[ Page 1703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Anti-Inflation Measures Act (Bill 16) Second reading.

Ms. Brown — 1703

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1709

Ms. Brown — 1715

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mrs. Dailly — 1718

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1719

Mr. Nicolson — 1720

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1721

Ms. Sanford — 1722

Mr. Lea — 1724

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1724

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

ANTI-INFLATION MEASURES ACT

(continued)

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, at 6 o'clock when I adjourned debate I was just discussing some of the reasons why it would be impossible for me to support Bill 16, as introduced to this House at this time.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, and I didn't change my mind at all during the supper break. As a matter of fact, one of the things that happened was that I did think about it; I even read a couple of comments in the Sun that further supported the position which I am about to take. I intend to share these comments with the House in general, Mr. Speaker, because I think the House could benefit by some of the material that was written up in the Sun.

Anyway, my main position was that one of the reasons the opposite side is so much in support of this legislation is that, of course, it doesn't apply to them. Any form of legislation that is going to control wages doesn't apply, because there are no wage-earners over there. In fact, the people who sit on the government benches, including the wine connoisseurs and the defenders of the grape-growers, are involved with wages only to the extent that they pay wages, not that they earn wages themselves. And I notice that no one is contradicting this position.

As people who pay wages, of course, they are in favour of controls. Of course, Mr. Premier, you're in favour of controls. Well, okay, that's fine.

I know that it makes you very uncomfortable when I talk about what this bill is going to do to the wage-earners of the province. But since I represent a lot of these wage-earners, because they live in the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, I'm going to speak about them nonetheless, and to repeat my position that it makes good sense to me that the government should be in favour of this legislation, because it doesn't touch them in any way.

In fact, what we have over there are members who could be referred to as exemptions; they're the write-off government. They can write off this and they can write off that; they are exempt from this and they are exempt from that. This is the kind of flexibility that is not allowed to wage-earners and would not be allowed to people who would be controlled by the kind of legislation that is embodied in Bill 16.

What are other reasons why we just can't support this kind of legislation? I want to use as my example the civil service, because I believe that the government is the largest employer in the province, the person who gives out more jobs than anyone else, and certainly a person who fires more people than anyone else. They should be an example to the rest of employers in the province; in fact, they should be model employers. So I think we should look at what this legislation would do to the civil service.

I think it was the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), who is not in his seat tonight, who raised a lot of issues about the high increases in wages under the New Democratic Party when we were the government. What that member failed to recognize was that in 1972, when we became the government in this province, there were actually people working in the public service, working in the public sector, with years of experience who were making below the minimum wage. In fact, and this is a fact, it is to our eternal disgrace that the government which was in for 20 years before the NDP became the government exploited and oppressed its civil service in order that they would not complete with the private sector.

It was the hon. member, again, who is not in his seat, who pointed out the fact that in his riding in the north he couldn't get any secretaries once the NDP became government because all the secretaries left the private sector and went to work for government because they were earning decent wages for a change.

I think that one of the interesting things about the new boys over there, Mr. Speaker. And I say new boys because there are no new girls, if you have noticed. That's one thing about that government, they don't believe in running women for public office over there. There are new boys over there who are beginners; they read the notes which are presented to them, and make no effort to investigate and find out the reason for the kinds of things that the previous government did.

We had to raise those salaries, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) — you know that — because they were disgraceful. There were ferry workers, people working in the ferry system, for the public service; the bindery workers...there were women bindery apprentices who were making $2 or less than $2 an hour. Of course there had to be increases in those people's salaries. So when you talk about the kind of increases the NDP brought in as government, you should check your facts. You would find that you would laud us for doing that, rather than criticizing us.

Here we have a piece of legislation which is going to throw us back into the good old days of the 18th century and the 17th century and the 20 years when

[ Page 1704 ]

the father of the son ran this province, back into those days when civil servants were exploited, when they weren't paid decent salaries so that the member who is absent could have secretaries work in the private sector because they made more money there than if they were working in the public sector.

Let us look at what this bill does even now to the public sector. By supporting the anti-inflation guidelines, it is going to support a concept of across-the-board percentage increases to everyone. Now everyone knows that percentages, Mr. Speaker, are unfair, that 10 per cent of $600 a month is quite different to 10 per cent of $70 million, of $10 million, of $ 10,000, or $20,000 or whatever.

To insist that one has a straight percentage across the board is to continue to perpetuate the kind of inequities in the system which you should be trying to wipe out, Mr. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) . You represent this riding. Most of the civil servants who are being exploited by your government live in your constituency, and you are going to be depending on them to vote for you in the upcoming election. There they are in the galleries listening to you endorsing a piece of legislation that is going to entrench and enshrine the basic inequities in the system itself. Any kind of legislation based on percentages is grossly unfair. It's very unfair, Mr. Member, and on that basis alone it would not be possible to support this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does it say percentages?

MS. BROWN: It says that the bill is to tie you into the federal guidelines and the federal guidelines.... Maybe I should start at the beginning and explain exactly, Mr. Speaker, to the members in the back bench what this bill is all about, because the member for Victoria didn't even realize it included percentage increases. In fact the member for Victoria would learn a lot more if he would sit very quietly in his seat and listen rather than heckling me when I'm trying to teach him something. I'm trying to share with him some of the knowledge that I have, Mr. Speaker, and instead of benefiting from it, he's sitting in his chair heckling me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, so far you've been able to get in a great deal of debate. Much of it was not relevant to the principle of the bill, but I am listening patiently.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you're listening, because they are not. In fact I'm discussing the principle of the bill which says that it gives the Minister of Finance, as he himself said, permission to hook into the federal guidelines. I am saying that the federal guidelines are based on a straight across-the-board percentage and that this makes it grossly unfair. Percentages lock in the inequities of the system and do absolutely nothing about wiping them out.

What I also tried to do, Mr. Speaker, was to show that as the largest employer of people in the province, the government should be setting an example, that they should be a model employer and they should not be participating in this kind of discriminatory practice against people in the lower incomes and certainly workers in the lower incomes.

I want to read specifically for the member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) a statement made by the federal Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Tom Eberlee. When the inequities in the system were brought to his attention he said that the programme was intended not to provide equality between male and female wage-earners. He admitted that the programme was provided to fight inflation, and he really didn't care one way or another whether it did provide equality or dealt at all with the inequities in the system.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I can quote from statements made by two people, one of them, Grace Hartmann in talking about this said: "The federal anti-inflation programme has been the cover for an insidious attack against equal employment opportunities for women." That was her statement. She went on to talk about the fact that women are clustered around the low-paying jobs in the job sector and that in fact using the straight across-the-board percentage system is going to lock them into those low-paying jobs and not give anyone the opportunity to move out of them.

Shirley Carr, one of the vice-presidents of the CLC, in Ottawa in April of this year pointed out the same thing to the Minister of Labour and to his deputy minister, Mr. Tom Eberlee. It was on that occasion that the deputy minister responded to her by saying that the anti-inflation legislation was not introduced to deal with the inequities in the system at all, but in fact was introduced just to deal with inflation. I bring this up because we have heard continually from that group of employers over there that they really are interested in the inequities in this system, and they want to wipe it out. How can they? And again I draw your attention to the system which they're administering.

Eighty per cent of the women in the civil service in British Columbia at this time are in the income bracket of less than $8,000 a year — below that. It's a pyramid system that starts with the base of the pyramid where all the women are moving up to a point at about the clerk 5 level. Right after clerk 5 they start to disappear. The women aren't there. So you can see the difference, for example, between an increase of 10 per cent across-the-board to women making $700 a month or $750 a month at that level, and what an increase of 10 per cent means once you

[ Page 1705 ]

get up to your programme manager level, your deputy minister level, your associate deputy minister level, where the incomes are now going from $22,000, $23,000 to $25,000 and above.

How can that government, which is so committed to working out inequities in its system, deal with this if they lock themselves into a programme which permits them to have an across-the-board increase for everybody, regardless of what their income may be? This is one of the things that they have continually told us they're going to do. In fact, if I can again quote from Grace Hartmann's statement, she said: "If the programme had been intended to have an ounce of fairness, even one ounce of fairness" — which is the major reason I'm against it — "it would have had the people of the lower end of the economic status being allowed to have a higher percentage increase than the people at the top." I think, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), in the jargon that's known as "bottom-loading" your contracts. In fact, you give the people at the bottom more and you start cutting down your percentage increases as you go to the top.

That is the way a fair system works. That is the way in which the government could have dealt with the inequities, not just in the system but in the public service itself which they administer and which they are responsible for. Instead of that, they bring down a piece of legislation which locks in the basic inequities and does absolutely nothing to close the gap which exists but, in fact, manages to widen it. If we look at the statistics again, we find that in 1965 the difference between the incomes earned by men and women in the civil service was about $2,600, roughly. In 1973, that difference had increased and it was up to over $4,000 difference. With the coming of the straight across-the-board 10 per cent which is going to wipe out the bottom-loading, the increase, the difference is going to increase even wider.

I know the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) told us this afternoon that there is a committee in cabinet — an anti-inflation committee — that sat down and discussed this matter and tried to design a fair piece of legislation. How much input did the hon. minister and his committee get from the women in the civil service? I listened really carefully and the only thing I heard was that on his committee there was the deputy minister of this and the deputy minister of that and the deputy minister of the other, and himself and the other and so forth and so on. If you inquire, Mr. Speaker, you will find there are no deputy ministers yet who are female in that government. I'm not going to lay the entire trip on you. There weren't any female deputy ministers when we were government either.

MR. HEWITT: Shame!

MS. BROWN: Shame? Of course it's a shame, and you are perpetuating the shame. You know, I really had great dreams for you new boys over there. I thought you were coming in with a fresh outlook and a new perspective and you were going to shake up all those old men sitting up here and really do something. And what happened? You turned out to be as stick-in-the-mud and as old as they are. You know, nothing new, nothing different, nothing bright — nothing. I'm really disappointed in you, but I haven't given up hope yet, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the hon. members of the back bench. I haven't given up hope yet. I am going to continue speaking to the back bench to see if a continual kind of Chinese water torture routine will finally start to show some kind of response from those members.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I see. When they get in the cabinet? But the cabinet isn't doing anything. The Minister of Consumer Services, who I really thought, as I sat listening to him reel off the list of his anti-inflation board people...I thought he was going to name Merle Cameron, for example, who is a part of the Public Service Commission and would have had some input to put into that board in terms of the fact that the public service is supposed to be struggling with an equal employment opportunities commission. One was set up a year or so ago. This was an International Women's Year exercise which was supposed to have continued.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: This all has to do with Bill 16. I'm talking about the basic inequities in Bill 16 and why I cannot support it. This bill locks this government into the federal guidelines which will increase the inequities in the system and, in fact, make the plight of the women in the public service even worse than it is today.

It is Bill 16, Mr. Speaker, and I know you agree with me, and that is the reason why you have not called me to order.

But let us look at some of the other things that this bill does. You start out with, again, your pyramid, with your women $8,000 a year or $8,400 a year and less, and you start to look at the kind of impact on that income of some of the other things that that government over there has done. You start to look at the impact of the increased ICBC rates, the 40 per cent increase in, sales tax, the 100 per cent increase in ferry rates, the increase in medical premiums, the increase in heat, light, rent; all of these are the kinds of things.

On top of that increase, Mr. Speaker, comes the freezing of their salaries at this level. In fact, what we

[ Page 1706 ]

have is a government which really is a burden. You really will become a burden on the women in the public service, to say nothing of the rest of the people of the province, if you are permitted to allow this piece of legislation to go through.

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that when I speak against Bill 16 — and I notice that now the members of the back bench are listening a little more carefully — I hope that in fact they will vote against it. I am pinning my hopes on the back bench of the government. I am. One of the things that I am continually being accused of by the press and by various members is that I'm naive. But I think that naivete and innocence is good, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. MAIR: Who told you that, Rosemary?

MS. BROWN: I'm always being accused of being naive and innocent but I think that that's good because it shows I haven't given up hope. I still have faith in that back bench over there. I still believe that they are going to arise like a body and vote against this piece of legislation, vote against their own government, because they can see and they have come to recognize the basic inequities in this piece of legislation, and the reason why it just cannot be permitted to go through. Okay.

In fact, it really does work — a system of bottom-loading, a system of giving your largest increases, your percentage increases or whatever, at the bottom and tapering off at the top. It really does work. There's another name for it in other parts of the world and even in some departments of your own government. It is called "affirmative action." It means that you discriminate on behalf of the people at the top.

There are lots of statistics to show, Mr. Speaker, in terms of research done in the United States, in terms of research done right here in Canada, in Ontario. If you embark on a programme like this, sooner or later the gap starts to close; sooner or later something really positive begins to happen. This is what I am appealing to the back bench — to say to the members of the government: "Let us get on with the equal employment thing. Let us get on...."

It exists because in November of 1974 that particular programme was initiated in the government. It really does exist. If I can quote you some statistics, Mr. Speaker.... I'm sorry they are American statistics, but I couldn't get my hand on any Canadian statistics at this point. In fact, when this programme was introduced in 1961 in the United States, 30 per cent of the people to whom it was addressed, namely Blacks and Chicanos and the women in the United States, were earning less that $10,000 a year and by 1971 that percentage had increased to 30 per cent. Of that particular target group, 30 per cent were earning more than that $10,000 a year. Then we find that even of that number more than 12 per cent were earning more than $15,000 a year.

So there really is a more positive way in which to deal with this, and we can start closing the gap which presently exists between the salaries — and these are Canadian figures — between women and men in the work force where in 1971 the average salary for a man was $9,800 and the average salary for a woman was $ 5,181. This was in the work force including the public sector and including the public service which is administered by the government over there. I really want to exhort them to try and be responsible employers, to set an example to the private sector. I know they have a tremendous amount of respect for the private sector, that, in fact, they do represent the private sector. They have made no apologies for this fact. But I think the private sector can learn a lot from them. Certainly this is one area in which they should be setting their example. Okay.

Let us be honest about it, Mr. Speaker. I've listened all afternoon and again yesterday I listened to hear them talk over there, any of the members, to say something about controlling profits, you know, say something about controlling interest. Nowhere, no word from anybody. There was a speech from the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and a number of speeches and all of them had to do with wages. Nobody, but nobody, mentioned profits.

I know why they didn't. It was because they didn't know. They have no idea about the kind of profits being made by the private sector.

I didn't have the services of Mr. Dan Campbell to write my speech for me; nonetheless, I tried to do some digging, and I think it was in today's Province that it came out that B.C. Telephone earnings increased by 79 per cent. They increased by 79 per cent. You didn't mention that in your speech today. You were so anxious to knock the increases paid the ferry workers, some of whom have been working for less than the minimum wage, and the civil servants, some of whom have been making less than the minimum wage, that you didn't mention that B.C. Telephone earnings were up over 79 per cent.

What about the Bank of Nova Scotia that puts out its report in gold? A golden annual report, just in case you haven't got the message. There was a 51 per cent increase in their profit earnings — 51 per cent! Nowhere in that piece of legislation, Bill 16, does it mention that they are going to control the profits.

The Bank of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker — our own bank — in its annual report for 1975 showed a 300 per cent increase — 300 per cent increase. There's nothing in Bill 16 about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Russell Bennett's a director.

MS. BROWN: Russell Bennett is a director. There

[ Page 1707 ]

you have it. The brother could have spoken to the brother who could have got a word across to the Anti-Inflation Board committee about including something about curbing profits on that. But not a word!

The Toronto-Dominion, a more modest bank, in their annual report showed a mere 31.2 per cent increase. That's all they did last year — a mere 3 1.2 per cent increase.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am glad the minister...sorry, that was a Freudian slip. I am glad the minister from Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) is in his chair, Mr. Speaker, because rumour has it that he is going to be in the cabinet before the week is out.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, it's the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) who is going in the cabinet — sorry. I won't reveal my sources, Mr. Speaker, but the rumour has it that he is going to be the next minister.

But here we have the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce annual report for 1975 — a 50 per cent increase. If we really are concerned about limiting increases and about dealing with inflation, the financial institutions may not necessarily be a place to start, but we certainly shouldn't stop before we get to them. It doesn't make any sense that we are going to be saying to the bindery workers who are making just over $2 an hour in the government printing thing down in the basement there that they can only get 10 per cent increase when we don't say anything to the Bank of British Columbia with its 300 per cent increase and we don't say anything to the poor little Bank of Commerce with its 50 per cent increase.

It's the basic inequity in this system, but it makes sense to me why you're not doing anything about it — because these are your constituents. These are the people who put you in and these are the people whom you represent, and that is the reason. These are not the people who voted for this hard-working little opposition here that's on its toes trying to fight for the bindery workers in the government printery who make just over $2 an hour who are going to be told by Bill 16 that they can only get an increase of 10 per cent when the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) says nothing whatsoever when B.C. Telephone's increase goes up 79 per cent and the Bank of British Columbia goes up 300 per cent.

Be fair, Mr. Speaker. I know that as a servant of this House you are always fair. That is not fair, is it? Is it, Mr. Speaker? That is not fair. Just nod your head, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are above debate, Mr. Speaker, and that you would not dream of participating in what goes on on the floor of this House, but a man of your great wisdom knows that this is patently unfair.

If there are going to be any controls at all, and if you are really serious about inflation, you should start where the inflation is. It's with the profits and it's with the interest rates. It's with the mortgage rates. It's with the cost of borrowing money. That's where you start. You don't start with the poor little bindery workers in the government printery who are trying to get by on just over $2 an hour represented by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), who has not yet risen in his seat to speak on their behalf, because he doesn't make wages; he pays them, Mr. Speaker, and that's the reason why I have to speak on their behalf.

One of the other things that one of the members brought up in speaking on Bill 16 was the fact that the NDP, when it was the government, raised the salary of the MLAs. You know, I think it's really interesting, the attitude taken by the opposition on the whole business of representatives' salaries. If you listen very carefully to the heckling that goes on over there, one of the things they keep saying to you is: how much money did you make before you came in here? What kind of business were you in before you came in here? What they're trying to say to us, Mr. Speaker, if you listen really carefully, is that nobody should come into this House as a representative of any riding who is a working person and had to depend on this House for their income. That's what you are trying to say. You are trying to turn this House into an elite club of millionaires. You are trying to build a society like your own, you know, because you're all millionaires.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a point of order by the member for Boundary-Similkameen. State your point of order, please.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, the point of order is clarification. I think the member on the other side of the House is misleading. I just want to clarify that I am a wage-earner and a workingman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Okay, how many more? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, they're eroding my 30 minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If in the course of

[ Page 1708 ]

debate an hon. member disagrees with something that is being said by the member who has the floor at that time, the custom is to wait until they are finished and make a correction at that time. Proceed, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, that member was trying to filibuster on my debate. (Laughter.) That's what he was trying to do — filibuster on my debate.

MR. SPEAKER: If that's the case, it was the shortest filibuster I've heard in this House. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: I want to reiterate my point, Mr. Speaker: it is important that people who have to live on an income should be able to sit as representatives in this House. It is important that a person who is a representative of a riding shouldn't have to depend on clipping coupons, shouldn't have to depend on making wine in his basement, shouldn't have to depend on liquidating his assets and doing all those other kinds of things. It should be possible to sit in this House 12 months of the year, a full-time job, work at it full time and make a decent income. So I have no sympathy for the millionaires — and I'm excluding the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) .

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, they have half-millionaires over there, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to make a really serious point — that I feel it is very important that this House should not become so expensive a place in which to work that working people can't afford to run for public office and to be MLAs in here. So I'm sure they have no apologies to make about the kind of salaries paid to MLAs.

Further, I think that there were a number of other boards which were instituted by the previous government — and I'm thinking of the arts boards, for example — where, in order to encourage people of every walk of life to participate, an honorarium was paid to those members.

I know that volunteerism is something that very often is the exclusive preserve of people who can afford to pay a babysitter. There are a lot of people who would like to be volunteers and who are not seconded by their corporations to sit on volunteer boards, and who do not have husbands to pay their babysitting so they can sit on boards. That's the reason, for example, that an honorarium was paid to the people who sat on the arts boards around the province, and I think it's unfortunate that that was cut out.

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to Bill 16, but they keep distracting me.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad you said that. I was hoping you would take another track and perhaps come back to the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: I am trying to deal with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, but they keep distracting me.

One of the things that the hon. Minister of Finance pointed out yesterday in the introduction of this bill was its temporary nature. He said that the bill is only going to be in until 1977, that there was no intention to have it as a permanent one. I would like to believe the hon. Minister of Finance. I would. All members in this House are honourable, and I would not think of imputing any kind of motives to the hon. Minister of Finance or anyone else.

But that government has a record of not keeping its promises. I mean, how many times can you cry wolf, Mr. Speaker? How many times and expect to get away with it? That government has a record — an incredible record — of not keeping its promises.

Look at all the ads run during the election that said that government policies would be directed to creating jobs, and I 10,000 people are out of work. That government is personally responsible for at least 4,000 or 5,000 of that number.

An ugly rumour is circulating that a Social Credit government would make widespread cutbacks in public service personnel. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker! And this is Bill 16, because I'm dealing with the promises that he will withdraw this in 1977. Under the signature of Bill Bennett, the now Premier, Mr. Speaker, he said this is totally untrue. Then as soon as they become government 1,200 public servants off the BCR, 450 ferry workers, also public servants, and on and on it goes.

How can you trust? How can you really believe when you are told that this is temporary? How can you believe anything that government says, with this kind of record that is here? We can't! I would love to trust you. Life is happier when we all trust each other. Isn't that so, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) ? Yes, life is better when we all trust each other. But there again tonight, when everyone else was watching the Montreal Canadiens defeat our brothers to the south, Mr. Speaker, I was at home reading the Vancouver Sun. I was at home doing my homework.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm glad you were, Hon. Member,

[ Page 1709 ]

because you have less than two minutes left.

MS. BROWN: Oh, dear! However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer everybody to page 27 of the Sun where it lists all of the promises which the present government made and failed to keep, and which is the reason why as much as I would like to trust the Minister of Finance, as much as I would like to believe that if he introduced any kind of controls in terms of wages or whatever that it would be lifted by 1977, I cannot bring myself to do that.

Just before my two minutes are up, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to address a specific word, once again, to the members of the back bench of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid they are not part of the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: You will never have an opportunity like this again, hon. members of the back bench, to stand up and vote on behalf of the people of this province, and against your government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. They are not part of the principle of this bill, Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: They are. They are! They can make or break this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The principle of the bill is contained in the bill that's before us.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to address myself to the backbenchers is because I think they have yet failed to recognize the incredible power vested in them to bring that government down. They can do it; you can do it. Trust me! Trust me! Trust me! Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks to the principle of Bill 16, if that won't offend anybody in the House.

MR. LEA: If you can find them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry that I don't promise to be able to equal the rhetoric of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard. She is well recognized as the Kate Smith of the NDP. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: Even when I tighten my belt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, as I listened to her speaking on Bill 16, which deals with anti-inflation measures in the Province of British Columbia, I wondered if we had not discovered the chink in the armour of the NDP. Quite obviously we have, because there she stands as the great supporter of the workers of the Province of British Columbia, and not once does she say anything about those poor unfortunate people who aren't able to succeed in our society and have to rely on the beneficence of government. Not once. Not once did she make any remarks about those people of her constituency.

She speaks about how terrible it is for business. As she emerges each day from that little hovel she lives in in West Point Grey and comes to the Legislature where she serves her responsibility, I would hope that no one would look back a couple of years ago and see how well she served her constituents when she was given special funds to leave this province, and yet she was voted her full indemnity in this province by this Legislature to ensure that she received her full measure of pennies from the public purse. Speak to your constituents about that, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: I'll have to check that one out.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Member, consider very carefully what you say about those who take from the public purse before you rise in this House and criticize others.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it has been a revelation to watch the official opposition debate Bill 16. I've seen more fancy skating since 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon than you could see in a dozen ice capades. There they are, caught on the horns of a dilemma. They're afraid to say they're in favour of inflation, and yet they're afraid to go against their masters in the Canadian Labour Congress and B.C. Federation of Labour who have taken a stance against anti-inflation measures in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So what have we seen? We've seen them attack this government for not moving on the banks, not moving on interest rates. All they want us to do is amend the BNA Act to give the provincial Legislature the responsibility which rests with the federal Parliament. I'm sure that this little government of ours could do a better job than the federal government has done in many respects in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But I would like to remind the members of the opposition that there's just one little impediment to that, and that happens to be the British North America Act, which is under consideration by the provinces of Canada and the national government at this very moment, as to our

[ Page 1710 ]

ability to bring in amendments which will entitle the provincial governments to exercise their full voice in matters such as this.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) yesterday addressed himself to these matters. He very carefully skated into the private sector and the things that we weren't doing in this bill with regard to the private sector, and all of the responsibilities of the government in the private sector. He only showed his ignorance in not having read the bill, because the bill only deals with the public sector, as far as compensation is concerned. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would at least have taken the time, before engaging himself in the debate on the principle of Bill 16, to have read the bill and to have understood this particular proposal in the light of the legislation introduced and enacted by the national government of this country, and to have recognized that the national government has assumed sole responsibility with regard to anti-inflation measures in the private sector and has left only to the provincial governments the opportunity of determining whether or not they will involve themselves in the public sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a long bill for him to read — all of eight sections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I suppose it's all of a page and a half. I suppose that might strain the members of the opposition but, after all, here we are magnanimously giving them research assistants and executive assistants and all of the assistants they require, and yet they can't do their own research.

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) knows all about banks. She knows all about banks and bankers and profits and shares and dividends, and knowing about dividends she knows perfectly well that the anti-inflation regulations of the national government look after the dividends of corporations in this country, but she knows the financial statements of the banks of this nation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I've got shares in the bank. That's right, and I'd be happy to trade the dividends I get from the few shares that I hold in the Bank of British Columbia for the dividends that the first member for Vancouver-Burrard gets from her shares — anytime.

MS. BROWN: I'll accept that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And she lives in a hovel.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: She just lives in those little hovels in west Point Grey. I say this with all due respect to the members who are from west Point Grey. There are some very responsible citizens in west Point Grey.

MS. BROWN: Are you suggesting that I am not a responsible citizen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is that the third change of costume you've had on today, Madam Member?

MS. BROWN: The fourth!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Minister of Labour. I'd like you to return to the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm glad you drew my attention to that, Mr. Speaker, because I've been listening to the official opposition for so long on this bill that I had completely forgotten that we had Bill 16 before us, but I will address myself specifically to the initiatives taken by this government in order to achieve anti-inflation controls within the public sector of this province.

I think that one must concern oneself with what have been the consequences of the anti-inflation legislation brought in by the national government. If you listened to the radio and read the press and the pronouncements of the Canadian Labour Congress and the British Columbia Federation of Labour, you would get the impression that all of the trade unionists in this nation were unprepared to assume their responsibilities as citizens of this country and to share the burden of bringing inflation under control. Those great leaders of labour have indeed gone so far in this nation to exempt themselves from those responsibilities which they assumed as leaders of labour in those areas of national concern. I think that it will be a sorry day when the rank and file of labour recognize that their leaders have done to them by exempting themselves from their proper place in the affairs of this nation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that just the opposite is the case. It's difficult to get statistics with regard to the Anti-Inflation Board, but by dint of perseverance it is possible. I would like to share a few of those with you tonight, sir.

As of April 9, 1976, a total of 6,149 compensation changes involving 760,000 employees has been reported to the Anti-Inflation Board. Now recognize what that means. That means that for employees who are organized in the private sector, in companies having in excess of 500 employees or in excess of 20 employees in the case of the construction industry, 6,149 of such bargaining units have met with their

[ Page 1711 ]

employers, settled collective agreements and submitted them to the Anti-Inflation Board. These involve 760,000 employees of this nation.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that does not indicate any refusal on the part of the labour movement at the local level, at the certified bargaining level or at the employees' level to recognize what their responsibility is with respect to anti-inflation control in this nation.

I think it is a matter of some pride that we can report that one of the first union organizations to agree to abide by the anti-inflation regulations of this country was the smelter workers' of Alcan.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, there was a resolution passed directing their negotiating committee to negotiate outside the anti-inflation guidelines, and by petition of the members of that union in Alcan that resolution was rescinded and they instructed their negotiating committee to negotiate within the guidelines. That's the calibre of worker, that's the calibre of citizen, that we have in the rank-and-file unions in the province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yet that soft underbelly of the NDP for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who isn't in the House at the moment, had the unmitigated gall to stand in this House this afternoon and talk about people who are attempting to drag down society by grabbing as much as they can grab. That doesn't apply to the trade unionists in this province. That does not apply to the trade unionists in this province. They are prepared to be responsible, but the NDP is not. They are clearly showing their lack of responsibility here in this House yesterday and again today by refusing to support this kind of measure.

Now what of those compensation settlements that have been reported to the Anti-Inflation Board? Have they been out of line? In spite of the tremendous burden that has been passed on the Anti-Inflation Board, 92 per cent of the compensation changes presented to the Anti-Inflation Board have been found to be within the guidelines. That's the kind of negotiations that have taken place in this nation in the private sector; 92 per cent have been found to be within the guidelines which are set down under the national legislation. There has been an acceptance of the responsibility from these anti-inflation guidelines by both labour and management, and yet this party over here is not prepared to allow us to subject the public sector in British Columbia to those same constraints. Is that being responsible, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) ? Is that your role as opposition? Is that your support for the union movement? It is not. It is a complete denial of your responsibility as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): If you keep that up you'll convince yourself.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of convincing myself, because I have been involved with my colleagues in this matter since assuming this responsibility.

MR. KING: Since you joined the coalition.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Since assuming this responsibility in taking the oath of this office, the hours have been expended in understanding what the anti-inflation regulations mean, and the consequences of those regulations for this province have been part of my responsibility.

While we are talking about that, let me say one other thing. The hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke about how they went to Ottawa and how they demanded that the national government do this and that and the next thing. We found when we went to Ottawa that the former government had done nothing with regard to anti-inflation in this province from October 15 until they were defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Nothing!

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely nothing!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's ridiculous!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour has the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure fiction!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Now mind you, maybe they took the files away (laughter), because there was nothing left in the files of that former administration to indicate that they had any plans whatsoever to control inflation in the province of British Columbia, except their unfortunate and unlawful attempt to pass regulations for price controls which were unsupported by legislation in this province. They were illegal and they were subject to attack in the courts of this province. That government knew it, and exactly the same people advised us as advised that former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) as to what the law was in this province. He knows it.

The only difference was, Mr. Speaker, that when

[ Page 1712 ]

we came to government we had people in the cabinet who were equipped to understand the advice they were given.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe he took his own advice.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But, Mr. Speaker, let me continue with respect to this matter of what has been contributed in respect of anti-inflation in this province.

MR. LEA: You said it was a great move. The Premier said it was a great move when he was in the opposition.

MS. BROWN: That was different.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You know, when we went to Ottawa, as well as finding that the national government was well advanced in its anti-inflation programme — and there is much left to be improved in that programme, we fully admit, as legislation which will be brought before this House in the succeeding months will prove — one thing we found was that in the course of the anti-inflation programme of the national government, they were also embarked on some significant financial measures in the Department of Finance, federally, which had the most significant — terrifying, indeed — prospects for the province of British Columbia. That was their intention, as part of the anti-inflation programme, to impose export tax levies which would have destroyed the natural resource industries in this province and would have placed them fully under the control of the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're giving them away anyhow.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I suppose the federal government felt that they would be completely free to move in this direction because of the attitudes expressed by the NDP when they were in government, because they were prepared to take our natural resources and turn them all over to the control of the federal government without any concern whatsoever to the constitutional rights of provinces in this nation. But as a result of the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and because of the successive, repetitious demands made by him and by members of this government on the federal government, the federal government removed the export tax levy — a very significant change for the economic future of this province and for the benefit of those industries and the workers in the province of British Columbia. We were in danger of having the future of our industries and of our workers taken away from us by the actions of the national government, about which that government did nought.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it will remain a benchmark that this Minister of Finance was the one who led the battle with all the other provinces to have the national government step out of export tax levies and leave to the provinces the control of their resource revenues, as is their right under the national government — a right which was to be given away by the NDP, and the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was a party to that infamous act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking! Irresponsible!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They didn't give them away, but they made a deal whereby, for the first time in all of the history of Confederation, a provincial government was going to pay a tax to the national government — the very first and only time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Squash, anybody? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me return to Bill 16 specifically.

So far as the Anti-Inflation Board is concerned, most public-sector settlements have been related to the Ontario school boards. Most have been found to produce an historical relationship and have been approved. The majority of more recent public-sector settlements have been within, or very close to, the guidelines. That's what this bill is all about.

Are we going to allow the workers of this province, who have accepted their responsibility, who have accepted their share of the burden of anti-inflation controls in this country, to move in one direction, but we leave the workers in the public sector completely out of control? Is that quitting? I suggest that it is not. I suggest there is not one member of the opposition who would stand in his place and say that the law which applies to the worker in the private sector should not apply to the employee in the public sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is there anyone over there who believes that the workers in the public sector should be treated differently from his or her counterpart in the private sector? Just put up your hand. Not one. Not one.

MR. LEA: You do.

[ Page 1713 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We do not.

MR. LEA: You do so.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This bill provides exactly that — that there shall be equity between the workers in the private sector and the workers in the public sector.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose one may wonder why we are making such a fuss, because, after all, there are only a few employees in the public sector. The public service in British Columbia is stated to be about 35,000 employees — that's nothing.

But when we took a look at what was involved in the public sector of British Columbia, when the Department of Labour went through the research statistics that were available to it, and which were available to the former government, what did we find? We found, according to the calculations applicable the anti-inflation legislation of the national government, that the total number of employees in the public sector, all of whom are unionized, is 196,000.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) stood in his place yesterday and said that these anti-inflation regulations only applied to the organized work force, and they were 43 per cent of the total work force in the province. He's right. But let me tell you what those figures mean: out of 440,000 organized workers in the province of British Columbia, 198,000 — 45 per cent of all organized workers in the province of British Columbia — are in the public sector, and they are out of control. No controls.

That's the enormity of the task that faces this government. That's what Bill 16 is about. Are we going to allow 55 per cent of the organized employees in this province to be regulated by the anti-inflation regulations, and are we going to exempt 45 per cent from those regulations? Is that what the NDP is saying? Is that what they're saying? They are going to vote against this bill; they are not prepared to subject the public sector employees — almost 50 per cent of the organized employees in British Columbia. They are going to vote against the bill which would bring them under the same control as their fellow workers in this province — fellow workers who are prepared to submit themselves to the anti-inflation regulations.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): We will tell the people.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, you wouldn't go to Vancouver East and tell those people in Vancouver East that the NDP were going to play favourites between the public sector employees and the private sector! That would be unfair, Mr. Premier. I think we should tell it like it is. I think we should tell it that the NDP, the official opposition in this House, is not against inflation; all they want to do is play political games.

SOME MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You know, a lot of questions have been raised in this House as to the consequences of the anti-inflation regulations — the guidelines. I wish the research assistants, available to the official opposition at great expense to the taxpayers, would take the time to look at some of the information that's made available to them. The Department of Labour, in their research division, spends countless hours — with the money well spent — in producing these statistics. I just wish you'd look at them.

There was some discussion about how badly off the workers were in this province — what a terrible thing it was to be faced with all these tremendous costs! Since 1972 the average weekly earnings in British Columbia have increased 38 per cent. Isn't that terrible? Thirty-eight per cent! That's the consequence of being a worker in this province — a 38 per cent increase! While the annual consumer price index grew in 1975 by 11.1 per cent, we find that the average weekly earnings in British Columbia grew 14.3 per cent. That's not falling behind.

If you compare each year back, you'll find that the average growth in weekly earnings in British Columbia has always exceeded the increase in the consumer price index for this province, and so it should. We have an excellent work force in the province of British Columbia. They are entitled to be well compensated for the difficult and often dangerous work that they undertake, but let not that work force be confused by the comments of the official opposition as to how badly they are off, because they are making, those workers in this province, a significant contribution to the economy of British Columbia and this nation, and we want them to continue.

We had a speech from the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) about how difficult it was to get ahead in this province, about how those people who come from those less fortunate areas in the province can't make it. They can't get to school. They can't get to university. They can't achieve the goals that other people are able to achieve. Mr. Speaker, under Social Credit those young people will be able to achieve because they will be given the chance to achieve. Under the former administration, they would not achieve because they would be denied the chance — denied that chance by a government which was

[ Page 1714 ]

prepared to regulate all of their lives and ensure through their budgetary policies that they were kept in constant bondage to the government of this province. That's the difference, Mr. Speaker, between this side of the House and that.

You know, as one wonders as to whether anti-inflation controls can work in this nation, let me just share with you some additional statistics. In the second quarter of 1975, the contract average settlements in British Columbia were at 18.2 per cent. This is both the skilled and unskilled classes of worker. In the third quarter of 1975, the contract settlements were at an average of 19.2 per cent. It was in the fourth quarter of 1975 that anti-inflation began, and the contract average in that month was 11.9 per cent. That contract average has continued to drop. It was 11.8 in the first quarter of 1976. But this is for the private sector, which is under control.

Mr. Speaker, this government simply intends by this legislation to enable the government to enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada whereby our public sector will be brought under those same controls. Those 198,000 public sector employees will be subjected to no more and no less in the way of controls than are their brothers and sisters in the private sector. That's all we ask.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Don't vote against it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask you all to watch with interest as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition votes against this simple principle of equity as between groups of workers in our own society.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Don't raise the question of prices; I'm talking about compensation. I'll come to prices in a minute.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Come to profits.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll come to prices in a minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come to profits.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll come to profits over which we have no control, and you well know that, Mr. Only Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , and you did nothing with them when you were government either — nothing at all, except destroy the profit-making ability of enterprise in this province. That's all you did.

Control for the NDP with regard to profits means wipe out all profits altogether. That's their attitude. They're very poor socialists, because any well-meaning socialist knows that you must have profit in order to succeed. Even the distinguished Tommy Douglas....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, and they'll be taxed for it. Absolutely. Oh, yes, they'll be taxed for it.

MR. MACDONALD: When?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: When? Why don't you just look at the law and understand what the situation is, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry to interrupt your squash game, but it's nice to have you here. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, while I think about it, how fortunate we are tonight to have the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) here at the same time. (Laughter.) I'm sure that they are never in their own constituencies at the same time. Do you ever go to your own constituency? Oh, of course, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard has to go through her constituency to get to her home in Point Grey. But the member for Vancouver East is fortunate. He can get to his home in Point Grey without going through his constituency. So that solves his problem.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As a matter of fact, I understand that the New Democratic constituency association in Vancouver East is delighted that we're having a by-election because they're seeing the only member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) twice in the same year, once for his own election campaign and once when he had to go back and work in the by-election. That's right.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, let's not interrupt the hon. minister. He's trying to get back to Bill 16.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm just trying to get back to Bill 16. It's just nice that at Granville Street there's

[ Page 1715 ]

a "welcome, stranger" mat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true he has to ask for directions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He says, "Where is Commercial Drive, anyway?" As a matter of fact, he thought it was a Conservative constituency because it's got a Clarke Drive. He thought that Joe had moved in and was taking over.

But that's in the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. There's just one other matter I would like to address myself to before I take my place. That is the consequences of any inability on the part of the provincial government to bring this public sector under control. I have spoken to you about the numbers of employees who are within the public sector, 196,000, almost half of all the unionized employees — almost half, and they're mine. Virtually all of the employees we have in the public sector, are unionized, all of them. The consequences of this, because this covers all the public service, B.C. Hydro employees, Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, school teachers, university employees, faculties, community colleges, B.C. Rail — I could go on and on — hospitals, nurses, the whole range of what we have come to consider as a public service responsibility — those are the people who 'are within our sector, the public sector. Recognize, if you will, that the cost of employing each one of those employees finally comes back directly either to a minister of ' this government or to the responsibility of a school board or a municipality or a regional district in this province.

The burden of their compensation bears directly upon this government or the other levels of government, and thence directly on the taxpayer of British Columbia. Therefore there is a double reason why we want to have those public-sector employees brought under the same influence of controls as is available to the private sector, because the demands that they make — the consequences of those demands are inflation — also bear directly upon the tax burden of the citizens of this province. Therefore we can lose two ways. If inflation is increased by reason of inappropriate settlements in the public sector we all suffer, and most certainly those people who are on fixed and limited incomes will suffer. But the suffering also comes in another direction, because it becomes the responsibility of the taxpayer to bear the burden of that compensation.

We want to have for the employees in our public sector the same treatment as those who are in our private sector. This will be the thrust of this government in the days and months to come. But, Mr. Speaker, we want them to have no more and no less, and we ask the opposition to consider, seriously, whether they are prepared to oppose legislation which will ensure that we have this equality between these two groups of employees within our society in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I've used up almost all of my time. I would like to address myself to the matter of pricing. But I know that you will not ignore that green light at the end of the chamber. Therefore I will reserve my opportunity to address you in respect of the matter of pricing, as contained in this legislation on the public side, when you take your place as chairman of the committee. I thank you.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to raise a point of order about a statement made by the minister who just took his seat, which I think imputes an improper motive to an act which I might have been involved in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you wish to correct a statement?

MS. BROWN: Yes, and I also want to raise a point of order on it as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not referring to the fact that the minister seems to be exercised by the fact that I live in Point Grey — that, in fact, it seems to offend his sense of where I ought to live. Nor do I want to refer to the fact of his jealous comments about my clothes; that's not the point that I want to raise.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about is a statement which the minister made concerning...and I think his words were that I have taken public funds and left the province. Now I realize that by wording it that way the minister was trying to leave the impression in this House that I have done something that was in some way dishonest or against the law. I know that that was the impression which he was trying to leave....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Nonetheless.... It's not necessary for you to speak for the minister. He's quite capable of speaking for himself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! May I just interrupt you long enough to suggest that whenever you are standing up to make a point of correction, it is not a part of the debate? The statement should be brief.

MS. BROWN: I'm trying to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I'm continually being interrupted. I said I was not dealing with the fact that he was offended by the fact that I lived in Point Grey or that I wore clothes but what I was offended by was the fact that he tried to create the impression in this House that I had taken

[ Page 1716 ]

public funds and left this province.

Now he knows as well as I do, and what I think he is referring to, is the fact that the United States gave me an award which necessitated my travelling to Sweden for four weeks and that I got permission....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Just a minute. You'll have your turn.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let the hon. member proceed.

MS. BROWN: In the tradition of this House, I was granted permission by the House to take and enjoy the benefits of that United Nations fellowship which I had earned. I did not take public funds and then run off from the province as the minister tried to make out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: I'm just finishing, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that that statement is no more or less than what one has come to expect of that minister when one remembers....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:, Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...that it was that minister....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: This is the end of my statement. I merely want to remind the House....

lnterjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

It is only by custom that we allow this kind of a correction in the first place, and therefore we must keep the correction to a statement of correction and not to debate. Debate cannot be allowed, according to our standing orders, and I would appreciate a strict adherence to this standing order.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: I can say that I have taken exception to the impression created by....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order, Hon. Member? On a point of order? Or are you continuing on a debate in which you have embarked earlier?

MS. BROWN: I am not continuing on a debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order, Madam?

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be a point of clarification.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please state your point of order.

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that that minister has left the impression on the floor of this House, for everyone sitting in the gallery and the press that I have involved myself in an act for which I could be asked to resign my seat and that he has deliberately done that in the tradition of that minister.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Beautiful smokescreen.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you. We have that statement and that concludes the matter.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the procedures of this House provide that if a member makes a statement which requires a correction, then another hon. member draws that correction to the attention of the House. That is all that is permitted. If that were not so, Hon. Members, then we would be giving added opportunity for debate under a standing order which clearly provides that there is only one opportunity for each member to debate in second reading of any bill. Therefore that concludes the matter,

You did not rise, Hon. Member, on a point of order. You rose on a point of clarification, and therefore that concludes the matter. Thank you.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would not like for you

[ Page 1717 ]

or the House to be under any misapprehension with regard to the remarks, and I'm glad that the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has sought some clarification of those remarks.

I did not suggest that she took money improperly. I only said that she received many thousands of dollars from the United Nations in order to absent herself from the House without leave. And after she came back the NDP just brought in a motion whereby she could claim her full indemnity. Not having served this House, she nevertheless received her full pay for so doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you vote on it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. That clarifies the matter and concludes it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to just make a point of clarification also. During that same period, as Leader of the Opposition, I, too, was busy, but instead of being in the House I was travelling this province. The then government deducted $100 a day from my salary while I was working in this province, yet brought in a bill for one of their own members who wasn't working in this province at that time.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the only way orderly business can continue in this House is if we adhere to the standing orders as we have them before us. We have heard a point of correction; we have heard a point of clarification, all of which is an extension to the standing orders which we have before us, and that concludes the matter. Statements having been made heretofore have been made by leave of this House, by general consent, and not by provision of our rules. This concludes the matter. This concludes the matter.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: This is a point of order, a point of clarification. It is a new matter.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Will the hon. member please be seated?

We have heard the point of clarification, we have concluded the matter, and there will be no further debate on this matter at this time. If you have a point of order which is a new point of order, then I am bound to recognize the hon. member, but if it is not a new point of order, if it is only an extension of the matter already concluded, then it is clearly out of order.

Interjection.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not receive thousands of dollars from the United Nations.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rises.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! That concludes the matter.

[Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a new point of order. Regarding the acceptability of points of order, the member's latest point was absolutely new. A new allegation was made by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) regarding recompense for her function with the United Nations. I appreciate the Chair's difficulty in keeping some rationale and some reason here, but I say to you that the Premier got up and made a completely gratuitous statement unrelated to the issue at all. In the interest of even-handed administration, I think the member is entitled to clarify new charges that were levelled against her.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That concludes the matter.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BAWLF: ...heartening, and indeed I would like to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this on a

[ Page 1718 ]

new point of order?

MS. BROWN: I'm asking for your ruling on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, is there any way in which I can stand up in this House and make absolutely clear once and for all, with your blessing, that the United Nations did not pay me when they gave me that United Nations fellowship?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MS. BROWN: I'm just asking for your ruling on that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a ruling that you've asked for, Hon, Member. You've asked for ways and means to be suggested by the Chair, and I'm not empowered to do so.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing orders are available to the hon. member. That counsel cannot come from the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting that...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MS. BROWN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Am I to understand that what you are saying to me is that, although I stand accused in this House of accepting money from the United Nations, there is no way I can stand on the floor of this House and set the record straight and tell the truth? Is that what you are saying to me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that will conclude the matter. We must now proceed to the orderly business of the House. We have already provided for far more opportunity than is available under the standing orders.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate your setting the record straight so that everyone....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place for nothing less than the 12th time in the last few minutes for the simple reason that I wish to move that this debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $126,940 — continued.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back again to ask for further clarification from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) with reference to the answer he game me when, in the debate when we were on Education before, I was pointing out that under this new government the taxpayers of this province have been treated very harshly with very harsh increases. The minister replied that the taxpayers have been treated more harshly by the former government, the NDP government.

Now that implication or statement is completely false, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to point out why it is false. Certainly, if the minister has any rebuttal...I know that's what we are here for, but I would like to get on the record why that statement is not correct.

The point I was making was that the provincial share, in relation to the local share in taxation, has dropped from what it was when the New Democratic Party was in government. I wish to give some figures to point out and make my case here to the hon. minister. The tragedy of this is that in 1976, and I am sure the minister would agree with me, the school boards of this province were very responsible in the preparation of their budgets. They actually produced, by and large, the expansion of their budgets and increases almost entirely related to increased salaries which, as you know, they have little power over. That is something with which the minister agrees. And they were properly arrived at through the Public Schools Act. They have also been faced with inflation.

Now here is a year when a new government came in. The Department of Education is dealing with school boards of this province which have been highly responsible in not moving into great expansion of their programmes, but which do have to meet inflation and increased salaries. Yet, despite this, we have figures to show that the Department of Education, obviously following the financial policy laid down by, I presume, the Premier — his conservative, fiscal financial policy — obviously made a very conscious decision that, despite the fact that the school boards had been most responsible, they were still going to have to pay more money locally than they had under the NDP government.

[ Page 1719 ]

In my own district in Burnaby, for example, in 1975, the basic operating programme was $20.8 million. The provincial government, under the NDP at that time, picked up $12.3 million. But what scheme do we have in 1976 under the Social Credit government? The Burnaby basic education programme came in at $24.1 million. What do we see in contributions from the provincial government? It is $12.3 million — the same. So, in other words, there is absolutely no extra assistance given to the Burnaby School Board, except I realize they were given, roughly, $450,000 in a special grant. Nevertheless, they are still well over a $3 million increase which they have to bear locally.

Let's look at the Vancouver School Board which is in even a worse situation. Again, because of the Department of Education and obvious policies laid down by the Premier, the Vancouver School Board is in a situation where, it dropped their percentage and just left it up to the local school board to pick it up, despite the responsibility of the local school boards of this province — highly responsible, I believe they were in the preparation of their budgets.

Look at Vancouver School Board. In 1975 the basic provincial grants were $13,102,158. That's the amount that was given by the provincial government under the NDP, and then there was special aid of over $1 million. In 1975, I want to repeat, over $13 million were given to pay the government share of the basic education programme. Then, in 1976, what does the Vancouver School Board receive? They receive $11,726,206, which is a drop from the provincial government.

Now I realize that during the last year, under my ministry, we did make a change in the instructional unit grant which meant that some of the under-assessed areas of the province received extra instructional units, and districts such as Vancouver, which had higher assessments, did not. But even taking that into account, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister, it is quite obvious that under the Social Credit government you have penalized the school boards of this province, who were very responsible in preparing their budgets. On top of that, because of the fact that you have penalized them, you have provided extremely harsh mill-rate increases for the taxpayers of this province.

Here was a year when at any time there should have been an attempt to say to the school boards of this province: "Look, the teachers have come in with a 12 per cent average salary hike, which was very responsible. The school boards have been responsible, and therefore we are going to do our best to assist you by this, because we as a government have a commitment to education." Instead, the exact opposite was done and the sharing by the Social Credit government was dropped. The minister is chatting — I don't know if he's ready to reply — but for the record I do want to get it straight that the sharing by the Social Credit government towards the basic education programme in this province has dropped. Therefore when he makes the commitment that the NDP treated the taxpayer more harshly, it is absolutely incorrect.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I can only read what the figures are, and here they are. In 1974 the average provincial overall mill rate, which is, after all, a test of what the average homeowner pays, was 34.06 mills. In the following year, 1975 — the last year the NDP was in office — the provincial mill rate was 40.98, an increase of 6.92 mills and the greatest increase in the history of British Columbia.

This year was a very difficult year. Many taxes went up, including school taxes for the homeowner. But even in this time of difficulty, the average increase for this coming year, overall in the province, is 46.53 — only 5.5 mills. What I didn't say the last time I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman, but what I will say now is that this was before the homeowner grant. In 1975 the homeowner grant was $200 plus $50 to those over 65 years of age, but in 1976, even though the increase was less, the homeowner grant was more. So the increase this year is being offset by a homeowner grant not of $200 but of $280, and for the homeowner over 65 years of age it wasn't $50 but $100. So the increase to the taxpayer on the average was less, and the homeowner grant was more.

MRS. DAILLY: I have just a very simple question, Mr. Chairman, for the hon. minister. Would the hon. minister agree that the percentage given by the Department of Education this year for the basic education programme has dropped compared to last year, on an overall basis — in other words, that the local school boards are picking up more on the basic education programme — by at least 1 per cent — than they did last year?

HON. MR. McGEER: Madam Member, the argument is a fallacious one, because much more was included in the basic education programme this year than in the year previous. As you well know, this complicated school finance formula, which neither you nor I invented, incorporates the total operating budget of the year previous in the basic education programme, so that many things which were optional last year are part of the basic education programme this year. Because the department took so much more this year — not due to any conscious policy of the department, but just the way the formula works — the basic education programme has been terribly enriched. Therefore what the local school districts have to add as their additional optional programmes is less. That's why the overall increase was actually

[ Page 1720 ]

less this year than the increase in mill rates for the basic education programme.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can happily conclude this little debate, which would bore almost everyone except the former minister (Mrs. Dailly) and myself, and just say that it really is a little bit of hair-splitting. It would be a wonderful thing if the general taxes of British Columbia were large enough so that we didn't have to charge at all to the property owner for education, but I think that's some time away. Our approach, Mr. Chairman, is to try, through the rebates to the homeowners, getting it to the people who need it most, to ease that burden of school taxes on the local property until we can come to that nirvana when there'll be no property taxes at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the press gallery.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I'll leave that to Robin over there, who I'm sure will be up and have a few things to say.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I don't know if he's referring to us as Batman and Robin here.

The minister has said that this matter is so esoteric it's only of interest to a few of us, but there's a very obvious thing which should be brought to the attention of the people of British Columbia. The minister this year has departed from a pattern which has held steady since the introduction of the education finance formula. I'm not enamoured of the education finance formula either, Mr. Chairman. In fact I would say that although I was very concerned about environment, I didn't get propelled into politics because of what I saw happening to the environment. Although I was very concerned about many other things, I still resisted the temptation to get involved in politics. But when this education finance formula came along, the weirdest chain of events came along and I must say that that was the final, last little thing that led me into the New Democratic Party. It was this education finance formula that drove me into a political career. If it can be such a motivator, I don't think that it's something that we should take so lightly.

The minister might not have followed this thing quite as closely as I did, although he used to make up these provisional budgets every year in the House — the McGeer budget. Certainly, up until 1972, I have to admit that they were better than the budgets that were brought down in the House.

In 1968 the basic mill levy that had to be raised by local property tax and that had to be computed and subtracted from the total basic education programme started out at 24.3 mills. Then it was 24.6 mills, then 24.1, 24.5, 24.7, 24.7, 24.7, and then finally last year up to 26.5. But from 1968 until 1975 it only increased 2.2 mills. This year, in one year, it has increased 6 full mills.

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is an invasion of local property taxation by the provincial government. The provincial government is now dipping into the wallet of the local school boards and the local regional districts and the local municipalities — those agencies which have depended upon property taxation as a sole means of collecting revenue, other than a few miscellaneous enterprises that they might have, such as the city of New Westminster which retails electricity buying it wholesale and so on and the city of Nelson, which actually manufactures and generates electricity and distributes and fines, and various little miscellaneous things. But the major source of revenue for regional districts, municipalities and school boards has been invaded. This party — the coalition — campaigned on sharing revenues with the municipalities. But they didn't think they were going to share them that way; they thought they might get a piece of the income tax, or maybe a fixed percentage of the sales tax. They didn't know that what they meant by "sharing" was that they were going to take a share of local property taxation. That is what has happened, and that's a 6 per cent increase.

If you look, Mr. Chairman, at the increase in the mill rate in the city of Vancouver, it's about 6.1 mills increase over last year. In other words, the provincial government has dipped into the pockets of the city of Vancouver to the tune of the revenue generated by 6 mills. That is what has happened.

In the city of Nelson, if it hadn't have been for the New Democratic Party and the enlightened directorship of B.C. Hydro, which broke away from the old Bennett Sr. policy of making B.C. Hydro dams exempt, and if the Kootenay Canal had not been put into the assessment base, a similar experience would have happened in Nelson, a similar experience as has happened in Creston-Kaslo School District 86. This, to my mind, is what has happened this year.

I think you have to keep in mind that this year the minister could have had a fairly easy task in terms of keeping prices down. The school populations are not expanding at the rate they did in the past; there isn't quite as much need for capital construction — there is in a few of the growing districts, districts perhaps like some of the ones in parts of your riding, Mr. Chairman. But for the major part, school populations are holding steady. There isn't the need to increase capital costs.

With the AIB ruling and with the AIB coming in at the time at which teachers' salaries were being negotiated, then going on to compulsory and binding arbitration, the teachers' salaries have been held down to a much lower level than they were in the previous year — the previous year in which all salaries were

[ Page 1721 ]

going up in both the private and public sectors right across Canada, not just in British Columbia.

This year, right across Canada there has been a moderating influence on wages and salaries, particularly in areas that were immediately singled out by the AIB. So the minister doesn't have to cope with a round of increases such as we had to cope with last year, which were only fair as they were the prevailing rates, pretty well, largely throughout the country, and since they were subject to compulsory and binding arbitration.

So now we see that the local property taxation is going to have to bear an inordinate part of this. I would submit that that minister, who used to so carefully inspect the estimates in the budget of the previous government, should have shown the same amount of diligence in inspecting and criticizing his own estimates. In the first place, he allowed an error to slip by. We have two pages in our estimate book — we have the first one submitted and the second one submitted, and in the case of the homeowner grant, for instance, quite an error between the two.

The direct grants to school districts: he's looking for an increase of $25 million. Well, I would submit that when the public accounts are in we'll find that the direct grants to school districts will actually have decreased, will actually be less this year because, while the provincial government is paying less, the local property taxes are requiring more.

I'd like to hear what the minister's rationale is in lifting the local assessment by a huge increase of 6 mills — that's about a 20 per cent increase. We've had 40 per cent increases in sales tax, now we've got a 20 per cent increase in terms of this figure and a very large increase in terms of local property taxation. Mill rates for school taxes could have been held almost constant this year — a 22 per cent increase in this figure. My colleague tells me a 22 per cent increase, so that's probably the generator of a great part of this.

HON. MR. McGEER: Would you like me to answer?

MR. NICOLSON: Pardon? Well, okay. I think you're a fast learner. I think I've got my point across.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, just let me go over very briefly the provincial picture for the last four or five years. Well, let's do it since 1968 since that was the benchmark year when something snapped in that member's mind and propelled him into politics. In 1969, overall for the province, there was a mill rate increase for school tax purposes. I think that some of the members who were here then might be interested in this. There was an increase. This was under the old government. I used to criticize the government, but not for this kind of thing. The mill rate increase was 0.33 mills and to offset that there was a $20 increase in the homeowner grant.

The next year, 1970, under the old Social Credit government, there was 0.09 mill rate increase offset by a $20 increase in the homeowner grant. In 1971 there was 0.07 mill rate increase offset by a $10 increase in the homeowner grant. In 1972 there was 0. 0 I mill rate increase offset by a further $10 increase in the homeowner grant. In 1973 there was an increase of 0.87 mills with a $15 increase in the homeowner grant. That was the first year of the NDP — up from less than 0.01 of a mill to nearly 0.09 of a mill. The next year under the NDP the increase was 1.3 mills and no increase in the homeowner grant to offset that. The last year of the NDP it was 6.92 mills and no increase in the homeowner grant.

But now we are back to Social Credit and the increase in the mill rate is going down and the homeowner grant increase is going up. We are on the road to recovery, even in the worst time. Things are getting back on the tracks again, Mr. Chairman, back on the tracks again. We are beginning to give the local ratepayer a break in this province. We've broken that escalating skyrocketing increase in the property taxes that was the hallmark of the NDP in office. I would like to ask the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), through you, Mr. Chairman: does he know the mill rate in his own district? He's such an expert on the school finances.

MR. NICOLSON: It's around 41, I think. It's low, lower than the average. It's about I mill lower than the average.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. Do you know what the increase in mill rate is in your district this year?

MR. NICOLSON: It was about 1.15, I believe.

HON. MR. McGEER: Less than that. Less than that. In your district, Mr. Member, the increase was barely over 1 mill and there's a homeowner grant increase that will offset that, so the property taxes in your district are going to go down.

MR. NICOLSON: And how about...?

HON. MR. McGEER: And you are up complaining about the school finance formula of Social Credit. The time when you were in office they went skyrocketing up. Mr. Chairman, there is the answer to that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I please remind members that the only way Hansard can record debate is if you are duly recognized and the microphones are on?

MR. NICOLSON: My microphone's on, Mr.

[ Page 1722 ]

Chairman. The member for Nelson-Creston's microphone is on.

Well, I'm glad that the minister brought that up. There's just one more thing, as Columbo would say, that I would like to ask. The minister has brought this up. I explained to the minister that in Nelson there is a very marginal increase this year because the Kootenay Canal came on stream, not because of anything that was done by this present government but by a change in policy in B.C. Hydro which was brought about when we were government.

In School District 86, Creston-Kaslo, the major part of which is also in my riding, the story is somewhat different. But I am speaking on behalf of school districts all over the province because, on the average, every one of them are being told to raise 6 mills more locally. Really! You're not going to pay that. If you really want to argue with me, you should have brought up that assessments have been frozen for the last few years. You really should have brought that up. But to say that there was no increase in the homeowner grant.... What you should have told your new-found colleagues, Mr. Minister, was that we brought in.... We diverged from the homeowner grant policy. We also brought in a progressive school tax removal policy. That was, for some people, in the first year $40 in excess of what the homeowner grant was and, in the next year, $80. So a lot of people qualified, in effect, last year for $280 — to oversimplify, we could say a $280 homeowner grant. Now that only applied as a proportion of school taxes up to $200 — and it was being phased in at $40 a year — and in five years would have amounted to that.

What you've done this year, Mr. Minister, is not really increased the homeowner grant for any of those people. In fact, if you look in your estimates you'll see that your provision for homeowner grants has only gone up from $121.5 million to $130 million. It's only gone up $8.5 million, so there can't be much relief with $8.5 million.

Now you can argue that you're going to get a bit of money from the people who are going to have to pay $50, and you're going to give away a little bit more money to people who are senior citizens. But we'll discuss that, I suppose, when that bill is before the House. To say that we didn't increase the homeowner grant is, perhaps, technically correct, but it's not the full story. In fact, $40 increases in two years were very dramatic increases for some people who were paying a high proportion in terms of school property tax. There's a heck of a morass to be unravelled in terms of the way in which we finance schools.

I think the education finance formula has to be re-examined. I would urge the minister to take the data which is presently available from the B.C. Assessment Authority and start running models in anticipation of the day when the government screws up its courage to bring in, as it must, some change to the assessments.

HON. MR. McGEER: You gave us an example of that courage.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, we had to have the 100 per cent assessments, to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. We had to have 100 per cent assessments in order to run models, in order to look at the anomalies that will occur, to look at the impact on senior citizens, on.... You can't just suddenly switch people's taxes, I don't think, in one year. You're going to have to have that 100 per cent assessment information. I submit to you that you now have it, and you should be starting to run computer models.

HON. MR. McGEER: The department is doing so.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay. Very good; I'm glad to hear of that. But it doesn't take away from the fact that we did provide relief to people most seriously affected by increasing school taxes. Our system of school tax removal had an impact for people who were paying a high proportion of their property taxation towards schools. This year for a lot of people there will be no increased relief, because all you've done is amalgamate the school tax removal grant with homeowner grant once again. Your own estimates show only $8.5 million increase, so that $8.5 million is to offset how many millions of dollars? What will be the total impact in terms of increased property taxation for school purposes this year?

No, Mr. Minister, you have dipped and you have taken away the cash-based revenue, and the people are going to be confused. The people are maybe going to blame this on the municipality, they're going to blame it on the school boards, but the people should be informed, and we should be honest. We should tell them what has happened, that the provincial government is not sharing with the municipalities in revenues and local agencies; it is dipping into their pockets even more, and into their only viable tax base.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): No matter how much the minister talks about hair-splitting and quotes various mill rates, the point is — and he knows it and the school boards know it — that the people, the homeowners in this province are being asked to pay a larger per cent of that education bill. It's being foisted on to them. You're taking more money out of their pockets at that local level. These are the same people who have been asked to pay increased taxes in almost every field there is: sales tax, income tax, increased ferry rates, ICBC, the whole long list, Mr.

[ Page 1723 ]

Minister. And you are asking them to pay more.

Now school boards this year had hoped that they would be able to reduce the mill rate. They had hoped that, but because of your actions they are forced to put them up.

Within my own riding, those school trustees have worked very hard to cut their budgets as much as they possibly can, and they had hoped to cut down on the mill rate that they would be asking the people to pay. Unfortunately, those mill rates have gone up at a time when they could have gone down, and you're foisting that, Mr. Minister, onto the people of the province, no matter how you cut it.

I would like to make a few comments while I'm on my feet about the fine job that's being done by so many of the teachers in this province. We are fortunate, indeed, to have programmes in the arts such as those in music and drama. In my own riding they are very, very successful. They're well done, and the students benefit a great deal from them.

We have an art director in the Courtenay area, and he is made mention of in this latest publication from your department, Mr. Minister, of Education Today. There's a picture of him showing him doing his job, working with Habitat. He is the one who has been the chief architect behind Habitat construction done by the school students with newspaper. You're probably familiar with the project yourself. He deserves a lot of credit, and he's just an example of one of the fine people who are involved in programmes of this sort. I would like — with your permission, Mr. Chairman — to read a letter into the record which has been sent to the school board in School District 7 I from the chairman of the art education department at the University of British Columbia. It's addressed to the chairman of the board of school trustees in district 71, Courtenay.

"Dear Mr. Bailey:

"I have just returned from the warehouse where your Mr. Wynn Davies is in charge of the children making and decorating the ceiling shells for the Habitat information centre.

"You would have been impressed by the absolutely magnificent job that is being done by Mr. Davies. When I was asked by Arthur Erickson who could take charge of this project, I had no hesitation in telling him that there was, to my knowledge, only one person in B.C. — this in spite of the fact that I know 90 per cent of the art teachers in the province, and all the art consultants and supervisors.

"Only because of the outstanding nature of Mr. Davies' abilities is the project going to be a success. The problems he has had to face would have caused other people to throw up their hands and walk off the job. I can well imagine all kinds of people capitalizing on the success of the project, taking photographs, filming and presenting papers on the work being done, without any reference being made to Mr. Davies. I hope this will not happen.

"Also I hope that the Courtenay School Board will be given due credit for having the foresight to release Mr. Davies in order to undertake this task for this very important international conference. I want to send you my personal thanks for your contribution."

It is because we have people like Mr. Wynn Davies within the school system who are able to take an interest in programmes like art and drama and music that the students in school districts — and here again I refer to my own — derive so much benefit. I certainly can speak on behalf of my own children who are attending school in the Courtenay area and who are benefiting equally from programmes such as those initiated by people of Mr. Wynn Davies' calibre. I just wanted to read that into the record. I take some pride in the work being done by this particular teacher from our area, and I wanted to draw it to the attention of the House and the minister.

There is one other matter that I would like to dwell briefly on, Mr. Chairman, and that relates to our new North Island Community College. This college is rather unique in that it tries to serve a very large geographical area without going to the expense of building expensive facilities. The whole operation is handled through a mobile home located on the property of School District 71 at Campbell River, and from there the North Island College has been able to develop programmes that are servicing people in rather remote places like Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Port McNeill, up and down the Nimpkish valley where the logging camps are located.

I think that the concept which was developed by that community college council, and now the community college itself, is one which could be duplicated in many parts of the province. There's an innovative group working with the North Island College; they are introducing programmes trying to meet the educational needs of people who would otherwise be completely denied any opportunity to continue their education.

But again, this college is suffering because they have not had the money that I think they should have had this year. They just started last year. Their budget last year was for only part of the year. But because they, unfortunately, do not have the money I think they need to operate and to expand those courses in the whole northern part of Vancouver Island this year, the people up there will not receive the benefits they might have. I'm wondering, in setting your priorities in terms of spending for the community colleges, if this college — which, as I say, is very new but is very innovative and is not spending money on a lot of equipment and a lot of expensive facilities — might be given some consideration.

[ Page 1724 ]

1 think at this time, if there is any way you have special warrants that you can give out, if there is income coming into the provincial government which will be surplus this year, as most of us anticipate there will be, that some additional funds be directed toward the North Island Community College.

Mr. Minister, I would appreciate your comments on that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the other day when discussing the Minister of Education's estimates, he made a statement, and I don't have clear in my mind as to what the minister meant. We were talking about the appointment of someone from Prince Rupert to the Northwest Community College.

At that time the Minister said: "Well, give me a name." I don't know whether he meant: "I'll look at it; I'll appoint that person." What I would like to get from the minister...if I were to give him a name from the city of Prince Rupert as a nominee for that appointment, will that person be appointed if he meets what the minister has laid down as the criteria — if he has achieved within his own field of endeavour, if he's fiscally responsible, and what was the other one? — and interested in education?

I do have such a person in mind — one who has served on the school board, has achieved in his own field of endeavour and meets all the qualifications the minister put forward. If I do put this name forward — and I would like to check with that person first, because I have not, to see if that person would accept the appointment, because he's a busy person — is the minister telling me that that person will be appointed to the board? Because I think it would take an expansion of the board by one this year. I would like to get it clear in my mind what the minister means now.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Is he your cousin?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we'd certainly pursue any suggestion from an MLA. We would give very serious consideration to.... Obviously, I don't make the appointments; the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council does. It requires agreement of the person.

Of course, as the member well knows, at the moment the minister is being accused of being a racist, a dictator — and I'll try and think of some of the other things. Naturally we're very sensitive at the moment, as you can appreciate, Mr. Member, to replace somebody whose term is unexpired. But at the first expiry or the first resignation, obviously we would give Prince Rupert the very top consideration because we recognize it's a large community which at the present time is not represented. So please, anytime, preferably now, we'd welcome, your suggestion.

MR. LEA: I think I'm getting it a little clearer now. In other words, I can suggest someone; you'll look at it. But at the present there isn't an opening on the board, so the person does not stand a chance of being appointed to the board.

What I'm asking the minister to do is to make room for a person from Prince Rupert, or to expand the board by one so that a person from Prince Rupert can be appointed to that board, because I can suggest a great many people, if they would agree to serve on that board — people who meet all the criteria.

But I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is trying to wriggle a bit out of making a commitment of a recommendation to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council on a person from Prince Rupert. I don't want to go to the trouble, or to bother those people, even inquiring as to whether they would serve, if it isn't for sure that there's an opening on that board for this present year. Next year we'll deal with it when it happens, or the next time there are people appointed to the board-when their expiry date is up.

But what I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is if I put forward a name that meets the criteria set down by the minister, is that someone going to be appointed to the board this year? That's a far different question.... I didn't receive an answer, I don't feel, that clarifies the situation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the best way that I can answer the member is to remind him of something that he's quite aware of, namely that in order-in-council appointments the minister doesn't make the appointment; the executive council does.

MR. LEA: I did say that. Would he make a recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that there'll be another spot placed on that board, expanded by one, or does someone come off and someone from Prince Rupert go on so that there's even representation? That's the question I would like an answer to. When the minister first rose and said that he's a little nervous now, after being called a racist and.... Now I'm not suggesting that someone from a particular ethnic group.... I'm just suggesting someone from Prince Rupert who meets the qualifications as set out by the minister, and who may very well be from one of the ethnic groups in Prince Rupert. I'm just suggesting that someone from Prince Rupert should go on the board this year.

What I would like to have from the minister is a yes or a no so I don't bother the good people of Prince Rupert by asking anyone if they'll serve or not, if it's a useless exercise on my part. Yes or no? Is someone going on the board from Prince Rupert this year? If that's the case, then I'll make sure that I have some recommendations in to the minister.

[ Page 1725 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Just to repeat for the member, and maybe we can get it across this time, Mr. Chairman: there are no vacancies, and we're unable to create more positions because our appointees equal the number of school trustees who were appointed. But as the member probably knows, there is a representative on that college council from Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: The school board representative.

HON. MR. McGEER: That is correct, and they have the same number of votes as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments. So it's not as you've suggested, as though Prince Rupert — that great, famous community that deserves representation — it's not like it's completely without representation. It does have representation on the council. We would be quite happy to consider enriching that as soon as an opportunity arises. We can't create an opportunity, because we're prevented from doing so by legislation. If I were to dismiss somebody, I might be criticized by one of the members opposite for that, so I would be very reluctant, obviously in view of the debate, to run counter to the wishes of the opposition in that regard. But again, I extend the welcome, the wish, the desire that the member nominate whoever he considers should belong on that board and, at the earliest opportunity, we'll give it very favourable consideration, but obviously I cannot bind my colleagues in cabinet.

MR. LEA: I am not prepared to go along with this farce.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: I mean, either someone is appointed or someone isn't appointed. I'm not going to go around asking good people in my riding whether they'll serve or whether they won't serve if the opportunity isn't there, and submit names when there's no opportunity for anyone to serve. It's a complete farce, Mr. Chairman, and the only reason, I repeat, that Prince Rupert does not have someone on that board is because of political vindictiveness by that government because it voted in an NDP MLA. The people there know it very well. They know it very well, and the minister has only confirmed it tonight.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, many are called but few are chosen. (Laughter.) I move that the committee rise, report great progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11.03 p.m.