MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there's many good communities in the province represented by the Members on all sides of the House, but no community so beautiful and so dynamic as Kelowna. Today we're highly honoured to have on the floor of the House two of the pioneer citizens that have done so much for Kelowna.

Mr. Capozzi senior, whose son sits on the floor of this House and has two other sons that are very fine citizens in our province, his life just shows what can be done by an immigrant coming to British Columbia and not just coming to dynamic British Columbia but making British Columbia dynamic by his efforts. It just shows that native ability that a person is born with perhaps is the greatest quality that any person has in life. With him today is Mr. Chanconi, another pioneer who came from Italy as well. He's been a great citizen in Kelowna. They've been my friends for many years and I'd ask all Members of the House to give them an extremely warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hate to suggest that I'm having a dispute with the Honourable the Premier but in your gallery this afternoon we have some other members of the jewel of the province — eight students from that wonderful recreational village of Lumby with their teachers, Mr. Mark Philips and Mr. Max Cosson.

These are young students and I know that all Members of the House will be on their best behaviour and in their finest debating form. I would ask you to give them a very warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill No. 84 intituled An Act to Establish the Office of Commissioner for Grievances.

Bill No. 85 intituled An Act Respecting Proceedings Against the Crown.

Bill No. 86 intituled Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act.

Bill No. 87 intituled An Act to Amend the Trust Companies Act.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Report on Bill No. 28, An Act to Amend the Administration Act, Mr. Speaker.

Bill No. 28 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Report on Bill No. 33, An Act to Amend the Summary Convictions Act.

Bill No. 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Report on Bill No. 35, An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.

Bill No. 35 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 19, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 19, Accelerated Park Development Fund Act.

Bill No. 19 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 20, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 20, Accelerated Reforestation Fund Act.

Bill No. 20 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 21, Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund Act.

Bill No. 21 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 22, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 22, Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act.

Bill No. 22 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS-38

[ Page 744 ]

NAYS-12

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 23. The Hon. the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bill No. 23, Succession Duty Act.

This government believes a broad base for taxation is the most suitable method to raise the fund necessary to carry out essential services provided by government.

It considers that succession duties must form a part of this base in respect of our more wealthy citizens, but that exemptions be provided of sufficient worth to eliminate the vast majority of our citizens from having to pay any succession duties whatsoever.

Accordingly, this bill raises the basic succession duty exemption for special beneficiaries — husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, son-in-law, daughter-in-law — from $60,000 to a minimum of $150,000.

Including the measures contained in this bill, the following are the main exemptions now provided, for example, for a spouse — an outright exemption of $125,000. Two, an additional exemption of the value of the family home. Three, an additional exemption of up to $25,000 of life insurance.

Four, an additional exemption of up to $250 a month pension. Five, exemption in any event of at least $150,000. This means for instance a husband could leave a $40,000 home, $25,000 in insurance, other properties of the value of $125,000 and $250 a month pension to his spouse, which if she were age 60 would be valued at $33,832.50. Or a total of $223,832.50 and no British Columbia succession duty would be payable.

A minimum of $150,000 exemption is proposed to apply for bequest to special beneficiaries. Any Portion up to $25,000 to a minimum of $150,000 exemption not used by the above preferred beneficiaries is to be allowed for exemptions of a bequest to a brother or sister of the deceased. It is therefore apparent that most beneficiaries of the estates in British Columbia will be completely exempt from succession duty.

The government further wishes to assist the families that carry on the operation of a family farm, or a business, and is therefore introducing a provision to give a family a 10-year interest-free period to pay any succession duty which may be due on the passing of the farm or business to them.

Other amendments to the Act are proposed to bring it generally into conformity with the provisions of the common succession duty Acts being introduced in most of the other provinces.

These amendments provide: One, property outside the province left to a beneficiary in the province is to be subject to duty, less any duty paid to the cooperating province. Two, in the case of a company controlled by the deceased, verification of the valuation to be applied to shares and to the debts and dispositions when passing to one person connected to the deceased by a blood relationship, marriage or adoption. Three, in cases of quick succession, it provides for reduction and valuation of 10 to 15 per cent of property in which the duty has been paid under this Act if it passes again within five years. Four, proposes a reduction and duty payable when a bequest is a gift in which the gift tax had been paid.

The Honourable Members will recall that on top of the generous exemption provided the British Columbia succession duty rates are low. For example, for a close relative after all these exemptions and the first payable $50,000 of dutiable value, the rates range from 3 to 8 per cent. There is no revision of these low rates proposed to take up the 25 per cent of the state tax field dropped by the federal government.

The government is aware that thrifty, industrious and prudent citizens in our society need encouragement and are entitled to encouragement to continue their contributions to the economy of the province. The British Columbia succession duties will therefore only apply to very large estates as basic exemptions outlined above eliminate most beneficiaries.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we're happy about hearing that there is going to be some increased exemption under the Act. But I think the government is treading on very dangerous and complicated and unnecessary ground here. Because we have in Canada, Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, or even understand it or not, over the past six years or so gone very, very carefully into the estate tax, and the gift tax situation.

We had the commission that very, very carefully studied the incidence of income tax, the gift tax, and the estate tax and that was the Carter Commission.

Next, Mr. Speaker, it was followed by the federal government white paper which went once again through the whole tortuous process. That was followed by a review of the thing by the taxation committee of the House of Commons, and finally the matter was debated almost ad nauseam in the federal parliament and eventually the new Act was passed.

So Canada has come in with a new tax philosophy, Mr. Speaker, and that includes the abolition of the gift tax, and the abolition of the estate or death taxes with the whole bag now under one tax system, as before it used to be perhaps under the three.

I think I can say perhaps good riddance to this federal gift tax, and to the federal death tax. But, in one sense, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point that is giving me a great deal of concern here, I don't think this government has considered it properly. These taxes that I'm talking about have not totally disappeared because by virtue of the provisions of the new Income Tax Act, they are in essence included. They're perhaps less distinguishable today than they were before, and they're certainly in a more equitable form. I think we will eventually find through the proof of the pudding that they will be considered to be, and in fact be, in a more equitable form.

So from that viewpoint I think that the federal provision was certainly a good step forward. But I say to the government here today, for goodness sakes go ahead and give this new tax philosophy in Canada, the federal system, give it a try and wait a while. Just see how it will work and don't be precipitous and jump right back on to the tax bandwagon. We don't really and truly know whether or not what has been

[ Page 745 ]

suggested here by the government is just an additional tax trip. It could well be just that, and in my view unnecessary.

I think perhaps the government is going by this statute to most of all "muddy the water," by the perpetuation of succession duties in the province. Mr. Speaker, the government here is not only ignoring the philosophy of this single, and hopefully more simple, procedure but it's not even prepared to give it a try,

By this bill, there's no question of a doubt it's going to grossly complicate the process. It will be offering certain members of the public another plateful of very conflicting jiggery pokery, and a perpetuation of tax that is now considered to be an outmoded method of taxation.

Even worse than that by duplicating and compounding a prevailing tax system, from which B.C. will receive its share, in essence this is again another tax whack upon the people of the province. I don't think the bill is needed Mr. Speaker, concerning the money that it will produce by itself outside of the general provisions of the federal Income Tax Act I very much doubt would be any net.

This government has enormous tax surpluses. There's no question of a doubt it is the history of this government that they've continuously and deliberately underestimated revenue. Some people can say this is an accident. Well if it's an accident it certainly is an ever-repeated accident. And B.C. people are over-taxed every year, every month, and every week, and every day, in pretty well every way.

By this bill, the Minister of Finance — and I would hazard a guess that it's his bill — he's just adding to the confusion, he's adding to the red tape, is adding to the opportunity for bureaucratic bungles, and this particular department by virtue I'm sure of understaffing has had a great deal of difficulty in keeping up-to-date with the work that it's had even up to this point.

It's creating just an additional tax jungle and I say perhaps a great deal of more hardship to certain sections of B, C. society.

Now, in my view there's another aspect here. This bill could well create a climate that would very much favour the exodus of capital from the province. Capital is what we need in B.C. Now for example, Alberta. It doesn't have any gift tax, it doesn't have any death tax, but it is subject to the federal Income Tax Act and that province will receive its share of it and by virtue of the amendments to that Act and under the new philosophy it will receive its particular share of those old kind of duties. I can't see how we can possibly favour anything that's unnecessary or is unfavourable as this.

Shortly, by way of summing up, Mr. Speaker, this is one more tax maze. I think it would be very difficult and very expensive to interpret and to administer. Any of the Members who have read the Act can certainly see that it's a confusing son of a gun, if nothing else. It's a dreadful thing to interpret. I think it will be a great boon to the estate planners and to the financial advisers and to chartered accountants and so forth — people in those fields. It will no doubt swell their interests and certainly swell the offices of another level of the civil service and I think we're going to have Parkinson's law just running wild with this kind of a thing.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that one death tax and one gift tax under the federal system is plenty, we don't need this in B.C. and I would much prefer if this province adopted the attitude that the Province of Alberta has done and that they're covered under the federal statute.

We don't need the two tax collectors, we don't wish the duplicating tax system, and we don't wish this kind of legislation.

It will cause confusion, Mr. Speaker. As I've said, it will enrich the coffers of the estate planners and all of their satellite services and all of those kind of satellite services. On the whole I very much doubt if it will produce much net revenue, when you take into account the cost of collection. It will definitely create another bureaucratic establishment, and the public could once more be subject to very harsh and arbitrary rulings.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think this could indeed create a means of encouraging the exodus of capital from B.C. and that is the thing that we should be discouraging rather than encouraging in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): I think there are two basic principles involved here. One is referred to in the bill, and the other is not mentioned.

Now, the first principle is the question of the exemptions and so on which I think is alright to have a year trial — to review it again in a year's time, to see how it is working out.

But the second principle which is not in the bill which I want to discuss is the one about the common-law spouse. We have had a number of bills this year in which we've accepted a fact that there is such a person and that we've given them certain rights and so on. But yet on the section dealing with the special beneficiaries there's no mention of the commonlaw spouse.

Here is a case where I think it is very important that they be recognised, due to the fact that there is a question of money — and money that they should receive the benefit of in the Act. It should be set out, I suggest, in the Act to give them those benefits.

There are certain ethnic groups in the province that are married by their normal custom, that are not married by the laws of the province. Now these people are not included, these widows are not included in this Act. An example of this of course are the Doukhobor people that are married by their own customs.

Now I know that around '54 and '55 there was a change where they could do this and register their marriages. But a great number of those people have never done this, and some of them have been married of course since they came to this country. As a result they are still common-law spouses, and when the breadwinner passes away under this provision the spouse will be forced to pay the tax as a stranger.

Now, I think we've gone around the corner. We've decided that the common-law widow or the spouse should be recognised in today's society, and I suggest that this is certainly one place where it should be done.

I realise, as I mentioned, in the Doukhobor marriages probably concessions have been made, and I know they have, to give them benefits. But they shouldn't have to rely on this. They should be protected by statute. And I would ask the Honourable Minister to take a look at this definition of a special beneficiary and include the common-law spouse.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this bill because I'm not prepared to support this bill.

[ Page 746 ]

In the past I have supported all the bills on succession duties and have felt that there was a need to support them because there were many loopholes in the previous tax Acts through which people could accumulate large estates and not pay any tax on that accumulation.

Under the recent provisions of the Tax Act and particularly under the bringing in of the capital gains tax the main portion, or the main vehicle by which people could do this no longer exists. I feel that people when accumulating and developing estates will have paid their share under the new taxes. They will have paid tax on their income, they will have paid taxes on their gains, through capital gains and will have paid all the required taxes.

We really are saying that we are going to place them in nothing more than really a double jeopardy. We're talking about encouraging thrift, we're talking about encouraging the development of peoples' investment incomes, to invest in Canada. And what we are saying now is that if they do that and do accumulate in this manner we are really going to be taxing them once again in a secondary fashion.

I believe that this tax at this time now becomes an unfair measure of taxation. I do believe at the same time that the state is stepping in and making arbitrary decisions as to which person is more entitled to an estate and therefore should be tax exempt.

There are many cases where the estate might by some reason go to the wife, though that may not be the final arrangement that the individual may have wanted and would be tax exempt, and where he may have preferred it to go in another direction. Probably if it's going to be tax exempt because what has been done by another person for that individual it might be a much more realistic exemption in the final analysis.

I think that we are selecting arbitrarily the value of estates. We're saying in this particular Act now that if the property that the man owns, regardless of really how large the property is, that his house sits on shall be non-taxable. Whereas if he puts his investment in another form of income, if he puts his savings in another form, it is taxable.

We're saying at the same time that life insurance has suddenly taken on again a very special premium over stocks, bonds or any other investment form in the Province of British Columbia, and I suggest that these are not valid explanations at this time.

I realise that by speaking against it that I probably place myself in a rather difficult position of antagonizing tax departments anticipating estates, but I would point out that for many people there are still loopholes through which people can find their way by transferring it down long before death to dependents and stabilising the estate.

The very wealthy will escape the largest part of a lot of this, and we're going to hit the middle income to the lower range of the income — those people who are making great contributions to the development of the Province of British Columbia.

I say that this capital gains tax has eliminated the need for succession duty and therefore I am not prepared to support this Succession Duty Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, our party has always opposed the Succession Duty Act. It was our belief that we should avoid the tax jungles of Canada. In those days when there was an estate tax, we should have participated in the same way that other provinces participated in a share of the estate tax, so that there was only one kind of administration on the estate for purposes of levying a tax, and that it was comparable from one area of Canada to another.

Instead what this province decided to do was to enter the succession duty field, and to develop an administrative jungle; which provided one set of assessors at the provincial level, and another set of assessors at the federal level; which harrassed people of low and moderate income; which provided for the Province of British Columbia only a very modest amount of revenue and no more revenue than they would have obtained had the Province of British Columbia stayed with the general estate tax. This is on a net basis.

We have reason to believe, Mr. Speaker, that had we never entered the succession duty field we would have been able to attract to British Columbia substantial amounts of capital that would have provided jobs and opportunities for British Columbians of all income levels, but particularly those who have to work for a living. Therefore the Succession Duty Act to date has done a great deal of harm in British Columbia and has done no good in the way of providing needed revenues for the province.

Today, by retaining the Succession Duty Act and bringing in further amendments, we are retaining a tax which is no longer necessary because the capital gains tax does that social leveling that was anticipated first by the Estate Tax and then by our own Succession Duty Act.

So what we've done now in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is to add double taxation. We have already done harm. What the retention of the Act is going to do is to multiply that harm. What was a modest disadvantage in previous years is going to be a major disadvantage commencing today.

I'm going to give one example. There could be many that we might quote. If we're to have a successful agricultural industry in this province, we're going to have to retain under single management large farms which can operate as successful business enterprises. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is nodding assent. But this will no longer be possible, Mr. Speaker, with this Act.

I don't care that a ranch has 10 years to pay off the succession duties. All of these businesses are land rich and cash poor. The fact that the Minister of Finance levies additional taxes on that farm isn't going to mean anything to the hay that's grown or the cattle that are raised. They can't do an extra job just to satisfy the Minister of Finance. The consequence, Mr. Speaker, will be either to break these farms up or to let them go to foreign ownership, because it just isn't going to be possible facing these taxes for the agricultural people in this province to retain economic-sized farms. For them it's a disaster.

Mr. Speaker, it's a disaster as well for any number of small, successful and growing enterprises in this province. Again the imposition of this tax levied on top of a capital gains tax will break these businesses up at the time the person who started the business, the father, passes on. It will produce moments of crisis in successful British Columbia enterprises.

We stand here day after day in this House talking about the need for Canada to develop itself, to have growing businesses, to have a successful agricultural industry, and yet we come along with these punitive and unnecessary taxes and bang these things on the head.

[ Page 747 ]

Sure the province is going to get a little bit of money out of it. But it's going to more than pay the amount it receives out on administration, on unemployment insurance, and on welfare. This is the kind of taxation that costs jobs. This is the kind of taxation that destroys enterprise. This is the kind of taxation which is totally incorrect for a growing and developing country like Canada and for a growing and developing province like British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we oppose it. It's stupid nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know it's interesting to listen to the debate on this. I think maybe one of the points that should be made is the fact that the federal government has seen fit to revise the Income Tax Act and get into the capital gains field. As a result of that and perhaps as an appeasement to all the people in Canada, they have abdicated the estate tax field, basically, I suppose, for two reasons.

One would be that they didn't feel that there was a great amount of revenue to be generated from the application of estate taxes and gift taxes. Therefore they would allow the provinces to have a few of those concessions but at the same time retain in their own right that area of taxation against each and every one of us that is the most lucrative, namely the income tax field and the capital gains tax field.

So while they have said that they are prepared to get out of this field, they certainly entered into another field which in the long run will be far more lucrative from the standpoint of revenue generated to the Crown than anything that will be gained from an estate or a gift tax situation.

I'd like to commend the Minister for increasing the basic exemption that will be allowed estates in certain special categories from $60,000 to $150,000. I'd like to suggest though to the Minister of Finance just one suggestion. It is my belief that the exemption for an estate should belong to the estate and not to the class of beneficiary who inherits. I would hope that in the future we would see fit to remove the classification altogether, and that the estate as such would be entitled to an exemption of $150,000 plus the other exemptions that it could reasonably qualify for under the Act without giving certain discretionary powers and reduction in exemption to those estates that were left to people outside of what might be considered a preferred beneficiary classification.

I feel that the exemption is to the estate, not to the people that inherit. The person who is the original owner of that estate should have free access to leaving the estate to whoever they may desire including a charity if that were their wish, or to anybody else, without reference to the class of beneficiary who is to inherit. That would, at least, be equal and fair to every estate in the province.

I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that with the added exemption and the fact that the home can be exempt now plus other exemptions, the majority of average-size estates in the Province of British Columbia will now pass through without attracting estate tax within the province. This is a good thing.

I feel also that the provision for extending the time that the owners of family farms or family businesses will have without penalty to 10 years for paying any taxes accrued is a fair one. Certainly most of the assets of the smaller family business and of farms will be fixed assets. They will be assets of land, of property, of equipment, and not necessarily too much in the way of cash.

If I had one criticism of the Estate Tax Act in the past, it would be that it did prove to be very detrimental to estates that might be heavy in assets, some of them very difficult to dispose of and very short in terms of cash liquidity available at the time of the person's death. This has caused, I believe, undue hardships in many cases where they have had to sacrifice valuable assets of the estate to pay the estate taxes levied. With the idea of giving them 10 years to pay — and after all if it's a family farm and it's to be inherited by younger members of the family — they're going to probably receive the benefit of that farm without a great burden being put on their shoulders to provide cash for payment of the farm right away.

Surely to goodness in that situation they'll be able over a period of 10 years to arrange to pay off any estate tax that may be applicable?

It does seem that this field is not the most lucrative tax field in the world that we could be involved in. I would like to see the Act that we have now in effect simplified. I think it is an extremely complicated Act as is the Gift Tax Act. Certainly I would hope the Department of Finance will look at it in the future with regard to simplifying the whole idea of gift taxes and estate taxes, or succession duties as we call them in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, certainly I can't oppose a bill with the principle that is involved with respect to the Succession Duty Act.

The Honourable Members from the Liberal Party indicate or somehow leave the impression that what the federal government has done has been to move into adopting the Carter Commission report. Well, they never went anywhere near part-way. So, to suggest that they've really moved into the whole matter of capital gains and the whole matter of taxing, "a buck is a buck" et cetera, they just haven't moved in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, however, I feel that the succession duty is an anachronistic type of law. I think what we should have done was adopt an estate tax type of bill rather than succession duties, and exempt the spouse.

I can see no reason in the world why any government would look upon a spouse as a person who should pay tax on her husband's estate — none whatsoever. She spent her whole life helping him accumulate that estate. However, once the spouse dies then I believe that we don't want a situation where wealth can be accumulated and passed on from generation to generation. Even if it doesn't generate a great deal of income for the government — and it does generate some — even if it doesn't generate that much, some of the Members indicate that it doesn't generate that much — my suggestion is that it does a good job in redistributing income. That's one of our great problems.

However we're still faced with that problem in spite of this Act and practically any other Act because if a man is wealthy enough he can see to it that he's in a position where somehow or another he can circumvent past tax. That's what I'm going to suggest is happening with the Income Tax Act. We see the high-power corporate lawyers and the high-power chartered accountant seeing to it that the very wealthy are protected. Those in the middle range are the ones that get it in the neck.

[ Page 748 ]

That's unfortunately what it is going to be with respect to a Succession Duty Act as well, in my view.

The Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) says that people have paid their shares under the Income Tax Act. I dispute that. I dispute the fact that they've paid their share. The Member from Vancouver Centre knows full well, and I'm adopting someone else's phrase, that when the corporate lawyers and corporate C.A.s go to work, the very powerful, the very wealthy, are able to get around taxes very aptly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay,

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should make some comment on this. In my budget speech, this was touched upon.

The fact is that succession duties do not raise a large amount of revenue and the law is obviously very complicated and involves a great deal of administration.

But perhaps most important of all, it seems to be agreed that this is intended to deal with the very rich or richer members of society. It's that same segment of society that indeed we require for the investment of capital. I don't know how often in this House we hear about the need for capital and how concerned we are about American capital taking over our industries and businesses. For that main reason I think that succession duties are not necessary any longer. In addition I would agree with what's already been said — that with a capital gains tax, while the person is accumulating assets, he is indeed being taxed at many levels, mainly at income tax level and capital gains tax level.

I think it's also clear that the capital gains tax is rebated by 30 per cent to the province so that this province is gaining money or revenue through the new capital gains tax.

I feel that if we really claim that this is a country or a province that encourages individual enterprise and people to build up their family businesses and farms, it's mighty difficult to do that nowadays with the various taxes, including this latest one, the capital gains tax.

Therefore you would achieve two things. I think there would be greater tax justice if succession duties were abolished. Secondly I think that the very rich members of society and the people who have developed wealthy businesses would have more capital to create more industry and create more jobs. Therefore I cannot support this bill. I believe that succession duties should be abolished.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in other years when we have looked at amendments to this bill, I've had some concern as to whether to support succession duties.

In this instance I propose to support the bill because I believe we're into a whole new ball game in terms of taxation in Canada. We shouldn't, at this stage, look at this legislation and say succession duties are out. We should at least allow them to stand on trial in this province. I think they create substantial revenue. If you don't think $21 million is substantial, my friend, well you're looking at a different code of ethics than I am.

I used to hold the view, when I first entered this House, that the revenue received from succession duties was not commensurate with the costs of collecting them. I've checked on this point with those who are involved. It is my view that we pay very little proportion of what we collect in succession duties. Therefore they represent a substantial revenue.

Now what are some of the arguments we've heard just in the last few minutes here? That it is injurious to growing British Columbia businesses. It seems to me that the substantial exemptions provided take care of this feature.

Secondly, it is going to drive people out of British Columbia. I'd like the Members to name one person who succession duties have driven out of British Columbia. I know there are other provinces which see fit to remove themselves from this field and which now are, with a view to the fact that there is a new capital gains tax in the federal area.

My one primary concern is that we may be creating aspects of double taxation and of course a sort of a taxation jungle, where succession duties are concerned. It has always been very complicated legislation.

I would like to point out one feature of this legislation which has been brought to my attention, perhaps the Minister of Finance may comment on this, and that is with regard to taxation on a resident of British Columbia who inherits property that is situated outside of British Columbia.

He may do this notwithstanding the fact that the deceased was domiciled and resident outside of the province. This philosophy of taxing all assets inherited by B.C. resident regardless of the site of the asset or the domicile of the deceased is I think a new approach to the taxation of estates. I understand it is also to be followed by some of the other provinces who are entering the succession duty field at this time.

Section 15 of the amending Act enacts section 10 which provides for a tax credit in connection with death taxes paid to another province on property that is situated in a cooperating province. But there is no provision to grant a tax credit where the asset and the deceased are situated outside of Canada as I see it.

It would seem that the legislation should provide some form of foreign state and foreign federal tax credit if serious double taxation is to be avoided when a B.C. resident is the beneficiary of a foreign estate.

Also I have some concern with the first Member for Vancouver Centre's (Mr. Capozzi) statement where he showed concern over the double taxation aspect and I believe that legal opinion does appear to be to the effect that it is uncertain where the income tax on 50 per cent of capital gains that are deemed to be realised due to death are to be deductible as a debt of the estate.

I think it should be made clear as to whether or not double taxation is to be imposed in this area.

However, as I say this is a new ball game where taxation is concerned and the question we have to ask is whether or not at this stage, succession duties are obsolete. I say they are not and therefore I stand to support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with our colleague from Oak Bay. I think succession duties…

AN HON. MEMBER: Your colleague?

MR. MACDONALD: He's a colleague in this Legislature. A Member of the Legislature. We're all colleagues in that sense.

[ Page 749 ]

But I have to disagree with him even though we had his support on a bill a few minutes ago because I know that other jurisdictions, like Alberta, have gone out of the succession duty field and I say they have become chicken on this matter because we're dealing with the future generations of young people who should grow up in a world of some kind of equality of opportunity.

We cannot accept the principle that there should be in society, an aristocracy of wealth with the private fortunes accumulating to the extent generation after generation that the recipients cannot even spend the interest on their interest. I deplore the fact that even B.C. citizens and certainly some of our Canadian citizens have fled with their assets to tax havens in the Bahamas.

I say in that way they say: "We're holding you up to blackmail, you in the Province of British Columbia. You make nice laws for the rich or we'll take our wealth and we will leave this province." Well, if that's got to be their attitude — good riddance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, there are some things about this that I'm not particularly enamoured of and one of the things is the question of the insurance provision. Many people now hesitate to buy anything other than term insurance. There's a trend in the industry towards increasing amounts of term insurance to age 60 or 65, so that when a person reaches this age often they are unable at that point in time to purchase insurance and they may have been investing their money in other forms of assets.

In particular, one of the things that I can't find in here is whether the amount of money that's put into a registered retirement savings plan should be survivored. Say there was $ 30,000 or $40,000 in a registered retirement savings plan — specifically a registered retirement savings plan — this money, should the person reach the age of 65 (1 believe it is) then they must purchase an annuity with this amount of money.

So, what I'm asking is, would this amount be exempted if the widow took this cash to purchase an annuity for herself? Or is it going to be deducted from the $150,000 deduction?

In a general way I think that there is a feeling among some of the real workers and real producers within British Columbia, the people who are actively trying to build up small and medium size companies within the Province of British Columbia. Even a small logger today has got $500,000 worth of equipment in assets and I think that there is a great discouraging influence with the myriad of taxation laws that we have federally and provincially.

The accountants that I talk to say it may take six or seven years to sort these things out. I can't help but feel that while I agree in the principle that the wealthy shouldn't necessarily be able to pass on a largesse, I do believe that in terms of moderate and medium size businesses the amount of provision and the way that they're couched does not make it fair to everyone.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, there's one point in this succession duty that bothers me. I have had several widows come to me where in drawing up the estate for succession duties, they are allowed two per cent, I believe at the start. In a smaller estate, this pension that's used as part of the estate as long as the widow is alive she doesn't receive the pension at the time that she is being taxed.

They use this pension in the total estate and then tax the widow for the cost of the probate, I suppose it's called, and to arrive at whether they've got to pay succession duties or not.

Now I feel that the people that I'm worried about most are those people that don't have to pay succession duties, the only thing that they've got as far as an estate goes, maybe, is a little insurance and this pension that they've got totalled for their whole lifetime — and they never get this money.

This is all they've got at the time and yet they're taxed on this total amount as part of their estate. I don't think this is fair. I don't know whether you could do it in this bill or some other bill but I think that there should be some place that this pension should not be included as part of the estate.

It may be fine and dandy where you are collecting succession duties, but where this is all a person's got along with a little insurance and maybe a house or something, where they don't have to pay succession duty taxes and it increases the cost to a widow. I'm not saying that all lawyers charge them this amount on everything, but I know several cases that I had brought to my attention that it was charged on and I think it is discriminatory in that respect.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member has exhausted his right to speak. The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean they forgot to say something before?

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: My friend, I don't wonder at all that some of these representatives of the fat cats are preaching their doctrine. I'm going to tell you this, they talk about double taxation, the federal income tax — that we wanted larger exemptions. As long as I'm Minister of Finance I will never agree to tax the people with low income and let the people with wealthy estates off scot-free my friend. That might be the new policy of the Tory party in this province but I want to say that's the reason I left the Tory party and that's the reason the ordinary people will not vote for Tories in the next election. That's the reason really — now.

We found out today the reason why the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) left our grass roots movement — because he doesn't believe in the principles of Social Credit which is for the ordinary people, my friend. That's the difference. That's the difference.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, I'm going to tell you, we're going to see how you vote this day. I will tell the people of this province how you vote this day. Before this day is out you will be tied to the mast, my friend,

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Can we get back to the principle of this bill?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 750 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I always pay taxes my friend. Oh, it's noticed in the paper that some people don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: Earl Grant!

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's no relation of mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're happy at that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So am I. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll bet you are.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Some of the Honourable Members are mixed up on the income tax and how it affects — on the new system on capital gains. They say the provincial government is going to get all this extra money. That is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Under the original arrangement, ever since we've been in the income tax basis we've always had a percentage of the total tax, the tax abatement and it grew up to be 28 per cent.

Under this new income tax, to make sure that British Columbia and others do not share in the capital gains tax, the federal government changed the formula. I pointed that out at the federal-provincial conference. I pointed it out in my budget speech and I point it out again today.

Before, we had 28 per cent of the total. Now we're going to get 30.5 per cent of the federal share. When you take off our share, the abatement of 28 per cent before gives us 72 per cent. So 30.5 per cent of 72 per cent only gives the province 22 per cent.

Where does the other 30 per cent really go? To the federal government. I can't understand how the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party can't understand ordinary arithmetic. I can't understand it at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting just as much money.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just as much money as the old basis. But no share of the capital gain and you want us to give away succession duties and we get no share at all. If that is Liberal policy in this province no wonder you and the Tories are going down the drain.

My friend can snicker as much as he likes — he's never going to be elected again. He got elected under false pretences the last time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no! Point of order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I noticed that he didn't report back to his riding or get any confirmation from the last meeting …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Can we get back to the principle of this bill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The principle of this bill, my friend, is to reduce taxation.

MR. GARDOM: Withdraw that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't want to withdraw reducing taxation. I certainly will not. I want to say this bill, if it isn't passed today, means that taxes will be higher than they would be if this bill passes.

This bill reduces taxes on succession duties. It reduces succession duties. If this bill doesn't pass today then the people will pay more taxes. This bill is tax reduction, my friend. Tax reduction on succession duties.

Now I want to say this. As far as these people who, when they share money in this country, who make this money in this province, and if they want to go to the Barbados or Nassau or somewhere else, for a tax haven, let them go and I agree for the first time this session with the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — good riddance, my friend.

Because we want only people in this province that are willing to take their fair share of responsibilities to pay their share of taxes and build this country.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 23 be read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-44

NAYS-6

PAIR

Bill No. 23 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 24, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 24. The Hon. the Minister of Finance.

[ Page 751 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 24, Income Tax Act. For the period since January 1, 1962 this province along with most other provinces has entered into agreement with the federal government for the collection of provincial, personal and corporation income tax.

The collection agreement requires the provisions of the British Columbia Income Tax Act to be compatible with those of the federal Act. The filing of one income tax return is convenient for taxpayers, and it's beneficial for efficient administration.

The province desires at the present time to remain within the collection agreement and have one collecting agency. Accordingly, as required under the terms of the agreement with the federal government amendments are proposed in this bill to bring the provincial income tax legislation in line with the federal income tax legislation which has recently been changed.

This bill brings the provincial rates in line with those contained in the federal legislation. The balance of proposed amendments cover administrative and enforcement procedures identical to those contained in the federal Income Tax Act, and are required to allow British Columbia to continue under the federal taxation collection agreement. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cowichan Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good politics for a provincial government if at all possible to have the federal government do the collecting of taxes because then it all goes to Ottawa. Not all people realise even though there's a section in the income tax form which says "provincial share" and you go down the line and there it is.

You know, the Act we're referring to is this document here. About 600 pages and I don't pretend to understand every paragraph or every phrase and I would question the modesty of any person who did. As well as being tempted to question his truthfulness.

Then you go into the amendments that were added to it and try to apply the amendments. I'll just read you one amendment, Mr. Speaker, to give you an example of how difficult it is to try and take a provincial bill through these amendments and then go back to this bill to see what it means. One of the amendments that was introduced in October says:

As a reference to section 120 of the amended Act does not include a reference to paragraph 33 1A of the former Act.

(B) For the purposes of paragraph 33 1A of the former Act and subsection 121 of the amended Act all of the income of the individual for that or any previous taxation year shall be deemed to have been income earned in the year in a province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you please explain that?

MR. STRACHAN: Now, I wouldn't begin because it would take me about an hour to look up all the references related thereto.

You know, when this bill was brought into the House of Commons there was an ordinary little salary earning taxpayer was told about this bill and his M.P. showed it to him and he said "All of that for my few little deductions?" Well, of course, that's not the way it works because all that isn't for his little few deductions. Most of it applies to other aspects of the income tax system.

This was trumpeted as tax reform. It's nothing of the kind. It's not tax reform.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: I'll get around to proving it in a minute because it still leaves the balance of payments on the same shoulders that they always have been. It does not create an equitable society because people who work with their hands or their brains are still being discriminated against.

Again, I'm not blaming the provincial Minister of Finance for this. It's very difficult to decide to go it alone and send out your own income tax form in a federal situation like we have today. But there's no doubt about it. It's not tax reform because it still continues to be unfair between the little people — the wage earners the small businessmen and the conglomerate — the large corporations and the multi-national corporations.

We got this after the Carter Commission, the Benson white paper, the Benson tax changes and the Benson mini-budget.

Under the Carter Commission all income would have been taxed on ability to pay. I would have bought that on the principle of a buck is a buck. Under the Carter Commission three million Canadians in the $10,000 per year and less bracket would have a reduction of over 15 per cent. Almost another three million would have seen reductions from 1 to 15 per cent. 600,000 would have been eliminated entirely from the income tax role.

It was for that reason that I would buy the Carter Commission even though I didn't like every aspect of it. Because roughly 10 million Canadian taxpayers would have had their income tax reduced or eliminated altogether, 600,000 Canadians would have paid more under the Carter Commission recommendations. The federal government would have had more revenue.

The Benson white paper put some water in the soup and the later amendment didn't really improve too much.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean the alphabetic soup?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the alphabetic soup. The present tax perpetuates all the unfairness and inequities and it's even added a few more. It's true that under these tax amendments that we're considering today about three million Canadians would disappear from the tax roll, But salary and wage earners would be taxed on almost all of their income. In view of the fact that salaries and wage earners are taxed on almost all of their income why do we only tax 50 per cent of capital gains? Income from dividends are getting exemptions up from 20 to 33 1/3 per cent exemptions.

What happens under this tax formula? The single man with no dependents earning $10,000 per year in salary or wages will pay $2,285. A single man getting $10,000 per year in corporation dividends will pay $193. Is that equity? Is that equal taxation?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not right.

MR. STRACHAN: I am right, I am right.

On income of $8,000 the salary earner will pay $1,654. If his income is on capital gains he will pay $579. If it's in

[ Page 752 ]

corporation dividends he'll pay zero.

What has been the tendency with regard to federal taxation in the last 10 years? In 1961, 35 per cent of the federal tax revenues came from people. Individual income tax. In 1971, that was up to 42 per cent of federal tax revenues that came from persons.

How has the corporation income tax gone? In 1961, 23 per cent of federal tax revenues came from corporations. By 1971 it was down to 19.5 per cent of federal tax revenues coming from corporations.

In the new legislation that 19.5 per cent will be even less. The theory is that this will help create employment by encouraging industry to invest and all the rest of it. But if we're encouraging the wrong kind of investment through our income tax and corporation tax policies then it's possible to increase the Gross National Product without increasing employment. That's one of the major problems facing us today.

You know, the professor of finance at the University of Toronto not too long ago made a statement. He said:

"On its own, Canadian industry can't provide an adequate response to the challenge of foreign competition. Strong and efficient competition is required in the area of taxation and beyond it as well. The alternative is a drift down the road to a Venezualian-type economy. A large modern resource extraction industry that provides very little employment, a large unproductive government bureaucracy, an inefficient, weak manufacturing sector, increased imports of manufactured products and rising government expenditures on unemployment."

I think that describes the economy of Canada because of the tendency towards the resource benefit taxation system. You know, again under this new tax set-up a single taxpayer earning $5,000 will pay $14 less. A single taxpayer earning $11,000 will pay $74 more. A single person earning $100,000 will pay $1,000 less. That's redistribution of wealth isn't it? That's real redistribution of wealth.

The man who earns $100,000 will actually pay $1,000 less. But you know, that's the breaks. But it gets worse and worse you know, when you think of the special privileges that is allowed to the major corporations.

Can you imagine the man who is earning $11,000 and is going to pay $74 more, finding himself in a financial position where because of that he was having trouble finding the money?

If he wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance and asked for surcease from that particular obligation what would happen? He wouldn't get it. But we find just recently an organisation called the Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited asked the federal government to release them from their obligation of paying $6 million in sales tax. They pleaded financial hardship. Financial hardship! The Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited — $6 million worth of federal sales tax! Financial hardship!

What did the federal government do? They excused them from paying their $6 million. But the poor little man who earns $11,000 a year under this new tax bill, if he pleaded financial hardship to the federal government what would happen? Would they give him an exemption? If he refused to pay he'd probably go to jail.

The basic exemption under this new tax Act is being raised for a single person to $1,500 for a married couple to $2,850. We have always felt — and the Premier said so today, and I agree with him — that this basic exemption should be at least $2,000 for a single person, $4,000 for a married couple because that's just about the poverty line in today's society.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can do it.

MR. STRACHAN: Well…it can only be done by going outside the federal tax system and imposing and sending out your own tax forms.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: But what else is happening under this legislation? By taxing unemployment insurance payments and allowing premiums as a deduction the government will actually take in $30 million more. By treating as income medical premiums paid by the employer on behalf of an employee they'll take in $80 million more. Again the little man's being hurt. These two sums more than compensate for loss of revenue by increasing B.C. exemptions. These two increases will take from the little man more than they get by the increase in the B.C. exemptions.

We in this party have always advocated a tax system that possessed more equity than the present tax system. The Government of Canada has made a value judgment and basically the worker's wages are not important. They will pay taxes on the full shot. But if you have capital you can invest that and it will only be subject to partial tax. Only the entrepreneur gets the icing on the cake.

You know, I've listened to the arguments from across the way several times during this session about the need to let the entrepreneurs and the corporations get this special privilege in the tax field — the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) who voted against succession duties…I'm having a little trouble with the noise in the House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would agree with the Hon. Member. Could we have some order please?

MR. STRACHAN: As I listened to the Hon. Members across the way talk about the need to allow the privileged to get away with their privilege as being important to the provision of employment in this country I realised just how far out of date their thinking is. Because more than about 250 years ago a man by the name of Richard Mandival wrote a series of essays in which he put forward some peculiar theories.

One of his theories was that workers shouldn't be paid too much, because if workers were paid too much they wouldn't work.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long ago was that?

MR. STRACHAN: 250 years ago. Then he went on to say that the workers of that day were enjoying comforts that were once the special privilege of princes.

Then in another essay he went on to talk about the spending of the luxurious rich providing employment. Basically that whole essay was based on the premise that we should encourage the luxurious consumption of the well-to-do. We should help them to become more wealthy because then they will be able to hire chimney sweeps, gardeners to look after their gardens, seamstresses to make their clothes, sew buttons on their clothes and all kinds of services.

Basically he said that we should see that the rich have lots

[ Page 753 ]

of money. We should see that no one takes it away from them because after all they provide employment. Oh my goodness, what trials and tribulations, where would society be if the rich did not have the money to provide employment?

Now, that was 250 years ago and that's exactly the arguments I've been hearing from the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi), the Member for Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) and other Members across the way all during this session. That's how far back their thinking is.

You go read "The Fables of the Bee" and you'll find that you agree 100 per cent with that particular philosophy that was written so well so long ago. But the lobbyists and the pressure groups that operate in this province and this country have been able to persuade the federal government (1) not to implement the Carter Royal Commission, (2) not to implement the Benson white paper, and what we get is this sickly continuation of the same old discriminatory tax legislation.

When that Carter Royal Commission came out the beefs started to pour in, there were stacks about that high from all the special privilege groups and industries and corporations in this country. And they got their way. The Carter Royal Commission went down the drain.

Then came the Benson white paper, again they descended. They even set up a special organisation to lobby against the very limited benefits that the Benson white paper was going to bring. And finally when this tax bill was brought in they howled in glee and this is their paper, the Guardian they called it. When these amendments were brought in it, the date was June 18, I think, on that tax bill. "White Paper Philosophy Defeated. A victory or something else — time alone will tell.

"If we view Mr. Benson's tax legislation only in the context of his original white paper proposals the council's victory was stunning and clear cut, " said John F. Bullock, president of this Council of Canadian Taxpayers which is a straight entrepreneurial front to tear down public support and public belief in the need for real tax reform in Canada.

Another quote: "So many concessions were made in the new tax reform legislation that the council will be able to curtail some of its 1971 programme and thus save money." A clear cut, and stunning victory they called it.

But who won? They won, the representatives of the special interest. Who lost? The average taxpayer and worker and salary earner in Canada. They say so right in their own publication and it is colossal gall to brag about it. And that's why the situation exists that the individual's going to finish up paying more taxes while the man who earns $100,000 a year is actually going to pay $1,000 less.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why he didn't pursue the same course as the Province of Ontario. Because they were able to got other exemptions written into the tax system there.

I go to the Financial Post of last November and we are told that Ontario wants to introduce its own system of property and provincial sales tax credit — property and provincial sales tax credit for Ontario residences effective next year.

Now, that was last November, and the same story says Ontario's proposed new system of sales and property tax tennants will be a boon to lower-income individuals and families. Now we weren't able to get the increase in the deductions the Premier spoke of.

Why didn't he bring in this situation? I don't know whether he's listening or not. Now Mr Minister I'm wondering why you didn't do as Ontario did, which they claim would be a boon to lower-income individuals? They would get relief from provincial sales tax for the first time, you would get more relief for property taxes, and rents, that is now the case in the province's basic shelter exemptions grant.

Then later there was a story that came out in the Financial Post indicating that Ottawa has agreed to allow Ontario to incorporate that into their tax structure.

Now, Mr. Minister I have objected all through this session to the unfair taxation which operates in this country, to the fact that the individual has to pay taxes on almost all of his earnings, that the small businessman pays taxes on about 90 per cent of his earnings, but in the resource base industry, mining only pays taxes on 13 per cent of their income and the oil and gas industry only pay taxes on 6 per cent of their income.

As long as that situation prevails we cannot say that we have an adequate, fair, or a reasonable income tax system. Because you look at the iron ore of Canada. We are not providing the job-intensive industries under our present tax system and as I said earlier, it's possible to increase the Gross National Product without providing a single job, and the long list that I read off the report of the Minister of Industrial Development the other day where new expansions were taking place and plants in this province without producing a single job indicates that very clearly, that we could increase the Gross National Product of goods and wealth without providing a single job.

The Iron Ore Company of Canada, which is one of those companies that gets in under the 13 per cent payment on their income tax, they are spending $900,000 to provide one job, and this income tax situation encourages that kind of capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive industries, and we certainly can't continue up that road or we are in trouble.

So I have these questions for the Minister. Did the Minister of Finance press the federal government for changes in this weighting of the tax system, so that the resource-base industries don't get away with only paying income tax on such a small percentage of their proposals? And two, why didn't he suggest the Ontario system of allowing tax credits for rent, property taxes, and sales tax? I know he won't answer because he wasn't even listening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think one of the unfortunate parts of having to accept this statute is that throughout the negotiations that went on with the Income Tax Act there was very little said about suffering in silence the amount of revenue which the federal government is going to take from the capital gains tax on property.

I don't understand most of this silence because if there's anything that is very peculiarly the province of municipalities and provincial governments it has to be the property tax. And when you consider that looking at the values which have been added to property it's almost impossible to look at any community and not come to the conclusion that the property values that were created were essentially created by provincial investments, or by municipal investments, or by the direct investment of local taxpayers in their own right through such things as local improvement taxation and so on.

When you consider that over the course of time buildings

[ Page 754 ]

like the Medical-Dental Building in Vancouver showed increases in value of from $3 million to $5 million and assume that that is a new tax plum for federal taxing authority then this has got to be just about the most serious encroachment on local property rights that we've had since confederation.

Right through the piece on this I indicated at a federal-provincial conference with the ministers of municipal affairs that I consider this an intolerable type of an encroachment where government, which produced little or none of the investment which created these property values, presumes to tax those property values with no indication whatsoever that there's going to be any return to the province, nor to the municipality.

Certainly I know that the Minister of Finance for this province, while having to accept the Income Tax Act as presently being established, that British Columbia has indicated in a number of ways that we're not happy.

We're not happy in the way the federal government has handled their tax formulas, we're not happy about the way in which they've handled equalisation payments.

We're talking about equalisation payments now, moving from $1.1 million to $1.5 million, over the course of the next year and probably upwards of that — one billion, one billion. Of course, one of the sources for some of this new revenue, it's quite conceivable that the property tax take in the Province of British Columbia alone, on the values added, could be of the order of $75 million a year without one iota of any indication from the federal authority that any of that money will come back to the provincial authority which helped to create the values nor to the municipal authority which help to create it as well.

Certainly I want to make it pretty clear that in supporting this bill I'm not supporting the position of the federal government with respect to their tax reform and I'm certainly not supporting the federal government's position with respect to the capital gains tax, and the lack of return to the provincial government and the municipalities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): I do think, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat deserves some better answers from the Premier than he's received so far. The Premier …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh well, he missed half of the discussion, but the point was made that the Province of Ontario brought about different conditions with respect to that region. And it's very clear that the Province of Quebec is continually getting different conditions with respect to federal tax legislation.

There's no reason in the world why we can't take a regional approach in Canada. There are differences in each of the regions, and I think the nation's laws should reflect that. But, if the Premier was on his toes and cared about the unjustices that the Member from Cowichan was talking about enough, I'm sure he could get changes in the legislation so that there would be a regional approach to British Columbia.

Our point of view — and there is some consensus across the floor of this House, with the possible exception of the Liberals and the Member from Centre (Mr. Capozzi) — is that these exemptions and the treatment between capital and wages is unfair, that we're developing a resource-based economy that is too capital-intensive. We lost probably the most able economic mind in the federal government over this very issue — Mr. Kierans. I think Mr. Kierans was right, the nation has been moving in the wrong direction with respect to capital-intensive resource industries and hasn't been creating the jobs that are needed. That's one of the reasons we've got the level of unemployment that we now have.

But for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) to come out bravely as he's done, saying how unfair it is that they're taking the capital gains in property away to Ottawa — he didn't mind when every speculator in the province was packing them all home, or across the line to the States. When the province could have been reaping the revenues from that area the Minister of Municipal Affairs was strangely silent. It was: "Fine, fine! Go to it boys, feed in the growth communities of British Columbia, make a fast buck" — on housing, on industry, all the development that is needed in this province.

He says $75 million may be going to Ottawa. What might we have done last year with that $75 million, or the year before, or the year before? Now, this is an area where the province could have jumped in and been getting the revenue beforehand.

There's just no excuse in the world for the Minister to come out now, and say: "Isn't it a shame that this is going into the public purse in Ottawa, and helping people in the Maritimes." It could have been going to the public purse right here in Victoria and helping out our people all the time, over the last two decades when this province has been undergoing tremendous growth.

If there is one area that is justified to tax — you know if you have to choose a tax that bears less heavily on the unfortunate, that is not a drag on the economy — that's the place to get it, right there where the gravy train is, in the increased value in property.

The Minister says: "The increased value is mainly a result of the work of the community, the work of the province, the work of borrowing and spending, and improvement"…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh no, I said it when I came into this Legislature in 1966, and the Minister was just sitting around just doing his usual thing and blaming Ottawa for this and that. He's had the opportunity and it's been pointed out again and again by the Opposition that this was a rightful source of revenue for the people of British Columbia.

Even this watered-down soup that came from Mr. Benson is stronger stuff than the Minister is able to produce, under his administration — so don't knock Ottawa all the way down the line because it's a job that you should have been doing. You chose not to do.

Now we've got $75 million that at least is going to be used for public benefit in this nation. And I'm proud of Ottawa for that at least, that they are willing to move, in an area that you should have moved in long ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 24 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 24 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

[ Page 755 ]

committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

HEARING-AID REGULATION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulation Act.

The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, during the past year experience has shown that the hearing aid dealers and the public in general have welcomed legislation regulating the hearing-aid field. Nevertheless it has come apparent that section 4 needed amending, and that section 12 should be repealed and re-enacted.

The intent of the original legislation was to benefit both the general public and the hearing-aid dealers. It was the intent and it has been carried out. But to make doubly sure that no misunderstanding can take place we're presenting the amendments contained in Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulations Act.

Individual senior citizens and groups and associations who represent their interests have all welcomed the safeguards contained in the Hearing-aid Regulations Act, and its regulations as passed by this House last year.

The board has wide powers to regulate the activities of hearing-aid dealers and the general public will now be assured that each hearing-aid dealer who continues to be licensed by the board will meet a suitable standard of competence.

The dealer has to provide a bond to keep proper records and correctly describe a hearing-aid as being new or used, maintain an adequate range of hearing-aids with repair facilities necessary to get a good service, keep equipment calibrated to acceptable standards.

Hearing-aid healers are not allowed under the Act to carry out tests or sell a hearing-aid to a person under 16 years of age, unless the young person has previously consulted an ear, nose and throat surgeon or an audiologist. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 31 be now read a second time.

The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in regards to this hearing-aid bill, has it got any set price for hearing-aids at the present time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think that would be a matter properly asked under the committee on the bill. The question is that Bill No. 31 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 31 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Second reading of Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LITTER ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 32, An Act to Amend the Litter Act. The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): There are three or four key points in this bill, Mr. Speaker. We amend the original bill to establish quite clearly that a lake or a water course whether it is frozen or not is still protected under the Litter Act.

There seemed to be some possibility of a legal quibble that a water course or a water body that in its natural state — i.e. water — was in fact protected under the Litter Act, but if it were frozen it might not be protected. So we are amending the Act to include water courses and bodies of water in their frozen state as well as in their liquid or watery state.

There was an exclusion of certain requirements in the original bill as it related to sanitary facilities on private land. As a result of a year's experience we see no good reason for continuing to exclude private land from the requirements of the Act as it relates to people using those private lands for camping or campsite purposes. So the amendment there makes the same sanitary facilities requirements apply to private lands as it does apply under the bill to Crown lands.

The further major factor has to do with specific penalties in relation to the sections of the original Act that deal with containers; beer, ale, and soft drink containers. As you may recall there has been some difference of opinion expressed in the trade as a result of a court decision last summer.

The amendments before you make it very clear that the original intent of the bill was to require that a merchant selling soft drinks in the kind and classes of containers specified must if asked to do so by a customer refund the empty containers. The merchant was given the protection that he need not refund more than a dozen-and-a-half for any one customer, in any one day, simply so we wouldn't have possibly truckloads of empty soft drink cans or one-way bottles coming in from Alberta or Washington to be sold to merchants in British Columbia for the 2 cent refund, since there was no indication of refund legislation applying in the bordering states and provinces at the time we brought in this bill.

It should be pointed out also, however, that where a group such as the Boy Scouts engage in a bottle drive or can drive, this is entirely commendable. But really they shouldn't expect the merchant in the corner store to take 1,000 empty bottles and cans back simply because they have had a drive. I would suggest where they are holding bottle drives they make arrangements with the local bottling plant to receive those empties, rather than expecting a merchant or even a group of merchants to receive them in that volume. .

But specifically what we seek to do here is make it quite clear that by the process of merchandising you undertake the responsibility to refund the kind and class of containers that you sell. While we may recommend the changing of the regulation to make it two dozen instead of 18, we feel there should be a safeguard always for the merchant in the number that he is required to refund.

This doesn't mean that a merchant cannot refund 20 dozen if he wishes to do so, but simply that he will not be in breach of the law if he says he will only take a dozen-and-a half or two dozen from you today. Until such a time as this situation is under full control, I don't think we can take away that protection from a merchant. But at some future date, I would think, when the other provinces and states which are following along this same general line have their systems fully

[ Page 756 ]

operative, perhaps in a year or two, it will be practical to wipe out the number limit altogether, with the understanding that those people who put on bottle drives will make arrangements with the local bottler to receive them, rather than the local merchant.

There have been a number of reports and I would like to just draw one to your attention because it is partly germane to the basis upon which these amending sections are before you. You've probably seen from time to time the arguments that soft drink and beer bottles and cans are really not a very substantial portion of the litter along the highways.

I think if you examine some of these statistical reports you'll find that they are reported as so many pieces of litter. Now this means one pop can is one piece of litter, one empty safety-match card is a piece of litter, one chewing gum wrapper is one piece of litter and so on.

However, we have a report that we think is somewhat more factual because it was conducted by the State of Oregon with their own highway crews. They found that by volume, bottles and cans constituted from 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the litter along the highways. That is litter by volume, rather than litter by pieces.

Some of you may have observed that while most of our highways are in comparatively good shape, in some of the states to the south of us they are really having a difficult time.

I think also we should note that there has been some confusion in the trades. That confusion, I think, arose certainly not from anything we put out from our office. We certainly tried to inform the trades accurately on what we expected them to do, to the extent of circularising by direct mail every person on record as selling soft drinks — so any confusion that arose was, I think, engendered perhaps for reasons other than good public information.

I believe however that amendments that are before you simply reiterate somewhat more firmly the principle of the Act as it was originally presented to you. I think we can all agree we've made considerable progress. We've had our problems. We'll still have more problems. But I don't hesitate to recommend these amendments to you, Mr. Speaker. I move the bill be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in regards to the Litter Act, when it was first brought in, I don't question the purpose that the Minister brought it in for — and that was to clean up some of the litter along our highways and byways. But when it was put into practice it didn't actually work. There were many, many drives throughout the country; Scouts, school classes, and different ones. They gathered up bottles and cans and everything. They got them all together and they couldn't do anything with them. It was a hopeless case. It discouraged a lot of our people in this regard.

I think that after that experience, this government should have been prepared to launch on the real programme of cleaning up the tin cans and bottles in the province. Some of our dealers went to the extent of setting up central depots, which did work in many ways to the benefit of the Litter Act.

People that bought cans of soft drinks and bottles, instead of running back to every little corner store there with three bottles and a half-a-dozen bottles and a dozen tin cans to another place, they could go to the central depot and they could deposit the whole load right there. In many cases that I know of up in Cranbrook, there wasn't too many containers that they would refuse.

It worked quite successfully. Now I understand that they're going to have to desist from operation. Some of the big stores wouldn't take back their containers. They didn't have to because the Act actually wasn't working.

When I say that, I think the government is evading their responsibility in regards to this litter, it is high time that the government set up the depots throughout the province. Every place that we've got a liquor store we should have a depot, not to only take back the soft drinks and the beer bottles or the cans but they should take back the liquor bottles, all these containers.

They're just as much of a litter as anything else. Why shouldn't the liquor store have to take back their liquor bottles? Those are the things that get broken along the highways and smashed up and create quite a litter problem. You break a liquor bottle or a wine bottle along the highway and it makes 12 times as much litter as breaking a pop bottle. This doesn't let the government have the responsibility.

I think we should standardise our containers, standardise a container for soft drinks thoughout the province the same as we can standardise the beer bottle. Then we would have an easier problem to control the litter.

In order to give people incentive to use a standardised container, we could have some sort of a tax on the non-standardised containers. So the standardised container would be used thoughout the province.

If we did this we could have some sort of recycling dump throughout the province for these containers and the glass and the different things. I mean it's easy to pass a law and abuse the corner store. I think it's abuse of the corner store if you're going to say to them that you're going to charge every corner store that doesn't do this, that doesn't do that. I think it is an abuse of the corner store. A lot of these little corner stores haven't got the facilities to handle taking back of these cans and bottles.

Somebody buys a half-dozen of pop in one store and they're 50 miles away and they want to take it in. They don't take it back to the same store, so the store can rightfully refuse accepting them. But if we had depots wherever we had liquor stores, people could go to that one central place to turn in this litter. Then we could solve the job.

We make $60 million or $80 million a year on liquor. Why couldn't we, for the purpose of a clean province, set up depots throughout the province and handle a job without expecting every little corner store to litter up their place with tin cans and bottles in the corners? It doesn't make sense to me.

I think that with the experience that this government has had in the last year, we could have come forward with a better plan than you've got in these amendments. These amendments change nothing. They only add to the problems. What are you going to do with your corner store? You're going to have all kinds of charges laid against them. Then you've got to prove that the people bought the soft drinks there, you've got to prove whether a can is rusty or whether it's bent, or whether it's not acceptable. I think that it's just wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker, through you, the Minister hasn't come forward with a proper plan to have the depots recycle this stuff. We'd be in the business and might have to use a little bit of the profits of the liquor throughout the province but at least we would be on the road to cleaning up the province

[ Page 757 ]

with a proper type of a policy rather than a mish-mash policy such as you have in this Act here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to the similar point that the last speaker did. I don't wish to take the time of the House to be repetitious. I think there's a great deal of validity to the suggestion that the liquor outlets in the province do become depots for the return of bottles, most particularly, and I'd say definitely, for the return of liquor bottles in the province.

The Member was quoting some figures of profit. My recollection of the profit of the Liquor Control Board was $66 million net, which didn't take into account, Mr. Speaker, the 5 per cent gross sales. So it really has a profit of about a $77 million net.

When we're talking about litter I do appreciate the fact that there is a higher volume of pop bottles and beer and ale and so on than there is of liquor bottles and wine bottles, but the concept of the Act is to protect against litter and to clean up the countryside. If we can go ahead and do this I don't think we should just ignore the 10 per cent. Often that 10 per cent is involved in pretty messy kind of breakage as well, I suppose.

The second point I would like to indicate to the Minister is perhaps that if there could be some government encouragement in this suggestion, people might not be as disposed as they are today to throw away wine bottles and liquor bottles.

I think that if the industry itself was able to show a little more imagination and innovation and make more useful containers — things that were more readily convertible into something that the general public could use — you wouldn't find so many of these bottles either in the trash cans or on the roadways. They could have a bottle that could be convertible as a lamp or a drinking glass or a water pitcher or a preserving jar, should I say, or even a container for juice.

But at the present time in this industry this particular product, the container I should say, is dedicated to just obsolescence and waste. That's a silly thing to me. There's no reason why, Mr. Speaker, that the industry could not be perhaps encouraged by the government to come up with a more innovative kind of packaging which in itself would give the purchaser an opportunity for better variety and in itself would tend to prevent the purchaser from creating litter and throwing these things away.

I'm not going to suggest for one moment that there should be any increase in price because that's not needed as the industry is making fantastic profits and the government is making fantastic profits out of the tax. There's no need to come up with the suggestion that what I'm recommending here would result in an increased price to the purchaser.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see these amendments which make a very good piece of legislation even better. I want to comment in particular upon the fact that the setting of the refund is being removed out of the Act and referred to the cabinet — the executive council. I think that this is good insofar as it will allow them to react more quickly than perhaps the Legislature can and I would hope they would see fit to increase this refund price immediately — I would hope to 3 cents and eventually to 5 cents.

Also, with respect to the returns, the Minister's opening remarks indicated that he was considering increasing the refunds on which a store must make from 18 to two dozen. I would hope that he would make it at least four dozen and if they don't set that as a rule I would hope that the L.C.B. may accept that suggestion as far as the return on beer bottles is concerned.

With respect to the refund being made on pop bottles and beer bottles and so forth, I would hope that in addition to the suggestions made from our friends opposite that wine and liquor bottles be included. I would also hope that they might give consideration to quart oil cans from vehicles because in my particular constituency — in mountainous areas with some of the old hay burners that are on the road — they require a lot of oil and there's a lot of oil cans along the roads.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Minister on this Act and the success that he has brought about. The Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) you know, he's always suspicious of the Liberal party …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: We stand up here to compliment the Minister when he deserves compliments and we criticise him when he deserves to be criticised. He knows that we don't stand up either to commend or criticise unless there is a very good reason and unless it's justified.

Last Christmas we were in the State of Hawaii, on the island of Maui for a vacation. It's a magnificent island with miles and miles and miles of beautiful beaches that are undeveloped. But you find in every one of those beaches now, mounds, literally mounds of cans and pop bottles. Beer cans, pop cans and beer bottles — I would say that a good 80 per cent of the litter that you find on those beautiful islands, and really it's reaching now disgusting proportions, literally 80 per cent of that will be drink containers of one kind or another.

When this Act was originally brought forward, we heard testimony from people who would be most affected that this was really only a trivial part of the litter that existed in British Columbia and that it wouldn't have any beneficial effect at all.

If anybody doubts how much containers contribute to the total litter that exists in the countryside, he only has to go the Hawaiian Islands. I know the Member from Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) has been there and was on the island of Maui and may have noticed some of this, but it's really a testimony to the necessity of this kind of an Act. We see enough evidence of this kind already in British Columbia and I think that the Litter Act is helping to reduce that. As time goes on it should really make a substantial dent in it.

There is one part of this Act that does disappoint me and this is in a section which said that the container can be refused for a refund if it's returned in a flat or damaged or dirty condition. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's wise. Because, what it will do is discourage the cleaning up of the countryside. If someone doesn't give "2 cents" whether he litters the countryside someone else may.

[ Page 758 ]

I think a lot of the discouragement of the industry to this Act has come from the fact that it has been such a success. People do turn the containers in to a far greater degree than was anticipated. The problem for the industry is that fact that the Act is working. Too successful. But, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, what this particular section does is reduce to some extent the effectiveness of the Act. It's going to make it a little less successful. What will happen is that people just will not return containers that they see littering the countryside. I think that this part of the Act is a retrograde step.

There is still time and I hope the Minister will take a second look at this particular part and bring in an amendment eliminating this section, because if you see what's accumulating on the island of Maui, you'll realise that the hope for that island is to introduce this kind of an Act that will encourage the youngsters to go out and gather these things up and turn them in for a little cash profit. It's the cheapest kind of garbage collection that you can have. I hope the Minister will see that there is a value to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this bill should be known as an Act to amend the Sidetrack Act. If any bill was ever designed to sidetrack the people of British Columbia away from the real problems of pollution, this is this Litter Act. One good thing about the bill is that the pollution control board will be back down to Victoria in time to hear the debate because they've ended their hearings a day-and-a-half ahead of time up there in the Kootenays where the real pollution problems are caused by the mining industry and the forest industry in this province …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you get back to the Litter Act?

MR. BARRETT: They spill their poison into the air and in the water of this province and we piddle around with a little tin-can Act while the real polluters in this province are getting away with poison in the air and in the lands.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member come back to Bill No. 32?

MR. BARRETT: This sidetrack Act. How much pollution can you pour in a tin-can out of a pulp mill? How much air pollution can you get in an empty bottle spewing out of pulp mills in this province? How many mining companies are pouring filth into the streams of this province and we're not doing anything about it except playing around with a tin-can Act?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please come back to Bill No. 32?

MR. BARRETT: A tin-can Act. That's what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker. A tin-can Act, an empty bottle Act that's sidetracking the people of this province away from the real problem of filth being poured into the land and the soil and the air of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please come back to discussing Bill No. 32?

MR. BARRETT: The streams in this province are being ruined by this government without doing anything about it, and they're playing around. We'll go around with tin cans and clean the pollution out of the Fraser with tin cans. Is that the idea? We'll fill up bottles with the pollution out of the Fraser and all the filth that's going into that river and this government's doing nothing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please desist and come back to Bill No. 32?

MR. BARRETT: A tin-can sidetrack Act, Mr. Speaker, that's what I think of it. It means nothing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is so short-sighted that he finds he has to publicly decry this Act and what it is accomplishing because he thinks it is of no importance.

I find I am not necessarily always in agreement with the Leader of the Liberal party but I too have seen what he refers to on Maui and if it might enlighten the Opposition maybe we ought to take up a collection and send one or two of them over there to see what the tin can and the bottle …

MR. BARRETT: It's made up of filth here.

HON. MR. KIERNAN:…what the empty tin can and the bottle have done to the beautiful island of Maui in all the areas that are not patrolled by the public parks organisation.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many pulp mills have they got on Maui?

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, if this Act is of so little importance, why is it that 40 jurisdictions on the North American continent as a result of our action have either taken similar action or are in the process of taking similar action? Why is it that we've had inquiries from Chicago and New York if we would send my executive assistant down there to show them how to deal with this problem? Why is it we have had requests which we have honoured on two occasions from the United States …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: My friend from Cranbrook (Mr. Nimsick) was very positive in this House a year ago that nobody would refund on a tin can. Over 20 million tin cans were refunded for 2 cents a piece. So he's just 20 million times wrong.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: However, until 1957, Mr. Speaker, virtually all the beer and soft drink trade on the North American continent was in a returnable, re-usable glass container. The one-way packages only emerged after 1957. The can came in as an invasion of the field held up to that time by the returnable, re-usable bottle. A few years later the one-way bottle developed as a competitive response to the can.

Had the bottlers been left to their own devices without

[ Page 759 ]

the invasion of the trade by the can, the bottlers would have stayed with the returnable, re-usable bottles because it was entirely satisfactory to the type of business they were doing in every way.

It was also the least expensive and my friends in the N.D.P. Opposition think perhaps that 400 million empty containers added to the hard garbage disposal problem annually in this province is of no importance. It certainly is rubbish and if we don't want so much garbage in this country to dispose of, I suggest we don't manufacture so much of it in the first place.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Will you stay to the subject of this bill if you must comment Mr. Leader? You're always trying to drag in red herrings. You never want to face up to the facts of any given time or place.

I like the suggestion of one of the Honourable Members of the Liberal Party that some of these containers be made in a form that would be more readily convertible to useful objects. I think that has some merit and I think there's even one better form in which to make the container. Make the container in a form that it can be sent back to the plant, washed and filled again. That makes it a real good container. I don't think we need to be too alarmed about standardisation provided they have the proper system of gathering these things up.

On the question of increasing the refund. The 2 cents remains in the Act unless we decide it's necessary to order otherwise. It can be more than 2 cents but it shall not be less.

On the question of damaged and dirty containers, it's simply this. In some areas, the method of disposing of the can will be to crush them and send them to land fills. Now, if they are to be brought back from the land fill to the merchant to be refunded and he sends them out to the land fill and they come back in to be refunded, that'll be a type of recycling but not just what normally would be expected. So that is why damaged, dirty and crushed cans are excluded.

Now, as far as bottles are concerned, as long as they're not damaged, all you have to do is put them under the tap.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: No. The difficulty is you could exempt them but that doesn't mean you could keep the kids out of there to gather them up. So actually what we're trying to do is get these containers returned in a reasonable condition.

I think another point in favour of the re-usable returnable container is simply this. From one of the Victoria bottlers I have the advantage of having his glass costs as between the re-usable container and the one-way container. The re-usable container cost him 26 cents a dozen in terms of glass costs. In other words he had to depreciate it that much. The one-way container on the other hand cost him a $1.26 per case of 24.

Now, admittedly you don't save the whole dollar because the empty containers have to be picked up from the merchant, they have to be brought back and they have to be run through the washing machine and the steriliser before they go back on the filler line. But even if you just broke even, even if it cost as much to merchandise in the returnable bottle as it did in the one-way bottle, the saving to society in not having all this hard garbage to dispose of would be a big advantage.

What is really the most desirable situation is that in these commodities with a high turnover and low value rate, that as near as possible we should have it handled in a re-usable container because in many cases these bottles are making up to 10 to 20 trips before they become damaged or lost.

So I think you can see from that it is a fairly inexpensive way of merchandising a low-cost high-turnover commodity and is really the most desirable way to deal with it.

Now, our trade here is still in the majority, as to beer, about 98 per cent in the re-usable, returnable container and they are getting about 94 per cent return on their bottles. In other words their shrink is only about 6 per cent on beer bottles. In the soft drink trade the shrink is higher. The shrink is apparently about 8 per cent to 10 per cent on soft drink re-usable containers but the soft drink trade is still getting on an average 8 to 10 to 12 trips, depending on the area you're working in.

Now, on the question of liquor bottles there is, I think, an area yet to be dealt with. There is a particular type of problem here and we have asked the trade to see what they can do in terms of recovering their own containers through the existing facilities that presently pick up beer bottles.

First of all there's a very large sorting problem and in some cases there's quite a shipping problem, but there is some indication the trade is working in that direction. The numbers we're dealing in are: beer, ale and soft drink containers, about 400 million a year; liquor bottles about 32 million a year. That is why I indicated that we deal with the major factors first and see what we can do about the minor factors later on. I'm not suggesting to you that this has worked perfectly but again for the benefit of my friend from Cranbrook, who says it hasn't worked, there were millions of one-way bottles in the trade a year ago. Those one-way bottles have virtually disappeared from the trade and that I think is a definite advantage to British Columbia because the thing that people were complaining about most was the non-returnable bottles getting scattered all over the country and broken all over the country, not in the hundreds but in the millions.

They have disappeared . Certainly you don't see the cans scattered along the highways that you did two years ago. They're being picked up by the kids. They're being picked up by the highway crews. I think we have a reasonably tidy situation. No one has suggested that it will work 100 per cent but I think it has worked better than what has been tried anywhere else in the North American continent.

Now on the question of the depots. There is nothing in the earlier legislation and nothing in this legislation that says a depot cannot function in just the same manner that they have been functioning. The only thing is this; that the Act required initially that if the merchant sold he should refund. The trade traditionally was conducted by the merchant, who when he sold full bottles of soft drinks he took in the empties.

Mr. Speaker, those are the principles contained in the Act. Again I have no hesitation in recommending that it be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 32 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 32 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 760 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 42, the Human Tissue Gift Act. The Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enact the Human Tissue Act. The main feature of it, of course, relates to the inclusion in its provisions of those sections which relate to inter vivos gifts.

The second part is substantially the same as the previous Act. It deals with post mortem gifts.

The third part relates to provisions of general application. Also it includes certain prohibitions relating to dealing in body parts, and the preservation of confidential information and so on.

This bill, in general, is the same as the uniform Human Tissues Act which was originally developed by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Legislation and which was introduced by one province last year, namely Ontario.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this Act differs from the uniform Act and from the one introduced in the Province of Ontario in one material respect. The age of consent in the uniform Act is set at 16 and in this Act it's set at 19, which in the circumstances seems more appropriate to us.

I might also say, Mr. Speaker, this Act before you represents the necessity of keeping our legislation somewhat in step with the development of new technology in the field of medicine. Until a few years ago, the transplant of tissue could only be accomplished in very rare occasions and with doubtful results.

However, with the development of new techniques in the last few years, we're reading more and more about successes in respect of the transplant of tissue. Insofar as it is possible for the Legislature to do so, the activities of the medical profession and the health teams in this respect are endorsed and are given the approval of the community. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 42 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 39. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act. Mr. Speaker, ever since introduction in 1957 of the annual provincial home-owner grant to assist home-owners in paying their local property taxes, this government had been continually carrying out studies on home ownership and living habits of our citizens.

As a result to further assist individuals to own their own homes effective on April 1, 1966, the provincial Home Aquisition Grant Act provided a grant of up to $500 towards the purchase of a home. In 1968 the Act was amended to encourage the purchase or building of new homes, and applicants could obtain a grant of up to $1,000 for that purpose. In addition in 1969, to additionally assist in this field, a loan by the way of low interest second mortgages up to $5,000 was introduced. In 1970 the government extended assistance to persons who had rented a home for at least two years in the province. A grant of $500 or a second mortgage loan of $2500 towards the purchase of an existing home was also made available to renters who had been renting for two years.

This opportunity which initially was only for a one year period was extended last year for one more year. Now at this session of the Legislature in this bill, because of the demonstrated use of the incentive and to continue to encourage the person presently renting to own their own home, the time for such applications is extended indefinitely.

To round out the studies on this subject the Department of Finance had estimated from the federal government census figures that approximately 37,000 heads of families age 65 or over are renting living accommodations. The government considers this a considerable number of citizens who are not likely at that age to start buying a home.

In addition the department has received letters and briefs from individuals 65 or over pointing out that at this stage of life they don't wish to purchase a home but they will be continuing as renters and they would like some relief.

Therefore, it is considered sound policy to make available to this group of citizens the same amount of $50 per year which has been made available to those elderly citizens who presently own their own home. That makes it $235, an additional $50. The extra amount of $50 is made available to the present home-owners with a home-owners grant. This bill provides a $50 yearly grant refund to those elderly citizens who rent accommodations. We're treating it as a refund so as not to be included in income. We certainly hope that no owner will increase the rent by this amount. We hope not.

As Premier of the province, I ask them not to. Anybody that has his rent increased by that amount, I would like to get by letter their name and so forth.

I want to say that this $50 this year is just the beginning of this policy. By saying that I still want to say that those especially under 65 we want to encourage them more and more to own their own homes.

This is the way we think we will get people to take more interest in the community once they have a home and they start to fix it up and so forth. They gain two ways. They gain in saving their money. They gain three ways with the home-owner grant. Then they gain too because in an inflationary world such as we live in the value of their home over a period of years is higher and higher. Most of the average citizens have their savings really in their home. It's very, very important.

But this renter's grant of $50 this year establishes a new policy of the Social Credit government which will be extended and extended greatly through the third great decade of the Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we agree that there is certainly a step in the right direction here — one of the steps, of course, that we've called for for some time. We were wondering when this might happen because of the fact that

[ Page 761 ]

it's been announced by Social Credit candidates in the past that something might be done in this area, but certainly not this kind of a very small amount of $4 a month roughly.

While it's only $4 a month and while many people are reporting that their rents are increasing to the tune of $5 and $10 a month, we still feel that this would be a step in the right direction. We still feel that it's going to be a help to some.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Premier — the Minister of Finance — said "report it to us if anybody raises the rent." He has at his left hand the man who is responsible for the Landlord-Tenant Act. The Attorney General if he wished could see to it that the rents didn't go up unjustifiably. That would be the way, rather than report it to the Premier who writes letters once a year in answer to those people who write to him.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very small reward for those people who've spent their lives building the province. It's a small reward for those people who have been forced out of their homes oftentimes by the unfortunate taxation of our municipalities which has been brought about by a government that has been ignoring the municipalities in British Columbia, forced out not only in my constituency but in many constituencies throughout the province.

We're in a situation in New Westminster now where more than half of the people live in rented accommodation. I would say that 90 per cent of those people live in apartments. There's nothing here for those people who are under 65. There's only a pittance of $4 a month for those people over 65.

I wouldn't suggest at this time that the government arrange a larger amount until such time as they have courage enough to change the Landlord-Tenant Act, so that landlords have to justify increases. They don't now. We've left that discretion up to the municipalities. The municipalities, of course, don't have the kind of muscle that's required to do this kind of thing.

Who do we find on the boards of most municipalities, on the councils? We find people who have a very definite interest in the whole matter of rentals et cetera. So, therefore Mr. Speaker, while we support the principle of this bill and we'll go on supporting help for the aged in this province as we have indicated in the past, we certainly would wish that there were more teeth put in other legislation in order to see to it that the elderly citizens of British Columbia keep this as an assist to their living and their needs.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the bill I find many things in the principle of the bill, of course, which I over past years have advocated. I certainly appreciate the government listening. I'm a little surprised at the Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) because the other day in the House he said he was opposed to this form of grant. I'm pleased that he has swung around now.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did I say that?

MR. CAPOZZI: You stated that. Your exact words were "I am opposed to it because the apartment dwellers will take it away." Those are your exact words, Mr. Member. I recall them said in this House.

But I'm pleased that you have taken another look as the Premier took another look. Please, believe me, I'm glad that you support it. I'm glad you've changed your mind and have swung over to the support of this bill. I think it's very important.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: It shows — it's in the records. It's all in the records. It'll be there. It doesn't matter,

I would point out that there are some protections at the present time that should prevent a part of this from happening. I'm not saying that there aren't any because there are unscrupulous landlords that will attempt this.

There are several factors that should prevent it from happening. Firstly because in most apartment blocks there is a mix of tenants, some who are senior citizens and some who are not, it becomes more difficult for the landlord to put a blanket rate of rent that will cover everyone on a justification that some may be receiving this grant. I think that there has been some wisdom in providing it in this manner for 65-year-olds.

The fact, and I'm encouraged by the fact, because by the Premier's statement to the House today, is that this marks only a beginning of the payments which will be made in this manner. I think that's extremely significant.

I would point out that the original home-owner grant was less than this. It was only $28 and this already is almost double that amount. I think that is extremely significant. It does more, however, Mr. Speaker. Through this bill, I think the very principle of recognising that the tenant as part of the structure of our community has taken his full place in society is as important as any other factor. I think that the recognition of this basic principle which is found in this bill is extremely important. I think that this bill for no other reason than that deserves the full support of everyone in this House. I'm sure that we will receive it.

I would also suggest that the time should come when there are some other areas that it should be extended to as quickly as possible when we're applying it on a certain principle. There are people, handicapped cases, who probably should come under this consideration.

I would hope that the one thing we would see is that while it is limited at the moment to age 65, that perhaps some consideration should be given in the case of single women over the age of 60 — that they should perhaps have a special break in that particular area. The single woman age 60 who is on not necessarily always in retirement, in many cases on welfare and unemployment, can't find employment because of her age, is another person in our society that deserves a consideration when we're coming to this.

The other point which I find even more significant, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this was not made on the basis of a means test. I've said before we are moving as a society into far too many programmes which are basically attacking the principle of thrift and the principle of initiative and private initiative to work for one's own future.

While the possibility that more money might have been made available for people who might be more deserving in their particular needs, I think that it has been a very wise choice to make this grant to senior citizens completely irrespective of a means test.

I would hope that as a society we are not moving entirely towards a means basis for determining the moneys which are paid to people. I do hope that we are not considering rewarding, you might say, the people who do not save when we should be as much as possible, under grants of this nature,

[ Page 762 ]

keeping it on the basis of the single person, the deserving person only and not on the basis of need.

I, of course, intend to support this. I think that there's no need for anyone in this House to take credit for it. It's true that many people have spoken on it. But I think that it was very, very wise of the Premier to accept the principle at this time. I certainly intend to support this bill.

MR. COCKE: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the Honourable Member for New Westminster on a point of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the first time this bill has been debated has been this afternoon in second reading. Mr. Speaker, the Member is endeavouring to mislead the House…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member please correct the record if a correction is necessary? We don't need a speech at this time.

MR. COCKE: He completely misinterpreted, you know, anything that I've said. I'm in complete support of this bill and have been right from the start.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Honourable Member will accept it. The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that the last speaker voted against the Succession Duties Act and asked for pennies for old age pensioners. I think it's a disgraceful performance that one asks and begs for pennies — $4 a month — and yet votes against the Succession Duties Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HALL: It's not consistent.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is reflecting on steps already taken by this House.

MR. HALL: On the principle of the bill I want to ask the Premier why is it that this isn't the same amount as the home-owners grant — that is $185? This bill is going to cost the treasury of the province $1,850,000 that's all — $1,850,000 when we've got surpluses the way we have.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the Premier of this Province is intending to warn those who applied for the grant on the application form that the entitlement, the receipt of the $50 may indeed lose them more money than they get. Those people who are on the borderline of receiving supplemental payments from this government — social welfare payments, workmen's compensation payments — may indeed by receiving this $50…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: You can make your point on second reading. I want to make sure the people know what they're doing Mr. Speaker, because people accepting grants from this government and the federal government have found themselves worse off. Found themselves much worse off.

The next point, Mr. Speaker, and I think I should mention this, is the cost of this programme, $1,850,000 — for $1 million more we could have given every old age pensioner in this province free prescription drugs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You must stay on the principle of this particular bill.

MR. HALL: The last point I want to make on the principle of this bill Mr. Speaker, is simply will the Premier when he replies in closing second reading advise as what the recipients of this grant should do regarding the income tax regulations?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I think there's one principle of the bill that thus far in this debate has been overlooked. That is that the bill as written is not a grant to every senior citizen over the age of 65. It's a grant to one senior citizen per rental accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, there's a distinct difference and that difference which is embodied in the principle of this bill is going to cause dissension in many apartment buildings where there is for example, a single woman living in an apartment next door to a husband and wife living in an apartment. The woman will get $50. The husband and wife will get $50. Yet presumably two people can't live as cheaply as one despite the phrase.

This grant in its basic principle cuts the married eligibility in half. There are also situations where elderly people — women probably more commonly than men — have moved into apartments together in order to economise. Where two or more elderly women will live together and share the accommodations only one becomes eligible for the grant under this bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the point that the Members are making across the way. But I still don't think it's equitable. I still think it's going to cause dissension and for the amount of people affected the government is going to do something here which I don't think is worth the money. Because very often there are hard feelings among the elderly particularly when you get a group of several hundred living in one accommodation where the grants per suite are the same but per person are not.

This is a grant per suite, Mr. Speaker. It's not a grant for elderly citizens. Right now in the province that message has not gone out. That's why I make it. Certainly the reaction I'm getting on my radio programme is that every person's entitled to it and they are not.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill has been urged on this House on many occasions over the years in that although the citizens of British Columbia are taxed generally for revenue up until now, indeed, home-owners were getting a grant but those who in effect paid their local taxes by means of their rent received nothing in the way of remission. Indeed they along

[ Page 763 ]

with everyone else carried the burden of taxation upon which this government has relied to make payments to a selected group of people — the home-owners. So that we have felt that the principle should be extended to all the people who pay taxes, whether directly or indirectly by renting the premises or by purchasing their own homes.

But of course, the difficulty in the latter case is always that when an elderly person who is forced very often by his lack of income, because of what this government pays in its share of pensions, is forced into very inferior accommodations. They are often the prey of landlords who will take advantage of anything that happens in the way of an increase.

This is why…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: …it's rather unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I wouldn't like to see the Hon. Member pursue this argument too deeply in that it's not a part of the principle of this particular bill. I know it has been touched upon by other Members but I hope his feature argument isn't a matter of over-charging by landlords.

MR. DOWDING: But what I wanted to say was in relation to the problem of whether this principle goes far enough merely to award to a group without at the same time conscientiously seeing that those people are not deprived of that benefit.

I think that this bill could go further in that direction in view of the very serious fact that there's no local control now possible over the renting of accommodations by reason of a recent court decision in Vancouver. I hope that the Minister will give thought to either in this bill or somewhere else providing for a means of checking these unjustified increases that occur from time to time. And any increases that may result from this bill should be checked by some legislation in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister figured this bill was going to go through because he has already got the applications out in the mail to many people that have applied. So I guess you figured that it would pass through the House quite easily.

Now, there's one area that the Hon. the Minister stated that he wanted to encourage people to own their own homes. Well, there's many elderly people that found it too much of a chore to operate their own home and they bought a small trailer. They set the trailer up to live in.

Now, while they own their own home they would receive home-owner grants. If they rented an apartment now they would receive $50 but the people that are using the trailer as a convenience to live in, they receive nothing. I think that the Minister should give some consideration to the people that are in trailers and they're increasing in numbers every year and many of them are elderly people. Some of these people they have no jobs, no set jobs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Wait a minute. They rent space. They'll get it.

MR NIMSICK: They don't rent these trailers

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell him to sit down, my friend.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I stay standing so that you wouldn't close the debate. But, Mr. Speaker, many of these people buy these trailers. They don't have to stay in one spot because they haven't got a job any more. They're pensioned and they could move them from one trailer place to another throughout the province if they wanted to. I feel while that they too should be entitled to something …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. NIMSICK: I don't know what the Hon. the Minister of Labour's chirping about, Mr. Speaker, but he's chirping there. I don't know what he's talking about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: No. I think that some consideration should be given to the elderly people over 65 that are making their homes in trailers that they own. I understand that if they rent a trailer they can get it. But if they own a trailer they can't get anything. I think that this should be added to the list.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the Hon. Premier mentioned his concern I believe about an unwarranted increase following the announcement. I think we are all concerned primarily, of course, because there's no legislation existent now which will prevent this unwarranted increase. But I recall the Hon. Premier saying "let me know" and I have a clipping here from the Victoria Times, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, which says: "Rent Increase Upsets Tenants."

Notice of a $5-a-month rent increase was sent to occupants of a large Victoria apartment block which contains many retired people just a few days after the provincial government announced the $50 a year grant to tenants over 65.

I think the tragedy of this is not only what it's going to cost the senior citizens in this manner but when they were asked why they didn't protest, they said they were afraid to in case they might be turned out. This is stated right here. It's the Victoria Silver Threads spokesman made this comment. So, Mr. Premier, there is already evidence of this being done. I hope this will be taken into consideration through some means of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: The explanatory note says the purpose of the bill is to provide a grant of $50 to people who are 65 or over and have rented living accommodations for one year — I do hope that this will apply to people in rest homes who in fact are doing exactly that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: To all people in rest homes? Notwith-

[ Page 764 ]

standing there may be four or five people in one room if they are getting on, will every one of those patients be entitled to $50? Is that what you're saying?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Oh. Well then you say if a person is able to rent a room, I should say in a rest home, if they are able to have a private room in a rest home they'll be entitled to the $50? Is that correct, Mr. Premier?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: But if there's two in a room they don't get it? or three in a room they don't get it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member may find it more profitable to conduct this argument in committee rather than in second reading of the bill which is on the principle.

MR. GARDOM: Well, on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty darned obscure to whether or not it does or does not extend to these kind of people who I'm talking about.

Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill No. 43, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 43.

The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services): Mr. Speaker, at the present time under the existing law the Change of Name Act provides a procedure whereby there may be a change of a given name in a number of circumstances such as the case of a man or a woman, of an adult, of a child, of married living parents, in the case of a child of widowed parents, and a child of divorced parents under certain circumstances.

There are a number of situations which are not dealt with under the Act as it now stands. Consequently there are a number of situations where a hardship has arisen, in instances where, particularly, a child of a broken marriage finds himself with a surname which is different from the name of one or other of his parents or perhaps a second spouse, a second parent, as a result of a subsequent marriage and so on.

In order to eliminate these hardships it's proposed that the Act should be amended to deal specifically with three or four situations.

The first is a case of a given name of a divorced woman, at the time of the divorce. Now Honourable Members will recall there is a procedure permitted at the time of the divorce — this extends that power. You'll see that under section 5 subsection 1.

The second one relates to the changing of a given name of a child of an unmarried mother. And that Honourable Members will find in section 4 subsection 6. In this case of course there is a general provision that if a child has reached the age of 12 years the consent of that child will also be required.

Turning next to the changes of surnames. There are at least four situations involving children that we think ought to be remedied.

The first one is the child of a married woman born prior to her marriage to the present husband. That's in section 4 subsection 5.

The next one is the changing of a surname of a child of a widowed parent by the surviving parent — that's in section 4 subsection 6. The child of a divorced parent, section 4 subsection 6. And finally the changing of the surname of a child of an unmarried mother, by the mother. This is also in section 4 subsection 6.

Now that gives you an indication of the principle that's involved in all of the sections with perhaps one other one that should have your attention — and that is that for many, many years it has been the law in this province, and you will recall that the same kind of principle has occurred in other statutes, where the benefit of the Act is reserved for persons who are British subjects.

For example there was a time in this province when the only person that could work underground was a person who was a British subject. And of course there are many other statutes of long standing that were similar to that. Most of those have been removed over the years and put on a more rational basis and in line with that general principle it is proposed that under the amendment we are considering here, the right to change a name would be conferred on anyone who has been domiciled in the province for a year, or a resident for two years.

The basis upon which that time was determined was in accordance with a well-known axiom in the law that a jurisdiction might properly be a haven for persons in distress but not a port in a storm. It is not desirable that people should come in here on short notice, take advantage of a liberal legislation which permitted an easy change of name, and then take themselves away, but rather to offer a procedure for those people who intend to make this province their home. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased the Honourable Minister has outlined those changes with reference to children. However, I am very disturbed that in one section you still are adhering to a principle of what I consider is outright discrimination

[ Page 765 ]

against the women in this province.

The section that I am referring to, and I know we are going to discuss this in detail later, but there is a provision and the principle is that from what I can gather in section 4 that a married man with the consent of his wife may change their name. But a married woman can't even make application for a change of name. That is in section 2.

Now, I wonder if the Minister could give some rationale for that discrimination, because I most certainly do not intend to support that section of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't imagine that the Minister would give some rationale otherwise it wouldn't be there in the first place. The fact of the matter is this is archaic thinking by an anachronistic government and I think the people should know that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I understand that there's also a section that the Honourable Minister did not explain dealing with names that are considered to be somewhat frivolous. What section is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five.

MR. DOWDING: Oh yes, it's really quite amusing. I don't know where he got this from, I presume he got it from the Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. Campbell) is it? I don't think of him in terms of that name. If he keeps on with these suggestions I don't know what's going to happen to the list in front of us, Mr. Speaker. I was just looking at some of the names there. They might be changed very shortly after the election …

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOWDING: Anyway, I'll deal with that section later when we come to it specifically. But, I would just warn the Honourable Member he better watch out. The registrar might change his name.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 43 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES LICENSING ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 44.

The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, at one time the administration of the matters falling under the purview of the main Act that we are amending was in the Department of Rehabilitation. As a matter of administrative convenience as much as anything, the inspection procedures and so, the administration of the Act was transferred and consolidated in the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

But since that time we have had time to observe the working of the Act and it appeared that there were at least three matters that needed some attention. The first one was a number of what you might call housekeeping matters which related in the main to the description of persons who reside in these facilities and there seems to be some advantage to calling them "residents" rather than "guests." Of course "guests" might include a person who merely came into visit someone, and we thought that it would be appropriate to make the definition more exact.

Secondly there seems to be some difference of opinion in certain municipalities as to the degree of responsibility, and indeed the authority, of municipal governments in respect of such matters as inspections and licensing and the like. That's the second matter.

The third matter relates to regulations generally, and more specifically to the authority on the part of municipalities and the provincial government to enquire into such things as rehabilitative, therapeutic and recreational activities in these facilities. Those are the three main purposes that are reflected in the amendments that are before you today.

The most important one, of course, is the matter of defining the responsibilities and authority that ought to be bestowed on municipalities in connection with their inspection and licensing of these facilities.

No doubt Honourable Members are well aware of comments that have been made about the importance of developing a good community care facility programme and we believe that this bill will contribute to the development of these kind of facilities in the province. I move second reading Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost let me say that I am particularly delighted with section 14 of this particular bill, in that 14 is protecting those people who have long been besieged with requests for bequests if you will, and long besieged with requests for gifts. Now it's up to the public trustee to decide whether or not these gifts are in the best interest of all concerned.

I am delighted with that because of the fact that the main residents of these facilities are older people, and they are vulnerable. Many of us have long felt that their vulnerability has led to a great many of them being divested of their entire wealth. So therefore section 14 is great as far as I am concerned and I'd like to commend the Minister.

One other thing too that I would like to suggest is that it's also nice to have the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act taken out of the Department of Rehabilitation and put where it belongs in the Department of Health, because that again is what we are talking about.

There are one or two other areas Mr. Speaker, that we are in accord with and that is the matter of "guests" versus "residents." We feel that they are residents and they're not people that are visiting, they are people that are residents within a particular facility.

Now, I feel on that basis we can certainly support the bill. We wonder however about certain other aspects. We wonder, for example, how much of a charge is this going to be to the

[ Page 766 ]

municipalities with respect to the fact that they have to police these facilities. I would hope that the Minister would get up as he closes debate and answer this. Would it not be better if the Department of Public Health were the responsible body to police the whole matter of community care facilities? Also, we wonder whether or not section 5 of the new bill opens up to government takeover, and if that's the case I would also commend the government, because I notice there's an opportunity here to have government facilities operating in this way.

So for the most part we commend you for this bill. We would just think that there's a possibility that municipalities might be charged in an area where they needn't be, if in fact the public health can look after this.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, the idea of having community care facilities as defined be under supervision so far as gifts or bequests in a will are concerned is an excellent move. Except, it seems at this stage in talking about that principle in particular there should be a way for the public trustee to solve the situation when he discovers it. It is not enough to merely say that such a gift is void unless somebody has the initiative to do something about it.

I'll point out an example. A relative came to me complaining about an old person, an uncle whose estate was being taken away by an operator of community care facilities. The great problem was how to bring this before somebody to stop the dissipation of this estate.

Finally, I hit on a two-year expedient, I got the relative to say that the old person was in effect confined against his will, doing something they wouldn't do normally, and it came up in habeas corpus in the court and then I got the court to appoint an independent lawyer to counsel the old person to see if that person is being detained against their will.

By that peculiar remedy the court got seized to the matter, and then the estate was preserved and the public trustee moved in because it was obvious from the independent lawyer who talked to the person that that person was senile.

Now, that's a peculiar way to have to do something. Some people wouldn't know what to do in a case like that. And there is no remedy you provide in this bill for that, and I hope you will give it some thought.

The public trustee should be able not only to do something about the question of the validity of the gift, or whether it's void or not or to examine into it, but have some remedies to see that a person is protected in a community care facility.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to support this bill and say that the whole realm of community care facilities as defined in this bill I think is an enlarging one. With an ageing population and with better medical care available, I think more people will be able to be looked after and to live in this kind of facility as time goes by. Therefore the need for proper supervision and inspection is very important.

I would echo the sentiments of an earlier speaker that I wonder to what extent this imposes on the municipality both in terms of staff and time and additional expense other than that which they face at the present time.

I think in speaking in support of this bill I would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that unfortunately many communities, or many municipalities, seem to be very hesitant to encourage the use of this type of facility or to encourage very well-motivated citizens from making the facility available.

As recently as the other day the Municipality of Oak Bay refused an application to provide this kind of facility in a situation that I felt was very worthwhile, and as I say very well-motivated. So that in the government lending its support and its enthusiasm to proper inspection 1 think they should at the same time and in every way possible encourage the provision of this type of facility and encourage by education people to realise that this is an increasing need in our ageing society.

There is nothing in my opinion, and the opinion of many people, which reduces property values in the neighbourhood of this type of community care facility.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: In respect of the matter raised by the Honourable deputy Leader of the Opposition I think it relates more to the question of whether or not the female spouse is entitled to or has any reason for going under a name other than that of her husband. And I don't see how it's possible to deal with that question here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister I believe is speaking on a bill that is previously passed. We are now on the community care licensing facilities. I'm sure the Honourable Members appreciate the comment nevertheless.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: These are going too fast! In respect of the cost of inspections I might say that with only one exception every municipality is doing this now. The uncertainty relates merely to the City of Vancouver and we are negotiating with them on this very question. On the matter of gifting and the remedies that are open to anybody that alleges an abuse here, I believe there is another remedy that's available to the parties.

I'll tell you why I think this is so, because there's a very ancient action. My recollection is that in the pleadings the aggrieved party in asking for the remedy, usually alleges in these very ancient and honourable words that the object of abuse, the individual is to quote the pleadings "dissipating his substance in wanton and riotous living." I believe that the courts did afford a remedy to the parties around that person, I think that still applies today. However, the point that the Honourable Member makes is a good one, and I'll look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 44 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 767 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS AND MASSAGE PRACTITIONERS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 45. The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Now, on this one it's almost self explanatory, but not quite. We propose to eliminate by this amendment a reference to the Trade Schools Regulation Act in the Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners Act — that's the effective section, the repeal of 21. Then the repeal of sub-section 2 of section 24 merely confers upon the University of British Columbia the right to establish its own standards without reference to membership in the Canadian Physiotherapy Association which is a voluntary organisation operating in the main in Ontario. We think it's no longer appropriate. I move second reading.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 45, An Act to Amend the Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners Act ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bill No. 46, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PRACTICAL NURSES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 46. The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Practical Nurses Act, and I believe in the main is self explanatory. I move second reading.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 46, An Act to Amend the Practical Nurses Act, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 48, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 48. The Honourable Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker second reading of Bill No. 48, An Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act. As it says in the explanatory notes of the bill, the main amendments in this particular bill are indeed administrative, are indeed housekeeping. Nevertheless it does contain some new principles as far as the election Act is concerned. It gives a definition of "political party" and I want to just pause here a minute, Mr. Speaker, in the explanation of the principle of the bill to say that if there's any bill that's before the House that will discussed in minute detail in its sections in the next reading, or at least in the committee. stage, it will certainly be this one.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Well, that may be your opinion. If that's so then there's no particular argument. The definition of "political party" has been changed. A more modern definition of "naturalised Canadian" has been defined to correlate with the Vancouver charter and other statutes. It abolishes the necessity of producing a certificate of naturalisation, it gives the chief electoral officers certain powers that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council previously had, but the chief electoral officers shall report to the Provincial Secretary who in turn will report to the legislative assembly relative to it.

There are some changes indeed with the proclamation of the election itself, new rules in terms of the type of media that we have to publicise elections and so on and insists that those people nominated have 50 nominators for each candidate and allows time for errors to be corrected on nomination papers,

It deals with the transfer certificates that are so familiar to all the Members of the legislative assembly having gone through this Act before. It changes the situation of the ball-point pen so dear to the heart of a friend of mine, and requires that all election officials be electors within the Act. The most important principal change in my view, Mr. Speaker, is that in the registration form itself. That registration form will be serial numbered, there will be a receipt attached to it, and none but the Crown or the government will be allowed to print such a form. I think basically that covers any new principles that there are in the Act. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, for two sessions the provincial government has promised a reform of the elections Act in British Columbia. To bring a bill like this before the people of the province after promising them reform of the Provincial Elections Act is nothing but a consummate disgrace because if there is anything that characterises the government and all its years in power in British Columbia it has been an abuse of the election process.

I don't want to go into all of the details of this Act. But I want to tell you that the changes that have been brought about are for no other purpose than to give the government even more advantages than it already possessed, by means of the use of its power as far as the elections Act is concerned.

To begin with, the insistence that there be at least 20 candidates be nominated for a party before that party will be officially recognised on the ballot is a direct attempt to eliminate the Conservative Party as an official party at the next election. There's no question about that, Mr. Speaker.

What it will do is to allow candidates to run in the next election, under false pretenses because if there are genuine representatives of the Conservative Party or the Communist Party or some other party that might have difficulty in electing a full slate of candidates I presume they will be forced to run as independents when they are truly members of a political party and a genuine political movement. And to bring in this kind of discriminatory Act in what we presume to be an election year is a direct abuse of the power of government and the democratic process in British Columbia.

Again, the section which deals with university students —

[ Page 768 ]

not allowing them to register in the place where they ordinarily sleep as the present election Act provides — is another denial of the democratic process. Because what we are attempting to do with people who are attending university is to force them to vote in an absentee fashion which is completely wrong in principle.

In another section of the Act, there's a mention that no person may be allowed to appear on the ballot by their nickname — which may be the way that they are best understood and recognised by the general public.

We go through a whole catalogue of changes here, which are either minor housekeeping or direct changes to benefit the government which is in power.

Year after year, Mr. Speaker, we have called for genuine electoral reform in British Columbia. And this means a redistribution of seats and again I say the last time we had a redistribution in British Columbia where two-seat ridings were invented for the City of Vancouver…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not speaking to the principle of this bill, but is speaking to the principle of the Constitution Act. Would he please confine his remarks to this particular bill?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this Act should contain complete political reform for British Columbia including a limitation on election expenses, including among other things an injunction against the government advertising during an election campaign. And something like $500,000 was spent of the people's money during the last provincial campaign, by Social Credit for its own purposes to gain re-election. Advertisement after advertisement by one portfolio after another. And we had a whole series of election advertising taking place whereby ministers grouped together. The Minister of Lands and Forests got together with the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. The one and only time those two ministers have ever got together, it was for an advertising campaign to help them mutually get elected. Using taxpayer's money.

This is the kind of thing that has gone on in British Columbia for the last 20 years. Gross abuses of the electoral process and the Provincial Elections Act. And this Act is just another affront to the democratic process in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we consider that this Act is an absolute disgrace. The government ought to be ashamed to bring it in and we oppose it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we look at the bill and as the Honourable Provincial Secretary indicated it's just a simple housekeeping bill. But for tonight, because there has been so much emotion injected into the bill, and into the principle of the bill, I would ask for adjournment of the debate until next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know where all this emotion comes from but…second reading of Bill No. 60, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SITES PROTECTION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 60. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. BLACK: Bill No. 60, Mr. Speaker, An Act to Amend the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, is an updating of the present Act. I'm sure that all Members of the House find this interesting particularly when we have spent a good deal of money over the years restoring Barkerville, restoring Fort Steele and other restoration projects that we have in the future.

It has been our experience that a good many of our artifacts, due to our lack of foresight in years gone by — I'm not blaming anybody particularly — some of our artifacts which should have never left this province are down in the United States, off in Alberta or anywhere else. Then when we go to restore, as my friend from Kootenay knows perfectly well, Mr. Speaker — when we were restoring Fort Steele we had to buy some of our own stuff back from the Province of Alberta.

This modernises the Act. I might say that the draftsmanship has been by our own people, of course, but with the advice of the Archaeological Department of the University of British Columbia — Dr. Borden particularly, our own archivist and the Department of Highways and other people who are involved in the bill.

In the original bill that was to come before you there was a section of expropriation but that's been removed from the bill knowing perfectly well, Mr. Speaker, that there is a committee of this House charged with the whole matter of expropriations. As a consequence that was removed from this bill because it would have served no useful purpose until such time as that committee brings in a report relative to it.

So, what this does is to protect, Mr. Speaker, the artifacts that are presently known, that we have no knowledge of in the future, and tidies up the whole procedure and gives us a lot more protection than we had here before. I'm happy to move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): I'm still digging. So I will move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I move second reading of Bill No. 49, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 49. The Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a need in the Department of Rehabilitation to do a little housekeeping in the original bill. The reason that this bill comes about is because of an action before the Honourable Mr. Justice Tommy Dohm who stated that one could easily visualise how overly generous boards of review could bankrupt any funds that any government might allow for social assistance and I believe the Act is abundantly plain.

[ Page 769 ]

Now, there have been some complaints because of the one particular word that was in the Act, and I may read just a portion of the Canada Assistance Plan which puts everything in proper perspective. In chapter 45 of the Canada Assistance Plan under article G, "a person who by reason of inability to obtain employment, loss of principal family provider, illness, disability, age or other cause of any kind acceptable to the provincial authority is found to be unable on the basis of a test established by the provincial authority that takes into account that person's budgetary requirements and the income and resources available to him to meet such requirements and to provide adequately for himself or for himself and his dependents…"

It continues, and then down in clause H, it says "'prescribed' means prescribed by regulation, 'provincial authority' means provincial Minister or other official or bodies specified by the province in an agreement entered into under section 4…" and so on.

So the Canada Assistance Plan places the responsibility in the hands of the provincial government. The amendment to the Act that we have before the House at this particular time does exactly that.

I might draw your attention to an amendment that is on orders of the day right now on page 16. This amendment comes about because some had chosen to misinterpret the objective of the bill.

The amendment reads as follows: "By striking out the word 'absolute' from the third line of sub-section (1) of section 3 from the first line of sub-section (2) of section 3."

So it takes out the word "absolute" because this government has no desire at any time to have any other power than that which is necessary to do the proper job. The authority that is necessary is in the last clause of the bill which places the entire authority in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council. I believe that's where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, with that explanation I move the second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I hope the government is agreeable to an adjournment of this debate until the next sitting…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Provided it isn't disposed of at this time perhaps we could have some amendments? That's alright, then.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill frightens me because under the old Social Assistance Act there were some standards. There was a requirement that we should do our duty to our neighbour, that we were our brother's keeper, and that we should look after people who were in need.

Now the Minister has taken that right out. There are no standards left in this bill, no standards at all except the discretion of the Minister, the discretion of the Minister to pick and choose among people as to who will be helped and who will not be helped regardless of their need.

To take a current example, because some family is in need and it is related to a labour dispute, to say that that family shall get nothing and another family in similar need should get something in the Minister's discretion with no appeal, no process of law whatsoever in that, with possibly a board of adjudication that meets in secret.

Now really, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious bill. I have no hesitation in saying that it flies right in the face of the Canada Assistance Act, that it is unlawful and unconstitutional. The federal government has tried to establish some standards under that Canada Assistance Act as a condition of their affording their part of the assistance which I think is 50 per cent to the social assistance provided in the Province of British Columbia.

They have said to British Columbia that you must establish some criterion of need and the applicant must show a budgetary deficit. That leaves the way open for some kind of a right to assistance as a matter of right rather than a matter of the discretion of the Minister which is simply one man.

We're embarking on a course here in leaving it …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's what the Act says. It says you at your discretion may pick and choose as to whether you will extend aid to somebody in need or how much aid you will extend to somebody in need, whether you will discriminate on political grounds or religious grounds or labour grounds or anything of that kind.

Now I attack this bill very strenuously, Mr. Speaker, and I don't do that because I believe that people who are not willing to work and make their contribution to society should receive assistance from that society.

I think somebody who has got the ability to work — I've got too much of the John Knox protestant ethic in me, if you want to put it that way — I don't like that one citizen to be leaning on another, one person who's got the ability to contribute to society lying back and saying "I won't work and yet I demand that society support me."

I know there are too many people who are poor and barely getting by on their wages. That situation would be anything but a grave injustice.

Yet, I say that we are our brother's keeper for those who are in need whether it's through illness, whether it's a deserted mother — and a great many of these cases are deserted mothers with a great many children — a defaulting husband or in some cases a defaulting wife.

I think it's wrong to leave it as this bill does without any criterion as to need — without therefore the possibility of anyone being able to launch an appeal and have his case determined by a board of review or a board of adjudication if they feel that a grave injustice is being done in their case, without anybody having the right to protest. They may have been a citizen of this country, who during their working years made a vast contribution or even a small contribution to the total wealth of the province of British Columbia. Yet they will not be able to say before some tribunal in some form or other: "I am being discriminated against" — just go to the Minister who in his absolute discretion makes himself a dictator under this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your reward is coming.

MR. MACDONALD: I say no man should have that much power whether it's in the welfare field or any other Minister of the Crown. That is a very dangerous power to give to anyone.

In this Legislature surely we believe in establishing rules

[ Page 770 ]

for the rights and the responsibilities of the people of the province under some kind of fair and equal basis. We believe that this Legislature has a duty to make them fair and give the people affected by those rules the right to be heard and to present their protests if the rules are not being lived up to, and to have a body that determines their rights so that they feel they've got a right to feel a part of this society of British Columbia.

In this bill the Minister has stripped all that away. This is not process of law. This is not due process at all. This is reward those whom you like, punish those whom you dislike, in disregard of our clear Christian duty in this province — which is a very rich province. I don't think either the working people or the people in need can possibly approve of this kind of procedure.

I say you're unconstitutional. Not only are you violating the tests that have been laid down by the federal government in the Canada Assistance Act which I described, but you are asking we the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia to abdicate our responsibilities to make fair laws for all the people affected and to leave all the power in the hands of one man.

Arbitrary discretion! This bill should be withdrawn and rewritten so that the people of B.C. including those in need, those who have fallen by the wayside, those to whom the hand of the good samaritan should be stretched out, have not been stripped of all their rights and all their self-respect as they would be under this bill.

Let's give them too due process, fair laws, a chance to be heard, a chance to be rehabilitated, the right not to be discriminated against.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Bill No. 61, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS ACT, 1965

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 61. The Honourable Minister of Mines.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, in giving the purport of Bill No. 61, it's been obvious to the government and industry that it is essential that measures be taken in the interests of conservation, ecology and environment to have legislative authority to deal with petroleum and natural gas transmission line breaks and also on-site spills that might occur at a drilling site.

This would include high-pressure water mains such as are becoming more common with the development of the province. Regulations will be drafted in conformity to the legislative authority within the Act whereby constant communication through a specified telephone connection would immediately relay any serious drop in pressure on the pressure gauges, either at the pumping station or the refinery or any intermediate point.

Regulations will permit setting up of an inventory of equipment, its capabilities as to the size and performance and also the mechanism of co-ordination, co-ordinating such equipment and manpower to deal with a situation that could be occasioned by an oil spill.

The costs of such action would be borne by the company responsible. The government would intervene only where it was expedient to curtail damage and to conserve the resource in the event that the responsible company or person had not taken the action required under this legislation.

The government would be fully compensated by those responsible for the transmission line or drilling site. Salvage of the resource and restoration of the land would all be part of the clean-up process. Contrary to the assumption on the part of some editorials, only experienced persons would be recruited to assist when required. As far as having to press the press-gang into functions of this nature, this would be absolutely out. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Surrey,

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, the principle contained in this bill appears clear-cut. However, the official Opposition are not entirely certain whether the thrust of the bill should be a prevention rather than cure.

For that reason we've still not concluded our debate, Mr. Speaker, and I would respectfully ask for the adjournment of this debate until next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 62, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PIPE-LINES ACT

HON. MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, again this is a companion bill to Bill No. 61. I think it is self-explanatory in that I have already given the report of No. 61. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I say the same thing, almost, as the Minister — that we too appreciate the principle contained in this bill is exactly the same or near to it as the one in the previous bill and for the same reasons I would ask respectfully, Mr. Speaker, that we adjourn this debate until next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 65, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FOREST ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 65. The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 65 is fundamentally a housekeeping Act, clearing up certain matters in the forest industry.

It has to do, in the first instance, with a definition of

[ Page 771 ]

timber which changed over the years to what we now include in the definition of products which we handle under the Act. It has had to be modified accordingly.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the principal difference?

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Beg your pardon? Pulpwood, Christmas trees and the definition of trees whether standing, felled, or cut primary forest products. It's just been an expansion of it carried out and it's nothing really of a momentous consequence.

For a long time the forest services had the ability to establish salvage sale and special sale areas for different causes whether removing fire-killed timber or diseased timber, and things of this nature. But for some reason or other even though they've had the authority to establish the area there has never been a clear-cut manner in which to prescribe the times for such a salvage sale or special sale area designation. This Act makes provision for that.

Under the multiple use concept at the present time, the Forest Act has only allowed heretofore the reserves for purposes of growing timber. With a multiple use concept in the forests we can now establish reserves for recreational purposes, for ecological purposes, for grazing purposes, for wildlife management purposes, and various things which now come within the multiple use concept of the forest as we now understand it.

For some years now we have been changing from the measurement terms used for the statistical information of forest matters which was the board foot measure. We have been gradually moving from the board foot measure to the cubic scale for the simple reason that all cut is determined by the growth of forest products as measured in cubic feet.

This is the only measurement which has true meaning insofar as sustained yield is concerned. With the passing of the amendment in this Act all of the statistical information will be recorded in terms of cubic foot measurement and not in the board foot measurement that has been used down through the years.

Board foot measurement was a selling term. Forest service is more concerned now with the growing of the given number of cubic feet and the harvest of the given number of cubic feet each and every year. It's impossible to regulate this under the board foot measurement plan.

The Minister has had the right concerning the designations of right of way over Crown lands for forest purposes. It has been the power of the Minister to personally negotiate such passage. This minor amendment to the Act merely allows him to designate this power to one or other of his forest officers.

The royalty rates which have been paid by Christmas tree operators have remained static since 1940 and they have been raised and the classifications changed in the designation which is before you at the present time.

The two items in the Act which have a broader significance insofar as people generally are concerned. One has to do with the fact that we are doing away with fire permits as we have known them in the past.

The requirement for fire permits was first put into the Act as an educational measure to acquaint people at that time with the necessity for care while in the forest. The cost and the problem of making such permits available, the fact that there has been confusion as in the where and when such permits are required because they have not been required in any provincial campsites and provincial camp areas, the fact that in many parts of the province the ability for individuals to readily obtain the permits has been difficult.

The fact is that in total the policing of the permits after the permit has been issued has not brought forth the results in relation to the efforts expended in producing, printing, recording, distributing the permits in the first place.

It has been determined that a better job could be done by taking that money and extending that both in the types of media we have today the radio, the Press, and the television — advertising care while in the forests with fire and for placing specific reserve signs and notifications in forest areas which are spots where people happen to frequent.

Last year we made one change in the fire permit situation concerning the restricting or limiting of the distribution of the permits. We found that in trying to concentrate the fact that people should pay attention to getting permits or requiring permits, we found in this instance that unless it was very, very stringently policed the effort taken in this regard was just not worthwhile.

The other point in the Act which is of some importance is that although with the cooperation of forest companies, the cooperation of timber sale operators, we have been carrying out under our forest management practices requirements for reforestation now for some years, we have never had the legal authority to demand that in any given cut area certain reforestation measures would have to be taken.

This change in the Forest Act for the first time gives us the power — if the power happens to be required — to enforce measures of reforestation. Up until the present time, and until we've had sufficient trees in our nurseries on the programme to rigidly enforce such requirements, we have always had a greater demand for nursery stock than we have had in supply. We are getting to the point now where we will have sufficient to meet all needs and we feel that this provision is now required.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, apart from the last two measures, and they are not of tremendous significance, most of the matters are of a housekeeping nature and I move second reading.

Mr. R.A. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we might as well go straight to adjourned debates. Therefore I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 3. The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Minister of Education): When I was last speaking on this bill I mentioned that there were three major amendments proposed. One to do with the 108 per cent portion of the formula.

The other one was to do with the new method of setting teachers' salaries and lastly to do with teachers' tenure. I covered the finance formula and I was saying that I'd been asking the school trustees of the province to show some leadership and try to spend the money that the taxpayers were making available to them wisely as well.

Turning to teachers' salaries, if we're going to attempt to reduce the rapidly-rising cost of education we must look at

[ Page 772 ]

one of the main reasons for the increase. It's obvious that the teachers' salaries are the major part of the cost of providing educational services.

The annual teachers' salary cost in every school district represents about 70 per cent of the total operating costs of the district. I'll provide you with bar graphs showing in 1962 that teachers' salaries took about 66.4 per cent of the budget. It's been climbing over the years until 1971 it's 69.6 per cent of the entire budget.

You notice as well that in 1971 teachers' salaries took up almost as much as the entire budget of school districts as late as 1968.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation have expressed opposition to the proposed amendment which allows the local taxpayers to have a voice in salary increases granted annually to teachers.

Their complaint really is in two areas. The first area — they say that teachers are being discriminated against. They're being singled out for punitive restriction in salaries.

Secondly, they say that local taxpayers would never approve of salary increases in excess of the guidelines set out in the regulations under the Act.

The teachers' federation's complaint that teachers are being singled out when the same approach is not being made with respect to all wage and salary earners is not factual. The government is moving on several fronts to reduce the rapid rate of salary increases. We want the people of the province to know that as a government we are showing leadership.

We are willing to take the first steps to restrain the inflationary trend of recent years in the hope that private enterprise will follow our example. That is why we are asking doctors to limit their increase on fees to keep them within an area that we can afford. We're asking hospital employees to accept a limit of 6.5 per cent on salary increases. I've also written to the chairman of the college councils and to the president of the public universities asking them to hold salary increases to this percentage this year. I'm going to request the school trustees of the province to deal with their non-teaching employees in the same manner.

Bill No. 37 makes provision for restraining increases for M.L.A.s and Cabinet Ministers. Civil servants also have their salary increases limited to the provincial guidelines.

The B.CT.F. points out that controls over salary increases are not being applied to employees in commerce and industry. This is true. But what is not being said is that teachers' salaries are being paid, like civil servants' salaries, by the taxpayers of the province.

There's absolutely no truth in the statement that teachers are to be denied fair and equitable annual salary increases. The fact of the matter is that they are granted annual increases. What is incorporated in the amendment is simply the requirement that the provincial government establish annually a fair and reasonable increase in teachers' salaries which the government will accept as a shareable expense. This is a 6.5 per cent increase for 1972.

This percentage increase will be varied from year to year depending on economic circumstance. All we have done is to vary the process. We have not taken away any bargaining rights or the right to go to arbitration. All we have said is that the provincial government will share up to a figure beyond which the local taxpayer will have to pay.

Should the board of school trustees or the teachers of a school district decide in any year that the guideline for salary increases is not adequate and that circumstances in the district warrant a higher level of increase the board and the teachers will have the opportunity to take their case to the person who will have to pay this bill — namely the taxpayer.

I should point out that other provinces in Canada have also taken steps to restrain the rate at which their teachers' salaries are allowed to increase each year.

Nova Scotia has a 5 per cent ceiling on teachers' pay increases. Alberta has a 6.6 per cent guideline. Recently I've been advised that the Province of Quebec has also fixed a 5 per cent ceiling on teachers' salaries for this year. Teachers' salaries have improved over recent years to the point that they are recognised to be among our higher paid employees.

I'm providing two more graphs for you to look at. The first one is approximately a year old now but it refers to teachers' salaries as of March, 1971. You will notice that a teacher starting out with a standard certificate — the lowest certificate — with three years of training last year started out with a salary of $6,700. Over a period of 10 years this would climb to $9,900. A professional certificate with six years training would start off at $9,000 and climb up to $14,300.

We've also calculated the average salaries of elementary teachers, secondary teachers, elementary supervising principals and so on for this chart as well as one year old. But it shows that the average teacher in British Columbia today makes approximately $10,800 as a salary.

As I have already stated teachers' salaries now represent about 70 per cent of the total operating expenses of school districts. Obviously the more money that teachers now employed demand for salaries the less money there will be for school districts to employ more teachers and the less money there will be available for districts to provide the materials, supplies, and services required to provide an adequate educational service.

It's easy for those who wish unlimited spending for education to say that the government should provide more funds and the problem of education costs would cease to exist. To this assertion I would answer that education is only one of the many services which a government has to provide with the money that it receives from taxpayers.

I advised all the school districts last fall that for 1972 the government considered the maximum level of teachers' salary increases should be 6.5 per cent over the 1971 level, that the excess of the increase above this percentage would be a direct charge on the local taxpayers and the school district concerned. I might mention that in spite of my recommendations to the boards of school trustees, increases were actually much higher.

The highest was, of course, in school district No. 39 — Vancouver — which was 8.8 per cent. The lowest was in school district No. 80 — Kitimat — which was 6.99 per cent. The average for all the school districts in the province was 7.6 per cent.

I should point out that the percentage of salary increases for 1972 which I have quoted apply to base salary scales and not to the total salaries paid in 1972. Taking into consideration the annual salary increment which are built into scales and which for the majority of teachers means an automatic salary increase in September this year, together with allowances over scale salaries paid to teachers in administrative posts such as supervisors, principals, vice-principals et cetera, the overall increase on payroll for all teachers now employed will be some 10 per cent more than the payroll costs in 1971,

Since the total teachers' salary payroll budget for 1971 was approximately $242 million, it can be readily seen that

[ Page 773 ]

$24 million to provide only for teacher salary increases in today's economy looms as a very large amount. This $24 million does not include additional fringe benefits obtained by teachers which would amount to several more millions of dollars.

Furthermore, in no way does it provide additional service to the students of the British Columbia schools. School trustees of the province in meeting with them are agreed that meaningful guidelines for establishing teacher salary increases are needed to bring this major expense under control. However, the trustees are not agreed that the present methods of establishing salaries are satisfactory. However, their proposal to solve the problems by zonal bargaining does not correct the deficiencies and the difficulties adherent in this present procedure.

I would remind all Members that it has always been within the power of school trustees and the teachers to go into zonal bargaining. I refer to section 142 of the Public Schools Act which allows any number of school boards and a number of associations of teachers to bargain. Why hasn't this section of the Act been used?

If, as the trustees claim, cooperative zonal bargaining as provided for in the Act is not practical, trustees can very simply solve this problem by amalgamation of their school districts.

A good example would be the Kootenay area which I know so well, where at the present time there are 11 school districts — each individually negotiating teachers' salaries increases each year. Instead of fragmentation of effort there could be an amalgamation of Fernie, Cranbrook, Kimberley, Windermere, and the Creston school district into one large efficient school district.

Nelson, Arrow Lakes and the Castlegar school districts could be combined. Trail, Grand Forks and Kettle Valley school districts could also be combined, so that instead of 11 school districts, there would only be three. The last two could even be combined, which would result in an East Kootenay, and a West Kootenay school district.

Why don't the trustees go this route if they want to reduce the number of individual negotiations of salaries? Ever since I was first appointed Minister of Education I've argued that the school districts should amalgamate. Some progress has been made, instead of 85 school districts which existed when I was first appointed there are now 75, A multitude of small school districts might have been justified in the horse and buggy days but in the present days of rapid transit and technological advancement they are not.

The existence of non-viable small districts results in a waste of taxpayers' money and duplication of services and inefficient operation. The trustees of the province in my view could show some real leadership if they could free themselves of parochial interests and think beyond the present local boundaries of their school districts. With the formation of fewer and larger districts they would have a solution of the problem of zonal bargaining as it now exists.

I think the time has also arrived for the B.C. Teachers' Federation to show some real leadership. Their executive is very well aware of the enormous increases of educational costs in recent years. Their executive is in general agreement with meaningful guidelines. Their executive must be concerned about unemployed teachers, their executive must be concerned about dropping elementary school population.

Teachers' salaries are not being cut, teachers' salaries are not being frozen. Teachers will receive the same percentage increases as others who receive their salaries from the public purse. They can in fact receive more if they can get the approval from taxpayers. And I'm asking the teachers of the province to show some leadership, otherwise their drive to push up costs will seriously endanger the educational system.

I now would like to turn to teacher tenure. For some time school boards throughout the province felt that existing procedures under the Public Schools Act were so cumbersome it was virtually impossible to discharge an inefficient or incompetent teacher.

The investigation committee procedure which has been established in 1958, in the hopes of eliminating some of the costs of the appeals has not worked. In most cases even if the report of the investigation committee was unanimous the matter still went to a board of reference. And this has been a very costly and lengthy procedure.

There was considerable confusion in the minds of school board members and teachers concerning the very grounds on which teachers might be dismissed, which in turn created technical problems in addition to the issues themselves.

School boards also claimed that the appeal provisions on teacher transfers, and the length of time it took to resolve these appeals, prevented them from making the most efficient use of their teaching staff. Teachers claim that there are many situations in which a teacher has been dismissed without being given any advance indication that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with his or her work.

We discussed this matter in the Department of Education for some time and I decided after listening to their views to forward this matter to the select standing committee.

The committee was set up last spring and the number of groups appeared before the committee. Almost all these groups stressed one or more of these above problems that I mentioned, and over and over again it was emphasised that the real area of difficulty was in dealing with the teacher whose competency was questioned rather than with the teacher who committed some specific act which brought his or her suitability for teaching into question.

The select standing committee made a series of recommendations, most of which have been adopted entirely in proposed legislation. Not only have specific changes been made, but also some basic changes in philosophy.

The committee stressed there should be a careful selection of teachers. That has been done. The committee recommended there would be a clear-cut division between dismissal for cause — such as misconduct — and dismissal for incompetency or inefficiency. This has been done.

The bill provides the teachers and principals and other supervisory personnel would be placed from the first day of their appointment on a continuing contract. The recommendation of the district superintendent of schools and the principal must be consulted before a teacher is placed on probation or before his probationary appointment may be cancelled. Under the present Act and regulations a teacher on probationary appointment must usually be retained by the board for an entire school year, thus exposing their children, if the teacher's work is not satisfactory, to a full year with an incompetent teacher.

Regulations will be established under new provisions to provide that one month after a teacher has been placed on probation his appointment may be cancelled on 30 days written notice if his work does not improve. The committee recommended on transfer from one school to another and these recommendations have been adopted except that a provision for review has been established.

I realise that the Members of the House may have some

[ Page 774 ]

difficulty in approaching this question of teachers' tenure without knowing approximately what kind of regulation the government will be coming forth with. So I am prepared now to table in the Legislature a proposed regulation which will be brought in in connection with the amendments to the Public Schools Act. And it can't be brought in until the Act is actually proposed. So with leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table these proposed regulations.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BROTHERS: Therefore Mr. Speaker, the bill contains three major amendments. I've covered them all pretty thoroughly I think, and therefore I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion, are you ready for the question?

The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of the most vicious and dangerous pieces of legislation that I think has ever come forward from a provincial legislature in Canada. This bill could only have been produced by an arrogant, anti-education government. Quite true.

This bill has some exceedingly dangerous principles inherent in it. The first one is the principle which completely destroys the collective bargaining procedures between teachers and trustees. And let's look at what the teachers were faced with before, even before this legislation came in.

Teachers had very restrictive bargaining procedures. Teachers could bargain with their employing boards over salaries and bonuses in collective agreements binding on both parties for the school year. This decision was binding on both parties, and despite the very restrictive laws governing them at this time, in the main both parties were able to live with the results.

What now do we have with this new legislation? We still have legislation for negotiation, but the results are no longer binding. Only the increase dictated by the Minister and his government is binding. The supposed counter to government dictate becomes an appeal to the ratepayers through a referendum.

Those who really understand the work of the teachers, the whole matter of qualifications incentive scales, et cetera, will no longer be involved in the final decision.

An appeal to the ratepayer, Why have you always used education for this type of referendum principle? It applied first of all to capital referendum, then to operating, and now we have it applying to teachers' salary. It's obvious that only a government which is anti-education would use this type of referendum principle in all these areas.

The Minister has made a farce of the arbitration process, a complete farce through this legislation. Actually what he is espousing in this legislation is a new policy, you might call it provincial non-bargaining, that's really what it gets down to. He is making second class citizens of teachers, and he is at the same time are making a mockery of the role of school trustees in this province.

I think it very interesting to note that the teachers and the trustees who I do know — having been a school trustee and a teacher — have had their moments, what they used to call the "annual war dance," when they started salary negotiations.

Certainly there were problems. But the interesting thing is this legislation which you have brought in has actually joined teachers and trustees together, and surely this is something to think about. When it comes particularly to the matter of teachers' salaries.

Let's see what the trustees say about it, and the Minister was quoting, "well why don't the trustees show leadership?" Trustees are trying to show leadership, but the Minister keeps bringing in legislation that prevents them from having any leadership. And I can assure him he makes it most difficult for the Members of this House to debate his bills when he keeps bringing in amendments, amendments upon amendments and today three weeks after he introduced a bill, he presents regulations for us to study.

It's shocking and it's a mockery of the whole process of discussing legislation in this House.

Back to the position of the trustees. What do they say? The Minister is quite aware of what they say. He's met with them, but I think it bears repeating and I hope when the Minister closes he will answer some of these points.

The trustees say that every year in every newspaper we've been hearing about the salary bargaining game. And there have been suggestions made that the teachers' salaries are going away beyond reason. And here are the school trustees who have what they consider a duty to the taxpayers, to just negotiate reasonable wages. What do they say about teachers' salaries? They say: "Let's take a hard look at teachers' salaries increases over the past 11 years. How do teachers' salary increases compare to other increases in the province?"

The Minister shows his graph. Why doesn't he also show the trustee graph? This points out very clearly that from 1960 to 1971 there was a rate of increase in teachers' salaries scales which has never exceeded the average weekly wages and salaries in British Columbia.

I ask him to dispute that, and in fact teacher salary increases have followed the trend set by all other workers in the province.

It's interesting to note when the Minister became so exercised about the Vancouver settlement — that the Vancouver trustees had sat down, assuming they had local autonomy to do so, and had worked out this agreement with their own teachers — that this, whatever it was 8.6 or 8.3 per cent, settlement was completely in line with what they considered was reasonable with the other salary increases for other working sectors of society.

Immediately the Minister came in with heavy hand and said "no more than 6.5 per cent." And he calls this allowing local autonomy? There's a principle involved here that has wide acceptance. The salaries of people employed in the public service should follow the salaries of the people who pay the tax bills. And this is what the trustees and teachers have been doing. Yet the Minister is not even giving them credit for following that principle.

I think it's something that all Members of this House should consider, that the trustees who work day in and day out, night after night, to do their job are being insulted by this Minister, with his type of legislation. I don't know, is the Minister wanting to eliminate school boards completely? Because I'll tell you I frankly can't understand how anyone would want to remain a school trustee any more and try and have to work on a budget and take all the guff from the taxpayers that he has placed on them. The Minister is using them as the buffer for his policies.

It's a very, very easy way to slip out, but the trustees of this province are very, very concerned and most of them are very bright diligent people And I know they themselves are

[ Page 775 ]

very aroused by this legislation.

In this bill we also have a principle that is absolutely unbelievable when it comes to operating referendum. The Minister has not only imposed capital referendum — and very few provinces in Canada even have a capital referendum — he has now imposed operating referendums, and now he's not even going to allow school boards the right not to have a referendum if a number of people do not protest against them. And you know, what is the Minister leaving for the school boards to do? Inherent in this bill now is the creation of automatic referendum. Automatic referendum. I don't think there's that in any other place across Canada,

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. DAILLY: What's the matter with that? Here is the whole theory of this bill, the whole theory of this Minister's bill is "we must stop rising costs in education." Alright, if you're concerned about stopping rising costs in education let's just look at what happens.

Of 25 districts this year who advertised budget overages 16 didn't receive a petition. That meant that only nine had to go to the people. The Minister is well aware and so should the Member from Skeena be aware of the cost to the taxpayer of posting and going through the process of public referenda. Yet here this government is telling school boards that no more do they even have the choice. You automatically go to referendum. Yet out of only nine had to go this year.

It is interesting to note what happened in Victoria. Already we are beginning to see results of this government's edict. Victoria goes to referendum — they went on Saturday. It was defeated, the operating referendum in Greater Victoria. How many people showed up? Twenty per cent. Twenty per cent showed up. You know the Honourable Minister keeps saying there's a taxpayers' revolt, a taxpayers' revolt against rising costs. Only 20 per cent of the people in Victoria were even concerned enough to go and vote on the referendum. That doesn't show any taxpayers' revolt to me Mr. Minister. And then one-third of them supported it.

But you know, the tragedy is we're heading down this road that the Americans are on and have been for a number of years in this respect — that they have used this business of going to referendum, and they have actually ended up with defeats of referendum so seriously, the defeats have been so serious, that they have had to close their schools.

Now if the Minister believes in schools only being opened for a certain number of months a year, say so, but don't put the responsibility for closure on the school boards, because this is what's going to come about.

Speaking of what happens in the United States, the Minister quoted in his first speech on this bill — which he adjourned and then picked up again today — he quoted that the Americans are looking very closely at our foundation programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: A formula similar.

MRS. DAILLY: A formula similar yes. But he failed to mention that the Americans certainly are looking at a different type of financing education. But at the same time right across the whole United States — I'm sure the Minister is aware — the Americans are seriously considering the removal of the property tax for school purposes — right across the United States. As a matter of fact in the State of California I know the Minister is aware that the Supreme Court of California ruled property taxation for schools unconstitutional.

HON. MR. BROTHERS: Then they don't have our kind of a formula.

MRS. DAILLY: Nevertheless, I tell the Hon. Minister, our formula also affects the poor in this province too. It affects the education of our children. He's made sure of that! He's giving them poor-quality education because of it.

We in our party advocate the removal of property taxation for school purposes, even if the Minister doesn't. It's quite obvious with the type of legislation he's bringing in that the average taxpayer who finds his tax bill increasing every year because of lack of aid from this government in other areas in the municipality in services which they must put in, it's quite obvious that the taxpayer is not going to support any increased taxation for schools. It's a natural reaction and the Minister must be aware of this. It's his responsibility to provide the money for a proper education, and our party firmly believes that property taxation must be removed when it comes to educational services.

What is going to happen, aside from the fact that we may even reach the critical state where some schools are going to have to be closed in this province? Let's look at what's going to happen to some of our districts.

In the district of West Vancouver if their referendum fails they are going to have to drop at least 50 teachers — 50 to 60 teachers. West Vancouver now has a higher pupil/teacher ratio than the B.C. average. If their referendum fails they will end up with the highest pupil/teacher ratio in all of Canada. Isn't that great? One of the wealthiest provinces in Canada and the district of West Vancouver if their referendum fails could end up with the highest pupil ratio in Canada.

How can the richest province in Canada really justify a formula that results in the largest classes in Canada?

Let's just look at the situations in 1970 and 1971. We all have heard Members from the other side of the House agree that it's very important to keep class sizes small, particularly in elementary grades. This government talks about saving money. You put the best resources, the best teachers, the smallest classes in the small grades, and you will indeed save money later on in your school system.

Now, in 1970 and 1971 what was the pupil/teacher ratio? Little Prince Edward Island — its whole provincial budget is about the size of Burnaby — Prince Edward Island was 18.5; Alberta 20.8; Nova Scotia 21.5; Ontario 21.7; Manitoba 21.9; New Brunswick 22.3; Quebec 22.5; Saskatchewan 22.7; British Columbia 24.

This was in 1970-71 before you even brought in this ultra-restrictive legislation. Every school district in this province says if this Bill No. 3 is passed, there is no doubt in any of their minds that almost every district in B.C. is going to have to increase their class sizes. No question about it. Already we have one of the highest teacher/pupil ratios right across Canada. Does this government really care about what is going on in the classrooms and the quality of education they're giving to their students? Obviously not. Any government that did couldn't possibly produce legislation like this.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: Now then, I hope these Members across there who are saying, "Now, now, this is not so, " I hope they will get up and justify it and tell us why it is not so.

[ Page 776 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: I hope in their ridings they'll justify it. We even have, it's interesting to note, a Vancouver Province editorial. Paddy Sherman, on Saturday, states: "There seems little doubt about Mr. Bennett's legislation, " he calls it Mr. Bennett's legislation by the way. He says: "There's little doubt that he has picked them, " that is the teachers, "out for an unfair and discriminatory wage campaign. No matter what they may negotiate in new wages from school boards they won't get more than the percentage the government sets unless they go to an automatic referendum."

Paddy Sherman says it's "mean, discriminatory, almost vicious legislation."

AN HON. MEMBER: It must be the Premier's!

MRS. DAILLY: Right! This is Paddy Sherman.

Then an interesting comment, also, from the Toronto Globe and Mail, which is a respected paper. It says that everyone across Canada has been watching this legislation.

As I said at the beginning I think it's set a shock wave across Canada that any government could treat education in this manner. They say: "British Columbia is at this time giving the whole of Canada a demonstration of what can happen if there is a failure of reason and moderation in dealing among teachers, school boards, and provincial government."

This is the whole problem with this government, Mr. Speaker. They bring in this legislation, no consultation, they go to the people shouting "costs of education are too high." They use sets of figures that could easily be questioned. They're building up an emotional reaction amongst the citizens that education costs are completely out of line, they fail to tell the citizens that the percentage of the provincial budget for education is decreasing. They fail to tell the people of British Columbia that the teachers' salaries are not out of line with the salaries of the other working people. The government is clearly trying to build up a polarisation in this province with this legislation. It's quite obvious, but I don't think that people are going to be fooled by it.

I think the saddest thing of all is that the Minister has not consulted with the school boards. I have talked to many school trustees and teachers who have come to me with ideas where they think frankly, that the Minister's department wastes money. They can point out areas where money could be saved. Now, I've already spoken on these matters before in the throne speech debate. I'm not going to go and be repetitious about it. But the whole point is that the Minister does not consult with the very people that are involved in it. No consultation whatsoever! They're suggesting that the whole thing could end up in a jungle warfare, chaos and confusion. That's what this government is creating — chaos and confusion. Not only in education but in almost every sector of our society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chaos!

MRS. DAILLY: It's interesting to note that even the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation — who was elected on a moderate slate and said "We will work with this government, I don't believe in confrontation, I believe in consulting with the government and working with them, " he was indeed a moderate — now the president says "We can't live with it." Mr. Minister, this was a moderate man.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can he?

MRS. DAILLY: How could one live with legislation like this?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: Let's remember that teachers are not just making these complaints because they are concerned about their own salaries. They know that what the government is doing to education is going to cause a deterioration in the educational standards of the children they teach. This is the point they are trying to make.

You know, I find it very bad, I find it very ironic, that education has been picked out and singled out for this referendum principle. Yet when it comes to the government's matter of increased liquor taxes, B.C. Hydro rates, there's no referendum. When the government is questioned on why don't the people have something to say about this, what is the answer? I heard the Minister say this very thing once on television: "We are elected to rule and govern. And when the people are tired of us they will throw us out." Getting very, very close, I tell the Hon. Minister. Very, very, close.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. DAILLY: He can't keep this up. He says on one hand that he is there to govern because he was elected. Why then has he taken away this right from the local school trustees? Why is he not showing some consistency here?

The trustees are duly elected by the taxpayers and yet he has the trustees in a financial strait-jacket. They cannot move. When he's asked about his decisions he says "we were put there to rule and to govern." Yet the trustees have no right whatsoever in this area.

This matter of what's happening to districts — not only are districts going to have to increase their class sizes if this legislation goes through, but they are also going to have to drop, as the Minister is quite well aware, school counsellors just at a time when he himself has said that the counsellor is a very important part of the whole school structure. Counsellors are going to have to go.

To some people field trips may not seem very important. But that's one of the first things that most boards are having to trim from their budget, if this legislation goes through — and already of course, they've been told to stick to the 108 per cent.

What does a field trip really mean? Basically you talk about equality of education for every child in this province. When a school board puts in money for a field trip it's doing exactly that. It's giving an opportunity for every child to take part in outdoor activities. Now you know what's going to happen. Only the child with the money who can bring his money to school can go on these trips. Complete discrimination! Talk about equality of education and yet you are forcing school boards into this position.

The Minister has talked about the great increase in school costs and he's more or less suggested — and how insulting it is that the school boards and the teachers are responsible — that they haven't controlled these costs.

Let's go back to the 1958 when the government appointed a Royal commission on education to inquire into and report upon the state of education in the province. The commission as you know, held hearings throughout the province and as a result what were some of the recommenda-

[ Page 777 ]

tions? They were that the B.C. Institute of Technology be established. That additional regional vocational schools be established throughout the province. That the design of new secondary school streams or programmes would give new opportunities for pre-vocational training. The extension of science courses, biology, chemistry, physics. The addition of kindergartens. The transfer of Grade 7 from secondary to elementary.

Now, all these changes have come about and from the above it's apparent that much of the increase in the cost of education that occurred during the 1960's was the direct result of conscious decisions made by the Minister's government. Decisions made by his government — not school boards who were asking for blank cheques!

His government made these conscious decisions in implementing the recommendations of a Royal Commission set up by them. It should be noted that large grants were received at that time from the federal government for some of these buildings and also to the shame of this government they did not take advantage of the funds that were available for them for higher education. Yet they are accusing other areas of local government of not handling their money properly and yet they did not even make these funds available to the schools in our province.

So therefore it was the Minister's government and the policies of this government which produced the increased costs of education in B.C. Expenditures on post-secondary education have grown to become 36 per cent of the provincial budget. Changes in secondary school organisation, and curriculums and other additional post-secondary institutions have influenced the retention rate. As Dr. Conway, director of research and standards in B.C., pointed out, the whole population has long since adopted the theory that education measured in terms of years attended is a very desirable thing. This seems to be the philosophy of this government. One may quarrel with some of those points as some of our Members have, but they are the ones who made this policy and this philosophy.

In 1939, 32 per cent of the average elementary school streams for Grades 2 to 6 entered Grade 12. With the possible exception of Ontario that was the highest retention in Canada. By 1959, Grade 12 retention had reached 57 per cent. By 1969, it was 86 per cent and in June 1970 it was almost 92 per cent. It was 97 per cent last year in Grade 11.

Even if we allow for immigration between ages 14 and 18, which is very low, and movement from private and Indian schools to public schools which all total less than 5 per cent, retention from elementary schools to the last year of secondary school exceeds 85 per cent. If retention at any cost is good and dropping out for any reason — even employment — is bad, B.C. is almost perfect. But the Minister set those policies. His government did so. If we have an increase in those years and yet he goes on television and says this increase must stop, and yet he himself and his government instigated this policy which led to this increase.

These are the facts which are not coming out and which should come out so that the public gets a true picture instead of what he is doing. He is making the teachers scapegoats, he is making the trustees scapegoats for his financial blundering. I call it blundering, the way the Minister has brought about these amendments. The whole business of automatic operating referendums is unbelievable. We don't have it anywhere else in Canada. The Minister is going to cost the taxpayers more money just because of this nonsense of saying that there has to be automatic referendum.

Actually, our party does not believe in the referendum principle anyway. But if you're going to have it in there why make it the automatic referendum?

I think the saddest and most tragic thing about the Minister's legislation is that he is creating a jungle warfare in this province, purposely, deliberately.

AN HON. MEMBER: Politics, just politics.

MRS. DAILLY: Because if he wants to stem rising costs in education, never once has he called together a commission of trustees, teachers and parents to work with him in his department on stemming costs. If he is that concerned, I'm sure they would be willing to sit down.

Never once has he consulted with them. Instead he has come out blundering with this legislation and in his effort to do this, he has brought in the severest anti-education legislation we've ever seen in Canada — and for political purposes, let's admit it. For political purposes he is going to create complete chaos, confusion, demoralisation within the teacher ranks and the trustees. As I say I can't see how any trustee would want to run for office under this legislation. Do we assume then that he wants to eradicate school boards?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure!

MRS. DAILLY: Obviously the Minister doesn't believe in local autonomy. He's not giving local autonomy to any of the trustees any more.

It is very interesting to note that one elected on the West Vancouver school board is a member of the Simon Fraser faculty who's in financial administration there. He actually thought when he'd been elected to the school board, he would have an opportunity to bring in new policies.

After he worked and found out what he was up against with this government's financial legislation, he found it unbelievable. He said a government which gives universities complete autonomy — and yet by the way, does not expect local property taxation for it — on the other hand expects local property taxation and strips the local school boards of all autonomy.

He says they can't move in West Vancouver. A teacher in West Vancouver could have a good idea and it's going to cost some money, then he has to check with the school board's budget which is already so tightly bound by restrictions that you have made for it that there's no flexibility, no leverage.

So actually if a board has an idea how they could save money, the Minister is not even giving them the opportunity to use it with the restrictions he places on them or school teachers. The Minister has brought in unbelievable legislation.

I hope he will give great consideration, he and his government, to what he is going to create in this province with Bill No. 3. He's going to create confrontation — if he wants it, so be it on his head. He is forgetting that the people who will really suffer from this type of anti-education legislation are the children of this province.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I will attempt not to repeat any of the remarks of the deputy leader of the party to my right. This is one of the pieces of legislation before us that while it is controversial could lead to repetition because of the nature of the principles involved.

I wish to deal only with what I can consider to be the paramount principles of the bill. It is interesting to note first

[ Page 778 ]

of all that the Minister's explanation of the bill clearly indicated that he doesn't understand what the paramount principle of his own legislation is.

It is also interesting to me to note that the particular Bill No. 3 is a lengthy bill but the paramount principle in the bill is contained in one simple clause that was, I suspect, sneaked in at the last moment. I also suspect, Mr. Speaker, it was not of this Minister's making. That clause was really inserted by the Minister of Finance.

The principle that I am talking about is the principle of collective bargaining. That's the real principle in this bill that the Minister is attacking.

It's no wonder that the trade union movement in the province has become alarmed over one tiny section of this bill. It's a bill that affects a group that up until now has not been officially aligned with the trade union movement. But the trade union movement was quick to realise what this bill means, even if the Minister does not.

Here's the principle that once again this government has clearly illustrated — that it does not believe in the practice of collective bargaining. It simply does not believe in it.

We have had several examples over the years of how this government doesn't believe in collective bargaining but this is the most clear example because the most simple principle to collective bargaining — for my honourable colleague across the way who only has one word in his vocabulary tonight — the most simple principle of collective bargaining is that if collective bargaining is to work at all both sides must sit down to the bargaining table without any restrictions on them.

Otherwise collective bargaining doesn't mean anything. It can't mean anything and by this bill we now have the school trustees coming into the bargaining room and sitting down to the table as my friend described — in a financial straitjacket — knowing full well that they can't offer anything more than 6.5 per cent by way of a wage increase.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. CLARK: Yes, but they can't offer more and that immediately is a restriction on the collective bargaining principle and the Member knows that in his industry. But even worse, we now have a group of wage earners going to the collective bargaining table automatically forced to ask for the maximum and this is the irony of the Minister's statements this evening. What group of wage earners will ever go down to the bargaining table and request less than the maximum allowed for by this kind of legislation? Automatically they're going to sit down and ask for 6.5 per cent. Collective bargaining is finished.

In short, Mr. Speaker, again a clear indication, as clearly as I can state it, that this government does not believe in collective bargaining.

The government has appreciated, as any sane person can appreciate, that there is a need for rules and regulations on the bargaining table. But they don't understand that the way to bring cooperation at the bargaining table and sanity and reason is to provide adequate information, to provide adequate guidance and to play the role of counsel between the two sides to bring about trust and understanding.

That's what this government has never understood. Instead it introduces legislation that drives the two forces further and further apart. This is just another example.

Yes, the teachers and the school trustees ironically are in agreement in their opposition to this bill. But they're in agreement only because they can see in the years to come with this kind of legislation that they will be faced, time and time again, with confrontation rather than bargaining. That's the first principle that certainly forces our group to oppose this bill.

Other statements have been made by the Minister and by other Members this evening. Statements like: "We've got the highest-paid schoolteachers in Canada." What has that got to do with the principle of this bill? One could easily ask, does the Minister not believe we should have the highest-paid schoolteachers in Canada? Is that what the Minister believes — that we should not pay our teachers the best?

That's not the principle of this bill at all. The principle of this bill as regards to teachers' salaries is that here's one section of our labour force, one section of our workers, that it will restrict. Surely even this simple fact can be appreciated, Mr. Speaker, that the more years this carries on, the more that particular group in the labour force will get behind. What may be a 1 per cent backward step one year will be 1.5 per cent the next year.

The other remark I've heard thrown across is that we've got too many schoolteachers. Is that what this bill is designed to correct? I suggest the person who shouted that across hasn't read the bill.

Another objection 1 have to this bill is that last year we saw a committee of this House work very hard, and I think constructively, analysing the question of teacher tenure. Working so hard that we produced a unanimous report and it was a good report. Now we have the report cluttered and we have it tied to a section such as this that restricts teachers' salaries.

Speaking of the tenure, I don't know how anyone can discuss the principles of tenure that are attached to this bill when you've just tabled the regulations tonight. Because many of the principles of the bill in relation to tenure are involved directly with those regulations. They must be. So for my part, I'll leave that section of my remarks to the committee stage of the bill.

The supreme irony of the Minister's statements tonight was to suggest that this was just another example of how the government was trying to bring in — I think he said — moderation in wage increases. The group he singled out as an example were the civil servants of British Columbia.

Since when did they have collective bargaining, I ask the Minister? They've never had it under his government. What does he mean, he's brought controls on them? The government's always had control on them. As the Civil Servants of British Columbia Act adequately put it, they've got collective begging rights. Begging. Don't use them as an example.

The principle of government by referendum is made absolutely ludicrous by this bill. Imagine for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if you will, a school board sitting down negotiating with their school teachers through the fall, failing to reach agreement, going to arbitration, arbitration awards coming out at the end of the year.

The arbitration awards might be greater than 6.5 per cent. There's one referendum. The school board budget, for example, could be over 108 per cent. There's two Referendums. Within something like six or eight weeks we've got two referendums going to the school district.

It's possible. It's the public relations firm's dream. We're going to have all the school boards going around trying to sell their referendums rather than getting down to the business of education. They'll spend all their time. I predict it, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of time school boards spend in

[ Page 779 ]

trying to sell the public on their referendums will increase tenfold as a result of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, here's another principle that emerges in this bill. In an attempt to try and justify to the home-owner who is seeing his taxes go up, the government is proposing to limit schoolteachers' salaries — to limit expenditures of the board.

If ever there was a back door approach to trying to remove the burden on the local taxpayer, this is it. How long do we have to wait for this government to realise that the trend is away from the property tax dollar for education? Other jurisdictions have seen this clearly. It's been mentioned previously this evening already.

Our group in this House as well has long advocated that this is the way you bring relief to the local taxpayer because, by your bill, you are going to have people go to the polls, not determining the quality of education in their community but determining the cost of taxes on their land.

Is that how you want education judged? Is that how you want the standards of education set in this province? On the personal feelings of a person burdened with property taxes as opposed to what is best for the children? That's what the government reduction in formula will do. That's what their limitation on teachers will do. That's what their referendum policy will do.

It's a bad, bad bill. But of all the principles that I'm sure will be enunciated more — certainly those principles that affect education itself — in my view none of them are as important as that first principle, that once again this government clearly indicates it doesn't understand collective bargaining and it doesn't believe in collective bargaining. As a result, as with previous actions, the wedge is being driven further and further between the two sides of the bargaining table. Discontent will increase and unfortunately public misunderstanding will increase as well. The government now has the opportunity to take constructive measures. It is indeed pathetic and a sad day that we again see this sort of principle encompassed in a bill.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose it as vehemently as I've ever opposed any bill in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, tonight instead of speeches we should have a moment of silence. A moment of silence for the death of freedom in British Columbia because that's what's happening. That's what's happening in the face of the government, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister said early in this debate: "teachers in B.C. are high paid." I'd like to ask who the Minister would want to be high paid if in fact teachers shouldn't be? Teachers looking after the education of our children. I say to that Minister — so what? But mind you, it's not much good saying to that Minister, because I agree with Paddy Sherman and the editor of the Vancouver Sun who indicate that it's not that Minister's decision that we're dealing with tonight at all.

I heard the Minister of Finance in this House last year talk about jobs. He said J-O-B-S. That was the issue, jobs. Now what's he done here? What's he done ever since this government's been in power? Cut corners, pinched pennies. Oh, yes, he looked good building dams for the Americans but the fact of the matter is he cut corners and he pinched pennies and who suffered? The workers of B.C. Not only teachers in this particular instance, not only teachers, janitors at the Hon. Member's school — and when he goes back to his constituency he can answer to all the people that are going to lose their jobs under this circumstance.

There's no question about that. This is nightmare legislation, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that this government will have a change of heart over night. The kind of change of heart that I couldn't imagine, I couldn't conceive from that hard-hearted group over there because everything that they've done has been arbitrary, with respect to those people that they should be serving and that they are not in fact serving — the people of the Province of British Columbia, not the corporations. The people for a change should be served in this province.

I say this, that if the trade unions haven't learned their lesson now, haven't learned their lesson well, with the advent of this legislation they will never, never, never agree to compulsory arbitration. Because you know who did. The teachers of this province did. Yes they did. The teachers of this province agreed to compulsory arbitration for years and that's what they've had and that's precisely what they've had and now where are they? One more step down the ladder of degradation in the face of this government and it's shameful. Absolutely shameful.

You have ruined the image of British Columbia in the eyes of all the people of Canada and I'm ashamed of this government tonight.

This compulsory arbitration that the teachers accepted was in line with that position on Bill No. 33, section 18 and now the teachers don't even have that right. They don't even have that right and certainly they accepted it long before Bill No. 3. It was a bad move. It was a bad move and I certainly agree with the Honourable Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Clark) who has a social conscience, Mr. Speaker, because he recognises the absolute necessity for free negotiations in a democratic society. We're losing it, we're losing it quickly. It's being eroded right from under us. And of all people, the teachers of our children are the recipients of this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker, totalitarian at its best.

Bargaining procedure no longer exists, there's no bargaining with Bill No. 3. It goes a lot further than that. Where was the consultation? Did this government talk to school trustees? If they did I'd like to know who they were. I'd like to know who they were, the school trustees they talked to, Mr. Speaker. Did they talk to the teachers, did they talk to the parents?

Last year that Minister wouldn't even talk to the P.T.A. He wouldn't even go into the auditorium and discuss education with the P.T.A., Mr. Speaker. By failing to consult with the school boards, the teachers, and by usurping their budgetary responsibilities, the Minister of Education had virtually destroyed local autonomy in the province, virtually destroyed it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: If he's got something to say, the Hon. Member should get up in his place in this House and say it. Put his name on record, put his views on record for the people of Richmond, Mr. Speaker, that's what he should do. Because if he has any way of defending this bill I'd like to hear it if it's honest.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is creating a position for himself. I know who's pulling the strings. He wants to create the position of a tsar of education in the Province of British Columbia. And that tsar will have someone on high pulling the strings. But do you know what he's really doing? He's

[ Page 780 ]

building a highly centralised system that everybody in this House disagrees with one way or another.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: We've got it already officially from the government's side of the House. The tsar of education. But, Mr. Speaker, building this highly-centralised system, this alienating system that people don't want, is not the way to educate our children. The people who think …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Oh yes, people will react to this bill, I know. I know they'll react, but is that what you want? Is that what you want as a Member of the Legislature? Or do you care about the future of the people of this province? Do you have any regards for the people of this province?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members please address the chair? On both sides.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, through you to that Member, is he anti-education? Mr. Speaker, the Minister is spreading this information abroad and why? He draws attention to the escalating cost of education. And why is he doing that? Well, what he wants to do, he wants to divert public attention.

He isn't, for an example, telling us that elementary and secondary education as a percentage of government spending is actually declining. That's right — as a percentage it's actually declining, and it's not increasing.

In 1964-65 the peak was reached at 26.6 per cent, Mr. Speaker. And since then it's declined to an estimated 19.7 per cent. Sure, if you throw everything else into the bag, but how can you compare apples and oranges? How can you compare onions and potatoes? And that's exactly what we're trying to do here.

The rate of increase of gross operating costs per pupil has declined in each of the last four years, Mr. Speaker. That's right. The rate of increase has actually decreased, and the government's attack on teachers is a ploy to divert public attention from the failure of our educational policies in the Province of B.C.

It's Socred restricted educational policy. The Horatio Algers over there, all you have to do is go to Grade 3 or 4 and you can make your $5 or $10 million and live in the land of luxury.

But, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't go that way and we would hope that people are interested in more of a quality of life that they will gain through a better perspective of what's going on and are they trying to destroy it? Certainly every indication that I have is that they are.

They've already brought about a decline in our relative position in education as compared to other provinces. The teacher/pupil ratio in the Province of B.C. is ninth out of ten. You know it sounds like I'm talking to the Minister of Health — he's wrecking the health system. This Minister, Mr. Speaker, is wrecking the educational system of this province. We're ninth out of ten in health in hospitals and now we're ninth out of ten in education,

Hurray for the Socreds! Hurray for their gut politics! As far as I'm concerned those gut politics aren't worth the power to blow them to that canopy up there.

Mr. Speaker, we need 1,200 teachers in this province. Imagine this, we need 1,200 teachers in this province to bring us up to the position where we would approach or meet Saskatchewan's ratio of pupils to teachers. Isn't that shameful? Saskatchewan — that poor old, drought-ridden, blown off. Can't sell their wheat and yet they can do a better job of education than this filthy rich province under the Social Credit government. Shameful, shameful! And the Minister of Finance is pulling the strings, Mr. Speaker.

He's very quiet about it. As it says here, and I quote the Vancouver Sun editorial, February 2:

Premier W.A.C. Bennett's decision to limit the effect of salary increases of B.C. school teachers to the level he selects for other civil servants is as crude and arbitrary as the teachers say it is. It's also in all probability both irrevocable and unbeatable.

But you know that the shameful part of it is that they point their finger at the man who actually inserted the 6.5. Shameful! Where, where did the Minister of Education decide to pluck this thing? From whence? Last summer we remember there were a great many negotiations going on, and at the time there were not too many salary increases and in a very protracted period they pulled out a figure of 6.5. Actually it wasn't a justified figure, but they pulled it out of the air, and since then they've been riding a 6.5 gravy train.

Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that the people of B.C. are faced with this.

Mr. Speaker that editorial goes on to say that:

Any salary increases above the provincial scale whether won by negotiation with local school boards or arbitration will be subjected to consent by referendum by the taxpayers in the school districts concerned. The taxpayers are unlikely to be that generous. They know how much they are now paying in their local rate as the local share of education costs. Mr. Bennett will also remind them that the provincial share is rising too.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government has forced taxes in municipalities up. This government has not had the heart, hasn't had the courage, to assist municipalities the way they should and therefore we have outlandish land taxes in this province.

Educational costs should be removed from residential land, it should have been removed long ago. We should be in that direction now. Instead of that what do we do? We imposed the 108, we imposed the 6.5, and tried desperately going up current, to cure a very sad situation.

Mr. Speaker, what we want is an educational system that meets the needs of a democratic …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: I know the Member finds that hard to understand. I know that he finds that hard to understand. Totalitarianism is the very opposite. But, Mr. Speaker, what we want is an education that meets the needs of a democratic and pluralistic society — and I've heard that man stand up and talk about pluralistic education, pluralistic society. We want schools to give parents a choice, such schools could be responsible and accountable. But it requires some local autonomy, Mr. Speaker. The alternative to this is, of course, the present system which tries to improve the same old thing. The same old thing. The route is costly, and it's highly centralised and it's alienating. Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 3 is a disgusting disgrace. Mr. Speaker, I'll go on for a moment or two and deal with the referendum.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

[ Page 781 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Honourable Members address the chair, and wait their turn?,

MR. COCKE: And Mr. Speaker, I hope that some of those Members speak. And I would hope that they make sense.

Mr. Speaker, let's just go on with this referendum. Let's just think it through for a moment. The referendum, let's say that there's no agreement and finally there's an arbitration award of 7.5 per cent. There's 7.5 per cent given. And the Minister that year says, "but no." Don't forget that 6.5 ceiling is really a misleading amount. Next year it could be 3 per cent, it could be 2 per cent. It could be minus 5 per cent. It could be anything that that group behind the green door decides. That group answers to that man, the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's great.

MR. COCKE: They say it's good. Isn't that great in a democratic society? Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope all this goes on the record tonight. That's good, that's great! So totalitarianism is great, Mr. Speaker, let's say that the cabinet sets an arbitrary ceiling of 5 per cent. So we've got 2.5 per cent over the arbitration awards. So naturally you go to referendum, and the referendum passes.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: That may, or may not be. Sometimes the referendum passes. Then you go over 108, your referendum on the salary takes you over the 108.

Now where are you? As the Member from North Vancouver says, you're faced with another referendum. Now, if that referendum fails where do we go from there? Let's say the 108 fails, where do we go?

Maintenance — fire the janitors. Lay off the grounds keepers, lay off everybody you can. And the last ditch — and this is where they are in the States right now in many jurisdictions — close down the schools, Mr. Speaker.

Is that what we want? Is that what that Minister wants? Or is that what the Minister of Finance wants? Because that is the only way around this impossible situation that you've set up with Bill No. 3. Anti-education government, a discriminating government, a government that takes on groups that are powerless and I hope that that group doesn't remain powerless too much longer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 3 is obviously designed in the knowledge, or the assumption that the referenda on teachers' salaries will not pass. And that's dishonest. It's designed in the knowledge or the assumption that the referanda will not pass in the first place, and that, Mr. Speaker, is dishonest. Therefore it's a facade in this democracy. It's absolutely dishonest and misleading. No provision in the bill for what happens if the referenda pass. You have no provision in the bill if the referenda pass.

Mr. Speaker, the upward curve of education that the Minister of Education showed us is misleading. I don't know where he got those statistical figures. They are very easy to dig up when you've got a great staff working for you. But the very opposite is true. It's a downward curve, and it's a downward curve of the proportion of elementary and secondary costs compared to provincial revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I'll draw your attention to one or two letters and an Honourable Members scale that we have seen, that has that been fed throughout the teachers and throughout the public. The focus of attention on teachers' salary is also misleading. It's a cover, it's a scapegoat to cover this government's failure — failure in taking real responsibility with respect to educational policy, and its own failure to control costs. Where's the Chant report, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Why don't you indicate to the public when you're throwing these figures around that you are also including the vocational schools? The regional colleges that have had their advent? What about the increase in enrolment during the period in which you were discussing?

So going back, as far as I'm concerned, to the main aspect of this bill it's pure and simple jobs. It really is. It's just jobs and this government is trying to put people out of work. Trying to keep people out of work.

I've said that it would take 1,200 teachers just to equal poor old Saskatchewan, and I'm sure that we are short of every trade that takes care of our schools right now. And we're going to be in dire straits by the time you get through with the educational process.

But meanwhile all the people that are affected — the families of those teachers that are out of work, the families of those janitors that are out of work, the service industries that provide service for those people that are out of work — and not only that, we have to look after them. We have to look after them either on welfare or in some other way. But they're a charge on society, many of the people whose jobs this government has destroyed. So don't give us any of that: "We're looking for jobs for people."

If that's the case you better talk to the two Ministers beside you who really don't have an understanding of what you're doing, if in fact what they tell us is true.

Mr. Speaker, it's a black session when we have to be faced with bills like this. It's a black day for the people of B.C. Many of them don't even recognise it themselves yet, but there will be a day if this kind of legislation goes through that they will understand just how black this session has been for the Province of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, the trade unions certainly can't think in terms of dealing at all with Bill No. 33 because they've seen what this government does to those people who show any signs whatsoever of weakness. It's disgusting,

I hope this bill goes down in flames, Mr. Speaker, either in the courts of the people or in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I thought I might have to compete with a half dozen of the Social Credit backbenchers who'd be tumbling all over themselves to speak in support of this bill. It looks like we've just got 35 silent statues over there.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, we've got the correspondence — six files of it. We've also got carbon copies of some of the letters that have gone to the Minister of Education and to the Member from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and to the Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) and to a number of the other Members. We know what your constituents have been saying to you. That's why I thought you'd all be leaping to your

[ Page 782 ]

feet to defend this bill. But no, all of you are just sitting there silently.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that no one seems to want to defend the bill. Well, you had your chance to stand up before I did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. McGEER: Someone, Mr. Speaker, referred to the Minister of Education as the Tsar of Education. I sort of laughed at that because that Minister reminds me more of the boy king — I know that you've all heard about it. The throne is still there in a museum to see where the little boy sat on the throne and around behind were these shrouds with the little place where the advisor could stick his head through and whisper the answer to the little king.

They said that the little king sometimes spoke well, which is the difference between the little king and the Minister of Education. He seems to flub the answers even when they're whispered in his ear.

And as far as the Minister of Finance is concerned — he's the one that's supposedly the Rasputin behind all this. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to bring the other Mr. Bennett out here to British Columbia to give some advice on education — the good Mr. Bennett, the Mr. Bennett from New Brunswick who's the schoolteacher, the Premier's brother, the man who knows a little about education, the Bennett who undoubtedly is for education instead of the Bennett who is against education.

What a shame, really Mr. Speaker, that the wrong Mr. Bennett came to British Columbia. If we had the other one out here we might have an education system we'd be proud of in this province, instead of one that we're ashamed of.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: We got the wrong McGeer…

MR. McGEER: You got the right McGeer, right here. Mr. Speaker, what I want to do is to lash some of the falsehoods to the mast about education in British Columbia tonight.

Education has been made the whipping boy in this province. If there's one thing that's been a disgrace to Social Credit it's the fact that of all things they have selected education to whip the taxpayers into a froth. Believe me, there have been some falsehoods perpetrated about the costs of education in this province.

I've heard the backbenchers — the Member from Richmond (Mr. LeCours) who stirred himself once or twice tonight to natter across the floor about the high cost to the taxpayer. He's nodding his head now.

MR. LeCOURS: The taxpayer pays.

MR. McGEER: The taxpayer pays. He really believes the cost of education is soaring out of control. Yes, he does. He really believes this. So does the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Price), he believes it. How many others of you believe it?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members please address the Chair?

MR. McGEER: These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. If you can try and keep that brilliant repartee of the Member for Skeena (Mr. Little) under control just a little bit, I want to put on the record what the cost of education has really been in this province over the years. Get your pencil out.

Growth of salaries, and we're talking now about how much teachers' salaries have gone up in the last decade. They have gone up. Mr. Speaker, teachers' salaries in the past decade have increased 165 per cent. In other words they're 165 per cent of what they were a decade ago. But hourly earnings…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. McGEER: Hourly earnings, Mr. Speaker, have gone up 166 per cent. The per capita income of British Columbians has increased 178 per cent. The gross provincial product has gone up 175 per cent.

Against all of these indexes, gross provincial product, hourly earnings, all of these have increased more than teachers' salaries. Now, Mr. Speaker, does that mean that education costs are spiralling out of control, as all of these Members have said, when it's increased less than the gross provincial product, less than the hourly wages? What about the amount of our education costs that are spent on teachers' salaries? I want the Members to hear this too.

In 1960, Mr. Speaker, teachers' salaries amounted to 57.6 per cent of the total expenditure of primary and secondary education. In 1970, 10 years later, teachers' salaries were 56.9 per cent of the total expenditure on education.

So, Mr. Speaker, the teachers' salaries as a percentage of the expenditures on education have gone down in the past decade. Is that something that is spiralling out of control?

The next is the most important index of all. This is the amount of our provincial budget, which is spent on primary and secondary education including the home-owner grants. As I've said before, I've yet to meet anybody that really thinks the home-owner grant is a contribution to education. But let's toss it in, all those millions and millions that go on the home-owner grants and call that a contribution to education.

Ten years ago, 1962-1963, primary and secondary education used up 23.2 per cent of our provincial budget. During 1972-1973, 10 years later, 19.7 per cent of the provincial budget. In the past decade, Mr. Speaker, the percentage of our provincial budget — and this is from your own budget figures — has decreased in proportion to the total budget of this province. What's going into primary and secondary education now is less than it was a decade ago. Is that something that is spiralling out of control?

Let's take another index. This is a measure of effort, Mr. Speaker. How do we stand in British Columbia on pupil/teacher ratio? I'm going to read them off. This is 1970-1971 across Canada pupil/teacher ratio: Prince Edward Island, 18.5 — Alberta, 10.8 — Nova Scotia, 21.5 Ontario, 21.7 — Manitoba, 21.9 — New Brunswick, 22.3 Quebec, 22.5 — Saskatchewan, 22.7 — and then we come to a big jump, British Columbia 24. The only province in Canada that is behind British Columbia in pupil/teacher ratio is Newfoundland.

[ Page 783 ]

Here we are in British Columbia. The Social Credit backbenchers who never bothered to go to the trouble of looking any of these facts up think education is spiralling out of control, in the face of the fact that we are ninth out of 10 provinces in pupil/teacher ratio, that the costs for teachers as an index of hourly wages, gross provincial product, et cetera, is less than any of them. The amount spent on primary and secondary education less than it was a decade ago. What has happened over this past decade, Mr. Speaker, while we have been worrying the public about the spiralling costs of education, is that we've been putting less and less and less into education.

That's the record that the little king brings as Minister of Education. What an endowment! What a record to have to stand by! The Minister of Education in British Columbia who has done worse than any of his predecessors — without question the worst Minister of Education British Columbia has ever had, and I submit unless we are a very, very unlucky province the worst Minister of Education that British Columbia will ever have in the future.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Vicious attack? It's the simple fact, not a vicious attack at all. An objective assessment.

Mr. Speaker, it's against these facts of what the true costs of primary and secondary education in this province are that we bring in a bill which completely undermines one of the most successful models that has been developed in this province for arriving at a fair and honourable wage increase in our society,

If there was one model that we could look forward to with hope in the future, it was this model developed by the teachers and the school trustees, a model of free collective bargaining independently of government, submitted voluntarily by both sides to compulsory arbitration as a way of arriving at a final conclusion in preference to strikes which would damage the public interests.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. McGEER: I'm merely telling you, Mr. Speaker, you don't ask the taxpayer when you want to build a Peace River dam, you don't ask the taxpayer when you want to build another bridge in Richmond. You don't ask the taxpayer what the welfare rates should be. You don't ask the taxpayer any of these things. But when it comes to education, oh yes, you want to ask the taxpayer then. If it goes one nickel above what you arbitrarily decide those teachers should have.

Well, the Minister says I'm wrong, but it's right in the bill. It says 6.5 per cent or we go to a referendum. Why don't you go to a referendum over the Peace River dam or the Columbia River dam or your Malaspina gas pipeline or all the other things that you force on the public and never ask them about? No, it has to be education.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Or any other figure that the Minister happens to decide on, but make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, that Minister won't decide on it. He'll do what he's told. He's always done what he's told.

But Mr Speaker this model is what we Liberals had hoped could be extended in this province beyond the teachers, if it worked we would have an opportunity of bringing those who are in the public sector — and I include the civil servants — those who are in the quasi-public sector — and I include the teachers and the hospital workers — and those who are in the private sector under the same general umbrella for arriving at what's appropriate for wage increases.

Now here we've got a situation in the province. The Ministers know it and if they don't know it, they should know it. It's a situation where the voluntary agreements which are being reached in the private sector today are between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. The mediation commission, your mediation commission, has a long raft of these contracts. These are the figures that are being reached.

The government has arbitrarily set for the civil servants a limit of 6.5 per cent. We don't know what it's going to be for the hospital workers. But generally speaking, the arbitration awards arrived at between the teachers and the school trustees were of the order of 7.5 per cent, somewhere in that range, a little above the civil servants…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER:…but below… No, no, it wasn't, Mr. Minister. What you're telling me it is the average contract that's being arrived at in the private sector in negotiations between union and management.

What I say to you is this. Using this formula that you've developed, you're going to attempt to bring the civil servants, the teachers, and the hospital workers under the same kind of tight control. But you have no way that you can reach the private sector with this kind of legislation, no way at all. What you're going to do is you're going to open up a gap between the civil servants, the teachers and the hospital workers which will grow over a period of years until it can't stand the difference any longer. That's when we're going to have chaos in this province.

The only real hope for bringing general sense to this whole matter of how the wages or total earnings of British Columbians should be fairly divided up among those who work and earn a living in this province is to try and bring them generally under the same umbrella.

You set one set of standards for a group that's in the public sector or quasi-public sector and a different set of standards for those that are in the private sector and if those two different approaches lead to the kind of discrepancies that are obviously taking place in British Columbia today where it's 6.5 per cent for those the government can bring under its control and 10 per cent for those that can't be brought under control, you're promoting a kind of disparity that cannot long survive in this province. The real hope, Mr. Speaker, for the future is to bring both the private sector and the public sector under the same general kind of umbrella and …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Okay, we're going to have something to say in his estimates tomorrow about some of the statements that Minister has been making. But we're discussing Bill No. 3 this evening.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: What I am saying through you, Mr.

[ Page 784 ]

Speaker, to the Minister is simply this. If you want to bring equality to the workingman in British Columbia, whether he works on a green chain, in a hospital, in a school, or in a university you've got to bring them all under the same general umbrella. There's no way that you can force a 6.5 per cent law into the private sector and make it stick.

But what you can do, Mr. Speaker, what the government can do and I mean this very, very seriously, is that they can give collective bargaining rights to civil servants. You can give the same kind of right to hospital workers. And to teachers. Use the models of compulsory arbitration if they cannot agree freely within some general guidelines. Then what you try and do is to encourage the private sector for its own good to follow this general pattern.

If we can get the public sector and the private sector moving in step we're going to go a long, long way to introducing genuine fairness in British Columbia in the way of dividing up the total income, the total pie that's available to the people of the province.

Mr. Speaker, what the government is doing is striving by this to go down the wrong road. Because it's a road that ends in a dead end. You force one group, but you have no way of either persuading or forcing the other group and you should be using that teacher's model because it's the middle ground. You should be nourishing it.

You should be allowing those who are under your direct control — and I mean the civil servants — to go into that mould and then you should use all the moral pressure that you can to try and persuade the private side of the economy to do the same. You get them all together.

Mr. Speaker, this is just the wrong route and the most valuable start that has been made has been undermined and destroyed and not for a good reason because no matter what the Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) says — and the Member for Burrard (Mr. Price) and the Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) and all these people — that education costs are spiralling out of control is absolute nonsense. We've got in the Province of British Columbia today about 15,000 teachers. Their salaries are not increasing at a faster rate than anyone else's. Somehow we think that those 15,000 people can break the province. It's just absolute stupidity. We've got on our unemployment roles today close to 70,000 people in the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: 70,000. The Economic Council, what do they say, Mr. Minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

MR. McGEER: Certainly. I've read it and I don't understand what you're talking about. But when we've got something like 70,000 people unemployed in our province and we're not worrying particularly about them and the fact that they're going to break the bank.

But when we take 15,000 teachers that are moving in general step with the economy and say that they are, we've got to have a pretty crazy sense of proportion. All I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is for the government and for some of these backbenchers around the House to see this whole thing in proportion.

We've got to start worrying in British Columbia about the things that really count. Among those things that really count are the 70,000 people who are unemployed because that's where the colossal wage comes. If we're going to stint on education and try and turn it down so that it isn't there to train these people who are unemployed, then what we're doing is we're encouraging a greater problem for the future.

With all respect, Mr. Speaker, we have to vote against this bill. But it isn't just a matter of us standing up for a group that feel abused. It's a very genuine concern that the government has started down the wrong road and we regret it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. G.M. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I do not propose in any way to speak as an authority on education. However, I have a very small ability to deal in some facts which those Members bandy around so recklessly and without judgment, without research of any kind. I've even just had five minutes at the library for a few facts.

I didn't intend to enter this debate because I feel it is not my field so better that I would stay out. But when they keep rubbing in Saskatchewan I say to myself there's got to be something wrong here. We're so much better off than Saskatchewan. We're not proud, we're humble. But we're so much better off.

Now, the Hon. Member is running away when he's getting the facts but good-bye…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: As he bandies around the percentages he said he couldn't understand the problem. He says that teachers' salaries have only gone up 165 per cent; per capita increase in British Columbia's 178 per cent and the gross provincial product has gone up 175 per cent. He gives these strange, inconsequential figures that mean nothing. I like to deal in the simple facts. Nothing complicated, nothing difficult, something so simple in due course I'll give you the facts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll give you the facts. "Education — a commitment for the future" in the Province of Saskatchewan. Now, I've only looked at this for five minutes. If this debate goes on I'll tell you a little more and give you a real blast tomorrow (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: In British Columbia, a teacher receives 70 per cent of the education budget as teachers' salaries. In our municipality of Maple Ridge…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The average is 70 per cent in British Columbia. You said so yourself, in this province.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Teachers' salaries.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm not reading it, I'm telling you

[ Page 785 ]

now from facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you're telling us some facts?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'm giving it, just a minute.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Here it is. In British Columbia, 70 per cent of the educational budget is salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right! Right!

MR. MUSSALLEM: In our municipality of…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Maple Ridge, hear this…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not so, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: …teachers salaries are 80 per cent of the budget and that is so! 80 per cent!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We have very efficient administration. But the average is 70 per cent.

Now, this great Province of Saskatchewan, what percentage of salary goes to teachers?

AN HON. MEMBER: The beginnings of another sad story.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Listen to this answer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, they're not upset at all. Now here it is right here in the Saskatchewan brochure.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to hear about it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Teachers' salaries received what do you think? Is it 65 per cent? It's 59 per cent! 59 per cent! That's all!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: How much per pupil? The same as ours — about $600.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now, that is a simple fact. You can't beat around the bush. In other words, the teacher gets 59 per cent of $600 in salary regardless of how you split it because there are the facts. There's no argument about that.

Mind you, you won't accept it. You'll sit here and debate for the next two hours on the principle of this bill saying these aren't facts. There are no facts and all this useless…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get it?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Right in the book. The Province of Saskatchewan, Department of Education…

AN HON. MEMBER: British Columbia …

MR. MUSSALLEM: The British Columbia figure is 70 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get that?

MR. MUSSALLEM: From the Department of Education, where else?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: …I haven't got the book here but if you give me another five minutes I can get it. But I wish you would debate the facts…

AN HON. MEMBER: Get the book!

MR. MUSSALLEM: But, you're not going to listen. Why I didn't want to get into this debate is because it's a waste of time. Why do the backbenchers not get into this debate? Because it's a waste of time!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Because from the way the Opposition is talking, Mr. Speaker, they are not interested in the facts we're dealing with.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I am distressed when I hear this inconsequential attitude in our school system and I as a member of a family that has two teachers in the system feel a great respect for teachers. I think we do them a great injustice when we attack the teaching profession in this superficial manner. I think when we talk about matters of this kind we should be cautious and give out some facts. We're not hurting the teachers. We're not only saying that we'll escalate their salaries by 6.5 per cent. If they want more, ask from the people that's paying the bills. It's so simple — nobody's holding them down. We want to be fair with teachers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member

MR. MUSSALLEM: We respect teachers. They're fine people…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: What's wrong with giving 6.5 per cent of the mighty good increase…?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's their regular increase.

MR. MUSSALLEM: My goodness gracious, I'd be delighted with 6.5 per cent in my own business. Who wouldn't be delighted with 6.5 per cent? I think it's excellent. Mind you if they want more, ask the boss. There's nothing wrong with that

[ Page 786 ]

Mr. Mussallem moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.