Stein Valley, the government made a decision back in 1976 to permit integrated resource management in the watershed, including a mix of logging and protection zones. In accordance with that decision, detailed resource analyses were completed and a logging plan was developed, which has been reviewed by all government agencies. The Ministry of Forests has initiated a call for tenders on road construction to access the valley. But at this point in time no contracts have been signed. Our intention, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that we move beyond a piecemeal approach to a broad overview of all the various competing values and proposed uses for areas of particular environmental sensitivity in our province.

[10:30]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister's statement, most of which, incidentally, we have read in the paper and from his press reviews. It seems a bit strange to have a statement made on the floor of the House on something that we have had reported quite widely, and of which we are all familiar.

He speaks about a committee that is going to undertake a momentous task. I agree that overall planning is a task that should have been undertaken long ago in this province. But what we have is a committee that is asked to do the impossible. It is utterly impossible within three months to do the kind of survey and study that that minister is telling the House is going to be undertaken — utterly impossible.

I understand that that three months may well be six months or more, and that extensions will be available. I understand also that the minister was prepared to take interim reports on specific issues. But I would suggest that that minister may or may not have prepared his statement today, and may or may not have the final say in just whether or not those interim reports will be made. It seems to me that that minister is being directed by a Premier who has been out of this House for all but two days of this current session.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, why call a session, and why take 11 days to go to a two-day conference, Mr. House Leader?

In his statement the minister talked about the continuing logging on Lyell Island. He said that this would be limited logging. He talked about the need to protect jobs. That from a Minister who is a member of a cabinet and part of a government that has destroyed 20,000 logging jobs in this province over the last four years. And now he talks about having to maintain 78 jobs. Sure, those jobs should be maintained. Those jobs should have been maintained long before we got into a position of having to log in South Moresby.

How can a committee honestly make a fair recommendation on environmentally based reserves when logging has taken place or roads have been built — $350,000 he tells us in the Cascade Wilderness. Contracts are being let in the Stein, logging is proceeding on Lyell Island — at a time when those areas are being reviewed to see whether or not they're going to be environmental preserves.

MR. REID: What's your position?

MRS. WALLACE: My position, Mr. Speaker, is very clear. What we need in this province is a government that will have a positive job creation program so that we won't be into this kind of constant conflict, setting one group against another and constantly keeping the economy in such a position that no one will come and invest here because of that kind of confrontation. That's what that minister is allowing to happen, and I'm ashamed that he will stand up and attempt to make a good case for this committee when in fact he knows it won't work.

Private Members' Statements

HUMAN RESOURCES MINISTRY
POLICY ON STUDENTS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my statement today deals with the student and the Human Resources ministry. The discussion that I'd like to have today, and the statement that I make, is with reference to the way in which a student is treated, by policy of this government, by the Human Resources ministry. To illustrate as clearly as I can to the House, I'm going to take the House through a little case — not little, but in my opinion a major case — which came before me in my constituency office.

[Mr. Witch in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: I have to wait until these people leave the floor, Mr. Speaker; I can't hear myself. Not you, Mr. Speaker voices behind me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You drove the Speaker out.

[ Page 7225 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Already I drove them out.

Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be more graphic and clear if I started off and told the House about what happened one Friday afternoon in my constituency office in Burnaby North. About 2 in the afternoon a young student came in to see me. This student was very upset. He had just returned from the local Human Resources office, where he had gone in desperation to ask for a hardship allowance. Naturally I asked him what the reasons were that he needed it to begin with. He explained to me that he was a student at PVI, and he was awaiting unemployment insurance. He said: "I don't want welfare. I'll be able to look after myself in two weeks when my first cheque comes, but I am completely out of money right now. I do not have enough money for food."

I asked him if he had a place to live, and he said that was okay, he had shelter, but he had no food money. He struck me as a young man that was not inclined to play upon the system. Unfortunately, some people in our province still think too many do that. I don't happen to think so. Most of the people who come to me, I find, are legitimate people with real needs. So this young student, to my mind, had a very serious case. He had been turned down when he went to the local office, and of course I then asked him why. He said: "I am told by them, by the worker that I spoke to, that because I am a student I cannot get the allowance."

Well, you know, I thought this is absolute nonsense. I know the Human Resources ministry has special assistance for people in need, so I phoned the Human Resources worker who had dealt with this student, and all I got from the worker.... I am not knocking the worker; the worker was simply voicing the policy of the ministry. I was told by the worker, "That is correct, that is in our policy manual, " and a section of it was even cited to me. I'd heard about this, but here is this student standing right in front of me, and it brought to my attention very graphically how stupid and callous this kind of policy was.

What was I to say to this student? "I'm sorry, go out, I can't help you. You'll just have to survive for the next two weeks." Anyway, I also checked on who he could go to — family, and so on — and that was not available. So I decided something had to be looked into in this matter. Now remember, it's Friday afternoon and it's now getting on to about 2:30, quarter to three. You know how long it takes, Mr. Speaker, to get through on calls, because people are busy in that ministry.

So I decided to phone the next Human Resources local office; we have two in North Burnaby. I asked for the supervisor. Oh, the other thing I omitted was that I asked for the supervisor in the first office, and the supervisor there was not available. So I phoned the second office and asked for the supervisor there, who also was not available. So I said, "How about the district supervisor, " and they weren't sure if they could get the district supervisors to me, if they were available. I hung up and I began to think, now, who could I go to on this matter?

In the meantime, I did get a call back from the district supervisor, who had been located. He said: "The worker in the other office was absolutely accurate. I have to tell you that's the policy." However, I said, "What are we going to do?" He said: "I have a suggestion. Phone...."

Oh dear, this is too bad. My story goes on rather long, so can I just wind up quickly. He asked the young boy to phone a loan company — can you believe it, a loan company — which is non-profit. Of course the loan company, which the boy phoned out of desperation, turned out to say it would take a week to process his loan.

I want to end up, unfortunately rather quickly — because I have much more to say — by saying that I finally got through to somebody in the ministry here who very quickly looked into getting assistance for the young student.

My issue here today — I know the minister is here and I appreciate that — is to hear what her response is. At the moment, these workers are simply acting according to the policy given to them by the ministry. But I also want to say that the student did get it only because of the phone call, and that is not the way it should operate. I understand now that they are able to issue these allowances, but the policy book still says they can't.

I realize I must sit down now, Mr. Speaker, but I'm anxious to have the minister comment on this.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby North for bringing to the attention of the House really what becomes the exception to the rule. In all exceptions to the rules — i.e. the policy book, if you like — there will always be a problem. We can't write a policy, quite frankly, that's going to cover every single instance. The reason that you can make a phone call and get an exception really pays tribute to that fact. But let me just give you the broad policy first.

It would be impossible for the taxpayers, and the government on behalf of the taxpayers, to make a policy where the education of students is being paid for from the welfare part of the budget of the Human Resources ministry. The reason for that is that it would not serve the people of our province well in this regard: that there are very many people out there going to school, working hard, working to pay their own way through school and, by the way, paying taxes as they work their way through school, and they would not feel at all kindly towards the government's making an exception for another group of people. They would feel they were being discriminated against.

For one person to work hard to get himself through school and then to watch while we give away funding in a different way entirely to fund other students to get through school.... The choice is theirs, whether they wish to go to school to get to a better educational level so they can get a better job. That choice is still there, and they have the opportunity to work towards that choice, whether by their family's help or by the help of themselves working their way through school. In this case, the young man in question obviously was leaning on a UIC payment which was not forthcoming for another two weeks, and so, because of an exceptional circumstance, we met his needs. Even though it was an inconvenience to you to make two or three phone calls, you have to understand that our ministry did respond — and you have clearly stated that on the floor of this House this morning.

We will always have those exceptions, Mr. Speaker, and, thankfully, the Ministry of Human Resources is able to respond to the exception. However, we do not wish to make a blanket rule, because we would find that those people who are paying their taxes to help people in need — which is what the ministry's welfare system is set up for — would have their dollars diminished by a very large demand from students who run out of money for perhaps other reasons than those explained by the member for Burnaby North today. May I say that I think she has explained that the system is working: the

[ Page 7226 ]

exception is being met. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that in all cases in which we can, we will.

Finally, I have to say that although Ul has improved greatly, the lag-time in paying it out has put a tremendous burden on a lot of people, particularly on our offices, when we are the ones who are supposed to pick up on the federal government's lack of efficiency in getting UIC cheques to recipients.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that, as usual, the Minister of Human Resources has completely avoided the basic issue I was presenting to her today. I was not talking about making a major change. Students versus the ability to pick up welfare payments was not the issue. The issue was allowing the flexibility to a worker in one of her local offices to make the decision to give a hardship allowance to a student.

[10:45]

The minister referred to the fact that I had the inconvenience of two or three calls. If she is suggesting that I found that inconvenient, I want to assure her that over the almost 20 years that I've been in this House I've considered that my job — and have made many more calls than that. I referred to those two or three calls because I'm an MLA and can do that and get attention. But what about other young people out there who don't know about going to their MLA? Why should two or three calls have to be made in the first place, when all the minister has to do is give her workers a policy that states: in extreme hardship cases that come to your attention, you can give that allowance? I was not discussing the whole matter of welfare. For years I have listened to the Minister of Human Resources completely avoid the basic question that she is asked and completely cloud it up.

I want to conclude by saying that the issue here is for that minister to immediately give the right to her local resource workers — the right and the flexibility — to make these decisions; to have it clear that they can make it, instead of the present situation in which workers at the offices have been told that they can give these allowances, but the policy is still in front of them that they can't. That minister owes it to her workers to make it very clear. They are confused now. I don't blame the workers one bit. They're dealing with a confused ministry that is not facing up to the reality of the basic hardships faced by our students in these particular circumstances.

SKYTRAIN

MR. REYNOLDS: British Columbia's state-of-the-art SkyTrain is speeding transit in our province into the twenty-first century. It is the world's most modem urban transportation system. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, SkyTrain is creating thousands of jobs. Phases 1 and 2 of SkyTrain construction is generating some 7,500 direct jobs, as well as some 15,000 spinoff jobs.

The decision to build SkyTrain was based on sound economic principles. It is a long-term investment in the transportation system and in urban development, with many benefits to all British Columbians. Across this province we have highways, railways, bridges and ferries. SkyTrain and B.C. Transit are an integral part of this network. They are good examples of the drive and determination with which British Columbians are striving for a prosperous future. SkyTrain has provided tremendous industrial opportunity in British Columbia.

SkyTrain's phase 1 is projected to cost $854 million, and phase 2 is costed at $200 million. Of the total spending of $783 million to date, British Columbia companies have received $550 million in SkyTrain contracts. An agreement between British, Columbia and the province of Ontario, owners of Urban Transportation Development Corporation, stipulates that our spending on SkyTrain be maximized in British Columbia, when choices can be made in the sources of any supplies and services. Our goal was to ensure that at least 60 percent of all spending would circulate within this province. In fact, we have achieved a provincial share of 70 percent of the total to date; and there are more contracts yet to be let.

A further benefit will be in helping to place British Columbia manufacturers, engineers and consultants in a better position to participate in an export market for transit systems and expertise. B.C. firms are supplying most of the goods and services for SkyTrain, and some of the components. Linear induction motors, computerized heat sensors and parts for the steerable trucks are being made in greater Vancouver for use in systems in Detroit and Scarborough. The concrete guideways, the stations, being built by British Columbia firms, as well as other construction items accounts for 41 percent of the total project. "SkyTrain is also stimulating private sector development in the communities," a quote from the Sun of November 16, 1985. Cal Investments, for example, is spending $100 million on the Metrotown development in Burnaby. Cambridge Shopping Centres Ltd. of Toronto wants to spend $140 million there, and Burnaby developer John Georgilas proposes to spend another $100 million on a hotel, library, cinemas, apartment towers, 50 retail outlets and a Save-On-Foods megastore — all this on top of an estimated $250 million worth of metrotown work in the past four years.

Mr. Speaker, another $450 million worth of commercial development is planned. There are a lot of construction jobs in there and more permanent jobs to follow — all this as a result of the SkyTrain line.

Mr. Speaker, December 11 will be the grand official opening of our SkyTrain. The grand opening is the culmination of five years of planning and construction. The 21-kilometre, Canadian-designed and -built SkyTrain stretching between downtown Vancouver and New Westminster will carry 10,000 passengers per hour in 1986, including people with disabilities. The service will be equal to 28 lanes of traffic.

Mr. Speaker, phase 2, the Surrey extension, will open early in 1989. Construction of the first rail transit cable-stay bridge in the world will start in September 1986. The bridge will be completed in 1988, and the 17 kilometre SkyTrain extension will be serving Surrey by 1989. A speed bus service will be established at Scott Road in Whalley in early 1986 to shuttle commuters to New Westminster until the extension is complete.

Mr. Speaker, right now preliminary planning is taking place on a further SkyTrain extension — this one to Coquitlam. A feasibility study by British Columbia Transit indicates that the extension into Coquitlam is as feasible and necessary as the extension to Surrey.

The SkyTrain will certainly be a pleasant sight to see. In cooperation with the provincial and federal governments, the

[ Page 7227 ]

private sector and community groups are creating a 19 kilometre linear park under the SkyTrain guideway. B.C. Transit has contributed $2 million, which was combined with a $1.8 million federal contribution and a significant private sector contribution. Building the parkway is creating some 4,000 person weeks of direct employment and 4,000 person weeks of indirect employment. Jogging trails, bike paths, theme gardens, a garden of the provinces and a mile of tulips will make this 50-acre beautification project an unequalled people place and a world class attraction as well.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, SkyTrain construction also includes preparation of a new heavy transit maintenance facility at the Kitchener maintenance centre in Burnaby. Work began in April of this year. At a cost of $13.2 million, several million dollars less than the cost of an all-new facility, the Kitchener facility is being renovated. The total number of jobs involved in this one-and-a-half-year project is 250. The more efficient design of the centre will mean a net saving in operating costs of $180,000 per year.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of this government, our transit system and the people who make it work so well. Meaningful jobs are being created by projects initiated by our government, British Columbia Transit and private industry. That cooperation is building economic renewal in British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for B.C. Transit, I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for B.C. Transit and Human Resources for the statement that has just been made.

I think too often, because it has been such a very easy construction — if I may say easy in terms of lack of work stoppages.... There have been none in this SkyTrain building and construction. It has been a very smooth operation with a tremendous capability of the workforce that has brought it to fruition. I would just like to say to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who has very clearly indicated not just the economic and social benefits and the transportation benefits but has pointed out how all of those three areas have benefited in terms of the building of our new light rapid transit....

I have said in the past — and may I just for the record say it here — that the building of light rapid transit in the lower mainland of British Columbia, where it will serve the largest part of our population in British Columbia, is probably the greatest economic developer for the lower mainland that we have seen. In this 100 years of Vancouver's history and greater Vancouver's history, I have to say that it's the most significant transportation project to be initiated, and I am just delighted with the member's comments this morning. I have to say that they make abundant good sense, and I thank him for his comments.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I must say that I'm shocked that we did not hear from members of the opposition and their comments on SkyTrain.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: As the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) knows, members' statements are an opportunity for members of this House to make statements about any project they want to talk about. There's also a period of time allowed in there for members of the opposition and members of the government to make their comments.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that this opposition always wants to get up in this House and yell and scream about jobs and what this government's not doing. Yet when I look at SkyTrain, which goes through Vancouver Centre, Vancouver East, New Westminster, Burnaby-Edmonds — all opposition ridings.... This government gets accused, Mr. Speaker, of only doing things in government ridings. Here's one of the major projects in this province going right through the opposition ridings, creating tens of thousands of jobs in those ridings — including New Westminster — and yet when it comes time to say something in this House, to say a positive thing, where are they? The members of the opposition fall silent. Where are the members for Vancouver Centre, Vancouver East, Burnaby-Edmonds and New Westminster when it comes to talking about something positive that's happening right in their constituencies, giving jobs to members of their constituencies? They fall silent; I wonder why. Because I think they know that the people of their constituencies know that this government is doing a good job in building British Columbia for the future, building jobs for the future, jobs for their constituents. It's been a proud day to be able to stand up here today and say that, and point out just one other positive step that this government is doing to build a future for British Columbia.

JOB CREATION POLICIES

MR. STUPICH: I want to talk about jobs as well. You will recall, on Thursday of last week, the Leader of the Opposition asking the Premier whether he had any plan to put back to work the people of British Columbia. I've had an opportunity to review Hansard and note that the Premier said: "The plan is already in effect. The plan is working." He used those words five times during the course of the questions that were being asked, in spite of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had introduced evidence to show that the plan, if it is to put people back to work, is failing the people of British Columbia abysmally.

Mr. Speaker, if I may recall to you some of the points that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition, 70,000 fewer are working today in B.C. than four years ago; 110,000 more are unemployed. In the last few weeks 300 jobs have been lost at Dominion glass, 191 at Westar, 105 at Eurocan, 275 in the elevator at Prince Rupert, 90 at MacMillan Bloedel, 80 at Seaspan, 12,000 in forestry and mining — 12,000 jobs in those industries alone — 42,000 in manufacturing, 26,000 in construction, and 17,000 in transportation, utilities and communications. If the plan is working, obviously the plan was not to create employment in the province of British Columbia.

Yesterday evening, listening to the news, there was an announcement from CPR that 56 more would be laid off in the southeast comer of the province. This is a quotation, as near as I can remember it from the newscast: "...because of the lingering recession in the province of British Columbia." That's their appraisal of the government's plan, or the success of the government's plan.

A news story this morning, talking about Kamloops.... The member isn't here at the present, but in Kamloops Weyerhaeuser recently laid off 73 and has great

[ Page 7228 ]

concerns about the near future. Then the same story went on to say that on January 22, 1986, 22 will be laid off at Afton Mines "as part of a complete wind-down." If the plan is in effect, if the plan was to put British Columbia back to work, British Columbians in increasing numbers are not being put back to work. The plan may be working, but British Columbians aren't working.

What was the Bennett plan? What was the Social Credit government plan? The first announcement of the plan, the first phase, was restraint. It was announced in February 1982. At that time, or at least to December 31, 1981, the total provincial debt of the province and the Crown corporations was $9.5 billion. Now, some four years later, that debt has increased to some $19 billion. The only effect we've seen from the restraint package is that the debt, in a period of four years, has doubled from $9.5 billion to $19 billion. Approximately one-half of that is in the operating accounts; the other half is for projects such as SkyTrain, which I may have an opportunity to discuss a little later, depending upon my time.

[11:00]

Free ports were talked about, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, in several opening speeches and throne speeches, and in several budget speeches, but have not been in recent years. Duty-free zones were talked about, again, in several opening speeches and in several budget speeches. Economic development zones are more recent, and most recent of all are the special enterprise zones. And then most recently a bill was introduced yesterday, about which I'll be talking later. All gimmicks — none of them is doing anything to put the people of British Columbia to work, as is obvious from the figures that we have, the figures that were introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, who got them from government records.

The NDP plan. What would we be doing? For one thing we would be doing more to educate people, to increase educational opportunities in the province of British Columbia. This is a quote from an article that was in the paper just yesterday: "The lack of educational opportunity is one of the greatest obstacles to economic and social development." If we are trying to develop the province economically and socially, then by cutting back on educational opportunities, we are doing exactly the wrong thing by almost every authority you can quote.

Research and development. Along with a number of other members, I had an opportunity to spend a day at UBC and saw some examples of the products they are developing, products that could put British Columbians to work using B.C. resources and satisfying or meeting B.C. market needs. That's the kind of thing we should be doing, Mr. Speaker. Beyond that, the limitless opportunities to put people to work in British Columbia: B.C. labourers, B.C. materials, silvicultural projects. The municipal construction program that we have talked about for some time, that the municipalities have talked about federally and provincially; the great need that is not being met by this government, and the need in spite of it. In some ridings there is no need for more housing, but even though people are leaving the province, in some areas we need more housing. That does put British Columbians to work, using British Columbia materials.

That's the kind work, using [illegible]. That's the kind of thing we should be doing to pull up ourselves by our own bootstraps, rather than trying to fall back on economic panaceas, different phrases in different opening speeches, in different budget speeches, different legislation, all of which, by the records themselves, have been shown to be totally wanting when it comes to rebuilding the economy in the province of British Columbia. As the CPR said: "We're laying people off in B.C. because of the continuing economic recession in the province" — an economic recession that all this government's gimmicks to date have done nothing to change.

This government has to start looking within the province, using British Columbians, British Columbians materials; put our people to work here and wait until there are markets. There will be markets internationally one day. But in the meantime, let's start putting British Columbians to work here in British Columbia, providing services and materials that British Columbia can be consuming. That's the road, the initial step to prosperity in the province of B.C.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said the other day, quite correctly and accurately, that there is a plan, and the plan is working. I appreciate that I have very limited time in which to respond on a topic such as that which has been raised by the member for Nanaimo.

Employment: for the period of 1985 to just a few weeks ago, the comparable period in 1984.... I digress for a moment to say that it perhaps suits the purposes of the opposition to refer to 1981 versus 1985. We have had a recession. But in the same period — calendar 1985, calendar 1984, to date — 26,000 more jobs in British Columbia. Consumer and business conditions: following a dramatic 44 percent increase in the second quarter of 1985, the Conference Board consumer confidence index increased another eight points in the third quarter. In the first nine months of calendar 1985, retail sales are up 7.9 percent from the same period in 1984. Even in 1984 retail sales increased 6.1 percent, the first larger-than-inflation increase since 1981, since that key date selected by the opposition for its purposes of describing the situation in B.C.

Sales tax data for the first seven months of the fiscal year show an increase of 8.4 percent over the comparable period of fiscal 1984-85. Consumer and business conditions: in the first ten months of 1985, the number of business bankruptcies decreased 10. 3 percent from the same period of 1984, and the number of incorporations rose to 1,426. That's an increase of 14.2 percent from the same period of 1984.

Tourism: a 52 percent increase in the number of tourists seeking information in August at Vancouver's four tourist information booths. In the first nine months of 1985, hotel occupancy for the province was up 5 percent compared to the same period in 1984. Natural resources: in the first eight months of 1985, the quantity of coal produced increased 18.5 percent compared with the same period of 1984. Production rose 77.1 percent in 1984. The number of oil and gas wells drilled in British Columbia in 1984 was 194, an increase of 155 percent over 1983. In 1985, drilling activity is continuing to increase. From January  to November 14, 1985, 204 wells were drilled in B.C. That's a 12.7 percent increase over the same period last year.

So much for percentages and numbers and statistics. The fact is that people are working in British Columbia. There are more jobs than there were; work is increasing in British Columbia. Who are these people? They are British Columbians. What are they doing? They are working on the Annacis crossing. They're working in the northeast, in the southeast. They're working on ALRT or SkyTrain. They're working on

[ Page 7229 ]

hospital construction projects, which my colleague has announced in a number of ridings, including the riding represented by the member who has just spoken.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. The job market in British Columbia is improving. The plan is working and will continue to work. I have not referred to Expo. I am speaking only of 1985 to date. It is certainly an encouraging sign. We are coming out of the recession. We're coming out of the recession rapidly and well and on a very solidly founded base, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, sincerely, as a British Columbian, I would like to be able to take some heart from the remarks of the minister. I would think that in some communities and in some audiences, if he is giving that message, then certainly people will take heart. Perhaps that's more important than anything else. But looking at it from where I stand right now, I just can't see that much of a glow on the horizon.

When the minister said that comparing 1985 with 1984 is different from comparing 1985 with 1981, I agree. The 1981 figures are from the year before the government announced its program to get B.C. moving again, and 1981 was a good year. But for him to compare 1985 to 1984, Mr. Speaker, after what this government did to the economy of the province with that July budget in 1983.... Anything could be better than the immediate results of that.

To say that something good has improved, to say that the number of people working today is better than it was yesterday, when you've laid off almost everybody yesterday.... It's easy, Mr. Speaker, to have that kind of a relationship, to show that kind of improvement. Nevertheless, I hope some people are encouraged by the minister's point.

I noticed with respect to tourism he said 52 percent were seeking information. That's good, and I hope that a lot of them are coming to Expo, because I know that for the rest of my life I'm going to be buying raffle tickets and paying taxes to pay for Expo. So I do hope that a lot of people do come in. Certainly I intend to be one of them going to Expo, and not just once.

Natural Resources. Coal production is up. Mr. Speaker, that's one of the points I was trying to make during my opening. Coal production is up, and we're shipping the coal out of the province to provide employment in other jurisdictions. What I tried to get across is that we should be doing more within the province of British Columbia by education, by research, by development to make sure that we get more out of the development of our natural resources, more than simply shipping them out of the country. We're not doing that.

The minister talked about the people who are working in the hospital construction projects that were announced recently by the Minister of Health. I'm pleased that there is one in Nanaimo. But, Mr. Speaker, do you know of a single worker that's working on any one of those projects today, on November 29? I don't. They are announced, and they will start next year. That's good, but I suspect that they'll start working right about the time that we go to the polls. Maybe that will be good, too, for the people. I don't know. At least we'll get some hospitals built that we weren't getting built otherwise. Mr. Speaker, for the government to have the unmitigated gall to say that they're going to build hospitals in 1986, because restraint has worked and we're now doing better than we were before, in face of the government's own figures to the effect that our provincial debt during this period of restraint and free ports and economic development zones and special enterprise zones, while all that stuff was being poured out.... In those four years, our provincial debt has gone from $9.5 billion to $19 billion, and to this point we have nothing positive to show for it. All we can say is that next year, we hope, will be better.

PROPERTY TAXES AT B.C. REFINERY

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I hope my pipes get me through this one. I'm glad to see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the House, because my remarks are directed toward him. They are on the urgent need for modernization of the lead-smelting and -refining operations in Trail.

Briefly, the old plant is old, inefficient and unhealthy for the people who are in it. To a lesser extent, it's even unhealthy for the rest of the community. I'm not talking about the entire Cominco operations in Trail, Mr. Speaker; I'm talking about the lead-smelting and -refining operations.

I'm directing my remarks toward the Minister of Finance because I am convinced that what the minister insists on referring to — and I will humour him in that regard — as a water rental tax is a tremendous deterrent not only for any group of investors to put money into Trail, but indeed, ultimately, if metal prices continue to fall, for the continued operation of the modernized parts.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, we're all used to the advent of increasing taxes. I would point out that the royalty on electricity generated from water has increased in the last few years, during the period of recession in this province, by a factor of 17. It is 17 times higher than it was in the late 1970s. I'd also like to point out that that's the only advantage that we have for a smelting and refining operation anywhere in British Columbia.

The previous speaker, and this is only incidental, mentioned that we ship out too many raw products. Here's an operation which does not ship out raw products in the mining industry. In fact, it's a net importer of raw products, both from the United States and from the rest of Canada, and it ships out finished products.

Circumstance has given us a lot of disadvantages in this province for this kind of operation compared with competitors in the rest of Canada, North America, Japan, Australia and western Europe. We have higher transportation costs; we have tougher environmental standards of operation. I'm not saying that those should be weakened — I'm proud that we have high environmental standards — but the fact is that they put us at a competitive disadvantage to everyone else who has lower standards. We have higher direct and indirect taxes in B.C. and Canada than our competitors. We have an exchange rate disadvantage due to our currency. Last but not least, in the midst of all this free-trade talk, I hope that it's realized that there are substantial protective duties in the Common Market and even from the United States for finished metal products.

[11:15]

I commend the minister and the government, and I have in the past, for their relaxation this year of property taxes on industry. However, Mr. Speaker, I think I have to make the point in the House that even with that relaxation of property taxes and even with the partnership agreement, still we find this particular industry paying more in property taxes than its competitors. Property taxes in Trail at present result in roughly $12 a ton of product. Competitors in Timmins and

[ Page 7230 ]

Flin Flon pay approximately $9 — that's Kidd Creek Mines in Timmins and Hudson Bay Mining in Flin Flon. Noranda in Valleyfield, Quebec, pays approximately $4. The Aussies only charge their mining and smelting industry approximately 50 cents a ton. I have no exact figures for western Europe, but I think it's fairly well-known that while the western Europeans tend to impose other taxes to a much higher extent than we do, their property taxes are low or nonexistent.

Very recently, three major mining companies in Canada have had their credit rating lowered — Cominco, Noranda and Alcan. This is primarily due to the present state of base metal prices. It's also due to the heavy debt load that they carry. I can't speak about Alcan or Noranda, but I do know that Cominco's debt load is not due, as with so many companies, to the fact that they'd been running around in the late 1970s acquiring each other; Cominco's debt load is due to the fact that they borrowed a lot of money to build themselves in British Columbia the most modem zinc operations in the world — the most modem mine, the Sullivan mine, in the world in terms of operations — and to develop a high-tech industry in Trail. For all of the headlines we've seen about high-tech coming to B.C. and to the coast, I want to tell the House again that the centre for high-tech production in this province is Trail — the cadmium mercury telluride operations, the gallium arsenide chip.

The government — I'm sorry the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) isn't here — has realized that it's important to make low-cost natural gas available as an industrial input for large buyers. If the government can understand that for natural gas, why can they not understand that for electrical power? We're talking here about 268 megawatts of average demand; the next nearest one in the province of B.C. is below 100. I'm not going to toss around a whole lot of numbers, but I want to remind the minister that all of southeastern B.C. depends directly or indirectly on the non-ferrous mining and smelting industries. In fact, I would say that direct and indirect employment, because of the Sullivan mine in Kimberley, the Cominco refining operations in Trail and the CPR employment due to ore and finished-product haul in and out of Trail, has a greater employment level than all other industries — including the coal mining industry — put together in southeastern B.C., including tourism, agriculture and the forest industry.

But it's not just southeastern B.C. A number of small mines from all over British Columbia, as far away as Scottie Gold in Stewart in the extreme northwestern part of the province, ship to Trail. If that lead operation wasn't there, they would not have any place to ship anymore.

MR. SPEAKER: Time, hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY: Okay, Mr. Speaker; I'm going to clean up very quickly. I want to remind the minister that 45 percent of all revenue in B.C. comes directly from personal income tax and social service tax.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I appreciate the member for Rossland-Trail indicating two or three days ago, before Orders of the Day appeared, that he would be speaking on this. I have made some notes; however, I will want to review the several points that he has advanced with respect to Trail.

The water rental increase question has been discussed here previously. I concede, as indeed I did at budget time in March, that the jumps which had occurred had been quite significant and that is why we introduced — I don't like to use the word in connection with water rental — the freezing of water rental rates. That, I think, has a salutary effect on Trail, on the smelter and on other major users of energy throughout the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would not want to mislead or give false hope to the member with respect to that which he has raised today. I cannot commit to a particular action or a series of actions which might occur after the government duly considers a host of matters. But I can assure him of this: that within the Ministry of Finance, and in concert with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — and indeed at the executive council — the points which he has raised will be discussed.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the last two speakers have talked about jobs that are fundamentally based — and I don't say the government is wrong — on borrowed money. This does not involve the borrowing of any money. It simply involves the forgoing of some revenue for a short time as an investment.

I want to remind the minister that the federal government, in making its agreement to assist Cominco, did not write a blank cheque. They said the money is repayable with interest providing the operation is viable. I simply want to recognize the fact that metal prices are the lowest they've been in real terms since 1932; that the pulp and paper and lumber industries have a variable rate for stumpage; that Alcan has a variable rate for water tax on its electricity tied to the price of aluminium. I only ask that the minister and the treasury benches recognize the low price of metals, and tie the most important single energy input into those operations to the price of metals.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes private members' statements.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, leave to proceed to second reading of Bill 68.

Leave granted.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to take my place in presenting this bill to the House. We talked briefly about it yesterday. The bill is designed to increase the average earnings of injured workers from $32,400 in 1985 to $40,000 in 1986, which without question will be a major benefit to many British Columbians who have been disabled and are in need of pension. The act also allows for the indexing of workers' compensation benefits on a twice yearly basis. So this will add additional benefits to injured workers across British Columbia.

The other part of the bill is one that I've had a lot of discussion on with industrial health and safety committees across British Columbia. Since February I've been meeting with those industrial health and safety committees, and the message they ask me to send to the employer community is

[ Page 7231 ]

that safety is good business in British Columbia. They felt that in many cases it was easier for the employer to pay the penalty than to comply with industrial health and safety standards. So the bill provides greater flexibility on the part of Workers' Compensation in imposing additional assessments on employers for non-compliance with industrial health and safety regulations. Without question, Mr. Speaker, that will be a significant change in Workers' Compensation policy over the next few years.

That basically is the principle of the bill. I wait for further discussion from the members opposite with respect to the principle of the bill. I'd be pleased to respond at that time to any questions they have.

I'm pleased to move second reading of the bill.

MR. COCKE: The bill really has two principles from the standpoint of two amendments to the Workers Compensation Act, the first part being that the maximum wage the act will use for the test of liability to the claimant has been raised, and raised fairly substantially: from, as I recall, $26,400 to $40,000. That's a significant raise, and I applaud the raise.

But I've got a problem with this first part: that is, it wouldn't matter if you raised it to $100,000 if the claimants can't collect. We're faced with a situation in this province right now where workers' compensation has become a horror story. Workers' Compensation is not.... They are paying claims when they absolutely have to. It's the kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, where every MLA, every representative of a union is being absolutely deluged by workers' compensation claimants' problems. If there is an MLA in the House that isn't regularly being asked for help in this regard, I would like that person to stand up. We had a period where workers' compensation problems were reduced markedly. But in the last while they have just crept up and crept up. There are more complaints going to review panels than the review panels can handle. The minister is trying like blazes to streamline the process, but obviously that's where the trouble is. It's not raising the maximum; it's actually paying the claims.

Now for a while the review panels would reverse the position of the adjudicators. It would go to the panels — and don't forget a person goes broke in that process, because it takes a couple of years to get it there. So many of them are on welfare now because they get nothing in between. Mr. Speaker, they get that positive reversal from the review panel and what happens? It goes back to the Workers' Compensation Board, and they reverse it again. It's a disgrace.

What's the process? Why have review panels if the board...? I am talking about up to 75 percent of them for a while. Now I understand that there has been a slight improvement, and it could be that the level head of Bev Korman.... Incidentally, I have nothing against Bev Korman. I think she is a first-class person on the Workers' Compensation Board. I sure don't say that about many people on the Workers' Compensation Board. I don't say that about Mr. Flesher, Ms. Nutter and others. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is not a balance on that board at the moment. There is an apparent improvement, but it had better improve an awful lot, and it had better be that people are given justice in this country.

[11:30]

If there was ever ever an indication to me that the Workers' Compensation Board are trying to slip stuff around in this province.... You talk about that amendment to Bill 33, which would deny claims of widows. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the fact that the minister has improved the formula, but I suggest very strongly that it has to go further than that.

Now what about the assessment for employers? That's been frozen, as I recall, at $26,182 under the present administration. The Journal of Commerce tells me that the president of B.C. Construction suspects that Workers' Compensation Board of B.C. is about to announce an assessment rate increase for 1986, and he knows of no justification for it. "'We had a lot of consultations with the board as it was getting its house in order over the last two years. Our understanding in late August was that 1986 rates would remain at current levels,' said David Weller." Sure, keep the employers' assessment down and deny access to claims for claimants.

So that's our problem, Mr. Speaker. We've got a mighty force out there that says there are more malingerers in this world than there are people. That's really the attitude over there at Workers' Compensation. Anybody with a sore back may as well forget about it. That is a degenerative back condition that that poor devil was born with, and it just so happened that when he injured himself at work, the degeneration just let the damage happen.

Mr. Speaker, I feel quite strongly that this particular area is the wider part of it that we have to look at. A book has been published as a result of a public inquiry.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He's doing rather well too. I understand he's at Queen's Park right now. He's got a good audience down there as well. I digress because the House Leader assaults my monologue.

Mr. Speaker, this is a report from an inquiry put on by the trade union movement, an inquiry that should never have been, should never have had to be, because the inquiry should have been an inquiry initiated by the government into the workers' compensation process.

I joined this Legislative Assembly over 16 years ago, and at that time there was a lot of difficulty with claims. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest things we had to do in those days was Workers' Compensation Board claims and problems. It reduced during the 1970s, including a good deal of the Socred time, right up until the 1980s, and now it's worse than it ever was. It is worse now than it has been since I've been a member of this Legislative Assembly. If this little minister is going to turn it around, he sure better get cracking. I think the only way he can ever turn it around is to come to grips with our demand for an inquiry into the whole issue.

I would recommend some night-time reading to the minister about claims adjudication in this book. Look at some of the case histories. I don't have to read them out; we've all got a raft of them. Look at your desk — every one of you MLAs — and find out how many WCB claims you have. The hon. member for Point Grey may not have so many. He was kind of shaking his head, but in any event....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes. That's right. You know, Mr. Speaker, if that's the thought that goes through his mind, I'll only say to him: it takes one to know one.

We are doing a disservice to claimants, and this amendment is not going to do the job unless we turn that around. I want to ask a couple of questions about the second principle

[ Page 7232 ]

that we're involved in here. We're talking here about a greater flexibility in additional assessments on employers.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Not the least bit out of order. That's the content of this bill, which obviously the House Leader has never read. Have you read it? So he has difficulty; couldn't stop his lips from moving.

One of the things that we've noted without this authorization is that the Workers' Compensation Board has been applying higher assessments on some, and at the present time with the present experience of the last year — because this has just been going on for about a year — the people who have been hard-hit are little businesses, and those who have not been hurt so badly have been large businesses. A fine of $1,000 to Cominco is not terribly significant, but a fine to a drycleaner employing four or five people would be quite a hardship.

That's the problem that we've been facing now. We could read this two ways: that you're giving the board the right to do what they've been doing, or it could be that you'll be permitting multiple percentage increases in some particular situations where health and safety have been ignored by the employer. I'd really like to hear from the minister with respect to this. If this is going to straighten it out, fine; if not, then I'm not satisfied with the way it's being done right now because it is hitting the small business to a greater extent than it is the large business.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We've got all the time in the world, Mr. House Leader, and I'm the designated speaker.

I would also ask about experience rating, per se. What's the minister's attitude toward experience rating? I know there has been a great deal of opposition to it. I'd also like to ask him: is he going to increase the payroll assessment, which has been frozen? Now we hear a rumour that Mr. Flesher is going to be making an announcement next week. Will that be part of the announcement? That is what I would like to know about that second section. I do hope that that second Section is going to create a fair situation, as opposed to the one that I see at the present time. And while I'm glad that the minister has increased the maximum for a claimant, I do hope that he's going to straighten out this whole business of people's access to justice in terms of claims. They're not getting it now, and they deserve it.

MR. SKELLY: I note that this is the second amendment to the Workers Compensation Act in this 1985 session of the Legislature, and that the minister says that the amendments came out of his travels around the province meeting with health and safety committees in various plants. It seems to me that the minister has embarked upon a bit of a patchwork process, where he brings in one section and then discusses amendments to the act with another group of people around the province. I don't fault the minister for the process of consultation, because I believe that that process is important. But unfortunately the process, as the minister has indicated himself, is kind of hit and miss. If you go out and meet with one group, and they suggest an amendment to the act, and you come in with Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 1), and then you go out and meet with another group and come in with Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act (No. 2), and then number three and number four, depending upon how long the session goes, it ends up that the act starts to look like a crazy quilt, and there's no comprehensive overview of the act.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Really what we need in this province, as was recommended in the report that the member for New Westminster talked about, is a more comprehensive overview of the whole process of workers' compensation in British Columbia. I would recommend to the minister the approach that's suggested in that commission that was done by the B.C. Federation of Labour: a full royal commission into workers' compensation in the province of British Columbia, so that the minister can consult with all of the people in the province who are interested, as recommended in the legislation. It's been a long time since there has been a comprehensive analysis.

I prefer the Saskatchewan approach, Mr. Speaker, which builds into the Workers Compensation Act in that province a requirement that whatever government is in power must do an independent review of the act every five years, so that the act is constantly updated, so that it responds to current conditions and so that, as new conditions develop in the province of Saskatchewan, the commission can make recommendations that address those problems. I would recommend that proposal to the minister. I think it's unfortunate that the government, so far, has rejected that kind of approach to revising the Workers Compensation Act. By amending the act piecemeal and by adopting the band-aid approach, the result is a crazy quilt in workers' compensation legislation that ultimately ceases to make sense and simply puts off the day when a comprehensive overview of the legislation has to take place.

The rest of the world today, Mr. Speaker, is working towards a more comprehensive or more universal accident compensation system. The reason for that is that people aren't simply injured on the job or suffer job-related health conditions; people suffer just as much if they are injured on the way to work or if they have pre-existing conditions that affect injuries and health conditions that they suffer on the job. I think that, as a result of the way our workers' compensation system is structured, many people fall through the gaps. Adjudicators are able to use pre-existing health problems or to use the fact that an injury may not be strictly work related to deprive a worker in this province of workers' compensation.

[11:45]

In many countries, Mr. Speaker, accident victims are included in the system whether they have their accident in a car.... What happens if a worker is driving his car on the way to work? Is not that part of his daily work routine?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I know what the member is leading to, but....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Anybody. In New Zealand, for example, they have a universal accident compensation system.

[ Page 7233 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The minister, I think, will have an opportunity to make a speech in this Legislature, and I look forward to listening to it and to his discussion of no-fault benefits. I understand he has a few notes in his pocket from the Trial Lawyers' Association.

But, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, most of the world is moving towards a more universal accident compensation system that makes it possible for a worker, regardless of where he or she is injured, or what other health conditions impinge on the work-related health conditions, to get compensation for lost salary and for the disabilities that are suffered.

So I would recommend to the minister, Mr. Speaker, rather than this kind of band-aid crazy-quilt approach to workers' compensation legislation, a full royal commission of inquiry into workers' compensation to make comprehensive recommendations to the Legislature so that we can put into place in British Columbia the best system of accident compensation in the world. We certainly aren't getting it as a result of the activities of this minister.

MR. MITCHELL: As I review this particular bill, and its shortness, I happen to note that they have increased the rates by $11,000 to $40,000 as your maximum benefit. One of the major problems that is facing my constituency office is that before a person can benefit from this particular $40,000, he has to get into the system. What's happening right now out in the workforce is that a lot of people are getting injured, or having particular problems like back problems. Because of the economic times, and because of fear of getting laid off, they're not reporting their particular problems.

I'll bring to the minister one particular individual's case that has come across my desk lately. He was working on a hard-rock blasting operation which everyone on the job said was one of the worst blasting operations they'd seen for a long time. He was working with heavy equipment. There was an awful lot of shaking and rattling of his equipment, which, as any one of us knows who has worked in heavy construction, is hard on the back. He's one of these individuals who is more macho than a lot of us should be when we're working. He doesn't want to admit that maybe he's not up to the job and can't handle it, and so he continues to work. Eventually, after a month on the job, they had to literally pack him off the operation.

Here is a person who has worked 13 years for this one company, who has worked and been proven in a very rough operation. When he reported that it first bothered him a month before, they packed him off the job. Because at that point he hadn't immediately gone to a doctor and had treatment, he was not covered by compensation. What the regulations and the present act say is that as soon as you have a little twinge of any possible injury, you should run off to the first-aid man, if there is one on the job, and in this particular case there wasn't an organized first-aid station.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Organized first-aid stations are not in this bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I realize that. But I said there are operations out there that are not covered in the regulations, and the act is missing a few.

But what we're talking about is how a person is going to benefit from the increase to $40,000 in wages. What it's saying — and this is the problem with the present regulations — is that before you can benefit from the $40,000 you have to get into the system. In this case, because he hadn't rushed off to the doctor and had some kind of treatment and x-rays, which would have been a drain on the medical system.... But because he was a dedicated employee and kept on working and wasn't a whiner, he was penalized. He was penalized, because they would not recognize the particular accident. There has to be a sincere review of the power that is vested in the adjudicators at the present time. There has to be some flexibility, so that when a person who has his credentials of being a hard worker and a dependable worker.... He's not a wimp. He's not somebody who is trying to beat the system, and when he practises a strong work ethic, when he's dedicated to his job and responsible to his employer, he should not be punished.

I've come to the conclusion, after fighting so many cases before the WCB review boards and with the local manager, that at the present time if anything happens to you, you've got to report it, you've got to go to the doctor, you've got to build in some type of protection, so that if it does develop into a more damaging illness, you've got the evidence needed to get compensation. But by giving that advice I am saying to my constituents that they've got to place an unnecessary burden on the health schemes of this province. I find it hard that I should make that recommendation: that they should two-bit the health system to death to make sure that they have established their injury claim.

I think that if you swing the pendulum one way, where you're going out to deny people their just dues under the compensation scheme, and when the credibility of the worker, supported by both his fellow employees and his employer — and the injury is consistent with the work he was doing.... There has to be some flexibility within the system so that workers can benefit from the increase to $40,000 of annual wages. One of the major problems is that the job situation is such that people don't want to admit that they're injured. They don't want to admit that they have a problem, because they know, with the present economic system and a job being the most important thing a person has to have to survive, that employers will not hire them or will find some way of letting them off and hiring somebody who does not have a problem — a back problem or some other previous injury problem. There is a sincere fear out in the workforce, and people are being injured. They are not getting the protection that the Workers Compensation Act amendment we have before us lays out — they're not getting that protection of the $40,000, because they can't get into the system.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think that earlier on my colleague said we must have a review of the whole Workers' Compensation Board, the act and the regulations. I think every one of us knows the long delays that are taking place out in the system. The boards of review are backlogged to the point that we can't get a hearing, and when they do come, the hearings are so far out of date that many workers run out of UI, they're on welfare and the problem within that family is insurmountable. I sincerely say that we need more than Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2). We need a total review of what's happening in the

[ Page 7234 ]

workforce. We must build in proper protection for all workers, and it has to be done in a more flexible manner than in the case of some of the regulations presently on the books.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) put forward some valid comments with respect to workers' compensation, although they don't pertain to the proposed amendment to the act. I would beg the indulgence of the House in allowing me to give the member for New Westminster and the House an update on what is happening with the amendments we made throughout the summer. Staff in the ministry have had extensive discussions with a number of people who showed an interest in sitting as vice-chairmen on the boards of review panels that we hope to be able to appoint before the end of December, 1985. Those interviews are now in the final stage of completion, and I expect to have a report on my desk by December 11 with respect to the nomination of the individuals they would suggest we appoint as vice-chairmen of the boards of review. They have also had extensive discussions with the employee community, along with the employer community, as to the nominees they would like to put forward who would qualify to sit as wing members on those boards of review.

With respect to the administrative chairman of the boards of review, there is an ad running in the paper — or which has run in the paper — with respect to the position of chairman for the boards of review, and I hope to have some recommendations from my ministry with respect to a capable individual to oversee the operations of the boards of review. I've also asked my deputy to meet with the parties of interest to work with them in developing new regulations governing the boards of review, and my deputy has had a lot of meetings with the employer and employee communities with respect to those regulations. It's my hope that both parties will be able to agree on the proposed regulations, and if both parties agree to the regulations, it's my hope that they will have faith and confidence in the regulations that they themselves have developed.

[12:00]

With respect to discussion on the bill itself, yes, I'm pleased that we've been able to introduce a 25 percent increase in benefits to injured workers. The member for New Westminster also talked about the assessments and how they may change. As the member well knows, British Columbia has the highest assessment rate in all of Canada, being $2.85; Ontario is $2.31, Alberta $1.66 and Manitoba $1.28. That high assessment came about, Mr. Speaker, as a result of an unfunded liability in 1981 in the amount of approximately $509 million. In 1982 it was $504 million. I'm pleased to say that in 1985 the unfunded liability is down to approximately $212 million, and is dropping. This has come about because of improved industrial health and safety standards that the industrial health and safety committees have worked on in plants, mines, mills and factories across British Columbia. They've done an outstanding job in that area, reducing the number of accidents in British Columbia by about 21 percent. It's a credit to them, and I hope that over the next few months we can strengthen their role in industrial health and safety.

With respect to the assessments, that is a policy matter of the Workers' Compensation Board. I do favour — and this has again resulted in discussions that I've had with the parties of interest — the movement towards rewarding employers and individuals who have good industrial health and safety programs in their plants, and who perform. With respect to the equal assessment rating plan, I do favour moving in that direction to reward those companies who perform in the area of industrial health and safety, and to penalize those who don't perform.

That covers basically, I think, what the member for New Westminster discussed in second reading of the bill.

With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I'm disappointed that he would take the approach that industrial health and safety committees operating in British Columbia place all of their faith in royal commissions, in legislation and regulation. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they don't take that approach at all; neither do they take the approach that consultation with the people who have to work with the regulations on a day-to-day basis is a band-aid approach. I guess what I get from his comments now is that the reason he won't sit down and talk with industrial health and safety committees in the plants that he visits when he goes across British Columbia is because he feels it's a waste of time; that it would be better to hand the process over to a group of judges and individuals to sit in a royal commission, and assume that they would know everything about the operation of the workplace and the day-to-day operation of their particular plants.

Quite the contrary; it's the industrial health and safety committees in British Columbia who work with those regulations, who perform on a day-to-day basis with those regulations and, in many cases, establish their own regulations where there aren't any in place. They do that because they have a genuine interest in the safe operation of their plant. I know that from previous experience in those plants. They want to be able to develop regulations that can accommodate their particular plant and factory, and they want to have a say and an input into the development of those regulations. I'm committed to giving those individuals who work with those regulations a say in that process, and I don't propose to hand the process over to some bureaucrat in the Workers' Compensation Board, or some bureaucrat or high-ranking official in the labour movement or the employer community, who are often insulated from the operational problems and the day-today operations of the workplace. That's my commitment to those individuals, and I won't renege on that commitment to any of those British Columbians, regardless of whether the Leader of the Opposition says that it's a band-aid. I'm committed to that program, and will carry out that program. By doing so we will have the best industrial health and safety program of its kind anywhere in the country, because it will be developed by people who have hands-on experience and not a bunch of fuzzy academics who would associate themselves with the Leader of the Opposition, a party that's been taken over by a group of teachers and university professors.

That's my commitment to those people in the plants, mills and factories across British Columbia, and I'm going to honour that commitment. I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 68, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 73.

[ Page 7235 ]

EQUITY INVESTMENT PLAN ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to commence second reading debate on Bill 73, and I move second reading.

The Equity Investment Plan Act provides the basis for a program that will encourage British Columbians, if they wish, to invest in newly issued eligible shares of firms that do business in the province. The equity investment plan will generate up to $400 million in new equity issues in B.C. over the next three years.

This is not news, in that it is a direct outgrowth of the proposal tabled by our Premier in Regina on February 14, with a paper which was issued on that date and presented to first ministers, Ministers of Finance and Treasurers at that time. The paper was entitled "A Plan to Encourage Equity Investment by Individual Canadians: A Proposal by the Government of British Columbia to the First Ministers' Conference on the Economy." At that time the Premier expressed this government's preference for a coordinated national approach. British Columbia, however, clearly reserved the right to proceed with a plan of its own if a national program failed to receive sufficient support. In the event, this is what we have done, and we have Bill 73 before us.

I said this is not news in terms of the plan's having been presented in Regina to that first ministers' conference. It is also not news in that British Columbia is the second Canadian province to launch its own equity incentive initiative. The province of Quebec implemented a program in 1979 that offered deductions from provincial taxable income in respect of purchases of eligible shares.

Quebec's experience with its program has clearly been positive. Since its inception 200,000 investors have provided more than $2 billion to Quebec equity markets through the Quebec Stock Savings Plan.

The Equity Investment Plan which is before us now shares some of the objectives of the Quebec Stock Savings Plan, but it differs in other respects, in those respects necessary to achieve what we believe to be in the best interests of British Columbia. Of particular note, the Equity Investment Plan — Bill 73 — offers an attractive incentive to all British Columbia residents, not only to those with taxable income. The B.C. program also provides a relatively greater inducement to lower- and middle-income British Columbians than to higher-income British Columbians. On the other hand, the Quebec Stock Savings Plan tends, as we observe it, to provide a relatively greater incentive to investors in higher marginal tax brackets. It is my believe that over time this Equity Investment Plan will attract an even broader base of support than has its successful Quebec counterpart.

[12:15]

In view of the time available to us today, may I turn briefly to a somewhat more detailed examination of Bill 73. Mr. Speaker, the Equity Investment Plan will serve three important objectives: firstly, it will provide an incentive to British Columbians to undertake or increase equity holdings; secondly, it will support an increase in the level of financial activity in British Columbia; thirdly, it will enhance access to equity financing by British Columbia corporations with attendant benefits to the provincial economy.

When passed by this Legislature, as I indeed trust it will be, Bill 73 will provide a significant financial incentive to British Columbia investors to use their savings to purchase newly issued common shares. This incentive will be available for three years and will be equal to 25 percent of the cost of the shares up to a maximum annual cash payment by the Crown of $2,500. If share prices subsequently go up, the incentive will be repaid and the investor will gain the profits. If share prices subsequently decline, only a portion of the incentive will be repaid and the government will absorb 25 percent of the loss. This key feature of the plan, which lowers the risk to the investor, should create a new class of first-time equity owners within the province of British Columbia.

The investment incentive offered by the plan, Mr. Speaker, has another important element. It will also encourage those British Columbians who now hold equity shares to place even more of their savings in the equity market. The shares may be held in the plan for up to six years. At that time under the legislation the plan will end. Each investor still holding shares on which the incentive was paid will repay to the Crown some or all of the incentive, depending on the market value of the shares remaining in his hands at that time.

Mr. Speaker, redirecting some savings of Canadians into equity investments will, we believe, encourage a better understanding of the realities of the business world. It will encourage greater willingness on the part of individuals to bear risk, to provide an increased understanding of the role of profits in the economy, and it will contribute to an enhancement of the already existing entrepreneurial spirit of many individual British Columbians.

With respect to the second objective, increasing the level of financial activity in the province, the government has already indicated its support for the development of the city of Vancouver — the lower mainland, if you will — as a leading financial centre. The Equity Investment Plan provides further evidence of that determination, recognizing at the same time that such a goal cannot be achieved in a very short span of time. It cannot be achieved overnight or in a matter of weeks or indeed months. This plan requires that the new equity shares on which the incentive is payable be listed and posted for trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. British Columbia companies that do not now trade their securities on the Vancouver Stock Exchange will obviously be encouraged to do so. Companies with perhaps less British Columbia presence may very well be attracted to the province by the promise of more readily accessible equity financing for new ventures.

Finally, it's an important principle of this bill that the funds raised through the Equity Investment Plan work to the benefit of British Columbians, the British Columbia economy, employment in the province and British Columbia firms. To this end funds raised in the plan will not be invested outside the province but will be directed to investments in plant and equipment within the province of British Columbia and will also be directed toward strengthening the balance sheets of provincial firms. It should be noted that the ceiling on eligible shares that may be issued by a group of related companies in any given year will quite certainly ensure that a large number of companies of all sizes can gain access to the program.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the Quebec Stock Savings Plan earlier in these remarks, and bearing in mind that there are differences, it might be useful just to visit some points with respect to the Quebec plan, which was introduced in 1977 and revised effective 1986. Beginning in 1986 in Quebec, annual deductions will be limited to 20 percent of total income up to $10,000. Deductions in respect of the

[ Page 7236 ]

shares of major companies — that is, over $1 billion in assets — will be limited to $1,000 per year. As I said earlier, since its inception more than $2 billion has been contributed to the Quebec Stock Savings Plan — or plans, more correctly — by an estimated 200,000 investors. In 1984 some 45 share distributions raised a total of $716 million. Twenty-two were public distributions with a total value of $106 million. Of these companies, 18 were making their first distribution of shares. The number of investors participating in the Quebec Stock Savings Plan has risen from approximately 14,300 in 1979 to over 108,000 individuals in Quebec in 1983.

I spoke earlier of the decision taken with respect to the tax brackets, and it should be pointed out that on the basis of our studies of the Quebec plan, the percentage of taxpayers participating is as follows: $100,000 and up taxable income, 65 percent; between $50,000 and $100,000 taxable income, 40 percent; between $40,000 and $50,000, 20 percent; and between $30,000 and $40,000 annual taxable income, 9 percent. We like many aspects of the Quebec Stock Savings Plan, and one cannot deny its success. However, we certainly wanted to shift the emphasis away from the very high-income investor.

Mr. Speaker, it was with pleasure yesterday that I introduced Bill 73. It's with great pleasure that I take these few minutes to introduce second reading. I believe that the Equity Investment Plan Act will serve the needs of British Columbia investors and firms and the economy and most certainly will lead to additional jobs. I caution those who might consider this to be an "open sesame" in terms of all sorts of new share issues. It is the government's intention to very carefully review companies which may be eligible through the Vancouver Stock Exchange with respect to the issuance of new shares.

We will look to investment houses, brokerage houses as such, described in the bill as "administrators, " to exercise the same caution and the same degree of very careful review. I point members of the House to the penalty sections particularly, which indicate very severe penalties should anyone decide that this is something they might like to use but not in the spirit of the legislation when it becomes law.

I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in my view we have taken, first of all, the main elements of the plan presented by the Premier in the middle of February of this year; we have examined that which has occurred over a number of years in Quebec, that which is certainly being spoken about in the province of Alberta, our neighbouring province; and we have, I think, captured the positive elements of all of those factors.

It is with pleasure, again, that I move second reading of Bill 73, recognizing that quite apart from debate in second reading, there will want to be considerable review of the bill in committee stage.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there's no question but that these are troubled economic times for the people of British Columbia, and they have been for some four years. I think, perhaps, even some government members, by this time, would agree that the actions taken by this government to date have at best done nothing to improve the situation, and in some instances have done a great deal to harm the recovery that might have taken place in B.C. had we gone the route of other Canadian provinces.

It's because we're in so much trouble that the opposition, in spite of the remarks from across the floor, has supported every piece of legislation that could, in any way at all, be imagined as doing something positive for the economy. We've supported some that we've felt very uneasy about; we've felt that they would not make any real contribution to the economy in B.C. Unfortunately, to date, I would think without exception, every one of those bills that we supported, albeit reluctantly, has not done anything positive for the economy in British Columbia. I can't recall one that has really been of any value in the context of the legislation that was introduced and the way it was discussed in this House.

Now we have another one. The Minister of Finance tells us that it is not new, and indeed it isn't new. Not only was it spoken about by the Premier at the first ministers' conference, but once again for several opening or throne speeches and for several budgets the government has been talking about some gimmick to get people to invest in companies doing business in British Columbia, companies with headquarters in British Columbia. One proposal after another has been offered to us in a budget speech, and nothing happens until the next budget comes along when the proposal is presented in a slightly different way. Once again, year after year, we see nothing or hear nothing after the opening speech or after the budget speech.

We have had bills before us, but not precisely along the lines of this one. I recall we did have one that was close; and when the federal Minister of Finance endorsed, if you like, the Quebec plan and said yes, this fits what we want to do in Canada as a whole, I asked whether or not the B.C. legislation we were dealing with at that time fitted. The minister wasn't quite sure. I think he needed time to review it. This is probably an attempt to do something, and that's one of the questions I would like to put to the minister. Is this an acceptable plan as far as the federal budget Finance Minister Wilson presented in the House of Commons is concerned?

[12:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's encouraging to have the minister tell us that this plan is directed towards the lower-income people. Mr. Speaker, you and I, I am sure, will be anxious to rush home and tell the people in the food-bank lineups in our constituencies that if they are prepared to rush out and buy $10,000 worth of shares, the government is going to reimburse them to the extent of $2,500 of the cost. You have to make it clear that they have to be able to pay for those shares. They can't buy them on margin. They have to have the $10,000 cash. So they'll be lining up at the food bank maybe for quite a while to save that much cash to take full advantage of this government gift to the poor. Nevertheless, as long as they can by some means or other put together $10,000 cash, they can be $2,500 richer. So it is encouraging that the minister is taking to heart the concern that so many of us have for the poorest people in our community.

Mr. Speaker, to be serious, there is nothing in this for the poor people. The minister said they don't even have to be taxpayers to take advantage of this. Perhaps not. But they have to have assets with which they can go out and buy and pay for the shares that are being issued, or they will not be able to participate directly in this program. There is a biblical quotation that I am not going to try to quote accurately: "To him that hath shall be given." If you've got the money and are able to go out and spend it, then the government says: "We'll give you some of it back for six years interest-free. We'll give you up to $2,500 interest-free for six years, at which time if

[ Page 7237 ]

you've lost money on your gamble in the stock market, we'll share that loss with you; if you've made money, it's yours. So it is encouraging people, as the minister says, to go out and buy shares, equity, in companies doing business in the province of British Columbia, with, I think, headquarters in the province of British Columbia; it certainly is intended to do that. But while the appeal to the poor people may be there — the people who are not paying income tax — the wherewithal for them to take advantage of this is certainly not in this legislation and, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge is not in any other legislation presented in this House in this session or in any of the sessions since this party was returned to office in the December election in 1975.

The minister spoke about the Quebec plan. I would like to have had more time to have reviewed this legislation and compared it with what I've heard of the Quebec plan. I do know that the Quebec plan was accepted by the people in Quebec; it has been successful.

But this is not the first time that this government has embarked upon a plan to teach people something about the way in which the stock market works. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that the first such proposal in the province of British Columbia was successful beyond everyone's imagination. When the Premier and the Minister of Finance — not this one; not this person, at least — of British Columbia told everybody what a great deal it was to buy these assets at $6 a share, assets that the people of the province already owned but that were being given to a public company operating in the private sector, there was a tremendous sale of shares. People bought them; there's no question about that. But, Mr. Speaker, most of those people have had their fingers burned.

In Quebec the plan is going on from success to success, because the plan has been successful from the beginning. In B.C., unfortunately, with this government, we're starting with what has been an abject failure, when it comes to persuading the people of British Columbia to invest in BCRIC. No dividends paid to date; the prospect of any is very remote; the shares are down in value, and bouncing around a figure roughly one-third of the issue price when they were first promoted and pushed by the Premier and by the Minister of Finance.

So it's one thing to say, "Look at Quebec, and what a glorious example of teaching people to use the stock market, and how the people with money are investing there, and what it's doing for the economy" — all positive. No, Mr. Speaker, I'm aware that there are some negative comments about the Quebec plan as well. I can't go into those today, because I'm just not ready to deal with that material; I don't know it well enough. But I do know there are some apprehensions about it, and maybe some misapprehensions.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there's no success upon which we're trying to build in the province of British Columbia, when this government is telling people to go out and buy shares; and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the government will be telling them that. The government is going to select which companies people should purchase those shares in, because the government.... At 11 places in here, I think it is, there are references to regulations.

It will create some employment; there's no question about that. In the office of the Ministry of Finance they're going to have to have people who are going to be drafting all these regulations and reviewing every application that comes into them to see whether it fits the whole package — the 11 regulations. And certainly it should be reviewed.

The minister hopes that the legislation is going to pass. I'll predict that it will pass, Mr. Speaker, if that will make him feel any easier. But there are going to be a lot of regulations, and it is important that this whole thing.... Unfortunately, the way it is drafted, it is going to take a lot of policing. I don't mean that in a nasty sense at all. I am simply saying that companies are going to have to follow the regulations, or the whole thing will be not only a wasted effort but a bad effort. So there will be employment created, but I wish I could feel confident that there will be some employment created outside the Ministry of Finance.

The government is lowering the risk to the investor — and indeed it is — by saying to the investor: "We're prepared to share the risk with you. In the event that those shares do go down in value and you dispose of them while they're down in value, or at the end of six years when you're obliged to repay, we'll share the loss with you." So that helps a little. But to get the $400 million of investment, or $300 million net investment, from B.C. residents — there might be a little problem there; there might be a resident today who's gone tomorrow.... Are they still residents for purposes of this? I don't recall whether they have to sell their shares or repay the loan if they move out of the province. Nevertheless, to get $400 million in capital, an initial net of $300 million from investors in British Columbia, they are not simply going to the tens of thousands of individuals in B.C. who bought BCRIC shares. They're going to some sophisticated investors who are only looking for a capital gain. They're not looking to help the economy of British Columbia. They're not looking for somebody to share the possibility of loss with them. It's nice to have that cushion, but they're more concerned about buying into companies that have a proven record, that have some kind of a plan that looks good to the investor and where the opportunity for success is something more than fifty-fifty. Those are the people who will be buying these shares and getting an interest-free loan from the government of up to $2,500 each for six years — those people and those people only.

The poor are not going to be able to take advantage of this. In the event that they were able to take advantage of it, they would not be interested in doing it. To them the prospects of capital gain sometime over the six years are not exciting enough for them to be able to one way or another raise the capital needed to take part in this, if we're talking about the low income people.

I can't help but support the minister's motives. He does want to get the economy going. He does want to get companies that are doing business in British Columbia doing more business, He does want them to expand their operations. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask if you would buy shares in a company that's going to expand the production of some service or some product that is going to be purchased by the people of British Columbia if those people are already purchasing to the extent of their incomes, or to the extent of their appetites? The people in the food bank lineups are already purchasing everything they can purchase to the extent of the money that they have available. The people who are not in those low income groups are purchasing as much as they want. So the opportunities for that kind of investment, it would seem to me, are going to very limited. Frankly, I think that very little of this $100 million that the government is prepared to put into this program over a period of three years is actually going to be invested.

[ Page 7238 ]

There is a way. We've talked about it before and we'll talk about it again. There are many ways in which the government could invest $100 million and know that something positive was going to happen. We're talking about spending some $33 million a year. I don't know what figure to use, but let's say 40,000 people take advantage of this program and get a $2,500 interest-free loan for six years. That would use up the whole $100 million. There are 130,000 heads of families on social assistance payments. We could afford, with the same money, to give each one of those family groups an increase of $20 per month. That money would be spent immediately in communities all over the province, not just in the Vancouver Stock Exchange — money that would be spent wherever people live all over British Columbia, money that would be circulated in those communities. A lot of it would be coming back to the government in taxes, but certainly that of itself we know for certain would create economic activity in B.C. This, I think, is pie in the sky. I have no confidence that this scheme will work. But I do know that putting another $20 per month into the pockets of every family unit receiving social assistance right now would generate tremendous economic activity in every community, every hamlet, every home — well, not every home, because some of them aren't — but in every hamlet in the province of British Columbia. And it would be something positive all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, there is one program that the government has embarked upon.... Not embarked upon — they didn't start it, it started earlier — but one that this government has promoted to, I would think, its ultimate, although every time I say that, something else happens. It is certain that the two fastest-growing items in the budget percentage-wise are social assistance payments and interest on the public debt.

But there is an activity that is growing faster than almost any other activity in the province, and that is the promotion of B.C. lottery tickets. I thought we had reached the ultimate but, Mr. Speaker, you will recall an announcement recently to the effect that yet another new kind of lottery ticket is going to be available to the people of British Columbia in mid-December of this year. Now that is encouraging people to gamble, okay. This, according to the minister himself, is encouraging people to invest, to gamble, in the Vancouver Stock Exchange, saying to them: "You lose, we'll share the loss with you. You win, you keep your winnings."

So again it is encouraging people to gamble. I have an article that I haven't even had an opportunity to read yet from the Financial Post on the Quebec stock plan, and that's why I said there are a lot of things I would like to say about it. I have to say to the minister that he won't have to look at me on Monday, because I will be attending the B.C. Federation of Agriculture convention in Penticton that day.

In any case, talking about the Quebec Stock Savings Plan and talking about gambling, may I just quote Brian Aune, chief executive officer of Nesbitt Thomson: "The trick is to realize that the purchase of the Quebec Stock Savings Plan stock is not just a tax break. It is also an investment." Mr. Speaker, by its success it has proven that it is something more than another gimmick. It works. BCRIC didn't work, and that's bad news, a bad way for us to start. Then he adds wryly: "If you want to take risk to the extreme, try the Vancouver Stock Exchange."

Mr. Speaker, this program limits people to buying shares that are traded on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and in the words of this particular authority, if I can say that, if you want to take risks to the extreme, try the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am not sure whether the government's promotion of lottery tickets comes ahead of that or behind that.

Mr. Speaker, I said in the beginning that we'd like to support anything that we thought would create more employment. From what I see of this, it will create more employment in the Ministry of Finance. But that's not productive for the people of British Columbia; it's not the way to go. There are better ways in which the government could spend $100 million now to help the British Columbia economy.

I thought yesterday I might, but as I thought about it last night I realized that all this is doing is giving one more grant to those who don't need it and denying the people who do need it, and in all likelihood it's a program that will do nothing for the province and that will not be anywhere nearly fully taken up. I will not vote for this legislation.

MR. LEA: I do support this legislation, and I don't think any piece of legislation since I've crossed the floor points out better the reasons why I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you cross the floor?.

MR. LEA: That's right, I did. I'd like to go over a number of the arguments made on both sides, but before I do I'd just like to point out that one of the goals of government today has to be to get some of those savings out of the bank accounts and working in the economy — not spent in the economy, but working in the economy for the future. You can go the short-term way and tax high income earners and take that money and pass it on to the poor and get some economic activity going for a short period of time, but in the long term that doesn't create the kind of new economy we need to take us into the future.

We have to get those savings out of the savings accounts and working in the economy, creating new jobs and new industry. That, in the long run, will help the poor. That, in the long run, will give the poor jobs, not just more sustenance for a few weeks or a few months. I forget the name of this Canadian satirist — you know, it's on the tip of your mind but you can't bring it to mind. He was also the dean of economics at McGill; I can't remember his name. Anyway, he said money is a lot like manure....

[12:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Leacock?.

MR. LEA: Yes, Stephen Leacock. That's right. He said money's a lot like manure: if it's in a big pile behind the barn, it doesn't do you much good; you have to spread it around before it will go to work for you. I think that's what we're looking at in this bill. We're looking at taking that money that's in a pile behind the barn, in the bank, and this bill is an attempt to get that money out and working for us, working to create new jobs and new industry and working towards a new economy — an increased economy and a more active economy. Nothing points out better the two different philosophies in this House: the philosophy among the New Democratic Party and the philosophy among the rest of British Columbia.

What you have here is a supply-demand change or difference between the two sides. On the New Democratic side they say: "Look, why can't you just take this money and spend it on public works programs? Or spend it directly by giving it to consumers so that they will spend, the retailers

[ Page 7239 ]

will order from the wholesalers, and get the economy going that way?" That's the fallacy of the argument. We live in an open economy in this province, not a closed economy. It's a wide-open economy, more so than probably most other jurisdictions. Canada's almost a wide-open economy, but nothing points it out better than British Columbia in an open economy. And if you stimulate the economy by putting, as the NDP are saying, more money in consumers' pockets — demand side economic theory — yes, those consumers will then have more money to spend. They'll go to the retailers and make a purchase, and yes, that helps the retail section. The retail section, when their inventory runs low, will order from the wholesalers, and yes, that helps the wholesalers.

Then comes the irony. The wholesaler, when his inventory runs low, orders from the manufacturer, and in the demand theory of economics put forward by the NDP, that is when the real economic clout hits. Our problem is that if we go that route, it isn't our manufacturing sector we kick into gear, it's someone else's, because most of the things that we consume in this province are imported from someone else's manufacturing sector, either in Canada or outside of Canada. We lose so much slippage in that kind of economic stimulus that you have to wonder whether it's worthwhile. Yes, there would be some relief for a short period of time.

The other side of the coin, the one that I back, is that somehow you have to stimulate the manufacturing side of the economy, where they make things.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Widgets; that's right. Where jobs are produced and wages are paid. You have to go in that direction if you're looking at the long term.

Will this plan work? I don't think even the minister would want to bet his next paycheque that it's going to be ultra successful, but it's at least a step in the right direction. Nobody can predict how many British Columbians are going to take their savings and invest them in the stock market and take advantage of this plan. Hopefully a great many will, but at least it's going in the right direction.

I think the minister has made a mistake, and I realize why he's done it the way he has. He says: "We're hoping that it will help low income earners." Well, low income earners aren't necessarily the people who have savings in the bank. I would, I think, direct the legislation to high income earners. Those high income earners are the ones who have money left over at the end of the month and who put money into savings accounts. It's those people's money going into savings accounts that we want to attract into the plan. I think the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is absolutely right. The people below that really don't have any money to invest. They may have some savings, but it's not.... Sure, they could take advantage of it, but I think the program should be directed to high income earners. They're the ones with the major savings. I don't see why this would prohibit them from getting into the economy either, so it's not all bad. But nothing — no other piece of legislation — so far has pointed out the difference between economic philosophies like this one.

You can go the public works route. You can get more money in the consumers' pockets for the short term, and I admit that politically it may have a lot of appeal to a lot of people, because not that many of our fellow citizens are trained in economics or have had the opportunity that we have as legislators to view economics and to deal with it. It might have some short-term political appeal, but I believe that that's all it has. I believe it's irresponsible in an open economy to put a consumer led recovery in front of the people of this province. It just is not real. It's one of two things: either you know that you're putting in front of the people of this province a program that won't work, and that's unforgivable; or you're putting a program in front of the people of this province that you don't know will work, and that's unpardonable. But in either case, you're dead. It is absolutely the wrong way to go.

We have to look at stimulating our economy, creating new business, new jobs, new wealth creation and helping the poor by putting them back to work, not by giving people on the food line the opportunity to invest in a stock promotion which this is not designed for, but to give the people on the food line an opportunity to go to work, and that's what they really want. Then they're not only working, they're paying taxes. So I back this program. I think it's the right direction to go in. It may not be a perfect program, but as I said before, what is? We won't know whether it's going to work until we see it in operation. But let's at least hope it works. Let's take a positive attitude toward it.

I suppose what we could do is try to find everything about it that's negative and every reason why it won't work, but that's the wrong way to go. We have to look at it and say: if it gets savings out of the bank accounts of British Columbians and puts those savings to work in the economy of this province to create new business and new jobs, that is what I believe British Columbians want. I believe that that's the thing they should want, and that's the reason I am voting for it.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, due to the time and complexity of this piece of legislation, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.