[ Page 1845 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 1845

Mr. Gabelmann

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 46: minister's office –– 1847

Hon. L. Hanson

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Appendix –– 1855

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SERWA: I rise this morning to report progress on the softball game last night. In earlier competitions between the media and the opposition members and the Premier's office, the scores were quite lopsided. Last night the pattern continued. There was a lopsided score: it was 20 to 4. In sympathy with the shocked media, I'll put it this way: Social Credit caucus came out of the game next to last, whereas the media were second.

I've got a few highlights from last night's game. There were two home runs: one by media slugger Mark Collins; the second home run was a grand slam home run by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Most valuable player was the Minister of Education. The best slide — this was a hotly contested area; it was a tough decision — went to the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), with her slide into third base. The best rookie went to the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen). The most awesome player — I think this is what intimidated the media — was the switch-hitter and fastball pitcher par excellence, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage). The most sportsmanlike team was the media, definitely. They were down 5 to nothing after the first inning, and they doggedly continued to play their best for the rest of the game.

One sweet part of the victory for myself was in a small wager with the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson), who knows better; he has stood out and for the record has spoken against gambling. He failed to heed his own advice and this morning he is a dollar poorer.

Would the House please join me in congratulating a very superlative and fine team effort.

MR. CHALMERS: In the great riding of Okanagan South we have many fine schools. One of them is the Raymer Elementary School. Today in the gallery we have some 45 students, together with their teacher, Mrs. Lorraine Frost. I ask that everybody in the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to last evening's athletic event, may I, through you, Mr. Speaker, also compliment the Law Clerk for a superb job of impartial refereeing. There were no appeals of any of his decisions, although in a few cases there should have been.

I call committee on Bill 19.

Orders of the Day

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 67.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 67 is the appropriation section. The estimates this year call for an expenditure of $3.6 million for the Labour Relations Board. There's no way of determining how much is allocated for mediation services, inasmuch as those expenditures are lumped in with others. Unfortunately, the trend toward lumping these expenditures together makes it difficult to figure out what we're spending money on.

I wonder if the minister could give — even if it's rough — some idea of what he understands the cost of mediation services to be, or the expected expenditure in this fiscal year, and then to also give us what he anticipates will be the annual expenditure or the annualized expenditure under this section for the operations of the Industrial Relations Council.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the mediation services within the estimates are just slightly over $1 million — $1,000,099 — and the total we expect to be in the area of $5.2 million to $5.4 million. Annualized, yes.

MR. GABELMANN: So the current costs — just to summarize to see if I have it straight — the annual expected cost of the board was $3.6 million; the approximate cost of mediation services is $1 million within the ministry, which is $4.5 million or so; and we are now looking at something slightly over $5 million, $5.2 million or so. So we are looking at an extra expenditure of some $700,000 or thereabouts, within a few hundred thousand, just to give a rough idea? Okay.

Sections 67 and 68 approved.

On section 69.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, on this question of regulations, I am not sure that I understand the wording of this particular section. But there appears to be an allowance now for the cabinet to actually make decisions which are normally decisions made by the Legislature in terms of whether or not the legislation will no longer be in effect.

I am just wondering if he could explain this. The usual clause of this kind is that the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations. I mean, that is the usual wording in legislation of this kind. But there is a more complex and complicated section here and I just wonder if the minister might give us some rationalization for it.

[10:15]

HON. L. HANSON: The section authorizes cabinet to make regulations to obviate any transitional difficulties encountered in bringing the Industrial Relations Reform Act into operation. In other words, it provides for the making of regulations to ensure the smooth transition from the Labour Code to the new Industrial Relations Act.

There are many other enactments that interrelate with the current Code, and a computer search of the current B.C. legislation has uncovered all references to the Labour Code or to the Labour Relations Board. As a result, numerous necessary consequential amendments to other enactments have been identified and introduced into this bill. However, there may be other statutes which have not been identified and which impinge on the operation of the Industrial Relations Act. These transitional difficulties may only show up in practice when the IRA is in place. This section enables the cabinet to address such problems by regulation pending the necessary statutory amendments to resolve a conflict. The

[ Page 1846 ]

authority to suspend the operation of a provision of an enactment by regulation exists only where that provision would impede the effective operation of the amendments in this bill.

MR. GABELMANN: It may be because I didn't hear it all completely or didn't understand it all completely. If the cabinet by regulation amends other legislation that may in some way impede the IRA, will those amendments then come to the House at a subsequent date for legislative amendment, or will the legislative amendment be perceived to be accomplished by regulation?

HON. L. HANSON: Regulation would have to be followed by legislative amendment.

Section 69 approved.

On section 70.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to section 70 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 70 as amended approved.

Section 71 approved.

On section 72.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to delete section 72 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So section 72 fails. The minister also has an amendment on section 73 [see appendix], and it's voting against, so shall section 73 as amended pass?

Section 73 negatived.

On section 74.

MR. GABELMANN: This won't take a minute, but I want to read from the press release issued by the government on April 2 entitled "Essential Services Restraint Acts Repealed," which is section 74 of this bill. The final paragraph says: "The repeal of the often contentious Public Sector Restraint Act clearly signals the government's desire to establish a non-confrontational climate in dealing with public sector unions."

I'd just like the government and all members of the Social Credit caucus to reflect on events since April 2 in view of the stated desire in this sentence in the press release of that day. We now have probably a more confrontational climate than we have ever had in the history of labour relations in this province.

Section 74 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now just before we proceed, hon. members, and particularly the hon. minister and the hon. member for North Island, we have a number of amendments now which follow through from section 74. I'm just soliciting your feelings on this. Would you like to deal with them all at once, or would you like to deal with them one at a time?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned, sections 74.1 to 74.91 could be dealt with in one fell swoop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreeable, minister?

Sections 74.1 to 74.91 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is also a schedule that comes as part of this, and I'll call the question.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

On section 75.

MR. GABELMANN: This section is the commencement section, a normal concluding section of legislation which comes into force by proclamation. It's one of the few remaining doors still open in terms of establishing a reasonable labour relations climate in British Columbia. While it wouldn't be appropriate for me to begin a debate about where or when or if various sections of this bill should be proclaimed, I do want to briefly make the point that it would be wise on the part of the government to delay proclamation of all of the sections of this bill until following a full and reasonable discussion and consultation with all of the parties involved in labour relations. By that I don't mean just management and labour; I also include the public in this.

I also recognize in saying this that the government has an interest in promoting its policies, as we will have when we're in power, but it needs to be said that all of the parties involved must have an opportunity to be fully involved in a discussion that leads to a resolution which, if not agreeable to everybody, is at least acceptable as a result of having gone through a proper and full process. So I would urge and appeal to the government not to proclaim, as they are allowed to by this section, any of the sections of this act for a period of time in which the full discussion would take place. Efforts could be made to reduce the obvious level of confrontation which now exists in this province.

Failure to do that will lead to yet even more confrontation and worsened labour relations, and consequently worsened economic prospects for this province. So this, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, remains the one section of this bill which will allow the government to pull itself back from the brink and allow for some harmony and peaceful, sound industrial relations in this province.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple of comments. Firstly, I do appreciate the quality of debate from the members of the opposite side, and certainly while we haven't always agreed on some of the various clauses within the bill, I believe that the debate level has been a credit to this House, and certainly, most particularly, a credit to the member responsible for criticism of my ministry. With that, I'd like to offer my sincere thanks and recognition for the quality of the debate. Although, as I've said, we don't always agree on everything, I do appreciate that.

[ Page 1847 ]

Section 75 approved.

Title approved on the following division:

[10:30]

YEAS –– 31

NAYS –– 15

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with numerous amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A bit of housekeeping here, Mr. Speaker. I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to meet later today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 46: minister's office, $236,168.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to spend just a minute or two with some brief descriptions of the responsibilities of my ministry. First of all, I would like to introduce to the House my deputy minister, Mr. Frank Rhodes; my assistant deputy minister for labour relations, Mr. Claude Heywood; and the assistant deputy minister for the consumer services responsibility, Mr. Stephen Stackhouse.

Mr. Chairman, last year industrial relations officers helped 17,000 workers, employers and members of the public with issues relating to employment standards, labour relations and human rights. The employment standards officers recovered some $5.2 million in unpaid wages and vacation and severance pay for various workers in our province. The employment standards office also introduced a new employment standards component into the secondary school system to acquaint students with their rights and obligations as future employers or employees.

There were four new vice-chairmen appointed to the Workers' Compensation Review Board to reduce the delays and backlog. The backlog has been reduced for the first time in many years, but it is a fact that only a small percentage of the workers' compensation claims are appealed. The system is working well, but there is still room for improvement.

Workers' advisers assisted more than 16,000 workers and personally represented 250 injured workers at hearings. Cases are referred to us by elected officials on both sides of the House. The hon. members certainly are aware of this program's value.

In consumer programs, we continued to promote the integrity of the marketplace for the mutual benefit of consumers and the businesses that serve them. The debtor assistance branch helped more than 4,800 debtors repay almost $3 million worth of debts to their creditors. These funds would otherwise have been written off. The program certainly benefits creditors, and everyone is a winner

The efforts of the travel services branch and the Travel Assurance Board resulted in the rescue of some 437 travelers. These consumers received almost $18,000 in reimbursed costs. There was a net increase of 57 travel agents in the province, a healthy sign of economic activity. There was also the appointment of a seven-member travel advisory council to provide advice and industry expertise.

The residential tenancy branch provided information and assistance to more than 100,000 clients and resolved nearly 4,000 disputes. Although these figures were significantly higher than in previous years, possibly because of Expo, we were able to absorb the increased volume with no increase in staff.

We conducted 1,400 inspections regarding motor dealer operations and investigated some 190 allegations, which resulted in 24 charges. There were 15 enforcement actions under the Trade Practice Act and other consumer legislation. The emphasis in the consumer program is to provide assistance and information to consumers to help them avoid problems. Compulsory consumer education programs in the school system is now in its fifth year and proving to be very beneficial.

Human rights also continues in its important role. We have been distributing human rights information kits for employers and we've been working with education authorities on a curriculum unit for grade 11 classes. Last year the council helped more than 7,000 people with human rights complaints and inquiries.

Liquor control and licensing was a record last year, probably due to Expo. Revenues reached an all-time high of some $19.3 million. There were more licences in place at the end of last year than ever before, totalling 5,800. Forty-five new licensee retail beer and wine stores opened for the first time in neighbourhood pubs and hotels. It certainly is appreciated that the police continued to support our enforcement activities, conducting in excess of 24,000 walk-throughs of

[ Page 1848 ]

licensed establishments. That certainly is an excellent sign of cooperation between my minister and the police.

Industrial relations. Above all, my ministry's main responsibility is to encourage stable long-term labour relations. As has been said many times in this House, 95 percent of the contracts were settled without dispute.

Mediation services branch helped settle 130 disputes, which impacted 175 employers and nearly 124,000 employees. Eighty-one percent of the disputes in which mediators were appointed were settled during the year.

Finally, my ministry is working hard in all areas of its responsibility to make economic renewal a reality.

MR. GABELMANN: As members will no doubt recognize, we've now spent almost three months on labour matters. I don't think we intend to take more than a month or two doing the estimates, because I think we have canvassed a lot of issues, and we don't really need to pursue many of them, Seriously, however, it will be a briefer debate as a result of having spent a considerable amount of time discussing labour relations. No further discussion is required in that area, nor do we intend in these estimates this year to have a lengthy debate about all of the areas of responsibility of the minister.

The minister has been in office now for half a year or so, and has spent half of that time dealing with one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever in this province. Frankly, when I think about what we can expect reasonably after that period of time, I think that a fuller debate would be more appropriate a year from now, when the minister has had an opportunity to get hold of the new ministry — a totally reorganized ministry — and to have put into place programs and activities which reflect his priorities. To have a long and protracted debate would not be appropriate at this point.

What I think would be more useful, particularly in the labour part of the minister's responsibility, would be to flag some issues that we feel are important and need attention, and need some remedial activity, and then to make those points, not in an argumentative fashion but in what we hope will be a constructive fashion, and then to see what happens over the course of the next 12 months. We can have a debate about the minister's report card at that particular time. Just in terms of dealing with this in a fair and reasonable manner, that's the way I would like us to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I'll give members of the House some idea of how the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who is the critic for Consumer Services, and I have felt that we should organize the debate. I know it's not quite in order, but it just helps procedurally. We'll do the debate under vote 46, the minister's office, and not worry about vote 47. We will also divide Labour and Consumer Services — clearly different kinds of areas. The second member for Nanaimo is the spokesperson for Consumer Services. We will also do a bit of subdivision within each area.

[10:45]

I might say to the minister that his deputy for Consumer Services may have other things to do this morning. We will be dealing this morning with labour matters, and the minister may want to respond accordingly in terms of staff time. I would expect that we would get to Consumer Services probably first thing this afternoon — possibly in an hour, but more likely first thing this afternoon.

The first thing I want to do is deal with employment standards. The three areas that I want to canvass are employment standards, workers' compensation and, finally, human rights, leaving labour relations alone.

The first question relates to domestic workers and nannies and their coverage under the Employment Standards Act. Last year in estimates, the Minister of Labour, Terry Segarty, indicated that his deputy, the former deputy of the Minister of Labour, was doing a lot of work in respect of developing programs, if not legislation, that would deal with the question of employment standards legislation affecting nannies and domestic workers.

I wonder whatever became of the work that was being done at that time. Has the minister had an opportunity to be involved in discussions that lead to development of proper protection? Will there be some activity in the near future in respect of the coverage for nannies and domestic workers?

HON. L. HANSON: In answer to that, I will be shortly proposing some new regulations. We wish to clarify that live-in nannies are entitled to the same benefits as live-in domestics. The $32 a day minimum exclusion from hours of work and overtime has not been as clear. The purpose, of course, is to clarify that live-out nannies are entitled to all protection of the Employment Standards Act and that they are not included in the exemption for sitters, if you will.

We are looking at providing compensation for all hours worked in a day up to 16 hours in the case of residential care workers, and to provide two hours' remuneration during their scheduled rest period to compensate for disturbances during that time. Those are the issues that are being studied right at the moment, and it is my intention to bring forward recommendations.

MR. GABELMANN: I have much the same series of questions relating to farm workers under employment standards and whether or not the same kind of study is going on and whether that process will also lead to some regulations or some change.

HON. L. HANSON: The short answer to that, of course, is yes, we are studying it. We haven't formulated any final position as to recommendations, but yes, we are looking at that.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, before I move on to WCB-related issues, the minister may have had an opportunity to consider a letter that I wrote to him — I forget when now, a month or two ago — concerning what could be called good Samaritan legislation, the whole question of protecting volunteers in rescue situations. The former Minister of Labour and I exchanged correspondence on this matter over the last few years and there is a file in the ministry on the issue. It is a difficult situation to briefly describe the problem, on the coast especially but also, I would assume, in the interior in terms of mountain rescue. There is a problem for volunteers who end up involving themselves in rescue operations.

I will cite an example; it is sometimes easier to do these things by example. There is a dentist in Campbell River who is one of the most active rescue volunteers on the coast, actually, and is always finding himself dangling at the end of a cable underneath a helicopter over 20-foot seas while he is trying to rescue somebody who is in trouble out there in the water. This kind of activity, which is primarily covered by the

[ Page 1849 ]

federal Coast Guard, also involves volunteers like this gentleman.

He cannot get personal insurance coverage for that activity, nor can he obtain WCB coverage because he is not an employee. There is a big gap there in terms of providing some protection. If he were to be seriously injured, or worse, if he were to lose his life in one of these rescue operations, his family would have no compensation, in the broadest sense of that word — no insurance policies aside from your regular life insurance and whatever. There is no additional protection for the endangerment that comes from assisting in a volunteer operation. If you're a staff person somewhere, if you're working for somebody and as part of your job you do this activity, then you're covered. If it's an irregular activity, I suppose in some cases private insurance might cover it. But the question of these regular volunteers has been canvassed with private insurance, and there is no opportunity for coverage.

It seems to me an appropriate area for the WCB or for the ministry to find a way to ensure that volunteers in those situations can perhaps register or find some mechanism by which they can be included in the compensation coverage. I don't expect the minister to be able to say yes or no to that question, or to be precise about how it can be dealt with at this stage, but I'm really asking that he pick up the work that was started by Terry Segarty and see whether or not we can find a good solution to this problem.

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly am aware of your letter, and if my dates are correct, I think it was just slightly after the introduction of Bill 19. But I have instructed both the Workers' Compensation Board and my ministry staff to prepare all of the background information that has been gathered to this point, with their observations on how it could best be handled. I'm also reviewing that same subject with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), because it does touch on his ministry. So I'm well aware of your concern. I share that concern and will be coming forward with recommendations at some point.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and will continue to communicate about that, and look forward to some possible solution.

I want to move into the area of the WCB, but before I do, the grey area between the ministry.... Well, it's not grey at all. It's in the ministry, but it connects to the WCB: the workers' advisers. I think there is not likely to be a member of this House who doesn't greatly appreciate the work that the workers' advisers do. They're professional, competent, exceedingly valuable to workers who have problems finding their way through the bureaucracy, and exceedingly valuable to MLAs and to other advocates in the community in respect of assisting WCB claimants. Not just to talk about workers' advisers — employers' advisers too, although it's a smaller demand. The employers usually have more resources. But they're also providing a useful and valuable service. Most of us don't have as much to do with them as we do with the workers' advisers.

But it should be said that that compensation advisory services division of the Ministry of Labour does outstanding work, and the people there who do that work should know that members of this House feel that way. I think I probably speak for every one of the members of this House in that respect. Having said that, I would hope the minister would find it possible to continue to beef up that service. My experience is that the staff there are overworked; they have too much to do. I am amazed at their ability to assimilate all of the information required in claim after claim and do the kind of excellent work that they do, given the workload.

So I just say to the minister — and I won't say more on it — that that is a good service. It is an area where additional public money is well spent. I would just hope that the minister feels the same way as I and, I think, most members of this House do about that valuable work. We hope it can be improved upon, not in the quality delivered by the individuals but in the quantity, by having additional people available in there. I sometimes feel reluctant, personally, to push too much onto workers' advisers, simply because I know they're really very, very busy. However, it's a great activity of government, and the public is well served.

Moving to the WCB, the first thing I want to do is to follow up on a question that was in last year's estimates as well. Last year the minister, Terry Segarty, asked the Workers' Compensation Board for a report on their lack of enforcement activities in the garment industry in this province. I understood Terry was going to ask for a report from the board. I wonder if that report was ever asked for, and if it was, whether it was done, and if it was done, whether the minister has seen it, and whether any action is taking place at the present time in terms of enforcement of Workers' Compensation Board regulations in the garment industry. I think there's a general agreement that those regulations were not being enforced in an adequate manner in that particular industry, and I just wonder where we are on that today.

HON. L. HANSON: I thank you for your comments about the workers' advisers, and I think almost every MLA would agree that they are performing an excellent function. We did add two to the numbers last year, by the way, Mr. Chairman. They're actually paid for by the Workers' Compensation Board, not by the public funds, but I guess you can interpret it as being that.

Also, I just wanted to add at this point that we have within the last few days announced the toll-free number, so there is better access to the WCB offices and claims people by direct line at no cost from any part of the province. The local offices which had been originally established didn't seem to be serving the purpose as well as the toll-free line. That was recently instigated and we look forward to its assistance to people all around the province, so that we are truly available.

As far as the report on the garment industry, I'm not aware of that report being requested, Mr. Chairman. It was brought to my attention during the labour review process, and I've asked my staff and the Workers' Compensation Board chairman to get me a report on what had led up to that and what the status of it was. But I wasn't made aware of it until the labour review process, and hopefully I will have that report in my office very shortly.

[11:00]

MR. GABELMANN: Dealing with the garment industry first, the commitment from Mr. Segarty on April 21, 1986, was as follows, as reported by Hansard: "...I will ask Glenn Hall, acting chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, to undertake a review of that particular area immediately and ask for a report from him on that industry" — that industry being the garment industry. So hopefully something had transpired.

[ Page 1850 ]

Just a brief word on who pays for the workers' advisers: I recognize that the money is collected from the Workers' Compensation Board, but we should always be very careful to remember that these people are employees of the Ministry of Labour. I know there's a $10 item in the estimates, and it is really important in terms of the integrity and independence of these advisers.... I'll try to speak more closely into the mike. It's really important for the integrity of that program and of the people in that program that it be always understood that they work not for the Workers' Compensation Board but for the Ministry of Labour. It was one of the reasons why there was such a howl of outrage when it was suggested a year or so ago that the workers' advisers' office should be located in the Workers' Compensation Board. It seemed to make some sense, I guess, to various people who were proposing it, because of proximity and access and all of the rest of it. But it is absolutely essential and imperative that there be a distinction and a separation, that they remain in a different office somewhere removed sufficiently from the Workers' Compensation Board, and that we understand they are employees of the ministry. All of that is true and a fact, but it's one we should remember when there's the temptation to move them into the board, where it's easier to operate. It would be a mistake, and I think the minister agrees with that, and it seems to be the policy that's being adopted at the present time.

Moving on, I want to deal in an area that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about, not being an accountant, and I'm not sure I can ask all the right questions. But it has to do with the whole question of the previous unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board. In two years, the board reduced its estimated future liabilities by $474 million. Apparently, $253 million of that was in 1986 alone. Were there different assumptions made about future liability, or was a new accounting system brought in that had some impact on these changed numbers? Because obviously it wasn't simply a question of that much additional revenue coming in that enabled there to be a very quick elimination of what was perceived three or four years ago as a massive, long-term problem. I just wonder if we can get some idea of what went into it from an actuarial or an accounting point of view.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I just wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today we have about 33 grade 7 students from the South Sa-Hali Elementary School in Kamloops. They are down here with their teacher, Mr. K. de Bruijn, to find out how democracy works and to see our beautiful capital city. On behalf of myself and the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith), I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: The improvement in the unfunded liability of the WCB chairman came about for a number of various reasons. Certainly a lower inflation rate was a contributing factor. Another contributing factor was a high return on the investments that were there for funding that liability.

Another significant part is that the numbers of accidents had a serious decline in that period in terms of total, and also in the seriousness of the compensable injuries. I quote from the WCB report of 1986: "The unfunded claims liability for the accident and silicosis funds are shown...." No, here we are: "The methods used in calculating these liabilities were substantially the same as those employed in the previous valuations as at December 31, 1985."

So there wasn't a change in the accounting system; it was a higher return on our investment. As everyone knows, the inflation rate has dropped, there were lower accident numbers, I guess, per worker, and there was a reduction in the average duration of the time lost as a result of those accidents. All combined to provide that quick return to a totally funded position as far as the liability is concerned.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm getting into an area now that I really don't know much about, and so I may be asking stupid questions.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: That never stopped you before.

MR. GABELMANN: It never stopped me before, says the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

MR. LOVICK: You can tell from experience.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right; it hasn't stopped me or any other member of this House before.

The accident rate this year would not, it seems to me, have its reduction, and the future cost of providing benefits this year don't seem to me to have any impact on a previous unfunded liability. If, as I understand this system — and I confess I don't very much — there was in 1984, let's say, an unfunded liability of half a billion dollars, which is close enough for argument's sake, then that liability had nothing to do with future injuries or accidents but had to do with what was going to have to be paid for pensions and accidents that had already occurred.

It seems to me that the premium assessments, I guess, were frozen — I'm doing this by memory now — in about 1984 by cabinet decision. Nonetheless the premiums paid in 1985 and 1986 were obviously being used to pay for accidents that occurred prior to 1984 — if those 1985 and 1986 premiums were being used to reduce the unfunded liability. Also it seems to me obvious that investment income from moneys earned prior to 1984 and before were also being used to help reduce that unfunded liability.

Now it may be in the other report and I haven't understood how to read it, but I wonder if there is a breakdown between how much of the reduction in the unfunded liability came from current assessments, and how much of it came from investment revenue that had been collected at the time of responsibility for the particular injuries and accidents that required claims to be paid.

Am I making the question clear? It seems to me that if it comes from investment revenue from the earlier revenue, then that's a fair assessment against those employers. If, however, a big chunk of it is coming from current assessments, then it would mean that current employers are paying for previous employers' sins. I think the question is clear; I wonder if the minister can answer it.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

[ Page 1851 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I suppose that is a possible interpretation, although an unfunded liability, as I said, was partially picked up by the investment portfolio of the fund created to back up that liability which has to be paid out in years.... There's no question of that. But I suppose as people go out of business, as it changes hands and various things like that happen, when there is a situation where there is a liability under workers' compensation, which is in fact an employers' program for protection of the workers in the workplace, and there is an unfunded situation that must have some catch-up situation, I suppose that you could interpret some of those assessment rates as funding a liability.

I think your question is along the lines of why an employer who establishes today should be charged a rate that funds a liability created by another employer — if you make it that simple. I guess it is a fact of life that it is very difficult to really get to a perfect situation. I don't think the member would argue that there's a requirement to catch up with that unfunded liability, because it is in fact a liability that must be recognized.

I suppose when you get into a situation and establish a rate per payroll for a particular occupation, you establish that rate based on past experience and so on, maybe not even — well, I know not even on an individual basis, but certainly within an industry or a definable kind of industry. Then when the experience that you anticipate happening drops dramatically, there is a portion of that premium or assessment per payroll that could be used against the unfunded liability which that employer never even really created.

I guess, by the same token, if we were in an unfunded liability position, there would be a requirement for employers entering after that was created to help catch up to that. Or if a new employer comes into the workers' compensation system and if the fund is totally funded, or even a little overfunded, we now have a new employer enjoying a rate that may have been reduced slightly by past members of the Workers' Compensation Board. I guess it's not a perfect system but it certainly is, I think, quite a good one.

I just have a note passed here. I can't read his writing. The rates, in any case, are based on projection of future claims, payments and awards using ratios developed from the board's claims experience, average benefit rates, the net increase rate assumption of 2.38 percent and so on; where applicable, mortality rates, remarriage and other assumptions. If those assumptions prove to be slightly in error one way or another, there probably is a requirement to adjust the rate up and down to compensate for that, because they are forecasting assumptions.

[11:15]

What the member says is partially true, but there really isn't an absolutely pure, positive system that each annual assessment works out to be the annual experience.

MR. GABELMANN: I agree that you can't do it exactly, and you never will be able to, and there is always going to be some variation one way or the other. I guess I was trying to sort out how much of the very dramatic and very quick reduction in the unfunded liability.... We are talking of close to half a billion dollars in a couple of years, and that is pretty dramatic stuff. I just wondered, proportionately, in rough terms, how much of that was due to revenue from the current assessments and how much of it was due to investment income. Was it half and half? That's really the basic question.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't have that breakdown with me, but I will commit myself to sending that to you.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to spend a moment or two on the $99 million surplus: not the politics of the last few days, but rather some questions relating to the technical side of it.

I am not quite sure what has happened between 1985 and 1986. When you compare, it seems that investment income is up $44 million over those two years. Assessments dropped, if my numbers are correct, by $57 million. The cost of claims was apparently up by $20 million. That appears to account for a net loss of about $33 million from 1985 to 1986, if those numbers are correct. Where did the $99 million come from, if there is an apparent net loss of $33 million?

HON. L. HANSON: You have asked a question that I probably need an accountant to answer. The reported number was something in the area of $250 million as a surplus in 1986. Causes for the improvement of the board's financial position included a lower and stable accident rate since the '82-84 recession, high rates of return on board investments, low inflation reducing growth in claims liabilities and reduction of average duration in wage loss claim.

I would suggest that in the experience you were talking about, the actual payments were those annualized payments. The amount of outstanding liability that will be reported as payments in future years probably didn't grow at the same rate as it had in previous years. In other words, I think the report says that the accidents were fewer, but not only were they fewer, they were of a different nature in that they were short-term, and less long-term liability was created by those injuries.

It is an accountant's answer that we both need, but the philosophy behind it is that fewer accidents and the nature of those claims did not create the future liability that had been expected.

MR. GABELMANN: Madam Chairman, I think I understand that the funds needed for future liability were less than had been the case. We're both fumbling a little bit with it — naturally so. That's enough for the moment, anyway.

On page 11 of the annual report, there is a reference to research. Apparently almost $829,000 was spent on research, which is a pretty small amount of money for research in this whole area of workers' compensation, particularly in terms of research into prevention. There was some discussion about establishing a committee dealing with research, and I wonder where that's at. Is a research group going to be established, and if so, one that is.... ? As a result of Bill 19, I'm not sure how much of that is going to go on, but let's just talk about it in theoretical terms at least. Is there a desire on the part of the government to promote a joint labour-management WCB research group, which would be funded more adequately than is now the case?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, as the member would be aware, a new chairman was appointed, and I've asked for a number of reports from that chairman. The major one is due at the end of July, if my memory serves me correctly, and I think it does. Certainly one of the issues is research development, further preventive research, and that is a particularly appropriate project at this time because of the financial position of the WCB. I can say to the member that

[ Page 1852 ]

yes, I am pursuing that, although I haven't spent as much time with it recently as I should have.

MR. GABELMANN: Understandably.

Let me just say that if it's.... Without becoming too political about it at this stage, if $99 million is available to reduce future employer assessments, it really wouldn't make it very much different to call it $95 million and use the extra $4 million for research. I just want to make the point that I think the.... I recognize it's an annual expenditure, so you'd have to think about the long term, and maybe that kind of jump immediately would be too much; but spending $800,000-plus is pretty insignificant in terms of the cost benefits there would be from a really good research program that could lead to dramatic reductions.

One only has to spend time going around to various sawmills or various logging operations to see that different ways of doing things can really help dramatically. The other day, I guess in question period, I mentioned one sawmill in my riding. It's the sawmill inside the pulp mill at Campbell River, Crown Forest's sawmill at Elk Falls. They go year after year without compensable claims. It's just astounding. When you find out why, there are some really interesting answers, all starting with management's determination to make it safe, as a result of enlisting the cooperation of the committee, by a variety of techniques. Then you go into other sawmills and you see just the opposite kind of thing happening. Some of it isn't pure research, but some of it is research of a kind that could be done. We could dramatically improve the safety record in this province if we put some real energy into it and enlisted the cooperation of the employers and the trade unions involved.

Where there aren't trade unions, one of the ideas that might be considered in the future is committees of employees, in a more formal way than exists now, for safety purposes. There might be safety committees in unorganized plants as well. You don't see very much of that. That's a direction that I hope we can think about pursuing in the future.

This is just an indication that we think considerably more should be spent on research. I'll leave that one at this point.

The new chairman of the board, in the '86 annual report, refers to "a continuing streamlining of policies and procedures designed to better serve the people of British Columbia." I wonder how much of that the minister can talk about. What are the kinds of things that are being looked at in terms of streamlining? To date it seems that most of the streamlining has been — and I don't think this is an overly political point — at the expense of benefits to workers.

I suppose one of the objectives is to find a way to reduce the massive number of appeals that occur. There are two ways of doing that. One is to deny eligibility for appeals, or to restrict the way in which appeals can be eligible to be launched. Another is to get better decisions out of the adjudicators. The success rate of appeals at the review board level tells me that the initial decision is too often wrong. I wonder if in the streamlining the chairman of the board is talking about whether some attention is going to be paid to that side of it as well, because clearly....

If we can leave the political posturing out of it — and I'm going to try to do that, because I think it's far too serious a matter right now — clearly something is wrong with the delivery of workers' compensation services in this province. Members on the government side may not want to admit it too loudly or too explicitly, but I'm sure that everybody in this House is of the same view, that something is wrong. Simple streamlining isn't what is needed; there needs to be some philosophical value questions as well. I wonder what the terms of reference are of the streamlining; what it is they're looking at; and just what is going on in that respect.

A final word on that point. There is an increasing clamour — "clamour" is perhaps too strong a word, but there is an increasing commentary — about a desire to go back to the tort system. That, in my view, would in the long term be bad. To put workers' compensation back into the courts would just be a backward step. There are so many cases where workers' injuries which are compensable — and the board accepts that they're compensable.... The benefit that is paid to the worker is so different from the benefit that would have been achieved if the claim had gone through the courts — following a car accident, or some other kind of accident outside of the workplace, which would have allowed for a court action.

Unless the WCB cleans up its act in that respect, we're going to see more and more people calling for the right to go to court on this question. In the long term, that would be bad; I've said that to people who have argued with me that they should be allowed to go to court. But if they see the results of court activity compared to the results of WCB activity, in terms of what you get for your injury, then this is going to continue to be an increasing demand — and one that we should head off. One of the ways of heading it off is to have a more efficient system, and one which more properly benefits those people who are injured at work.

What I'm asking out of all of this is what the streamlining is all about. What's the philosophy of that streamlining? Is there a recognition that the process internally has got something wrong with it at the present time? What thought has been given to dealing with the problem of compensation in respect of what the courts do outside of workers' compensation? — the point being how much better off you are to be able to go to court than you are if you deal with the board.

[11:30]

HON. L. HANSON: Just going back to the earlier part of your comments, you were talking about the investigative process for new methods of safety and so on. I certainly agree and hear exactly what you are saying. I want to be absolutely certain that before more funds are committed to those purposes, the results of the commitment of those funds are going to be truly productive and helpful in enhancing the safety in the workplace with innovative ideas.

I certainly agree with you as to the civil action in the courts. I suppose the usual civil action is a question of blame, and that isn't always the question as it is dealt with in the Workers' Compensation Board. It is certainly not our goal to encourage the civil action process. Certainly it is our goal to improve the system.

The original adjudication of the claim is a key to the number of reviews that come forward, or at least the number of requests for appeal. I think the member opposite would agree with me that there should be an absolute assurance that there is an appeal procedure. Everything that we do or that is decided, in this case by an adjudicator, should be subject to review at some level, without question, because everyone should be entitled to that.

I would suggest that when we do have an opportunity, I would be most pleased to invite my critic to come to the Workers' Compensation Board with me, and we will sit down

[ Page 1853 ]

with the chairman and have a discussion about a number of these things.

MR. ROSE: We had that little visit, and it was quite interesting. It was shortly after the chairman took over. I worked with the chairman here in the House for three years before he was appointed to his present job. I was very grateful that he extended the invitation to various MLAs. There is no question about the fact that the building, the structure itself, is very impressive; and the kind of rehab work they do has, I think, become a model for many parts of North America. Its fame may be extended further — I don't know. I also have quite a regard for the present chairman as an able administrator. I say that without any hesitation. But I don't think that the record of the compensation board is going to change overnight with a new chairman.

These things go back a long, long way. I can say without equivocation, as one who, as an MLA and an MP before that, worked with a lot of government agencies, that that outfit is the toughest to deal with that I have ever come across. The rest of them look like marshmallows compared to it. They see it as their mandate.... They look upon — and they'll deny that this is their attitude — an applicant as some kind of a malingerer who is trying to raid the public purse for money. When you show up with the kind of surpluses that were published the other day, it makes people wonder, especially those whose claims have gone on and on, and who maybe even die before they get a resolution.

A lot of these claims, while they are serious, frequently, because of their nature and how long they've dragged on, tend to be psychological. You build up such bitterness and resentment among those claimants who have been, if not blind-sided, at least stonewalled through various kinds of delaying tactics, so that they become so embittered that it consumes their whole lives. They feel it's such an injustice. Often I've tried to appeal to the claims officer on this ground: "Look, you may be right about this guy. Maybe it isn't his back; maybe it's his head" — or this person. But for the sake of $5 a month, instead of this stack of paperwork.... I've seen files as thick as a phone book. Every politician elected in the world has been trying to help this person, and they can't get through.

It may be that part of the problem is psychological in some of these cases. But what's the cost, not only to that individual, his own psyche, his own happiness and peace of mind, but to the bureaucrats? What is the cost of paper? What is the cost of politicians and their secretaries, or advocates of various kinds who have done their best? It seems to me that a number of these cases could be solved simply on a basis of compromise, even at the risk of a $93 million surplus going down somewhat.

I know that the consolidated fund has been in deficit in years gone by, and I'm not all that sure that the improved safety record accounts for this. It's the difficulty of ringing the money out justly to go to those patients. I'll tell you something else that happened when we had our little visit there. I'd never been there before, but I went there with the kind of resentment that you might find now welling up in me — and it has nothing to do with the current chairman at all.

It was interesting. I wanted to take along some people who really do know something about UI and who have been fighting with it for labourers and other people.

MR. GABELMANN: Compensation, not UI.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry. Well, that's a similar one, only UI does entrapment — or did.... What they would do is bring you in here and ask you to sign away your life.

Nevertheless, I asked to have some people.... I'll name them: Cathy Walker, Carl Liden.... Carl Liden is a former member of this House and an expert on this stuff and on claims, and battles the WCB on behalf of their unions constantly. I asked the chairman if they could come along: "Oh, no, let's just make this for MLAs." In other words, he really didn't want anybody along who was really, really knowledgeable. We had a bunch of green constituency assistants and a bunch of green MLAs, and we got the treatment.

MR. GABELMANN: Got snowed?

MR. ROSE: I looked around and there was a little bit of snow coming down. It was a great PR gesture and this is why I stood up, because the minister offered a similar visit — or he would offer to take us through the building; I just caught the tail end. If the minister hasn't offered that, then I withdraw it. But I just thought he did, and I apologize if I misinterpreted what he said.

That doesn't change what I am saying, which is that we got a very effective PR treatment, but the people who could go along with us, who were expert in their field and could have asked the really tough questions and turned the snow into rain or something else more penetrating, were denied the opportunity to come with us to be our own back-up. A similar thing, by the way, happens in this House all the time during estimates. The minister comes in armed with all his department officials to make sure that he has the right answers, and he is absolutely briefed on everything. But do you see anybody around here behind us? Are we allowed to bring our researchers into this House to give us little crib-sheets and little notes like that? You know, fair is fair.

Let me close by saying this: they have a bad reputation, and they've earned it. They have a bad reputation because they're so difficult to deal with, even though you have the advocates there. I think the advocates are probably very effective people and very dedicated, and I like the fact that you have your branch advocacy separate from the award branch. I think that's a good thing. But they're a long way from what I would regard as operating on a more human level. They reject the testimony and the evidence provided by outside medical personnel and accept only their own medical personnel in many cases.

So if I haven't got these things all documented, I hope it gives the new minister some indication of how frustrated people are in attempting to help claimants go through that maze and the stonewalling and the steps and steps and steps it takes. Far more attention should be paid to giving claimants full assistance about their rights. I don't think that they're fully informed. I know it's difficult, but that's an area that needs a lot more examination.

The percentages are another frustrating thing. I don't know whether that was mentioned too. Your back is a certain percentage of your body, and if you've got a certain percentage of your back sore, then that's a certain percentage of your income. Well, that's a nonsensical way to behave anyway. It's almost as bad as the CPP permanent disability; it's almost that difficult.

I hope that under the new head, things will be ventilated. I understand that there is now a person whose job it is to deal with the questions and complaints of elected people — MPS,

[ Page 1854 ]

MLAs, municipal people — and that's a good step. It's helpful to have somebody — as we do in the case of ICBC — involved in that approach. I can't fault that, but I would like to leave this with the minister: if he intends to take us on a little trip around the WCB — its building, its works and that sort of thing — let him also permit us to take people who are dealing with this sort of thing every day, so they can express views and help us. Let us take our experts, just as you have your experts back there.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I wasn't being critical of the opposition House Leader. That wasn't what I offered. I wasn't suggesting a tour. Certainly I'd invite you to go on a tour of WCB any time you have the time. I was suggesting that my critic, who is a very knowledgeable individual, and I would sit down with the chairman of the board and talk about some of these things mentioned as being difficulties. I was talking more of a meeting, not of a pleasant tour of the facilities.

In any case, I think every one of us who has been elected to office — and certainly the member who just spoke has had a lot more experience than I have — has had a number of representations come forward as to the difficulties that people are having with the workers' compensation system; I would be the first to acknowledge that. I would also be wrong if I didn't acknowledge that in some cases there was very little validity to some of those things. I would also acknowledge the fact that quite often frustrations that build up become an emotional issue, as opposed to a real issue.

Yes, we realize that there are some difficulties. We realize that it isn't a difficult situation that started yesterday and can be terminated tomorrow; that it does require a lot of attention. But I can say that we are dedicated — and certainly I as minister responsible am dedicated — to making that system a responsive, effective system, to do what its original intent was. I'm not saying that it isn't doing that now, but there are always methods of improvement. The chairman of the board has in fact put a number of things in place that have improved it. At one point, I think there was something like 16 weeks' backlog of people just seeking basic information on their claim. I think he's turned that around to almost an overnight response. Little things. But there are a number of concerns; the chairman recognizes those, and I recognize those. We are dedicated to providing remedies where we see great difficulty.

[11:45]

MR. GABELMANN: Many of those concerns are procedural and more technical in respect of the way the board is organized. Those are administrative problems which, I'm sure, the administration is quite competent to deal with. But a lot of the other concerns go beyond that, into a more difficult area, a more philosophical area. For example, here is the kind of classic case that really frustrates people. An individual is working, and is able to do his or her job; has had a variety of physical ailments — perhaps previous injuries that may not have been compensable, or happened outside the workforce. Then something happens at work in the normal course of events, a relatively minor injury of some kind, which when combined with the other ailments or other problems makes that person unfit to work or unable to work.

The board's approach on that is that the pre-existing condition in effect denies the claimant a full compensation.

Every case differs, but there may be grounds for some compensation, a percentage of compensation which is based on the final injury. But what often happens in these cases is that the individual affected could have worked for the rest of their natural work life with their pre-existing condition — with the weak back. I have a weak back, for example, and a lot of people have, but I could continue to do a job, a physical job too, for the rest of my life, given my condition and its deterioration that happens with age. But I might suffer an injury which would make me unable to continue to work for the rest of my natural work life.

The board's decision affecting me would be: "Well, you had a pre-existing condition which had nothing to do with work. We find that you are 5 percent disabled" — or 15 percent disabled — "as a result of the actual injury that is compensable.". But the individual is unable to work forever. We all know people in that situation; they are finished as far as their working life is concerned, yet their compensation is based on the final incident and as a result their compensation is negligible, the amount is negligible.

Yet if they hadn't had that injury, they would have been able to continue to work. The board says it wasn't that injury that decommissioned them, as it were; it was the collection of problems that made them unable to work. But as far as that individual is concerned, it was that final incident. If they hadn't had that injury at work, they would have been able to keep working despite their general health. So without that accident, their income would be secure. With that accident, they have no income, or a partial disability award.

Some of these awards are ridiculous in their amount, these amounts of $40 and $50 a month that people get. So what happens is that people fight the case, naturally. They go through every avenue they can and many of those kinds of cases end up on our desks as MLAs. The individual is absolutely convinced that the board is trying to do them in by giving far too much emphasis and too much weight to the pre-existing condition and not enough to the actual injury that was suffered which created the problem.

Then because there is this tension and stress going on and it takes forever — it takes years as we know — stress and other emotional problems develop. All of these problems exacerbate the inability of that individual to go back to work at any job, much less the job he had before.

Then you start to see adjudicators writing reports, or if they won't write the reports any more because the reports are now more public, they do it orally. We all talk to adjudicators who say,"Oh, the guy's" — and it's usually guys they're talking about — "a malingerer" or "It's all in his head" or "He just doesn't want to work" and all those kinds of things, when in fact everything is traceable to a fully compensable accident or injury, an acknowledged and agreed-to injury at work. Everybody agrees that it happened, and there are no disputes about the facts.

The dispute is about how much money the pension will be as a result of that. The process makes it impossible for that individual to ever work again, because when you've worked a lifetime at a job — and for a lot of people work is everything.... For some of us there is more to life, but for a lot of people work is their life. When they suddenly can no longer do their work, there should be no misunderstanding and no doubt about why stress and emotional problems result. When they run up against a bureaucracy that seems to them uncaring and unresponsive to their concerns, those stresses and tensions and emotional problems become worse.

[ Page 1855 ]

One thing just adds to another. All of it relates to the fact that there was an accident which, in most of these cases, everybody agrees is compensable.

There are other cases where there is disagreement about whether or not that particular accident is compensable. Those are easier to deal with in many ways. The kind of problem we all end up with, I think, more often than not, and the one that causes the biggest heartache and the biggest difficulty, is this one that I've tried to describe, where the pre-existing condition is given more weight than it should.

One of the beauties and strengths of the New Zealand system is that they have a compensation system that basically says it doesn't matter where you were injured; it doesn't matter why it happened or where it happened — in the bathtub, tripping on the steps as you come off a plane at the airport, on the sports field, at work, in a car, or whatever. If you're injured and unable to work as a result of that injury — and you have to demonstrate that you are unable — you are then covered by compensation. You don't then have all these lengthy battles about where it happened: did the accident happen while you were at work setting chokers on the Monday? You know, you go through these long debates about that. Who cares? I guess the answer to who cares is that the employer cares, because at the moment the employer pays the whole shot, so you have to devise a system that enables society in general to bear the cost for a scheme like they have in New Zealand, and it really is a cheaper system.

We talk about too much bureaucracy in this country; half of the time of the bureaucracy is spent in determining "guilt or innocence." Did it happen at work? Was there some activity that the worker is denying happened at home or in a sports game or whatever? We go through that whole exercise. It seems to me that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble and grief if we would recognize that when people are disabled as a result of an accident or an injury and are unable to work, they should have some financial support for the time they are unable to work. Now what we do is end up putting people on welfare or wherever else, which brings me to the next point in this sad story.

The damage we do to workers' psyches when we force them to go on welfare while they're waiting for a compensation claim to be resolved is immeasurable. Going on the dole, or as a lot of workers say, getting pogey, is one of the most debilitating things that can happen to a worker, particularly when that worker feels his claim is justified and right. We've got to find some way to ensure that that's not the result while a claim is pending. I guess the answer to that is that everybody's working on the new system and trying to speed up the appeal process and everything else. This is a situation where the suggestion that justice delayed is justice denied is only part of the question, because in this case justice delayed leads to a whole range of other problems that make it almost certain in too many cases that that person never goes back to the workforce as a productive member and then no longer feels a productive member of society. That is really debilitating.

I've had an opportunity in the last few years to visit with people who are becoming active in injured and disabled workers' associations. They're growing and springing up everywhere. It used to be there was the one group in the Fraser Valley; now there are groups in Alberni, Victoria, Kamloops and Prince George, as well as a couple of groups in the lower mainland, and there's even one developing in my constituency.

The complaint is common and frequent there. Just to go back to my initial premise, it is not all related to technical, procedural questions at the board. It's not all related to the simple question of adjudicators not making the right decision to start with, or to the question of the lengthy delays. Too often it goes back to this fundamental question of where the accident happened, how much pre-existing condition was there, and a decision by the board flowing from all of that which says your compensation is going to be $50 a month for the rest of your life, or whatever the number finally is. If we could find a way of solving that problem, we'd be going a long way. I would suggest, actually, that to deal with that problem and a number of other more philosophical rather than procedural questions, some kind of public review process.... I'm not calling for a royal commission; I think we can royal commission ourselves to death. I have called for a royal commission, but the government's reluctant to appoint them often. I would be happy with some other kind of formal, not necessarily grand, public review process which could consider some of these more fundamental questions.

If the government's not prepared to proceed in the direction of the New Zealand compensation system, so be it. That's a direction in which we in our party would like to move, but if the government isn't, that's fine for the time being. Let's get on with dealing with some of these other pressing problems that exist right now that are devastating people's lives. I would just make that appeal.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair,

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19 The Hon. L. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 70, by deleting the proposed section 70 and substituting the following:

Transitional

70. Matters pending before the Labour Relations Board on the coming into force of this section and applications for reconsideration shall be determined as if the amendments made by this Act were law at all times relevant to the determination, except where,

[ Page 1856 ]

in the opinion of the council, the application of the amendments would treat as unlawful something that was lawful at the time it occurred.

SECTIONS 72 and 73, by deleting sections 72 and 73.

SECTIONS 74.1 to 74.91, by adding the following sections after section 74:

Miscellaneous Amendments

74.1 The Acts listed in column 1 of Schedule 1 are amended in those of their sections or provisions listed opposite them in column 2 by striking out "Labour Code" wherever it appears and substituting "Industrial Relations Act".

74.2 The Acts listed in column 1 of Schedule 2 are amended in those of their sections or provisions listed opposite them in column 2 by striking out "Labour Relations Board" wherever it appears and substituting "Industrial Relations Council".

British Columbia Transit Act

74.3 Section 6 (4) of the British Columbia Transit Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 421, is amended by striking out "under that Code," and substituting "under that Act,".

College and Institute Act

74.4 The College and Institute Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 53, is amended

(a) in section 1 (2) by repealing the definition of "labour relations board" and substituting the following:

"Industrial Relations Council" means the Industrial Relations Council under the Industrial Relations Act; , and

(b) in section 42 (2) by adding "under that Act" after "and regulations".

Essential Service Disputes Act

74.5 The Essential Service Disputes Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 113, is repealed.

Metro Transit Operating Company Act

74.6 Section 6 (3) of the Metro Transit Operating Company Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 257, is amended by striking out "under that Code," and substituting "under that Act,".

Public Service Labour Relations Act

74.7 The Public Service Labour Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 346, is amended

(a) in the definition of "bargaining agent" in section 1 (1) and in sections 2,5, 7, 12 (2) and (3), 18 (2) and (3), 19 and 20 by striking out "board" wherever it appears and substituting "council",

(b) in section 1 (1) by repealing the definition of "board" and by adding the following definition:

"council" means the Industrial Relations Council under the Industrial Relations Act;,

(c) in section 8 by striking out "board's" and substituting "council's", and

(d) in section 17 (1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (10) (b) (ii) and (12) (b) by striking out chairman of the board" wherever it appears and substituting "chairman of the Disputes Resolution Division of the council".

Science Council Act

74.8 Section 7 (2) of the Science Council Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 379, is amended by striking out "under that Code," and substituting "under that Act,".

[ Page 1857 ]

System Act

74.9 Section 17 (2) of the System Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 399, is amended by striking out "under that code," and "that code applies" and substituting "under that Act," and "that Act applies" respectively.

Vancouver Charter

74.91 Section 175A of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, is amended by striking out "Labour Code of British Columbia." and substituting "Industrial Relations Act."

SCHEDULES, by adding the following as Schedules I and 2:

SCHEDULE 1

[ Page 1858 ]

SCHEDULE 1 — Continued

SCHEDULE 2