[ Page 137 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would like the House to welcome a special guest today. The Reverend Mr. DeBeck, who said prayers for us today, is the son of our own Clerk.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I would like at this time to introduce the students from David Thompson high school in Vancouver South. They are accompanied by their law teacher, Mr. Ellis, and the principal of David Thompson high school, Mr. Mackenzie. There is some added pleasure in introducing this group in that I live right across the street from David Thompson high school and I hope that the students enjoy themselves here today and I'm sure that all the other Members wish them the best of luck in future years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to your order concerning questions on the order paper I would like to raise five points.

The first is that you're quoted in the Sunday edition of the Victoria Daily Colonist on page 33 as stating, and I quote, "If I didn't get tough now they would be able to call me up on it later." I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself would want to clarify this point because it clearly anticipates an attitude towards questions coming from the House. And of course the House may very well decide to give great latitude in the framing of questions.

Secondly, there is a bill on the order paper which certainly implies that the rules governing the conduct of this assembly are in need of modernization. Yet, in your order of Friday last, you based your ruling on a Speaker's decision that was made some 40 years ago and hasn't been recalled since that time. Again, in view of the growing indications of change, the effect of your ruling is to severely limit the opportunity of the opposition of this House to seek information from the Ministers of the Crown.

Thirdly, over the course of the last 20 years further precedents through usage have developed, Mr. Speaker, which have permitted easy access to the order paper by way of written questions in this House.

I would quote some examples. In 1972, as late as February 3, when a Member of the loyal Opposition then asked questions with reference to the aircraft passage and this is followed by a question for Mr. Hartley to ask the Hon. Minister of Highways (Mr. Black) a question that deals with fact.

There is a question from the Hon. the Liberal Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) asking the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) a question, which is based on fact and assumption.

There is another example as late as February 3, 1972 from the then Leader of the official opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to ask the Premier and the President of the Council questions which were based again on usage and fact.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that usage in recent years has over ridden much of the limitations that were established by the order of the Speaker 40 years ago upon which you based your decision.

Mr. Speaker, the net effect of your order of last Friday would in fact be that members, desirable though they are, of the Fourth Estate, and I speak of the media and the Press gallery, would be in a position of being able to address more important questions to the Minister of the Crown in the corridors of this assembly than would be the legitimate Members on the floor of this House.

[ Page 138 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have you comment with respect to question No. 10 which I would suggest would offend the ruling that you made with respect to question No. 9. Yet the answer has been permitted to appear on the order paper. It's the exclusion of question No. 10 that we object to. I would further suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is clearly rhetorical and I would therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House and I believe the public, ask for your clarification and invite your comments, Mr. Speaker, on the points that I have raised.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to thank the Hon. Member and point out to the Hon. Member and the House that questions are passed upon by the Clerk and the Speaker and should be passed upon before they are admitted to the motion paper. And any irregularities are then dealt with at that stage in the same manner as with notice of motion. I have already indicated that on Friday.

Now it may be that the practice grows from time to time of permitting some latitude in the wording of questions. But the Hon. Member is in effect wanting to debate the question of the latitude that should be given by the Speaker and his Clerks to the questions that are put on the table by the Hon. Members.

This is a matter that will be before the House and it would be anticipating that to discuss the scope and the method by which questions are submitted to, the Clerks of the House.

And I would suggest that if you have received the rules that have been laid down and adopted by this House which have been followed over the years in a general sense and study those you'll find that most of those questions that were on the order paper by error can be rephrased in the proper way so that assumptions are not made in the way they were, so that the foundations are laid properly for facts to be disclosed by Ministers responsible. You will get every cooperation from the Clerks in the House in seeing that what you want to elicit is properly put down on the order paper.

It's an art, I'll admit that, asking a parliamentary question. But until we change those rules as they exist I feel I must adhere to them and it was, I think, proper to say that before this House goes much further we should know where we stand on the rules so that later on someone cannot point to another Hon. Member and say, "You permitted that Member to do what you will not permit. me to do". And. I think that we should therefore adhere to the rules.

May I add in answer to the question on the answer to No. 10. It was submitted by the Hon. Premier without our knowledge at the time and he had of course no knowledge of what I intended to do in regards to questions on the order paper. It was tabled in the House at the same time that I had made my determination that the question need not be on the order paper in the form it was stated. If the Premier wishes to answer questions that's his prerogative.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I raise a further point in connection with your ruling. I've studied the decision of Mr. Speaker Davie and with every respect, Sir, I think that you have interpreted narrowly the meaning that he laid out because here is what he stated in his ruling of March 2,1932.

"Facts on which a question is based may he set out briefly. But extracts from newspapers, quotations from speeches et cetera are not allowed".

Now clearly what Mr. Davie was driving at in that sentence was that the extracts were not allowed in the question that was asked. But quite clearly he did not attempt to rule out substantive statements made by Ministers that would be quoted in newspapers and in the media.

As we came into the House this afternoon the media were interviewing the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He could quite clearly have been making statements of policy that he wouldn't make on the floor of the House and which therefore would become legitimate material for questions from Opposition Members. If these are to be ruled out on the basis that he gave that interview in the corridor then quite clearly the Opposition has been hampered in a way that has never been the case before in the Province of British Columbia. And, Sir, I think your ruling has gone far beyond what Mr. Justice Davie had in mind….

[ Page 139 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated. This is not a question of debate. There is a debate ordered on the subject of oral and other questions and other rules in this House which we can in due course indulge in — certainly you can, I'm afraid I won't be able to. But at this stage I don't want to indulge in a debate on it.

I've submitted to you the authorities. You may not agree with those authorities but they happen to be, in my view, binding on the House and therefore I ask you to accept them as they are without any further argument.

If you find that they are unnecessarily binding then take it up with the Clerks as to how you frame your questions.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the comments made by the Hon. Member for Point Grey. They were well taken. I think that in the presentation of my remarks you would admit that there was no effort to enter into a debate or any hostility. What I did ask for was clarification. And I pointed out in my comments that it was through practice, through usage and, in fact, through consent of this House that Members were allowed a legitimate latitude in the phrasing of their questions. I also point out again that in your ruling there was grave concern on the part of all Opposition Members that the Fourth Estate, the media, which is in a very different position today than it was in 1932 — a very powerful position — is available to many more people. It's in this context that I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider your ruling and to ask for the consent of the House to allow the practice that has been established by consent of this House to stand and not bring into force an antiquated ruling that was made in 1932.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please be seated. Mr. Clerk, would you proceed. I'm sorry, do you have some point that you wish to talk about other than the one that you have been discussing.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it something to do with this?

MR. SMITH: It has to do with the ruling handed down by the Hon. Speaker, C.F. Davie, the one that you quoted from….

MR. SPEAKER: I must say that this is out of order. That it is the prerogative of the Speaker. I am following the rules of this House on the advice of my clerks and my own study in the matter, and I submit that it's out of order to debate the question. I ask the Hon. Member to be seated.

MR. SMITH: I only wanted to quote further from the same text and source of text that you took for handing down your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: We have all read the text, Hon. Member. If you want to debate the issue there is a place during the proceedings to debate the whole question of parliamentary procedure and you are anticipating that debate. Would the Hon. Member please sit down?

MR. SMITH: In all respect, Mr. Speaker, in all courtesy, Sir, I must appeal your ruling to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: What ruling?

MR. SMITH: I challenge your ruling. You cannot abuse the Opposition. The ruling of last Friday, I challenge.

MR. SPEAKER: You are out of order.

MR. SMITH: You cannot appeal?

MR. SPEAKER: No, no, no way. Next order of business.

[ Page 140 ]

MR. SMITH: You mean I don't have the right to challenge the ruling of the Chair?

MR. BENNETT: A decision made by a Speaker may be appealed at a later sitting, and I call for a division on this issue. The heavy hand of state socialism is on this province today, we see it clearly….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Order please!

MRS. JORDAN: The ruling you referred to was brought in on a Friday in 1932 and was challenged on a Monday. Are you going to deny us, in this House today, the privilege that was given in 1932?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. members please be seated? There is no point before the House. Next order of business please, Mr. Clerk.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't have a division without a question before the House, and there is no question before the House. There has been no ruling today.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the first opportunity that we've had….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no question of a ruling. There is no ruling today. Would the Hon. Member please be seated? There's no ruling, I'm sorry. There's no ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: We want to challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no ruling. Would the Hon. Member, sit down? Now! You are interrupting the order of business. Would you kindly remain seated to proceed with the business of this House? There is no matter before the House and there is no point of order before the House. There can't be a point of order on this, because there is no point of order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: May I bring another point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no ruling. There was a ruling on Friday. I explained to this House why the order paper was being changed. That is not a point of order in the House. That was a courtesy extended to the Members to explain to them, to help them in the framing of questions in this House, and it is a prerogative of the Speaker to do that on the order paper according to every authority that I had before me then, and what I had before me now. You are asking me to change the rules of this House when the matter is before the House on a bill, and I say I cannot do that. It would be wrong for me to anticipate what this House wants to do, and for that reason I say there is no point of order and your position is not well-taken. Would the Hon. Member please be seated.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: All right, what's your point of order?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): That's what I've been waiting for, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, and my point of order is that the

[ Page 141 ]

Opposition bills have appeared on the order paper for the second straight day marked "not printed".

It is not going to be the rule of this House that the opposition bills are printed? In the past, Mr. Speaker, Opposition bills have been printed immediately after they were placed on the order paper. The principle is that this House has accepted these bills for second debate, for second reading. They have not yet been printed and what bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is who has gone to the Queen's Printer and said that these bills cannot be printed. Now, is it the intention of this House, Mr. Speaker, that this session run out before the opposition bills are going to be printed? Is that the intention of the House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know, Hon. Member, but I'll make immediate inquiries, because I know that these bills should be printed, and I will do what I can in my office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want the Member to withdraw the imputation that somebody from this side of the House has been to the Queen's Printer to say that they will not be printed. I have been in this House six years, Mr. Speaker, and I've never heard such an allegation in my life.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wonder if the Hon. Minister would like to explain to the House why the bills haven't been printed.

HON. MR. HALL: I suggest, Hon. Member, that you better learn the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Provincial Secretary would explain why the bills haven't been printed then. What other thought are we to take on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I will make inquiries to see why they have not yet been printed. I know that last year they were not printed the first day and I will do what I can to see that this is facilitated in any event. Now we've got all that out of our system, may we go ahead. Mr. Clerk?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN: This is an attempt on the part of that Opposition to create anarchy. They don't want the system to work. They don't want the system to work. They're deliberately trying to create anarchy. They don't want the system to work. They don't want the system to work.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are deliberately trying to create anarchy in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, order! Would Mr. Clerk proceed now, if possible?

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT(Premier): I move we proceed to bills and orders.

Motion approved.

[ Page 142 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 6.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MALE MINIMUM WAGE ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I would like to point out that the purpose of the Act is to combine the Male and Female Minimum Wage Acts under one bill, to increase the minimum wage immediately from $1.50 an hour to $2.00 an hour, and to increase the minimum wage for people 17 years and under of age to $1.60 per hour.

Now that I'm presenting this bill, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that a great number of submissions have been received by this department. Hearings were conducted earlier in the year in the City of Vancouver which presented an opportunity for labour and management groups to make their presentations and outline their positions on a proposed minimum wage increase and I think that a very wide opportunity was afforded for this purpose and certainly a great number of groups took advantage of the opportunity to make such presentations.

In studying the representations that were made, Mr. Speaker, we found that concern was expressed that too large an increase in the minimum wage not take place immediately. In other words, that an opportunity be provided to small and marginal businesses to anticipate the type of increase they might expect over a period of time and to stage the increases in such a way that they could gear their businesses to provide for the impact that this type of increase of wage cost would have on their business.

I think that this bill provides this opportunity. It provides for an increase to $2.00 immediately and I have stated as a matter of public policy, Mr. Speaker, that additional increases would be forthcoming by regulation at the expiration of one year, and another additional increase of 25 per hour 18 months after the passage of this bill. I think that this is a reasonable formula for presenting the much-needed increase in the minimum wage requirements in the province. I think it is a reasonable step which does in fact allow small businesses the opportunity to gear their business to minimize the impact of the wage increase.

Now, I noted that the official Opposition had announced prior to the election that they anticipated a similar increase in the minimum wage and I notice also that the Liberals have certainly indicated support for this type of situation. I anticipate that they'll be making their positions clearer in debate this afternoon. I certainly look forward to the comments of the Opposition.

That's all I'm prepared to say on it at this time, Mr. Speaker. I think the provisions of the bill are self-evident and so I commend it to the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I rise in support of this legislation. I want to assure you that having given my support at this time that in an hour from now I will not withdraw that support.

I am very pleased to see the housekeeping amendment that has taken place relative to the amalgamation of the two former Acts, the Male Minimum Wage Act and the Female Minimum Wage Act. There is a bit of anxiety in the community at large with the fact that this is an inflationary trend and that it might effect increased costs in the service industries of our province. But I think we as legislators have a primary consideration here. I think far more so than the bad effect of inflation that might be created by this increase, and that is ensuring those people who are presently employed at the minimum wage earn sufficient to look after themselves and to be able to cope with the type of inflation which they face as well. I think it's most important, it should be our primary consideration, to increase the purchasing power of these people who are presently on the minimum wage in our province. It is inflationary — certainly it's inflationary. It's going to create inflation. You might as well admit it.

Interjections by Hon. members.

MR. CHABOT: No, that's selling land on Gabriola Island and collecting back taxes. That's inflation my friend, inflation of the public purse. But I think that prior to the move from $2.50, I think that we have a respons-

[ Page 143 ]

ibility to examine the economic consequences of that move. Because there is a possibility, and there is a fear in the community at large that the movement from $2.00 to $2.50 an hour might create unemployment in the Province of British Columbia. It might have some severe effect upon business such as marginal business enterprises in our province. Also it would have a tendency to be inflationary as well.

One must also look at the influx that it might create into the Province of British Columbia from other provinces that do not enjoy the type of minimum wage which we will be enjoying in the province. I think that we should use a great deal of caution in moving from $2 an hour because I think we're still a part of Canada. Although I believe that our minimum wage should be the highest of all the provinces in this country, I think they should have some relationship to the minimum wage of other provinces as well. And I want to urge the Minister that prior to moving from $2 an hour to any other figure, that he hold public hearings — that his Board of Industrial Relations — hold public hearings in various parts of the province so that the public will have an opportunity to express their opinion of this rise in minimum wage. This would give them an opportunity to, as you use the word, put a little "input" into decision-making on minimum wage.

I think it's most important that the Board of Industrial Relations should be used because there is a possibility; there is a fear on my part, that there might not be public hearings with a movement from $2 to $2.50. I think it's most important that this be considered so that the people can express their opinion on the movement from $2, and I understand through the Press that it was from $2 to $2.25, and then on to $2.50 in a period of 18 months.

So I would assume that the minimum wage, as the Minister said, is going to become law immediately. It's a proclamation bill and I think he's indicated it's going to become law immediately at $2 an hour. I would assume sometime in 1973 it'll move to $2.25, and then to $2.50. And I was going to urge you for speedy implementation that you've indicated to the House that you will move ahead. But my prime concern really is that public hearings be held prior to the movement from $2 an hour. And I certainly support the bill.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we wish to support the bill, and to applaud the Minister of Labour for its introduction. And the very sensible way that he has commenced to handle a very difficult problem. We began to call very vigorously for reform and an increase in the minimum wage at the time of Senator Croll hearings in Ottawa, where it was revealed, I think publicly for the first time, that the people who were poor in Canada and the people who were really being exploited were the working poor, and that they made up by far the largest proportion of those at the poverty level in this country.

I don't agree entirely with what the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) said, in the changes to the minimum wage are going to be dangerous to inflation. I think far from it. The Minister has an opportunity to dig below the crust a little bit and to identify where exploitation has been taking place in this country. Heaven knows we've been generous enough with the people who haven't been working, and all of us know of examples where people have lost their jobs and because they were high-paying jobs have been kept alive by the taxpayers at a level of income far beyond what the many people who make up the working poor have been receiving.

I think this is the kind of thing that deserves public attention and to which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) can now address himself to in the future. Indeed if he were to take on one thing that would allow him to make his mark as the Minister of Labour without equal in the history of this province, it would be to get at this whole question of how the working poor are being exploited.

I think it should he recorded in this chamber that our heart does go out to these people, that we recognize that they have really been the most disadvantaged of all in this country and that finally something is to be done on their behalf. I hope at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the government

[ Page 144 ]

will recognize its responsibilities too, because one particular industry caring for the elderly has been done at the minimum wage level. Almost without exception, these people have been exploited, those that have provided the care in addition to the fact to those who must receive it, of course, are in dire circumstances.

The whole question of rest homes and care for the elderly needs to be rationalized by government action. So just raising the minimum wage is by no means sufficient for the Minister, or for the government. The whole question of exploitation of the poor has to be raised. And the other move that the government must make in order to strike a new balance also will be revealed. Public hearings, absolutely! But I hope we can go far beyond that, perhaps with all-party hearings involving the labour committee of the House to get at this question in a far more profound way than has been attempted in British Columbia in the past.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill I would ask the government to give consideration to a special group of people. And that is the handicapped people who are either physically handicapped or mentally handicapped. As the minimum wage gets higher — which we support — it is going to be more difficult for them to get a job, or hold a job. And therefore I would ask for some study to be given by government for a subsidy to people that have some handicap so that they do not lose their jobs, or so that they can get in the mainstream of working, because that might be the type of therapy for them. I ask the Minister to give some thought to them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the opposition's new-found concern for the handicapped. And if it's a change of heart, it's accepted by this House.

One advantage of raising the minimum wage to $2 is to encourage mentally handicapped people and physically handicapped people to ease off welfare roles. At the present time the minimum wage is so low that those people who are on welfare and are minimal income earners because of some handicapped aren't risk getting off welfare and taking a job because they're better off on welfare than they were under the previous government's minimum wages.

If anything is designed to get people off welfare, it's a bill like this, which gives a sense of security beyond state support. When a recipient of welfare becomes a chronic user of the welfare system the very thought of leaving that welfare system and going into the employment market at a rate that is less than what he would get on welfare becomes so threatening that the psychological problems that they had that lead them to welfare become reinforced.

Many people have been forced to look upon welfare in North American society as a loving, comforting mother. Because out in the cruel world that your system of economics encourages, low-income earners have actually been subsidizing businesses. Profits have been made because low wages have been paid. People have lost a sense of security if they go out to the market-place and earn incomes that in some instances are actually below what they could get on welfare.

While I welcome this belated turn of heart, let me tell you that this move is designed to help the handicapped, to help the people without trades and to help the low wage earners look to a more meaningful role in life other than welfare in itself. No employer, and I say this very, very openly, no just employer fights this reasonable wage.

For those employers who are skeptical about a good minimum wage let me tell you that it will cost them more in the long run in terms of tax dollars unless we make moves like this to get people off welfare.

I'm glad that the House accepts this move. The move has been made in sub-ignorance because, on taking office, we find that absolutely no research was done by the previous government in the labour department to indicate the impact of minimum wages.

No information was available and I regret that that question was struck from the order paper. I'll answer it right now since you're so concerned with information. We can't give you the answer because on taking office

[ Page 145 ]

there was no research whatsoever conducted on the impact of minimum wages in the Province of British Columbia.

we were given grab-bag figures in Press statements during the election campaign — that's what we were given, $1.90 — we're moving to $2. The reason for the delay, and I welcome the remarks from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the reason for the delay is to do some basic research.

I don't know if public hearing is the best way to do research. We hope to hire competent, skilled people to find out the true impact of minimum wages on the marginal enterprises. But, the first move was obvious; we've made it and we welcome your assistance from there. But the sanctimonious, somewhat, concern is almost like reaching out of the past and saying, "Don't forget those". I try to keep my cynicism down as much as possible, but after 20 years I find that a little bit cynical.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would add our support to this bill and remind the Premier who's just spoken, Mr. Speaker, that this is no change of heart on my part. The Minister of Labour grins.

In the budget speech, earlier this year, I expressed amazement that the government in boasting of its financial surplus did very little to help the poor. That, Mr. Speaker, is clearly on the record.

One of the Members, today, has already quoted on the Senate report on poverty, the Croll committee. I think that it is worthwhile reminding the House that that report said that one Canadian in four lacks sufficient income to maintain a basic standard of living. one in four. As the Premier has already mentioned, it is quite clear in our society today that there is something far wrong when a person willing to work finds that, in fact, financially he would be as well off and maybe even better off to be on welfare. While perhaps the Conservative Party and the socialist party aren't quite in agreement on the basis of incentives to industry, I think we are all agreed on the importance of incentives to individuals in society to contribute.

One interesting statistic from the Croll report stated that 63 per cent of low income family heads are members of the labour force. In other words over 60 per cent of the poor people are not on welfare. I think that when we think on these lines we can well appreciate the committee's final statement that 5 million Canadians continue to find life a bleak, bitter and never-ending struggle for survival. That is a direct quote from the Croll Report.

The report also mentioned, however, that we should perhaps not only think in terms of raising minimum wages but move, as the report stated, iron welfare strategy to an income strategy. I would take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say that we must move in the direction of a guaranteed annual income concept which together with the negative income tax concept would give a greater measure of social justice across Canada.

And I hope that the Premier and the Minister of Labour will make some comment in closing the debate as to the relationship to minimum wage at the present time as, I think, a relatively interim measure and perhaps the longer term aim of establishing with the Federal Government a guaranteed income.

I did a little research into wage rates between 1966 and August 1971 and certainly the average industrial wage has risen by 46 per cent but the minimum wage had merely gone up from $1.25 to $1.50. So that it's quite clear that as the employed segment of the community has been negotiating increases in pay that the minimum wage movement has been far behind — which is one more reason to raise it at this time.

While I support this concept very strongly, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that of all the issues concerning the special session of the House there is not one that has drawn more comment or more contact from citizens in all walks of life both by direct contact and by letter, as this particular topic.

It is very true to say, in my experience at least and. In my riding, that citizens are very apprehensive. I agree with the Premier, there is

[ Page 146 ]

not enough information known as to the numbers concerned and the particular segments of the work force to be affected and to what degree. I think it all comes back to the old question of money — "How much?" and in this particular case, "Over what periods of time?" So I think it's only fair to reemphasize that in an area already mentioned this afternoon — namely the nursing homes of this province — there is tremendous concern.

I'm not defending that private nursing homes function by employing unskilled low-paid people for a very important job. I'm not defending that, nor am I here to argue about it — not this time. There'll be plenty of time in the future. But, I'm just saying that it is an economic fact of life that if we put the minimum wage up to $2 an hour, the impact on patients in private nursing homes will just be one more disastrous step in that the monthly expense would go up.

I would just plead again with the Premier to keep this in mind in relation to the proposed raise, and please, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier consider, before this House closes, some even interim, partial measure to relieve this further blow financially and economically to patients in the private nursing homes.

The Premier has also said that we must help the handicapped and I think it is all very well to say that they will be paid more under this bill. But the fact is that when you raise the minimum wage by 33 1/3 per cent you are certainly tempting many employers to cut corners or to try and get by with fewer staff. This is the other concern that has been voiced to me — that unemployment might be increased, and again it might be increased through mechanism of laying off staff at the nursing homes. I hate to think to what degree the already minimal standard of care — if we're talking about minimal wages, I think in many nursing homes we're talking about minimal standards of care — I hate to think what will happen if private nursing homes attempt to lay off staff in order to cope with the increased wage.

It was also expressed. from many directions that a raise to $2.50 in one move would be too drastic and I think that the Premier and the Minister of Labour, in fact the government, has shown great sense and wisdom and a great deal of courage really, because they made an election promise to raise it to $2.50 immediately and they are being criticized now by, I forget his name, one of the unions in Victoria, I think the Boiler Makers' Union, was criticizing the Premier for backing down, for not making it $2.50 immediately. We on this side of the House think that shows a great measure of wisdom in the light of reconsideration and that people should not expect that some well-intentioned statement made to help the working poor should have to be modified in the light of some reexamination. Therefore I personally certainly would not criticize the government for changing its mind.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be recorded very clearly that the bill only states that the wage will go up to $2 now. There is no statement as to whether it will go to $2.25 or $2.50 or when it would go any further. The Minister has mentioned that this could be done by regulation. I would like to make it clear that we are not too happy about the idea of moves of this nature by regulation. We feel that if this is to be the policy, either this should be the policy of the government or it should be left unsaid — one or the other. But not to make public statements, to say that it will go up to $2.25 or $2.50 at stated dates when in fact the legislation does not in any way refer to that.

I have already mentioned that people are concerned about the effect on unemployment, simply because some of the operators, small businessmen, restaurants — one restaurant owner in Oak Bay just tells me that he would have inevitably to raise prices on such simple things as a cup of coffee and sandwiches and I see the Minister of Labour shrugging his shoulders. But, this is certainly the information I get and there are all of the M.L.A.'s to convey information to this House from the people they represent. This is what I'm doing.

I have a headline from the Vancouver Province that restaurant prices will go up 10 per cent and that's dated Friday October 20. I think it brings us back to the point that nobody knows what exactly the full impact of this will be, but we feel that it is justified in the light of the points already raised.

[ Page 147 ]

I think that it should not be overlooked that the highest minimum wage in any other province at the present time is $1.75 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and if you'll look at the other rates across the country, Newfoundland $1.40, Prince Edward Island $1.25, Nova Scotia $1.55, New Brunswick $1.40, Quebec $1.50, and so on across the country, there are only two provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with a rate as high as $1.75. Therefore the point raised by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is valid — that if we go too far too fast without consulting the other provinces then there is a danger of unskilled employees moving into British Columbia which can only make the unemployment problem worse.

Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I think there is one point I'd like to mention which has come up in speaking to employers. This is the role of the person in society who earns a great deal of income by being tipped. The fact is I've spoken to many people in the hotel and restaurant business, and they tell me that it would be just as well for the persons earning income by being tipped to be excluded from the provisions of the Minimum Wage Act.

The system is a farce and we even have individuals in certain restaurants and hotels paying the employer for the jobs simply because of the amount of money that they can earn from tips.

I've made this enquiry in local establishments and the feeling of the management is that the whole question of referring to some of these lower paid people, or keeping them within the provisions of the Minimum Wage Act, is really unrealistic because they make three or four times more on tips and this is a difficult amount of income to access. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we're strongly in favour of the bill. We're just saying that great care will have to be exercised on the next move above $2. How much should it be and how long should we take to put it beyond $2.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, fellow Members. It seems to me that I've been a little mixed-up. The House seems to have changed since I was here last. In fact, I went through a throne debate without speaking after 24 years, and. that's doing pretty good. It makes me think of the carpenter who was working on a house and he was picking the nails out of his apron and throwing every second one away. The boss came along and wanted to know why he was throwing them away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Careful!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He said; "Well you see, the head's on the wrong end". The boss picked up one of the nails and said: "There's nothing wrong with the nail except that it should be for the other side of the house". So, there may be something to that.

This bill here, Mr. Speaker, is a very important bill. This bill is going to improve the standard of living of a great many people.

But, one of the things that I think we've got to be careful about and I think the business world should be careful about is that they do not use this increase in the minimum wage as a lever to increase prices. I think it's a terrible thing when it's suggested that you have to increase the cost of meals 10 per cent to handle a 50 increase per hour.

I think it's the unit cost they have to judge because any waitress will look after quite a number of people and if you figure it out rightly, the cost of meals has no hearing on the minimum wage because many of our restaurants that are not charging any more than the ones that are paying the minimum wage are paying more than $2 an hour at the present time.

I think it is time that the poor people that are on the minimum wage quit subsidizing the businesses so that the boss can go and have a trip to Hawaii or some other place. To say that they're going to go out of business because of the increased minimum wage is rather ridiculous. I hope that these people do not use this increase in the minimum wage as a lever to up the prices out of all comparison to what the increase in the wage is.

[ Page 148 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): As we've already said, this party will support the bill. In particular we welcome the putting of male and female on the same basis in terms of minimum wage. I particularly also welcome the introduction of a set of minimum wage regulations for people under the age of 18. I think this is an excellent step forward.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the philosophy of the N.D.P. In regard to minimum wages and this kind of economics. I think we heard an example of one of the reasons I would question that philosophy — some of the comments of the last speaker. I think probably many of the people in this House, most of us, have had the kind of calls that I've had from a great many operators of small businesses, small restaurants, dress shops, boutiques, book shops, and a variety of small operations of that sort, expressing very grave concern with the impact this sort of thing is going to have on their business.

I had a call from one such operator who had spoken to one of the N.D.P. M.L.A.'s in this House and expressed a similar kind of concern, and I'm told Mr. Speaker, by this store owner that the answer given by this particular N.D.P. M.L.A. was that all stores that are unable to pay $2.50 an hour minimum wage should be closed and the people concerned go to work for a big department store.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the philosophy of the party opposite I would be very, very concerned. I think it's a shocking philosophy. Personally, I have an abiding belief in the importance of small business to the fabric of our society. I welcome the Premier's earlier comments about the research that is to be done in this regard in the future. But, I am concerned, regardless of the research that is done, if the kind of philosophy is the kind of statement I've just made, the research won't do us much good.

So, I ask therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, when he is closing this debate, explain something of the philosophy that his government will apply when the results of that research is brought in, because if the impact of this bill is to destroy small business, to reduce the number of hours that a small business can have part-time people working for him, then I think this bill is doing a great disservice rather than the good that it might do. And I hope the Minister will outline something of his philosophy in that regard when he closes the debate.

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

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Before I get into the remarks that I had especially prepared for this debate I just want to say that I, too, like the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), had a discussion with a small store owner.

And in this case it was a she, Mr. Speaker, so I'm sure it was a different individual, who said to me that she was concerned that if this bill was passed and if the minimum wage did in fact increase to $2, then to $2.50, that she would have to go out of business. Because she had been open that day — she told me this late on Friday evening — and she had only taken in $3.15 gross, she didn't understand how she could keep herself in business under those circumstances.

And I said to her that I didn't understand how she could either and I said, going beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand how her employee was able to live with the $1.55 that that employee was being paid.

Perhaps the answer, Mr. Speaker, in those kind of cases is, in fact, that those businesses should go out of business because if they can't afford to pay a decent wage then I'm not sure that they should be in existence. In any event, Mr. Speaker, that's all I want to say about that point.

Any parliament, any Legislature has days of shame and it has days of greatness. Regrettably, politics, politicians, democracy itself have often in recent years been judged only by the days of shame. In reality, however, our democratic system is not justified by the all-too-infrequent days of greatness. We have an opportunity to make this one of those days.

[ Page 149 ]

This government, Mr. Speaker, has provided us all with that opportunity — an opportunity to demonstrate to the men and women we represent that we have a sense of values. That sense of values which enables us to recognize clearly that the basic needs of people take priority over any other consideration.

The report of the Croll Commission and a number of independent studies have produced undisputed evidence of one hard fact — that a family in Canada cannot maintain a minimum decent standard of living on income which is based on wage rates of $1.50 per hour. There are thousands of men and women in British Columbia who are currently being paid on that level or very little more.

That means very simply that a great many families in a province which we all consider to be prosperous are condemned to substandard living conditions or are condemned to having one or more members of the family working long hours at second jobs jeopardizing the whole structure of family life.

This government has taken a firm and decisive step towards the elimination of that intolerable situation. This government has stated clearly that any man or woman who is working to produce goods and services available to us or who is trying conscientiously to support himself or herself or family is entitled as a matter of right to be paid a wage which is sufficient to provide a decent standard of living.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that every Member in this House will grasp the significance of this decision and will help to make this day a day of greatness. A day that we, as elected representatives of the people of British Columbia, make clear that we uphold the right of every citizen who is trying to fulfill his or her responsibility to be able to lead a decent life.

Unfortunately we have to overcome one regrettable error which has already been made. The Liberal Member for Victoria made an error a few weeks ago. We all make errors and I don't want to appear to be too harsh in pointing out the cruel implications of his remarks to the effect that, "some people are not worth $2.50 an hour and never will be". I am sure he could not have meant that….

MR. SPEAKER: When you speak of another Member would you identify the one to whom you refer. You said the Hon. Member for Victoria?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. Thank you.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether clear whether it's the First or Second Member for Victoria but it's the only Liberal Member.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Member concerned did not mean exactly what that sentence appears to say. I don't believe we can place a dollar value on the worth of any Canadian but if we could we would surely place it higher than $2.50 per hour. I can think of very few people in this world whose lives are not worth more than that. I am sure he meant that the work they do is not worth $2.50 per hour.

Even then, Mr. Speaker, I think he was very much in error. Who are the men and women making less than $2.50 per hour today in B.C.? Well, they are waitresses, cooks, dishwashers, others in those kind of job classifications. Would any Member of this House choose to do that work as an interesting and worthwhile occupation? I think not. But somebody does this work for us and I am grateful and I want them to have a decent living wage.

Some of them work in laundries, Mr. Speaker, and provide the elegant shirts and neatly pressed slacks worn by most of the Members of this House. I don't particularly enjoy doing those jobs nor do I find them interesting or stimulating. Somebody does them for me and for the rest of us and I am grateful and I want them to have a decent living wage.

Others work in retail stores or clean our buildings or provide any of the other hundred comforts or conveniences which we all take for granted every day. I am grateful to that legion of men and women and I want all of

[ Page 150 ]

them to have decent living wages and so, I hope, does every Member here today.

Some have said that their prices will go up. Some have said that certain businesses will fold. I have grave doubts about the truth of those statements but if that is the price I believe we must pay it.

The suggestion that we should keep a business or industry alive by condemning to poverty those who work in that business or industry is uncomfortably close to the arguments made over a century ago by those who said the mining industry cannot exist without children working in the mines or those who said the cotton industry cannot exist without slaves.

We must say very clearly that, in a socially useful industry, if you don't pay living wages and if you cannot exist on those terms then you can't exist in British Columbia today.

As for the increases in the cost of services, I suggest that these increases would only justify a very minimal increase in prices. There are very few of our citizens who will object to paying a few cents more for a restaurant meal, or a few cents more at the laundry if they do so in the knowledge that the men and women who are making it possible have an opportunity to enjoy their lives a little.

In conclusion, I want to appeal to all the Members on both sides of the House to show that politicians are capable of putting basic human needs first, are capable of rising above political differences, and are capable of recognising moral priorities. The unanimous passage of this legislation will ensure that today, October 23, will be one of the days of greatness in the history of the Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Liberal Leader.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As mentioned by the previous speakers from this party, we will be supporting this bill which we think is a good one. It was indeed our policy during the last campaign. In addition, we are pleased by the fact that British Columbia will be brought more in line with the federal minimum wage which, when it affects the industries under its jurisdiction within this province, will be just slightly less. I believe the federal minimum wage will be $1.90 per hour. So I'm glad the two rates will be very similar.

I was, however, a little concerned in the remarks by the Minister, and once again it's a question of what is left out rather than what is put in. First of all as we are here in a special or, originally, an emergency session, I believe Ministers should preface their remarks with some indication as to why this specific legislation is special or emergency. It's more of a technicality I expect. But all Ministers, I believe, should make some indication of that in their speeches.

There was of course reference to hearings held earlier this year which were chaired by the Deputy Minister of Labour, I understand. I would like the Minister perhaps to comment, in his closing remarks, upon why it was necessary to wait until today to bring in such a bill which must be debated and then has to have the assent of the Lieutenant-Governor when indeed he could have perhaps instructed the Deputy Minister under the regulations existing in the present Act that this be done a great deal sooner than the method we are adopting today. I say this bearing in mind very much the remarks of the Premier who quite candidly correctly indicated that none of us here have much of an idea of what the effect of minimum wage provisions will be.

We are to go into a discussion in the Legislature and we will pass a bill even though this matter could be handled by simply a word to your Deputy Minister who is the Chairman of the Board of Industrial Relations. I would like to know why it's being done this way which delays, as I said, introduction of the minimum wage rather than expedites it and where the impression may be given because of some of the over-rhetorical and overblown words that have been used here today, that we are really doing something when in actual fact we're not doing a great deal. We're simply raising our minimum wage to within five per cent of the federal wage, something that

[ Page 151 ]

could have been done very easily by regulation. I hope the Minister comments upon that.

I would like to suggest in future to Ministers that they speak a little more fully when they introduce bills because there are many questions that come up, many questions of this nature, which I believe are perfectly routine and which of course must now be discussed a number of times. If the Minister does not announce and give a full speech, then of course undoubtedly a Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and a Member of this party and of other parties will raise questions, and the thing will then be discussed again by the Minister at the end. If the Minister makes a very short introductory statement the tendency is for the debate to be lengthened.

I'm very distressed that in the Minister's remarks no mention was made of the exemptions to the bill that we are bringing in. It is fine, and we appreciate and we will endorse of course the $2 an hour as the minimum wage.

At the same time it should be pointed out to Hon. Members that there is a section in the Act as it presently exists which is section 8, and it says, "The Board may after due enquiry", etc. etc., "by regulations publish in the Gazette". Now, here is the important part: "exempt any employee or class of employee, or any employer or class of employer, in whole or in part from the operation of this Act".

So we have exemptions within the Act itself, which of course has exempted categories of employees — for example the agricultural industry. I think it might have been a very worthwhile thing had the Minister perhaps been more clear in legislating what types of industries should be exempted and what types shouldn't.

It's all very well for us to talk in glowing terms about this being a noble day for democracy etc. when at the same time we leave within the Act the power to wipe out everything we've done today for some of the people who may feel that they will have their minimum wage raised.

Now I know of course that the board will act responsibly in this and other things, but once again it might be a more honest approach and a better approach in terms of legislation for us to specify rather than leaving. powers of regulation within an Act. This allows a board or somebody, or even the Minister himself, to wipe out what we are doing in this House this afternoon, for any individual who may listening to debates believe that he is going to be assisted.

Now we've heard some discussion about the number of people, the marginal employees, who may cease to be employed as a result of the operation of this Act. The question was raised, and raised by the Premier as well as others in this debate, that there may be, if the minimum wage goes up too high, certain people who will cease to be employed.

My Honourable friend from North Vancouver (Mr. Brousson) gave an example of this. I presume it's a small store, a boutique or something, where one person is employed and the amount of money brought in by having that employee in the store is perhaps not very great. In other words, the marginal amount of extra business generated by having an employee in the store is not very great.

This is the type of example I was using when I was speaking to a journalist which was commented upon from the other Member from north shore (Mr. Gabelmann) who spoke earlier. In economic argument, it may be that if say, for example, the minimum wage was raised to $10 there would be a lot of people unemployed. Now, it's no good all of us sitting here saying, "Gee, wouldn't it be great if everybody felt, they were worth $10". And then of course unemployment being increased as the result.

But the point I was making, which I think you will appreciate, Sir, and other Members as well, is that in economic terms it may not be possible for a store, or a boutique or — whatever it was — and I believe in your case you referred to a boutique — to continue to employ people. Therefore there will be some people who will cease to be employed. And what really surprises me in this bill, especially after the very good discussion by some of the backbench Members of the government when the earlier bill was introduced dealing with labour relations, there was some very good comments made about getting away from the traditional concepts of what a job is. Some very good remarks were made about technological change and boredom. And yet in

[ Page 152 ]

this particular bill we are back to the old traditional ideas.

For example: Opportunities for Youth paid a good number of young people $1,000 during the summer, probably below the minimum wage specified in this Act. They did excellent work, gave excellent value, and yet in economic terms it may not have been possible to pay them $2.50 or $2 an hour. So while some of the backbench on the government side, Mr. Speaker, have been making some very interesting comments regarding changing attitudes towards work, we have here a very traditional piece of legislation dealing with very old concepts.

Now having said that I should of course provide a few comments of my own which might indicate how I think the problem could be overcome. Well, say for example at this present stage the minimum wage goes up to $2. Perhaps there is not be too much problem there, but say it goes up to $2.50. The minimum wage goes up to $2.50 and an employer states that the two assistants in the shop will have to be released, even though they enjoy working in the shop.

I have a relative who works at a small store, and it's just a small husband and wife operation with this relative of mine who helps out when times are busy. And I don't think that this relative will continue to be employed when the minimum wage goes to $2.50. But it's something she enjoys doing. She likes doing it, it keeps her involved in meeting people and things of that nature.

Now, take that single example. Would it not be possible for the government to set up some sort of review board and when an employer comes and says, "Look, because of the minimum wage conditions we will no longer be able to employ this, that and the other person although we think they should continue to be employed" Would it not be possible to have some sort of government subsidy scheme which would allow employment to be maintained and yet allow minimum wages to be raised? This is not a new concept I put forward myself — I'm rather embarrassed indeed that I'm the first to mention this in this debate. It is something that has been done before by Canada Manpower in this province, where you have a subsidy scheme to assist the employer to continue to employ employees who, if I can use my economic terms again, would not perhaps be worth in economic terms the minimum wage.

It's the type of imaginative scheme, or even fairly routine scheme now in so many jurisdictions, which would get around the problems that we've been talking about today. It would get around this sort of groping that's been going on here about at what level does the minimum wage start cutting into employment.

Such a scheme, Mr. Minister, which would permit full and worthwhile occupations and at the same time would prevent people from going on welfare with the attendant problems that arise, some of which were outlined very well by the Premier of the province…I am distressed that your legislation is, as I said, unimaginative in this regard.

Now, to the exemptions that are in the Act. There is a separate section, I might add, which the Hon. Member from Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) apparently is unaware of, dealing with the handicapped. I feel these exceptions really make the bill that we are passing today a great deal less worthwhile that it otherwise might have been. I do feel that it is important, and I repeat what I said on previous occasions when discussing the Mediation Commission and other changes to the Mediation Commission, that we must get around to a situation, Mr. Speaker, in which we in this House make legislation. We don't simply enable boards, or enable Ministers, to act as they see fit with full discretion.

We have here in this Act a provision which permits the board, if it so wishes, to ignore everything we have done today, and ignore this bill when it passes. And that's true, there is a legal provision in there that they can exempt as they see fit.

Now we should be getting away from that type of legislation. If this House, and all of us here assembled representing the people of British Columbia feel that the minimum wage should be $2 an hour, let's for heaven's sakes say so and not then put in weasel-worded exceptions which continue to remain in the Act, allowing the board in its wisdom to exempt grape pickers, or lettuce pickers, or perhaps some other group who are exempt at the present time.

[ Page 153 ]

It's an important thing to remember that legislation such as this, despite the fine words that have been expressed, quite often doesn't trickle down to the people whom it should help. And one of the reasons for this is that we continue to leave in provisions which allow the Minister discretion or board discretion, or things of that nature.

Now if I can finally make one further point before dealing with directly the remarks of my Hon. friend opposite. We are not always dealing with a family that has a single income. we are quite often talking of the second income of a family and things of that nature.

Now that I believe that should he borne in mind. It's wrong, perhaps, to suggest that minimum wages will be the minimum wage or which the family will have to be maintained on that level. It doesn't generally happen that way. Minimum wages tend to be for the second incomes of a family. I think that a few words from the Minister dealing with this, giving statistics on this, might have made this debate a great deal more worthwhile.

Finally with respect to my friend from North Vancouver. When I made my remarks "some people not being worth $2.50 per hour in economic terms," I was in a discussion of some length. This was a quote from a fairly lengthy, rational, intelligent discussion of the whole thing we've been talking about this afternoon.

Politics will not remain on those high planes which the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour suggested, if Members of this House continue to take out of context remarks which are made in seriousness when discussing issues affecting people.

The remark of my friend from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) that we can't place a dollar value on any one's worth is perhaps correct. But unfortunately in this House, high faluting words apart, we have to get down to the nitty gritty of what goes on in this province. And it's in these areas that we have to discuss work in terms of economic worth. Now once again, may I repeat my example of the opportunities for Youth. May I repeat what I said earlier. It's not necessarily the value in terms of dollars — it is sometimes society's ability to pay. And that's perhaps what I was commenting upon and that's the type of thing, the type of discussion, in which I hope people interpret my remarks.

If we insist upon dredging quotations out of context, the level of debate in this House and the public appreciation of what our politicians actually are will sink dismally. I do feel that while the Hon. Member, I believe, has spoken twice in this debate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …twice in this parliament or in this legislative session, while most of his fellow backbenchers have remained silent, I do believe that in his efforts to attract the eye of the front bench he should be a little more careful with facts.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill but I do trust that more attention will be paid in future by Ministers of the Crown when introducing bills. There are many questions involved in this bill. Why are these things left out? Why have we got the weasel-words still in the Act, despite the bill that we're discussing today? Was this bill really necessary? Was it an emergency session bill or a special session bill when it could have been done even before today and the Minister been serious about the subject matter? These questions should be discussed and I trust the Minister in his closing remarks will spend some time on them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, yes, the hordes are getting restless here. But we made it. I'm really happy about the feelings that I have somehow got from all of you in the House. I think this is a great day really for all of you — not just for the New Democratic Party. Certainly this was part of our thinking, but I think it reflects a lot of thinking here. I really am glad that really we're not breaking all that new ground

[ Page 154 ]

because of the federal Senate and the work it's done — that a lot of legislators in this country are trying to face, you know, the fact that we are moving this way and that the guaranteed income is something I think eventually is going to happen.

But can I say some very basic things about people, about feelings, about self-esteem? Because, you know, I can speak as a politician, I can speak as a clergyman, as a counselor and self-esteem is absolutely essential. I mean we have a lot of self-esteem here, a lot of ego-awareness and maybe it isn't a problem but maybe really we're on the minimum wage. This is the first job I've ever applied for where I didn't have the slightest idea what I was getting paid. And I found out that the hours are very long and that they're about $2 an hour.

But look, there are a lot of people in this world and in this province, and I've found this out as a counselor, who have no intentions of really contributing to society. They don't know how to contribute. They don't know what they want to do. They have very little self-esteem. They really aren't certain about getting out into that free-enterprise system which, you know, I'm really happy about, with some restraint, as you are.

But believe me, we've got to help those people. And if a message could leave this Legislature this afternoon that we want people to have fulfillment, we want them to work. Maybe it won't be eight hours or maybe it'll be 15 hours but for goodness' sakes let's be concerned for the guy who's working, you know, as a taxi dispatcher at $1.50 an hour who has to stay on ridiculously long hours to get a reasonable take-home pay, or the person who is a day-care worker or a kindergarten teacher.

You know, I felt embarrassed that across the street there was a fellow making $18,000 a year working at the Mica, working for about eight months at the most a year where down the street the kindergarten teacher who had, I think, a very essential role to play in the community was getting, you know, $5,000 a year. I felt embarrassed about that. The consequences of that kind of attitude, you know, we're going to pick up in future years.

Now, there are a lot of people, and I want labour to hear this, because there are a lot of people in the so-called labour world that are really not included. They're not organized. They're not getting the real benefits from this wealthy province and I hope that organized labour is hearing this debate this afternoon as well as small businesses and large business people and legislators — that we're concerned about all the people.

We really are concerned about that widow, or that person who is left, maybe was deserted and is looking after those children and is working at a ridiculous wage to stay off welfare, to have a sense of dignity and pride to make a contribution.

I'm really glad about the really humanizing feeling that I've really felt from all of you. As far as studies go I would really like to go on the record that we talked about restaurants. I think that maybe inflation is as much caused by demands as by some of the costs including labour costs. And singling out restaurants in Vancouver — they have created a demand there. It's for some restaurants a very booming business and prices are quite high and they seem to be doing quite well. I hope that in the research we will look at whether it really is a "cost-push" type of inflation or whether it's a "demand-push" inflation.

But thank you. I think this is a tremendous debate and I hope in the history of this province that people will see that for their dignity. All of us want to make a contribution. We all want to work. This would be a real incentive to young people who ate going into the labour force and those who are in very marginal situations now. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I too would like to quote from Senator Croll. In Thursday paper last he said, "There are 600,000 people in Canada who work full-time, part-time, and over-time, and whose wives and children work, yet they don't make as much as they would on relief".

[ Page 155 ]

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a disgrace. This is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker, because this is not a country which can be euphemistically referred to as being either underdeveloped or an emerging nation. This is a very wealthy country, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the wealthiest provinces in this very wealthy country.

Yet, up until now we have been employing people and exploiting them at salaries which made them worse off than if they didn't work at all.

I am very, very pleased with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it shows that this is our first step in the direction of putting people before business, corporations or industry. We've heard a lot of things today about the small businessman and the small businesswoman. And I for one am very sympathetic about the shopkeeper in the riding of North Van.–Capilano who had her shop open all day and made only $3.15. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that lowering the minimum wage to 2 an hour would not have made that business work. We cannot continue to support failing businesses by exploiting people. Nothing must come before people, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that makes me happiest about this bill, of course, is the fact that the Hon. Minister has seen fit to remove sex from it. I mean, that is, the word "female" from it. In section 5 it reads that the Female Minimum Wage Act is repealed. I'm very pleased about this because what we have found over the years, Mr. Speaker, is that quite often legislation which is alleged to be designed to protect women has in fact merely served to confirm our exploitation.

I'm not sure why the bill continues to be called the Male Minimum Wage Act, but I'm sure that when the Hon. Minister sums up he'll explain this to US. But I'm very glad anyway that now women and men are going to be paid the same minimum wage.

One of the things that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is the section that deals with the people who are still not covered by this Act. That is the farm labourers and the domestic servants.

Now, I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that farming is a very precarious business and that the Hon. Minister has to take this into consideration. But I would like to suggest to him that there is probably no group in our society that works harder for longer hours and lower pay than do people who work on farms, and domestic servants.

And so, I would like to ask him in his summing-up if he would say a word or two about what he plans to do on behalf of the farm labourers and the domestic servants who are presently not covered by this bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say one more thing, and that is that last week on more than one occasion the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) remarked that August 30 was a black day for the people of this province. As a person who feels very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that black is beautiful, I would like to endorse what the Hon. Member said. August 30 was indeed one of the blackest and most beautiful days for the people of this province.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, this bill which is addressing itself to the unorganized workers, to the many women working in the kitchens, to the many women working in the private hospitals, many women being exploited in the restaurants, and the dispatchers, men as well as women, throughout this province — this bill which addresses itself to that, to try and ensure that they can live in some sort of dignity, proves, Mr. Speaker, that the black day was just heralding the beginning of a beautiful era for British Columbia. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the previous speaker's remarks very much. Every cloud has a silver lining and I hope that the cloud that came over the province on August 30 will have a silver lining.

However, as the first female speaker from the government side of the House, I was very disappointed that the Hon. Member did not mention a group of people in this province that I consider to be the hardest working group of people in the province, in the Dominion and in the world.

[ Page 156 ]

A group of people who seem to receive no recognition whatsoever in this society, a group of working people for whom there are no labour laws — a group of people on whose function the very perpetuation of our life depends, and I would hope, a group of people whose function our democratic way of life depends on. Because, as you know certain regimes have taken the produce of these group of people away and it was called a dictatorship. I refer to the very, very important group of people-the housewife, the mother. No compensation Act for her.

AN HON. MEMBER: Homemaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Homemaker? Well, I prefer to call her the mother.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good word.

MR. PHILLIPS: The mother, because I don't consider my wife a homemaker, I consider her the mother. The boss of the family in other words.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Speak for your own wife.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe that's why she doesn't have any laws that fit into any of these categories, maybe because she is the boss, and bosses don't have compensation, they don't have labour legislation — and if you don't consider your wife the boss in your family, Mr. Attorney General, that is certainly your business. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Apple pie?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, the bosses make apple pie. But, I'm very serious about this, because what really bothers me about this is that we seem to be entering an age where the feminist is not necessarily a homemaker. The feminist can sometimes be the breadwinner and if they are not going to have any protection there should be laws regarding their pension. Why shouldn't the government and the lady Members of this House speak up for these people? I won't say that there are any women that I know of in this province, of house makers or mothers, who are deprived and who are not well paid. But, what, real compensation do they get in terms?

What I'm saying again, Mr. Speaker, is that there are a lot of people who are employed in our province who are employed because they love to work. Maybe it's a hobby with them. Maybe that's the case with the housewives, maybe it's a hobby with them, too.

I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, some legislation to protect probably the largest group of working feminists — is that what you call it? Is it females, is it females? The largest working group of — of course now we have male feminists, so we'll have to stick to the old word — female. The largest working group of female specimens in our province (laughter). I will say, Mr. Speaker, certainly I mean this in all sincerity, some of the pains that these women suffer in doing their work — well, some of them were born in the hospital, I guess in the hospital, not in the home — but some of the pains that these females suffer in carrying out their work they should be paid double time, certainly for that particular aspect.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as I say, they are certainly the most important people in the whole world. They should certainly receive consideration of the highest order.

MR. SPEAKER: There are other Members I think, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the previous speaker, I too support the women who work in the home, as well as the women, who work outside of the home. Because, I regard the women working in the home to be working just as hard, if not harder, than the women working outside the home.

[ Page 157 ]

However, there was one comment made that housewives perhaps work for the fun of it. I would like to give some statistics. These are from the Department of Labour, Women's Bureau, from Statistics Canada, Sylvia Gelber.

Fifty per cent of the working women in this country are single or the sole support of their family. They work because they have to work or starve to death. Another 33 per cent work because their husbands make less than the median income, $6,000. Another study done by the Department of Labour for Stats Canada indicates that women work, not for luxuries in the home, they work to pay off debts. That leaves a mere 17 per cent who work because they may have a psychological need to work, or they might be professional women, doctors, lawyers and so on. I would just like to bring that to the Hon. Member's attention.

I also agree with him that the women who work in the home have not received the consideration, particularly in the matter of pensions and that this is something that we hope this government will look into in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I won't take more than a moment of the House's time.

I, too, have listened to this debate with considerable interest and I, too, endorse many of the stands taken. Particularly the amalgamation of the Acts — the Minimum Wage Act, Male, and the Minimum Wage Act, Female, under one Act even though the two Acts were previously of the same basic minimum wage to both sexes.

I listened with great interest to the Member discuss the concern of the farm worker, those that work on the farm, and the fact that this is not included in the category as outlined in the bill, and I would like to again reinforce this by saying that I, too, would like to know what the government's policy is going to be in relation to those working in the domestic field and those working in the agricultural field.

I am aware that many people in the agricultural field are paid on a piece basis rather than an hourly basis. But still there is concern here and my concern in bringing it up again is that, before this House, at this emergency session, there have been no provisions to assure, by the programmes of the government, that these people could come under the basic minimum wage. We see no assurance that the agricultural people will in fact receive a fair return for their produce.

We also see no assurance in the legislation before this House, this emergency session of the House, in relation to minimum wages, that they have made any effort to approach the federal government to see that the domestic help and domestic gardening help are made fully deductible through the Income Tax Act. I think that if we are concerned, and we are, these people should have a fair return. We also have to recognize that you can't be a half-baked employer in the House.

If you employ someone to come in and look after your children and carry on your domestic duties while you're working, a $500 deduction, as is currently allowed under federal income tax, is simply not enough. I've said before in the House, when the federal government, the Liberals, if I may mention their name, brought in this amendment, that it was more a flushing action to flush out the very people that we're concerned about in this House — those on limited incomes, pensioners, who tend to work in this area, partly because they want to, and partly because it is more in keeping with their interests. They were flushing them out for income tax purposes, with no intentions to make the homemaker who is employing someone in her home a proper employer with the benefits of the employer, which are the proper income tax deductions, and the responsibility of the employer which is in fact contributions to pension plans and unemployment.

The domestic person who is in this field, and many people want to work in this field, should not only be assured of a good income, a fair income, but they should be assured of the same benefits that an employee should be assured of, the same responsibilities and the same benefits.

[ Page 158 ]

Just before going on, I would like to say that I think this applies also in the area of home gardening — a business can deduct professional gardening services, any type of gardening help, if it's on business premises. But in fact, if you employ someone in your home to look after your garden,you can't. Again there are many young people, there are many older people, who would very much like to work in the gardening area. We have a generation saying to us, "We want to work with the soil". Surely this type of provision would be in keeping, not only with a minimum wage and a proper balance in responsibilities in return in benefits, but also very much in keeping with the new life-style that we really are groping for. .

I think the new Member, the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young), was pleading a very strong case. And she cited her figures. But I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, why that government isn't listening to their own Member, and why that Member in being a Member of that government, hasn't made provisions which would enable people in the agricultural area and in the domestic area and in the domestic gardening area to benefit from this Act, and also to benefit from the regular employee benefits as well as enable their employers to benefit? It is your responsibility to do this, not your responsibility to get up and express your concern and do nothing about it. You have the power, you have the authority, you are the government.

The one other question I would like to ask of the Minister in this relationship is the point that I mentioned in this House before. That there are currently 35,000 women in British Columbia not employed, who were employed in July. This is the time of high employment, the agricultural industry being at its peak, processing plants in operation and the fact that stores are generating more of an economy for back-to-school shopping, late summer shopping. Again we see in this Act and its relationship to the rest of the legislation before this session, no provisions to take care of or even acknowledge that these 35,000 women are unemployed.

You know as well as I know, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to a choice of who's going to be let go for the reason the business feels that it can't pay, it's going to be the women. And this is a very sad lack in this Act. You have done nothing for the currently unemployed women, you've done nothing to show that you are even aware of these problems.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, as a new Member, I'm sure some of the other new Members here are also a little perplexed and confused at this point. And I can only blame the Press and the media for confusing US.

Because apparently a lot of offers were made during the campaign by the Social Credit Party that I didn't hear about. Like putting the farm workers on the Minimum Wage Act. I suppose they promised that. And other promises that we say we promised and we're going to do, and they're criticizing us for not going further. It seems rather amazing to me that the Press missed all these promises that were made by the other party during the election.

One or two words about some of the expressions that seem to get bandied around as we go along. One is "marginal" and we hear "marginal" used — "marginal businesses". This one's marginal and that one's marginal. I'm not quite sure what "marginal" means. Does that mean that the employer is taking home $50,000 a year or $1,000 a year for his own personal living expenses')

I suppose it would depend on how large the business is and how "marginal" it is. So, Mr. Speaker, you know I would hesitate to use that word in referring to businesses and how they're doing financially.

The other is "inflation". You know you can get 12 economists together and say, "What is inflation?" And not one of them will give you an answer like the other one gave you. No one really knows, even in the world of economics, what inflation is, and no one has ever been able to solve it.

I think we should deal in dollars and cents and I've asked our local finance department here to draw up a scale of what a person would take home if he made $350 a month, which is approximately within, I think, what a person would make on 22 days a month at $2 an hour. It's $352 a month, and

[ Page 159 ]

and I've asked them to work it out at $350 a month, and the income tax paid on that by a hypothetical person, a woman with two children ages 10 and 5.

Before going into that I'd like to read some figures out, and I'll relate them to Prince Rupert where I live because you can only relate to what you know. Look at apartment rents. A woman with two children aged 10 and five — I don't think they could get by with anything less, or should get by on anything less, than a two-bedroom apartment. I can't imagine getting one for under $150 in the north and that wouldn't be very much of an apartment.

Phone and hydro would be another $15 approximately, and I'm underestimating these figures I believe. Food at least $100 — at least — and I think they would have to do a lot of hunting. Clothes, medical — I put in $20. Transportation, $10, and $75 for a babysitter.

It comes to a total of $370, and I don't think that's really high living. By the way, at $350 a month, you can see we're a little short already but with the tax off, the take-home pay is $315 a month. So they couldn't reach even what I call an adequate style of living on this $2 an hour. So I see it as a measure towards an adequate amount of money.

I was very glad to hear that the reason we are only going $2 at this time is that the previous government didn't leave us enough data to assess the problem properly and to make our move properly also.

I would hope that once we have looked into it and have done some more research, we will be able to come up with a much more adequate amount of dollars for people to live on. Because I think, as other people have said in this House, we're the richest province, and one of the richest countries and surely we can throw in, oh — little frills to these people, like medical so they can go and have their teeth looked after. They can maybe go out on Saturday night or go on holidays during the summer, or buy an insurance plan. And you can't do that on $2 an hour, or even $2.50 an hour.

I think that we should put it in terms of dollars and cents so that people can understand what we're talking about, instead of talking in grandiose terms as politicians. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the bill. I am a farmer that comes from the Shuswap area and have to depend upon the consumer dollar to make a living. I think until we can come to a state in our society where society realizes that the farmer has to also receive a fair share, I would ask that there be study done on the effects on the farmer, and in the economy in the area where it's related to.

I think maybe the story that's told of the man from the labour board going out to a farm and asking the farmer to see his books. And he said, "I see there are three people listed on your books. One is receiving $1.74 an hour, and one is receiving $1.40". He said, "I'm not interested in those," he said. "How about the one here that's marked as a darn fool and is receiving 72 cents". And the farmer said to the man from the Labour Relations Board, "You're looking at him."

I think that possibly the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has her sympathies in the right place in regard to agriculture. And I hope that her government had done everything they could in their power to right some of these things. But I feel until we have a chance through our provincial government and federal government to come up with some sort of workable arrangement where the farmer can survive, I would ask you to take a second look at it. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the debate.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've listened with a great deal of interest to the various comments that have been made by Hon. Members this afternoon. I'm pleased to note that there's a general degree of acceptance for the bill. I must say that I'm somewhat bemused by the gymnastics of Members of the Liberal Party on the question.

[ Page 160 ]

I was admonished on the one hand to provide more information. I was lectured on the other hand about the manner in which I should produce the legislation.

It seems a little bit inconsistent that if I'm to play the Liberal game and be instructed on the manner in which I should bring the legislation in perhaps I could expect to see at least the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party would have a little bit more information through his own efforts rather than waiting to be filled in by the Minister of Labour, who he seeks to instruct.

For instance he questioned the exemptions under the Act and I might point out to the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party that they are all contained in the regulations. They're there for him or any other Hon. Member to read. Now I see small advantage in me going through the regulations and pointing them out for the edification of members of this House. I would expect that they could do the minimal amount of reading and research necessary to read the regulations.

Someone, I believe it was the Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett), questioned the need for exemptions for the handicapped. I might point out that under certain regulations in the Act this type of exemption is provided. The Leader of the Liberal Party, I think, queried me on the procedure that the board might use in changing regulations. He seemed to be afraid of the proposition that the board might seek to destroy the intents of the legislation that was presented and passed before this House. Again, apparently he's not reading the legislation.

In chapter 23 of the Act, it provides that regulations not inconsistent with the spirit of this Act may be considered necessary, advisable, or convenient. And here again the important point is "not inconsistent with the intent". Now once we have brought this legislation before the House and passed it, certainly the board would not be authorized to reduce it below the intent that it was dealt with.

On the other hand he questioned whether or not enough flexibility was vested in the legislation to provide exemptions for someone that may be caught in the cost squeeze. You know, I really don't know which way he wants to go. He's questioning the flexibility on one hand, and he's questioning the exercise of too much authority by the board on the other. Certainly you can't have both.

So, I think all these things are basically provided for in the Act.

Another question was raised about the name of the Act. I think the Hon. Member that raised it, if he'll just take a little closer look at Bill No. 6, he'll find that although the bill is presented as an Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act, in chapter 1 it has the effect of not only rescinding the Male Minimum Wage Act and the Female Minimum Wage Act, but re-establishing them both under the Wage Act period, which I think removes the connotation that he had questioned.

Now a number of other questions were raised about the inflationary impact of this type of increase. I might point out that since perilously little research was done and little study was done in the last 10 years or so on the impact of minimum wage increases in this province, it's very difficult in a period of some 35 or 40 days to make a detailed analysis of the type of impact this increase might have.

The reason for this session was to provide some purchasing power in the hands of those people who need it most, old age pensioners, low income workers, and so on. For the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to suggest that this could have been achieved by regulation is a little bit unusual. On the one hand he was criticising the powers of regulation, and then he said, "Why call the session? You could have brought it all in by regulation. "

What does he want? Now, the situation as far as I'm concerned is one where certainly it could have been brought in by regulation, but in order to combine the two Acts and to achieve some housekeeping and cleaning up, and to remove the offensive connotations of a female and male minimum wage Act, certainly legislation was necessary for that purpose.

I wonder about the effects of some people's apprehension in stating that a $2 minimum wage level in British Columbia at this point might create a tremendous influx of people from all over Canada.

[ Page 161 ]

I might point out that at the present time the federal Minimum Wage Act is higher indeed than that which we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know where the influx is going to go to on that basis.

But certainly it's not this government's intention to try and barricade or Balkanize British Columbia. It may have been the attitude of previous administrations. Certainly, if people are attracted to British Columbia it's through the advanced benefits that are available here — I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Now I recognize that everyone has tried to get their criticisms in on this bill, but they've all paid lip service to it. I don't see too much point in dealing further with it. I noticed that the people who are running for elective office for Social Credit and the Liberal Party are campaigning along similar lines to the legislation contained in this bill. I think they're all fairly familiar with it. I think there's been a good discussion on it, some interesting points made.

Perhaps before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I should just say that certainly I'm receptive to the proposition of further studies, more detailed studies on the inflationary impact that may accrue from an increased minimum wage. I'm interested in a more detailed study, and deeper analysis of the needs of areas of people, groups that are not presently covered under the minimum wage law.

I would remind the House though, Mr. Speaker, that hearings were conducted and I'm a little bit surprised that since we have so much political interest in all of these groups now, it seems a little bit unusual — perhaps a little bit shallow — that none of these people, none of these parties registered similar interests before the hearings that were conducted in March of this year. Perhaps they're doing it now for the edification of the House rather than through any great concern about the future.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that Bill No. 6 be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 6 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 7.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT.

HON. E.E. DAILLY(Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this bill, I would like to briefly outline the basic principles behind it, because after all we are going into committee stage and we'll have an opportunity to go into detail then. But as we're discussing it in principle that's what I'm going to refer my remarks to at this time.

One of the provisions of course is the restoration in the Province of British Columbia of the right for trustees and teachers to again engage in free collective bargaining. This bill — and I know you've all read it — will also remove the imposition by the Minister of Education of arbitrary limitation on salary increases.

Also inherent in this bill are changes in the calculation of the approved operating expenses for school board budgets. This bill also eliminates the operating budget referenda principle. Which means that we in this government believe in restoring local autonomy and decision-making powers to our local school boards.

These changes we hope, and we are sure to some degree, will relieve the stringent financial restrictions which were imposed by the previous government on school boards. These restrictions had to be relieved because the students in our school system were suffering from these restrictions. Educational programmes were curtailed across the province because

[ Page 162 ]

of the very severe restrictions of the former government.

Now we have been asked, particularly by the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party, to explain — each Minister — why we are bringing forward our legislation at this time.

I'm sure it's quite obvious to all the Members of this House who know how school boards operate that they must prepare their school budgets now for 1973 budget year. They also right now are in the process of negotiating salaries with their teachers. And therefore it was essential to point out to the school boards and give them directions for their 1973 budgeting year. And this could only be done by changes to the legislation.

This is why I found it rather shocking to hear a suggestion that perhaps it was not necessary to have this session at all — and this coming from the Liberal Party where the Members of the Liberal Party who were here in the past session fought long and hard against Bill No. 3 and its financial restrictions. I found them very inconsistent. Of course we had at the same time in an earlier speech last week someone from Social Credit or the official Opposition suggesting that this legislation was really tripe legislation. That is very consistent with the official Opposition, because they have shown throughout the last 20 years that they were basically an anti-education government.

At the time that we had long and bitter debates in this House — and those of you who were here last year will well remember them — over Bill No. 3, and many of the amendments in here are being taken from Bill No. 3, we pointed out to the government that this was going to have a serious effect on the children of this province. At that time many of the Members more or less implied this was not an issue — in fact, one of the most interesting comments I heard was from the defeated Minister of Education who said on the night of his defeat, "I didn't realize education was such an issue." (Laughter).

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Par for the course!

HON. MR. BARRETT: What an education!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: But the people of this province were not taken in by the former government's attempts to whip up a very phony taxpayers' revolt against education. Because the people of this province are naturally concerned with increasing taxes, but are also concerned with what happens to the child in the classroom. And they showed this when they voted into power a government which had gone on record throughout the campaign as stating that education should have one of the highest priorities.

Mr. Speaker, in no way are we suggesting that money is the answer to all the problems of education which we face today. In no way is this bill and the amendment giving a blank cheque to school boards — as a matter of fact there are certain very stringent restrictions left in it. Because what we are actually doing — we have left, these restrictions in only because it is a short session. We need time to consider a complete revision of the financial formula, but what we have basically said to the school boards of this province is, "We have faith in you. You are elected people. You have a right to make your decisions", just like you and.1 here in this House make our decisions. And we have returned to them this autonomy. When I made my first announcement suggesting that this legislation would be presented at this session I made the statement that I have faith in the responsibilities of the school trustees.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks on the amendments to the Public School Act I wish to say that our government is planning an overall review of our whole public school system. In essence, what we want to do is to establish first a philosophy of education in our public schools. We want to establish a basis for the direction in which we must move in this province in. education so we can provide an education within the public school system that will be truly relevant for our young people today.

This must be our first step — to decide where we're going in education. Following this first essential step we must develop a finance formula. A formula which must also be receptive to the financial resources of this province. Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

[ Page 163 ]

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In speaking to the principle of this bill, the proposed amendments to the Public Schools Act, it is a little difficult to be the one who leads off a debate, particularly when the lady cabinet Minister is such a charming person. For that reason the desire or urge to be constructive is certainly with me, but the desire to be abrasive is not so I'll try to keep my remarks to constructive suggestions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That will be hard to do.

MR. SMITH: That would not necessarily mean that the one who just spoke will ever do that. At any rate, I'd like to observe first of all that the amendments which you have proposed will certainly result, in the opinion of the official opposition, in a greater expenditure and a larger budget for school districts within the province.

This is an obvious conclusion when you read the two provisions in the amendment that deal with local autonomy and school districts, and the right for bargaining.

It certainly is not the position of the official Opposition to support these amendments, because we strongly feel that they set a precedent which will remove from the Act the systems of checks and balances which were designed to protect the average citizen and the average taxpayer from being forced without his consent into providing large and, in my opinion, potentially inflationary increases to finance the educational programme.

Now also, Mr. Speaker, school districts will be allowed as a matter of course to budget up to 110 per cent of the cost of the basic educational programme. I think it's obvious that all school districts will budget to that limit as a minimum — not as a maximum but as a minimum and in the future they will budget to the 110 per cent limit.

Then in addition they may budget for an even larger expenditure by simply passing an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the board members. The whole matter of what is a prudent and judicious allocation of the provincial budget for the purposes of financing our school system will not be dictated by people other than people from this assembly. Namely, school trustees and teachers will now call the tune. And the ones who pay the piper — the taxpayers of this province — will become interested spectators sitting on the sideline.

Who will protect their interest? Because whatever final costs are involved for the provision of our public school system and education beyond that level, the source of funds remains the same — increased taxes, regardless of what the government of this day may say to the contrary.

The question that I think that every resident of the Province of British Columbia should be asking themselves right now, this day, is this: will increased expenditure in the field of education guarantee a better system? will increased expenditure in the field of education provide us with more qualified teachers? Will increased expenditure in the field of education turn out high school students who are smarter or more mature than at present?

In other words, and quite simply, what increased benefits can we reasonably expect by simply spending more dollars?

Increased expenditure — if it provides better classroom conditions and improved methods of teaching — would probably be justified by all of the Members of this House. But let no one forget that 80 per cent, or 80 cents out of every extra dollar spent in the field of education will go directly into teachers' salaries. Not bricks, not mortar, not improved equipment, not more extensive reference material — just teachers' salaries alone will take 80 cents out of every dollar of extra money that we provide for education in this province.

. The amendments are designed to bring both salaries and bonuses in case of a dispute before the arbitration board. This opens up a field of what constitutes a bonus, a question the Minister should elaborate on when closing the debate of this bill because I think that is a very important segment of

[ Page 164 ]

this bill. What constitutes a bonus, and what constitutes salaries?

The N.D.P. government has indicated their policies will include the removal of educational taxes from residential property within a five-year period. While that is not part of the principle of this bill, it has certainly been a statement of policy by the government in pre-election and campaigning days.

Where will the revenue come from to replace this loss? If, Mr. Speaker, the government continues to pursue the present course, costs will have escalated so much that within that five-year period the increased taxation expected to be received from mineral and petroleum production will not offset the amount of revenue required.

In fact, pursuit of your present policies will be responsible for driving both mineral and petroleum and exploration companies out of this province. Then how will the government generate the revenue needed to finance the educational programme? In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that education is a very important part of the whole legislative process before US. Not only at this session but at every session of this House.

Certainly it has a high priority in the thinking of most people. But it is also only part of the legislative process and part of the budget for benefits to people within the province. In that context we have to examine how much of the budget can be reasonably used for the purposes of education without at the same time reducing the services in some other field.

I would suggest to the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it would be much more reasonable to take a smaller bite out of a large pie than to take a large bite out of a small pie. Because that is exactly what might happen if we face the prospect of decreasing revenue from all sources to the provincial coffers within the next few years.

I would suggest that the department and the government should exercise some restraint or that we will follow down the path predicted by the Economic Council of Canada when they said that within a short time, certainly before the turn of the century — and that's not too far away — we will consume our entire gross national product for education, health and social services if we continue along the lines that we have operated in the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition dislike the broad, blank cheque approach encouraged by these amendments and endorsed by the Minister of Education.

It encourages every school district to budget for 110 per cent of the basic programme and then appeal for more. Inequities will occur, of that I'm sure.

Those districts closest to the source of power or the seat of power will be in a better position to lobby effectively for a larger share of the amount of money available for education in the province.

The approach being used and suggested by these bills will pit rich districts against the not-so-fortunate ones. On balance the quality of education is bound to suffer. At present, every district is assured a fair and equitable treatment by statute. If the board in their wisdom wish to exceed these limits they may do so provided they will take their appeal to the people who must ultimately pick up the tab — the taxpayers. What could be more fair than that? Surely this is preferable to placing every board in the position of continual lobbying with the Minister of Education for special or preferential treatment.

As long as the coffers of the province are full, the government — you all can see that — the government will probably be able to finance the educational programme that they desire to put forward. Finance it at least for a very short time, even though demands from many places may be in excessive of what you'd really like to see.

But, Mr. Speaker, in all charity I must say to the Minister, through you, Sir, that it is a boom and bust approach. Not boom or bust, but boom and bust. The approach in my opinion smacks of financial irresponsibility by the government. It's an approach that may be acceptable to a number of people today, who in retrospect will regret very much that they took advantage of a situation at this time only to be met with disaster further down the road.

[ Page 165 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services): Mr. Speaker, permit me to first offer you congratulations for your position in the chair — belatedly. However, it's with the same feeling that those other congratulations were offered.

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened with great interest to the Hon. Member across the way. He accuses this government of adopting a position and a policy of financial irresponsibility. That coming from a Member of the House who represented the government side and the government thinking in the past. That kind of thinking, that kind of suggestion, coming from a government that created so much havoc in this province around the educational system for years, not just a short while. Because of the fact that we have gone back to a position temporarily where that government was just a short while ago, that seems to be one of the most irresponsible statements that I've heard come from that side of the floor so far.

Mr. Speaker, that Member also suggests that every school board in the province or certainly the majority of them are motivated in one direction and that is to spend the budget no matter what it might be. He says that they're a group of people who are inferior to elected Members in this House. That's by implication what he's saying. He says that school boards will eat up the budget no matter what it is. But the only people that can make the right kind of decisions in this province are the people on the floor of the Legislature.

I say shame, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of attitude that got us into all the trouble in the first place in this province.

There is no reason this assembly should be the dictatorial body it has been and that's what we want to circumvent at all costs. We want a better system, Mr. Speaker, a great deal better system than that system of chaos. Pitting one side against the other. Divisiveness, Mr. Speaker, that's gone on and on to a point where we're placed in a position that there's only one way to go and that's to improve. We can't go backwards, Mr. Speaker. We're as far back as we can go right now in the whole scheme of education in the Province of B.C. In respect to people's feeling one to another.

Mr. Speaker the whole question is that these matters are matters that are going to be decided at the level where they should be decided. They're going to be decided in consultation with a government that will consult for a change.

We talk about an improved system. Will it be an improved system? Yes, it will be improved system, Mr. Speaker, with consultation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will we get better teachers?

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. It's the end of the iron-clad, know-it-alls in this province. Will we have better teachers, Mr. Speaker? That's what the Hon. Member across the way asked. Yes, we'll have better teachers with consultation with the government.

What are the increased benefits? The increased benefits that will come in the future in B.C. will be those accrued to the children of B.C. with an Education Minister, at long last, that understands the needs of the children of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, just one other little thought. You know that other terrible 80 per cent that goes to salaries. Where else would they like it to go, Mr. Speaker? To bricks and mortar? It should go to salaries of those people who are providing leadership for our children. That's precisely where it should go.

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in this Minister and I'm certainly going to support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to stand up in the House and warmly congratulate the Minister and the government on this bill. Not just in its

[ Page 166 ]

content, but the manner in which it was introduced. It's easy to see why the Minister of Education is the Deputy Leader. From this Member, you will never hear objections about the direction taken in the field of education. I was dismayed by the approach taken by the official opposition in the Legislature. It reminded me of why I went into politics in the first place, because I can well recall my first opportunity to speak in this chamber, saying. that the purpose of education was to unlock the power in the minds of our youth.

In the decade that I've been in this Legislature education has gone through its darkest period. I hope, now that the light is shining, we'll begin to see the effects of a first-class educational system in our province. Though we couldn't form the government, may I say the debates this afternoon have made me say thank heavens there's been a change.

I want to say to the new Members of the House, for heaven sakes, speak up in support of the Minister of Education and what she's trying to do. Because I think some damaging attitudes have been let loose on the land in British Columbia — that we've lost sight of the forest for the trees in education.

My reasons for saying that is that we have 23,000 teachers in British Columbia. They use up about 80 per cent of the budget for primary and secondary education. Again and again we've heard words issued from the former government to the fact that education would break the people of British Columbia. We've got a work force of almost 900,000 people. We have 70,000 unemployed that are seeking work. And those that are providing the education and taking up the educational budget are only 23,000. There just isn't any way at all that they can make a significant dent in the wealth of British Columbia and its ability to pay taxes.

There is no way that those 23,000 teachers — and they are not paid generously, they're paid reasonably — there is simply no way that those people can put the finances of this province in jeopardy. It was complete irresponsibility on the part of the former government ever to put that suggestion in the heads of British Columbia, because it has done more to damage our educational system than anything that's happened in the history of our province.

We know, of course, that property taxes which are used to finance far too much of the educational costs in this province are the most unpopular taxes of all. I dare say that at any time in our history had we invited the taxpayers to take a kick at education in order to save a few dollars on this very unpopular tax they would have done so.

Again, it has been complete mischief to say that there is a taxpayers' revolt against the whole concept of education. what we are attempting to do is to raise a generation of British Columbians with the kind of opportunity in the world of knowledge that those who went before never had. To imbue them with the kind of attitudes that will lead to a better quality of life in British Columbia, that will make for better economic opportunity. And if we are to do that job, and to do it well, we have to put behind forever the kind of insanity that has dictated the educational budgets year after year after year after year in this province.

To start on a completely new day, I hope the Minister is going to move as quickly as possible to implement the programme that she and her party are now talking about, but which has been Liberal philosophy for a dozen years — namely to take educational taxes off the residential home altogether, to recognize education for what it is, a service to people and not to property.

But whatever the method of financing might be, let us never ever again forget what the objective is in this province and that's to provide an opportunity for our coming generation, better than has ever been offered before in this province and better than can be offered any where else in the world.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to add my support and the support of the Conservative Party to this bill. It is a great pleasure to hear the Minister of Education explain so clearly

[ Page 167 ]

when she introduced the bill, not only the principle of the bill but the fact that the government is dedicated to trying to make the whole educational system more relevant to the needs of the young people who are growing up in a vastly more complex society than ever faced anyone of us in this House.

I've always admired and respected the Minister's speeches when she sat on the Opposition benches, and presented that point of view. We felt earlier this year, that if collective bargaining was to be taken away from one group in society, then it should be taken away from all and we recognize that wage and price control is a federal matter and that until such time as all segments in society were to have some ceiling placed on their income, that then indeed it was completely unjust to single out the teachers in society as was done.

We spoke against that at the time and we are very heartily in favour of removing that imposition in this bill. I think one thing that bothers me in particular about the criticism that is made is as though the teachers will in some way run wild with income demands and be a source of financial embarrassment to the taxpayers. This is really most unjust if you look at the record and certainly in the area where we are now sitting and the area of Victoria, over a five-year period prior to Bill No. 3 of the last session, the teachers in Victoria, their average increase over the five-year period varied from 5.8 per cent to 7.8 per cent which I would hardly call some fantastic increase compared to, let us say, certain other increases in other industries.

The average was 6.9 per cent and at that time it was binding arbitration.

It certainly was my opinion, and still is, that teachers are responsible people in society. Perhaps as responsible as any other segment at that time. Again now I would say that certainly in Oak Bay if you talk to the cross section of teachers, the sense of responsibility far beyond the money that they are being paid comes through when you talk over some of the problems with the principals and vice-principals in particular.

I think also, and it should go on the record again, that even when Bill No. 3 was introduced the cost of education was not running away to ridiculous levels as has been suggested. The percentage of the total budget actually dropped by 1 per cent over the last five years.

While I consider that teachers are extremely responsible people, I also feel that the record shows that hospital trustees are extremely aware of their responsibilities in society and again I would refute, certainly from our party, the implication today that they will all automatically ask for 110 per cent and that many will be irresponsible in seeking more.

I have to disagree with that point of view, Mr. Speaker. I feel that beyond the 110 per cent level I believe the trustees will be very much aware of their responsibility and I feel that in that regard this legislation is very well inspired and very well worthwhile inasmuch that I expect it to restore a sense of harmony, trust and confidence at the three levels — namely at the minister's level, the board level, and the teacher level. All three parties, I think, will be starting to regard each other in an atmosphere of cooperation and confidence which was certainly lacking and certainly got across to me loud and clear in the campaigning during the election.

I'm delighted to hear the Minister, Mr. Speaker, tell us that not only are we making these basic changes, but she is interested in taking a complete look at the total financing formula and the question of the manner in which the costs of basic education will be computed. Because this was another point which came across very frequently from voters during the election that they felt some of the so-called frills, or at least the frills as referred to by the former government, were anything but frills. Such things as gymnasium and recreation rooms and libraries — which as my friend behind mentioned were described as "airy fairy" subjects by the former administration.

It was very reassuring in fact to learn that so many citizens far from revolting about the cost of education were certainly saving that much of the cultural activity that should be provided as a basic ingredient in education was in fact being regarded as some kind of frill, and I'm talking here of

[ Page 168 ]

music and band instruction and such subjects. So that this is all very cheerful news and I think the Minister should be highly complimented. The question of raising the money available to 110 per cent — I think the, importance of this was pointed out during last debate when the most highly trained teachers were the ones who were finding the greatest difficulty in employment, for the simple reason that they had the highest salary and. school boards could find numbers of teachers but not necessarily the best trained.

I remember well at the last session of the House a deputation of teachers coming to me. I was quite amazed to find that they had taught for many years, held several post-graduate diplomas and were just simply unable to obtain work. I think that in a society where not only do we want the best education for our children but over and above even on a very strictly economic sense we've talked about unemployment and will talk about it for many years to come, I am sure, but one of the basic problems of unemployment is that we have too many unskilled, uneducated people in society who can no longer find jobs in the automated complex society that we live in, so that even on a economic basic surely education must be given the highest priority.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the interim measures taken in this bill today, I'm pleased to know as the Minister has told us, are only the beginning of a complete review of the whole educational system in the province. The same courteous attitude and willingness to consult which I think are becoming the hallmark of this government's plans could be no more useful than any area, than the area of planning education.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity also that I have had to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this House, and I would also if I may, Mr. Speaker, compliment you on the way in which you are handling your new duties. I feel that you are making a serious attempt to raise the level of discussion in this House, to an acceptable appropriate level for an assembly such as this.

I was here last year. Once during the spring session I came down and I sat in on a couple of sittings and at that time I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite alarmed at the general atmosphere that existed in this chamber — at the name-calling, the bickering, the back-biting that seemed to be going on at that time. I must say that this happened on all sides of the House, and I was quite alarmed about it.

I see marked improvement and I would encourage you to continue your efforts to ensure that the Members of this House conduct the people's affairs in a rational manner.

I accept the Hon. Member's suggestion from Vancouver–Point Grey, the first Member from there (Mr. McGeer) to rise and speak in support of this bill. I am very happy to do so. As one who has taught in the school system in all grades from I right through to grade 12 at one time or another, and as one who now has three children that are passing through the school system, I realize the value of education in the society and I realize that the new direction of the Minister as outlined for us today, is one which will benefit the people of this province.

I often view society and education in similar light. In other words, society itself is the end product of our educational system, and if you can agree with me that there are changes needed in society, then perhaps you can agree with me that there are also changes needed in the present educational system in the province.

There are many changes that should be made. As a teacher I have come to have a great faith in kids, and I notice that the Minister of Education this afternoon was mentioning the faith that she is now placing in the elected school boards of this province. I too have that faith, but as a teacher I have learned to have a great faith in kids, and I have learned that people as a whole, adults as a whole, tend to underestimate their ability.

[ Page 169 ]

I've often found that the insights and the understanding that young people have revealed in various issues are ones that many people are inclined to reject out of hand, and that's unfortunate. I feel as well as placing faith in the school boards of the province, we should place greater faith in the kids of the province and I suggest we should listen more to them when we are making these changes in education.

One of the changes in society that I would like to see is that people participate more in community affairs and provincial affairs and in federal matters. There is so much apathy that exists out there. I would like to see them get more involved. Perhaps we can involve young people at earlier stages by giving them responsibility and having them participate in decision making, that they will continue that process and become far more effective citizens in the community.

The stringent financial restrictions which had been placed by the previous government on school boards disturbed me a lot because it had a direct effect on one particular situation in our riding. The school boards often in the past have felt that they have had very little flexibility. That they have been locked in. They have not attempted to provide the kinds of alternatives in education that I think have been so essential and have been so needed in this province over the past years.

We've been far too stringent in our approach. We have not allowed the flexibility that a change in society requires through education. In my riding, in the community of Campbell River, we had a situation where the principal of that particular school, at Campbell River, in other words the Senior Secondary School, was attempting new approaches. He was attempting to be innovative in his approach to education.

Because many members of that community and because some of the members of that school board were not yet ready to accept the kinds of approaches that he was attempting in his school, and because a large section of the community as well were delighted to see the changes that were happening in that school, a situation occurred which was detrimental to the educational climate of that town.

Unfortunately, it has resulted in divisiveness and hatred and hostility and a community that is completely divided at the moment of the question of education.

If we allow this flexibility, if we allow perhaps the traditional kind of approach to exist side by side with a more innovative approach, then perhaps we can avoid the kinds of hostility, the kinds of upsetting procedures that have happened, as they have happened in Campbell River.

It's the students of that school that have lost. The atmosphere in that school at the moment is one in which the students and the staff feel completely demoralized because of the publicity and because of that divisiveness that was created in an inflexible approach.

I also hope that boards who have had to make cuts in various programmes, that the minister had already referred to earlier in her opening remarks, will be able to reinstate those programmes that they formerly had. It's obvious in a society where automation and cybernation are going to create far greater leisure time than we have known in the past.

Our school system, it seems, must provide in its programmes avenues through music, through art, through drama, where students can develop an interest in those particular things and will be able to use their leisure time more meaningfully. I hope that I never hear again in this House a reference to people who are teaching music and art in our schools, I hope that we will never hear the reference of "tippy, tappy people" in that connection.

There is one other brief matter I would like to mention. I would urge the Minister to take special note of how the present educational processes are affecting the native children of the province. There are very few native children who are in attendance in our schools and I would hope that the Minister will consult with native groups throughout the province in order to bring the kinds of changes that will make school a meaningful thing for those people as well. In conclusion, I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that this bill indicates that education is once again a priority in this province.

[ Page 170 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Public Schools Act. But first I would like to offer my very sincere congratulations to the new Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) whose views I think I have shared on a great many educational matters in the last four years in the House.

I'm very pleased, especially, Mr. Speaker, to see that the Premier,placed the Minister of Education on the front bench of the cabinet and on his right hand. I think this indicates perhaps a little bit of the kind of priority the government might be intending to give education. I certainly hope it does indicate that.

I'd like to comment briefly on the bill and suggest to the Minister that perhaps there have been one or two things left out that could well have been put in as urgent matters. Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggested that it was necessary that these matters be dealt with quickly so that school boards might arrange their budgeting for the coming year. There are, I suppose, dozens of important educational issues that we might say should be in. But there are one or two particularly that do affect their budgeting to some degree and I think might well be included or, at the very least, the Minister might care to make a statement in the House which will clarify some of these matters for the school boards that are now making plans for the 1973 year.

One of these is a famous debate we've had in the past over what we call the four-tenths formula. And to some of the newer Members of the House if I can briefly explain the four-tenths formula — this problem arises because the school year is September to June whereas the financial fiscal year of the school board is from January to December. As a result, the number of pupils in the system in June is used to calculate the amount of money the school board receives in the last four months of the fiscal year and the first four months of the new school year. As a result, those four months can quite often have a much larger enrolment or there are new programmes in, new students in the system but they aren't accounted for in sharing between the school board and the government until after January or, in other words, four-tenths of the way through the school year.

We've introduced — I've introduced in the past — amendments to the Public Schools Act to provide for this four-tenths problem. The former Minister of Education rejected them. I think the Minister, when she was on the Opposition side supported this position and I hope perhaps she might accept or would approve something to this effect being added to this present bill, or at the very least, make a statement as to what the policy will be next year-in this regard.

It affects their budgeting and their plans right now. Part of that four-tenths problem, and parallel to it, is the matter of kindergartens, Mr. Speaker. If a school district such as North Vancouver has decided to introduce kindergartens they are introduced in September. And we immediately have in this system a large group of new pupils who receive no cost-sharing benefits from the Department of Education until they've been in the system for four months.

Now, North Vancouver School District last winter approved, by referendum, entering into a kindergarten programme but because of the problems of this present year's budgeting, under the restrictions imposed upon them by the last government by financial referendum which was defeated they were unable to institute kindergartens in the present school year. They would like to plan to institute those kindergartens next September, but they need some assurance, first, of the four-tenths formula operating and, second, that kindergartens are going to be included in the instructional unit as automatic sharing as part of the approved instructional unit. I would hope that the Minister would perhaps include this in the bill or, at the very least, make a statement of policy in the House.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that some parts of the bill, particularly I think it's section 1 — does give the Minister a great deal of discretion and authority, and flexibility if you like.

[ Page 171 ]

I'm not sure this House would have been as enthusiastic about giving the former Minister of Education (Mr. Brothers) quite that much authority and discretion. But I think in view of the amount of discretion that has been given the Minister in this section, perhaps it would be useful if she would state again to the House her policy with regard to consultation on this matter of defining the instructional unit, how much consultation the government will give to the school boards and the other professional people involved, the teachers and so on, in arriving at it; what timing will be concerned. The timing of this announcement of course is obviously very critical to any school board in doing its budgeting.

I welcome, also, particularly the last part of the bill which allows a school board by a two-thirds majority to pass a bylaw to enable it to go over the approved amounts. In the past, the former government insisted that the school board automatically go to referendum on this matter. And I think the proposal here, that the elected body which is responsible for the local budget take the responsibility on its shoulders of exceeding that amount by bylaw is a very proper and right one. I think using perhaps a two-thirds majority, more than just a simple majority, is an important principle in this regard which I approve of.

I would point out however, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister that there are certain problems in applying this two-thirds formula in some areas. There are many school boards that are as small as only five members, five trustees. Two-thirds applied to a five member board is four, which means you have to have an affirmative vote of four.

Many school boards are widely scattered in their territories by geographic. In times of bad weather, sickness and that sort of thing it might be extremely difficult to get sufficient members of the board together to adequately solve this problem.

It seems to me that because of this particular kind of situation in a school board or a school district that could be scattered over hundreds of miles as some of them are in some parts of the province there's many difficulties of getting together for a meeting at certain times of the year. Perhaps it might be possible for the Minister of Education to accept the telegraph vote in such a situation to get around this particular problem. I would welcome some comment on this or some other means of getting around it.

In general conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to once again wish the Minister a great deal of success in her efforts to bring the educational system of the province — and I want to emphasize that by educational system, I don't mean only the public educational system, I include also post-secondary educational system — into the twentieth century.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I am a teacher by profession and although I don't expect to be teaching again for a long, long time I am happy to see that freedom is being restored in the bargaining processes of this province. And I'm happy to see that teachers will no longer be regarded as secondary citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) referred to increased expenditures and I would like to suggest that he look at the financial statement from his government, in the former provincial government, where last year it shows that revenues increased by some 14 per cent.

Spending on highways went up 38 per cent, but spending on education went down 2.2 per cent. I would suggest to you that it's easy to see where the former government placed their priorities. The figures indicate that the former government and the present opposition does not regard the education of our children as highly as a good road.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a teacher for eight years. When I started I was young and idealistic and like many teachers I strove very hard to help improve the educational system. We worked hard for better classroom teaching methods, for curriculum changes geared to today and to the future. We tried to relate to a new generation brought up in an age of television.

[ Page 172 ]

We struggled with increased outside social pressures which caused increased emotional problems among the children. And gradually we saw support rising for smaller class sizes, for better quality education and better teaching and learning conditions.

And what did we get from our provincial government, Mr. Speaker? Instead of government support we got increased opposition for our efforts. Off again, on again freezes in school construction. We were told that we could do without gymnasiums and libraries and with rooms for special classes. We found that school boards were not able to plan adequately for future population growth and we ended up with double-shifting and makeshift classrooms. I myself had classes in the hallways and on the stages in the gymnasiums.

Then they brought along the wage freeze and the finance formula and drove the class size upward until now it is the highest in Canada. It also brought us forced staff reductions, increased teacher unemployment, hiring less qualified and lower salaried teachers and loss of local autonomy.

I would suggest to you that in this age of television and more sophisticated students that larger class size and poor teaching and learning conditions results in a return to rote-learning in our schools. It almost appears to me as if the previous government was afraid to allow the young people of this province to be taught to think for themselves.

Fortunately Mr. Speaker, these dark days of education are over. This bill we are discussing today will not undo the anti-educational trends of the previous government. It will not usher in a new educational philosophy. But it will prevent things from getting worse until we can do something to develop a formula that will bring us into the twentieth century in this province in education.

It will give us time to bring a formula which will restore local autonomy for school boards which allow school boards to budget for educational needs and not some nebulous average need — allow us to have a formula based upon discussion and cooperation between all concerned. It will allow us to bring in a formula which can encourage planned community development and community and recreational use of the schools combined together on a year round basis. It will allow us to bring in a formula that will be flexible from school to school and from district to district. Certainly there must be room for many more John Youngs in this province.

But most important, Mr. Speaker, the finance formula must provide for drastic reductions in the average class size, particularly in the early grades, and provide for early diagnosis and treatment of children with learning and emotional disorders.

Finally, I would suggest that when we come to really restructuring the finance formula and restructuring the public school system we must have a joint effort between the provincial government, the local school boards and local councils, the community groups, the teachers, the parents and the students themselves.

In conclusion, we must anticipate a new direction in our educational philosophy in this province. It is no longer adequate to concentrate on educating people t.3 fill certain jobs. These jobs have a bad habit of disappearing in this age of technology. Emphasis must be given towards giving individuals an all-around education so that they are prepared to adapt and find their own way in the complex words that they are entering.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister for bringing in this bill. I think that it is a step towards that new educational philosophy in this province and I commend the Minister for bringing it in at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate you for your appointment and the manner in which the House has been conducted. I urge the school group which was planning to come down from Nelson for this sitting of the House to wait until the spring until you had this unruly

[ Page 173 ]

group in order. But I see I could have had them in here today and been very proud of the behaviour of all Members of this House.

I might say, like the Hon. Member from Richmond, that I started out as a teacher in 1963, teaching in a hut about one mile away from the school which I was assigned. I was lucky. My successor to that position the following year was in a gymnasium — two classes in the same gymnasium. My wife at present is teaching part time. The classroom to which she is assigned is a gymnasium and I might say that, remarkably enough, this doesn't happen in a sprawling suburban riding such as Coquitlam or Richmond. This is in perhaps one of the first areas in this province to realize no growth — this is in the Kootenays in Nelson.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the 110 per cent formula and that's why I am in favour of this motion, or the 108 per cent formula. I object to the entire concept. I support this motion as a temporary measure and in line with the expressions outlined by the Minister.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about this 110 per cent formula because, in the eyes of the public, there is a tendency to think that it means that educational costs on a unit basis increase by 10 per cent per annum and that was in effect, to 1969 the increase was seven per cent from 1969 to 1970 the increase was nine per cent. From 1970 to 1971 the increase was eight per cent and in 1971 to 1972 the increase was eight per cent, so that the 110 per cent formula, of course only indicates the amount by which a board might exceed the prescribed basic education programme.

The climate of the 110 per cent formula and the climate created when it was reduced to 108 per cent and when teachers' salary increases were proposed to be limited to 6.5 per cent or to be reduced at the discrimination of the Minister by the former government, created a very dangerous climate in British Columbia. Projections of the Hartrick Report, published by the Educational Research Institute in British Columbia, a study of teacher supply and demand and some related factors in the Province of British Columbia, predicts a rather steady demand for the hiring of new teachers and a rather steady demand for the training of new teachers — in spite of the climate in which we today tend to think that there is a teacher surplus.

It is true that in 1973 we should be seeing a decrease in total pupil enrolment in the elementary schools and that by 1978 this decrease in total pupil enrolment should be felt in the secondary schools, but for reasons of natural attrition and there are many, and they are outlined in this report and in other reports — there will be a steady demand for new teachers. And Dr. Hartrick made predictions that were very accurate as to the demand for teachers in 1971 but the demand for 1972 was not as great.

And I have a letter from the Faculty of Education, the Director of Secondary Studies in which he says, "I commend, in speaking about the Hartrick Report to your attention in particular Chapter two and the tables from pages 4 to 52. In table 4 page 43 the prediction of 2,604 teachers for 1971-1972 was within 50 of the actual total. The prediction of 2,535 for 1972-1973 is probably somewhat farther from the actual figure. That is, the actual number of teachers is probably less than this because of the 108 per cent instead of the 110 per cent referring to the present finance formula." It goes on to say, "Dr. Hartrick feels rather confident that with the restoration of the 110 per cent and continued immigration into the province the actual results should be pretty close to the 2,517 teachers predicted for 1973-1974."

This has lead to a very depressing attitude on behalf of prospective teachers. We see in the Vancouver Province on September 29, 1972 a story, "Severe Teacher Shortage Predicted in B.C., Graduates Scared Away." it goes on to talk about the effect of publicity which I believe has partly been the result of lowering the 110 per cent formula to 108 per cent and other related factors, that prospective teachers are being scared away. And there have been. at U.B.C. alone, decreases in enrolments of some 250 persons in, I believe, the secondary programme alone — also a decrease in the elementary. And these decreases were not taken into account in Dr. Hartrick's report.

[ Page 174 ]

These decreases are the reason why people like him are saying that there will probably be a serious teacher shortage within four or five years if something is not done to restore the favourable climate to encourage young people who we will be needling in the education field to come into this field. Of course the alternative to that is to once again rely on raiding of other provinces and other countries and I hope that we shouldn't have to resort to that.

I might say that the business of cost was brought up in opposing this motion by the Hon. Member from Peace River North (Mr. Smith). I would like to tell the Members of this House that I understand that the B.C. Teachers Federation has tried to make overtures to the government to reduce costs such as by things like having a central purchasing agency were just summarily dismissed when in fact they could bring large savings to the people of this province.

I would like also to talk about the actual increase in teachers, salaries. If you prepare a graph of average weekly wages, taking the year 1961 as a base, and you plot this against category 5 that is the salary position at which a teacher with five years professional training is placed for salary purposes, you will find that these two graphs will entwine intimately up to the year 1971.

The teacher's salary does not push inflation, it merely follows the going rate which is felt in other sectors of the economy. And as the Hon. Member from the other side of the House suggested, it is not very likely that 23,000 people can cause an inflationary push in this entire province.

A couple of years ago, in order to reduce the wastefulness, the waste of human energy which is often spent in bitter salary negotiations, teachers in Vancouver came up with what was called the Vancouver Formula. This again predicted that teachers' salaries followed the general increases in the economy and that they could be set on this basis if it was agreed to collectively by the two parties.

The climate in the schools is really unbelievable. I have actually been to a school where they are holding raffles in order to raise funds for educational purposes in that school. I don't want to comment on whether this is legal or not, but it certainly is a sorry state of affairs when school boards cannot provide and when students and teachers have to engage in such activities to raise funds for purely educational purposes.

The effect of the reduction from 110 per cent to 108 per cent has meant an increase in class size. I have been very fortunate to teach in one of the more enlightened school districts in this province, but this year I faced the largest classes I have ever seen in my life. For the first time I had a class with 40 pupils. It certainly is a trend.

There has also been, because of these restrictions, a tendency to hire, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of how much that body at the front of the classroom will cost. And I say that in all due respect to the teachers of this province. But that has been the consideration — not the ability, not the competency of the teacher — but how much the teacher costs.

I would again like to touch on the amount of energy that has been lost in this very unhealthy climate in the province as regards teachers and their economic welfare. For the past four years I have noticed an increase in the number of emergency sessions both in Vancouver at the B.C. Federation office and at the local level, the Nelson District Teachers' Association. The teachers have been distracted from the real job of education in a fight for their life and I would urge before I sit down that we consider and vote in favour of this motion, so that the students can get on with learning when the teachers can give their absolute usual 120 per cent to teaching.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise in support of this bill. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Education in presenting it. I think it's a very enlightened bill and the first step to returning education to a semblance of what it was in the past before restrictive legislation took over.

[ Page 175 ]

I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the tone that has been set in this House. I was very proud today in that two classes of students from David Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver were in the Legislature this afternoon. I had a chance to talk to them and to hear their response about an hour ago. They were simply delighted with their visit to the Legislature and the teachers who were with them said that they have taken other groups with them at other years and found that this time the level of debate and the tone in the house was much better than they have ever known it to be before.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that has been created by the 108 per cent formula in Vancouver is that Vancouver and Greater Vancouver district are increasing at such a rapid rate that the schools have a problem keeping up with the number of students that are being entered each year. Also there is a trend which has been one over the years that the more experienced and better qualified teachers tend to congregate in the Greater Vancouver area. As a result, with the 108 per cent formula a lot of these districts have found that to be able to give the fully experienced and highly qualified teachers a raise in pay in relation to their service and their qualifications they have had to go to the people for a referendum. Last year, of all the referenda in the Greater Vancouver area, I believe only one actually passed which meant that, rather than penalizing the teachers, they decided that they would still go ahead with giving them their increase in salary.

The other thing they had to do was to find other means of cutting down, and one place that they cut down was in the use of substitutes. In Vancouver, hundreds of volunteer teacher aides were brought into the schools and the Vancouver School Board attempted to formulate a means of having some of these volunteer teacher aides act as substitutes.

In the elementary schools, the elementary school teachers withstood this and stood their ground and said that a teacher aide should not be used as substitute because it was a backward step in the proper education for children, particularly in grades 1, 2 and 3. So the Vancouver School Board withdrew that and allowed substitutes in the elementary schools.

However, in the high schools they continued with the idea of using volunteer aides as substitutes. They were used as substitutes until a teacher had been away for five full days, which means a whole week. Now that means that during that time that particular class was without a qualified teacher for a whole week. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is penalizing our students and having a very deleterious effect on the educational system.

When these students arrived here today, the principle of David Thompson Secondary School and their classroom teacher told me that they usually take along three teachers as sponsors. But the classroom teacher took his wife along as the third sponsor because there were no substitutes to take the place of any of the teachers going into the schools for that particular day. I think that's disgraceful and I'm very happy to see that this formula is being altered.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Just a very few short observations, Mr. Speaker, since….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon, dear? (Laughter).

A little caterwauling from the right, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: Teaching service, Mr. Speaker, is an operation that has always been operating in a regulated and a controlled market. Teachers have one employer, as we all know, the taxpayer via his or her or its — as the case may be — elected representative. Being in a controlled situation and being indeed such a needful and essential service which I think

[ Page 176 ]

is characterized, Mr. Speaker, by rewards beyond kind indeed for the teacher, and characterized as well by long-term benefits for society, there has to be a greater emphasis upon fairness and consideration and flexibility and performance, and I'd say genuine good will on each side in order to make the system work.

There's got to be an awful lot of hard work and effort to bring that about, because the alternative will only produce one thing, and that is the climate that will prove to be one of confrontation and ill will and hostility.

Those things are bitter winds, Mr. Speaker. We have had those kinds of bitter winds in B.C. Unfortunately, they blew very hard during the last administration. I say we want no more of them in the province.

The taxpayer purely and simply expects value from the teachers and the teacher in return expects value from the taxpayer and it is as simple as that. It is up to the government to see that that happens.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that quality education and quality performance and quality results should be the goal for British Columbia and there is absolutely no reason why we should have to settle for less than that in B.C.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker, with every sincerity — that the policy of confrontations I hope is gone and I say good riddance to it, and it may never come back to this province again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, in closing the debate, I would like to express my thanks to those who have supported this bill, and expressed their reasons so clearly this afternoon — particularly to the Members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The lack of support from the official Opposition was to be expected. It was quite obvious in the remarks made by the critics of the amendments this afternoon that once again the party shows a complete lack of understanding not only in the bill itself, but, also a lack of understanding of what goes on in the classrooms of this province.

The official Opposition created the crisis which we not live with in this province,. Yet, they do not still understand that this afternoon they had an opportunity to eradicate this crisis. Fortunately the other Members of this House do have an understanding of what it means to the students of this province to have restricted legislation imposed upon them.

I'm very pleased that we've had the support from the other parties and also the members of our government party.

Now the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) was the only Member who asked specific questions and I would like to take an opportunity to answer those now.

One question was with reference to will I be making a statement re the four-tenths at this session. I have been concerned, as concerned as you have, Mr. Member, with the problems created by it. But, at this particular session, I'm not prepared to bring in an amendment on that. I would like to say however that I have stated that the matter of kindergartens is one which will be brought up at the spring session and I hope to have legislation prepared which will make kindergartens mandatory, so that this vital year will be afforded to all the children of this province. And because we intend to do that at the spring legislation and hope for your support I most certainly will give consideration to school boards such as North Vancouver who have expressed the desire to implement them next fall. We will look at their budgets and give special consideration to it.

As to the instructional units, I realize as you say, there is a considerable power given, vested in the Minister there. But I do believe that this is a power I certainly will use very carefully, and I think in the long run removing it from the statute with the rigidity that the statute imposes on the instructional 'units will be better for the students of the province.

I certainly will not make changes in the regulations with reference to the change in instructional units without consulting trustees and teachers, I can assure you. I move second reading of the bill.

[ Page 177 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 7 be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

NAYS-10

Bill No. 7 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SESSIONAL ALLOWANCES REDUCTION ACT, 1972

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Sessional Allowances Reduction Act, 1972, and recommends the same to the legislative assembly.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 13.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 13 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.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to present a message from the Hon. the Chief Justice, Administrator of the province.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GIFT TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Chief Justice, the Administrator for the province transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 2, intituled An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly.

[ Page 178 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 2.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report, recommending that the said amendments be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 2, An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Proposed amendments to Bill No. 2 referred to the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn, Mr. Premier, I think there was one request from the Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to withdraw two questions on today's order paper — Nos. 73 and 74 — in order that they may be amended to conform with the rules regarding questions.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Whips to meet on the second reading of bills to be completed. I anticipate a night sitting tomorrow. The order remains the same — No. 2, No. 12, No. 10, No. 9, No. 11, No. 3 and No. 4. I hope that the Whips are amiable in their discussion and I move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.