1972 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 137 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would like the House to welcome a

special guest today. The Reverend Mr. DeBeck, who said prayers

for us today, is the son of our own Clerk.

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

South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I

would like at this time to introduce the students from David

Thompson high school in Vancouver South. They are accompanied by

their law teacher, Mr. Ellis, and the principal of David Thompson

high school, Mr. Mackenzie. There is some added pleasure in

introducing this group in that I live right across the street

from David Thompson high school and I hope that the students

enjoy themselves here today and I'm sure that all the other

Members wish them the best of luck in future years.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of order. With respect to your order concerning questions

on the order paper I would like to raise five points.

The first is that you're quoted in the Sunday edition of the

Victoria Daily Colonist on page 33 as stating, and I quote, "If I

didn't get tough now they would be able to call me up on it

later." I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself would want to

clarify this point because it clearly anticipates an attitude

towards questions coming from the House. And of course the House

may very well decide to give great latitude in the framing of

questions.

Secondly, there is a bill on the order paper which certainly

implies that the rules governing the conduct of this assembly are

in need of modernization. Yet, in your order of Friday last, you

based your ruling on a Speaker's decision that was made some 40

years ago and hasn't been recalled since that time. Again, in

view of the growing indications of change, the effect of your

ruling is to severely limit the opportunity of the opposition of

this House to seek information from the Ministers of the

Crown.

Thirdly, over the course of the last 20 years further

precedents through usage have developed, Mr. Speaker, which have

permitted easy access to the order paper by way of written

questions in this House.

I would quote some examples. In 1972, as late as February 3,

when a Member of the loyal Opposition then asked questions with

reference to the aircraft passage and this is followed by a

question for Mr. Hartley to ask the Hon. Minister of Highways

(Mr. Black) a question that deals with fact.

There is a question from the Hon. the Liberal Member from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) asking the Premier and the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) a question, which is based

on fact and assumption.

There is another example as late as February 3, 1972 from the

then Leader of the official opposition (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to ask

the Premier and the President of the Council questions which were

based again on usage and fact.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that usage in recent years has over

ridden much of the limitations that were established by the order

of the Speaker 40 years ago upon which you based your

decision.

Mr. Speaker, the net effect of your order of last Friday would

in fact be that members, desirable though they are, of the Fourth

Estate, and I speak of the media and the Press gallery, would be

in a position of being able to address more important questions

to the Minister of the Crown in the corridors of this assembly

than would be the legitimate Members on the floor of this

House.

[ Page 138 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to have you comment with

respect to question No. 10 which I would suggest would offend the

ruling that you made with respect to question No. 9. Yet the

answer has been permitted to appear on the order paper. It's the

exclusion of question No. 10 that we object to. I would further

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is clearly rhetorical and I

would therefore, on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in

this House and I believe the public, ask for your clarification

and invite your comments, Mr. Speaker, on the points that I have

raised.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to thank the Hon. Member and point

out to the Hon. Member and the House that questions are passed

upon by the Clerk and the Speaker and should be passed upon

before they are admitted to the motion paper. And any

irregularities are then dealt with at that stage in the same

manner as with notice of motion. I have already indicated that on

Friday.

Now it may be that the practice grows from time to time of

permitting some latitude in the wording of questions. But the

Hon. Member is in effect wanting to debate the question of the

latitude that should be given by the Speaker and his Clerks to

the questions that are put on the table by the Hon. Members.

This is a matter that will be before the House and it would be

anticipating that to discuss the scope and the method by which

questions are submitted to, the Clerks of the House.

And I would suggest that if you have received the rules that

have been laid down and adopted by this House which have been

followed over the years in a general sense and study those you'll

find that most of those questions that were on the order paper by

error can be rephrased in the proper way so that assumptions are

not made in the way they were, so that the foundations are laid

properly for facts to be disclosed by Ministers responsible. You

will get every cooperation from the Clerks in the House in

seeing that what you want to elicit is properly put down on the

order paper.

It's an art, I'll admit that, asking a parliamentary question.

But until we change those rules as they exist I feel I must

adhere to them and it was, I think, proper to say that before

this House goes much further we should know where we stand on the

rules so that later on someone cannot point to another Hon.

Member and say, "You permitted that Member to do what you will

not permit. me to do". And. I think that we should therefore

adhere to the rules.

May I add in answer to the question on the answer to No. 10.

It was submitted by the Hon. Premier without our knowledge at the

time and he had of course no knowledge of what I intended to do

in regards to questions on the order paper. It was tabled in the

House at the same time that I had made my determination that the

question need not be on the order paper in the form it was

stated. If the Premier wishes to answer questions that's his

prerogative.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I raise a further

point in connection with your ruling. I've studied the decision of Mr.

Speaker Davie and with every respect, Sir, I think that you have interpreted

narrowly the meaning that he laid out because here is what he stated in his

ruling of March 2,1932.

"Facts on which a question is based may he set out briefly.

But extracts from newspapers, quotations from speeches et cetera

are not allowed".

Now clearly what Mr. Davie was driving at in that sentence was

that the extracts were not allowed in the question that was

asked. But quite clearly he did not attempt to rule out

substantive statements made by Ministers that would be quoted in

newspapers and in the media.

As we came into the House this afternoon the media were

interviewing the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He could quite clearly have been

making statements of policy that he wouldn't make on the floor of

the House and which therefore would become legitimate material

for questions from Opposition Members. If these are to be ruled

out on the basis that he gave that interview in the corridor then

quite clearly the Opposition has been hampered in a way that has

never been the case before in the Province of British Columbia.

And, Sir, I think your ruling has gone far beyond what Mr.

Justice Davie had in mind….

[ Page 139 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated.

This is not a question of debate. There is a debate ordered on

the subject of oral and other questions and other rules in this

House which we can in due course indulge in — certainly you can,

I'm afraid I won't be able to. But at this stage I don't want to

indulge in a debate on it.

I've submitted to you the authorities. You may not agree with

those authorities but they happen to be, in my view, binding on

the House and therefore I ask you to accept them as they are

without any further argument.

If you find that they are unnecessarily binding then take it

up with the Clerks as to how you frame your questions.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the comments made by the Hon. Member

for Point Grey. They were well taken. I think that in the

presentation of my remarks you would admit that there was no

effort to enter into a debate or any hostility. What I did ask

for was clarification. And I pointed out in my comments that it

was through practice, through usage and, in fact, through consent

of this House that Members were allowed a legitimate latitude in

the phrasing of their questions. I also point out again that in

your ruling there was grave concern on the part of all Opposition

Members that the Fourth Estate, the media, which is in a very

different position today than it was in 1932 — a very powerful

position — is available to many more people. It's in this

context that I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider your ruling and

to ask for the consent of the House to allow the practice that

has been established by consent of this House to stand and not

bring into force an antiquated ruling that was made in 1932.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please be seated. Mr.

Clerk, would you proceed. I'm sorry, do you have some point that

you wish to talk about other than the one that you have been

discussing.

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

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

MR. SMITH: It has to do with the ruling handed down by the

Hon. Speaker, C.F. Davie, the one that you quoted from….

MR. SPEAKER: I must say that this is out of order. That it is

the prerogative of the Speaker. I am following the rules of this

House on the advice of my clerks and my own study in the matter,

and I submit that it's out of order to debate the question. I ask

the Hon. Member to be seated.

MR. SMITH: I only wanted to quote further from the same text

and source of text that you took for handing down your

ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: We have all read the text, Hon. Member. If you

want to debate the issue there is a place during the proceedings

to debate the whole question of parliamentary procedure and you

are anticipating that debate. Would the Hon. Member please sit

down?

MR. SMITH: In all respect, Mr. Speaker, in all courtesy, Sir,

I must appeal your ruling to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: What ruling?

MR. SMITH: I challenge your ruling. You cannot abuse the

Opposition. The ruling of last Friday, I challenge.

MR. SPEAKER: You are out of order.

MR. SMITH: You cannot appeal?

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

[ Page 140 ]

MR. SMITH: You mean I don't have the right to challenge the

ruling of the Chair?

MR. BENNETT: A decision made by a Speaker may be appealed at a

later sitting, and I call for a division on this issue. The heavy

hand of state socialism is on this province today, we see it

clearly….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Order please!

MRS. JORDAN: The ruling you referred to was brought in on a

Friday in 1932 and was challenged on a Monday. Are you going to

deny us, in this House today, the privilege that was given in

1932?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. members please be seated? There is

no point before the House. Next order of business please, Mr.

Clerk.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't have a division without a question

before the House, and there is no question before the House.

There has been no ruling today.

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

had….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no question of a ruling. There is no

ruling today. Would the Hon. Member please be seated? There's no

ruling, I'm sorry. There's no ruling.

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

Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no ruling. Would the Hon. Member, sit

down? Now! You are interrupting the order of business. Would you

kindly remain seated to proceed with the business of this House?

There is no matter before the House and there is no point of

order before the House. There can't be a point of order on this,

because there is no point of order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no ruling. There was a ruling on Friday.

I explained to this House why the order paper was being changed.

That is not a point of order in the House. That was a courtesy

extended to the Members to explain to them, to help them in the

framing of questions in this House, and it is a prerogative of

the Speaker to do that on the order paper according to every

authority that I had before me then, and what I had before me

now. You are asking me to change the rules of this House when the

matter is before the House on a bill, and I say I cannot do that.

It would be wrong for me to anticipate what this House wants to

do, and for that reason I say there is no point of order and your

position is not well-taken. Would the Hon. Member please be

seated.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): That's what I've been

waiting for, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, and my point of

order is that the

[ Page 141 ]

Opposition bills have appeared on the order paper for the

second straight day marked "not printed".

It is not going to be the rule of this House that the

opposition bills are printed? In the past, Mr. Speaker,

Opposition bills have been printed immediately after they were

placed on the order paper. The principle is that this House has

accepted these bills for second debate, for second reading. They

have not yet been printed and what bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is

who has gone to the Queen's Printer and said that these bills

cannot be printed. Now, is it the intention of this House, Mr.

Speaker, that this session run out before the opposition bills

are going to be printed? Is that the intention of the House, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know, Hon. Member, but I'll make

immediate inquiries, because I know that these bills should be

printed, and I will do what I can in my office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. I want the Member to withdraw the imputation that

somebody from this side of the House has been to the Queen's

Printer to say that they will not be printed. I have been in this

House six years, Mr. Speaker, and I've never heard such an

allegation in my life.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wonder if the Hon. Minister would like to

explain to the House why the bills haven't been printed.

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

the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Provincial Secretary would explain why

the bills haven't been printed then. What other thought are we to

take on this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I will make inquiries to see why

they have not yet been printed. I know that last year they were not

printed the first day and I will do what I can to see that this is

facilitated in any event. Now we've got all that out of our system, may we go

ahead. Mr. Clerk?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN: This is an attempt on the part of that

Opposition to create anarchy. They don't want the system to work.

They don't want the system to work. They're deliberately trying

to create anarchy. They don't want the system to work. They don't

want the system to work.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are deliberately trying to create

anarchy in this House.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

if possible?

Orders of the day.

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

orders.

Motion approved.

[ Page 142 ]

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MALE MINIMUM WAGE ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I would like to point out

that the purpose of the Act is to combine the Male and Female

Minimum Wage Acts under one bill, to increase the minimum wage

immediately from $1.50 an hour to $2.00 an hour, and to increase

the minimum wage for people 17 years and under of age to $1.60

per hour.

Now that I'm presenting this bill, Mr. Speaker, I might point

out that a great number of submissions have been received by this

department. Hearings were conducted earlier in the year in the

City of Vancouver which presented an opportunity for labour and

management groups to make their presentations and outline their

positions on a proposed minimum wage increase and I think that a

very wide opportunity was afforded for this purpose and certainly

a great number of groups took advantage of the opportunity to

make such presentations.

In studying the representations that were made, Mr. Speaker,

we found that concern was expressed that too large an increase in

the minimum wage not take place immediately. In other words, that

an opportunity be provided to small and marginal businesses to

anticipate the type of increase they might expect over a period

of time and to stage the increases in such a way that they could

gear their businesses to provide for the impact that this type of

increase of wage cost would have on their business.

I think that this bill provides this opportunity. It provides

for an increase to $2.00 immediately and I have stated as a

matter of public policy, Mr. Speaker, that additional increases

would be forthcoming by regulation at the expiration of one year,

and another additional increase of 25 per hour 18 months after

the passage of this bill. I think that this is a reasonable

formula for presenting the much-needed increase in the minimum

wage requirements in the province. I think it is a reasonable

step which does in fact allow small businesses the opportunity to

gear their business to minimize the impact of the wage

increase.

Now, I noted that the official Opposition had announced prior

to the election that they anticipated a similar increase in the

minimum wage and I notice also that the Liberals have certainly

indicated support for this type of situation. I anticipate that

they'll be making their positions clearer in debate this

afternoon. I certainly look forward to the comments of the

Opposition.

That's all I'm prepared to say on it at this time, Mr.

Speaker. I think the provisions of the bill are self-evident and

so I commend it to the House.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I rise in support of this

legislation. I want to assure you that having given my support at

this time that in an hour from now I will not withdraw that

support.

I am very pleased to see the housekeeping amendment that has

taken place relative to the amalgamation of the two former Acts,

the Male Minimum Wage Act and the Female Minimum Wage Act. There

is a bit of anxiety in the community at large with the fact that

this is an inflationary trend and that it might effect increased

costs in the service industries of our province. But I think we

as legislators have a primary consideration here. I think far

more so than the bad effect of inflation that might be created by

this increase, and that is ensuring those people who are

presently employed at the minimum wage earn sufficient to look

after themselves and to be able to cope with the type of

inflation which they face as well. I think it's most important,

it should be our primary consideration, to increase the

purchasing power of these people who are presently on the minimum

wage in our province. It is inflationary — certainly it's

inflationary. It's going to create inflation. You might as well

admit it.

Interjections by Hon. members.

MR. CHABOT: No, that's selling land on Gabriola Island and

collecting back taxes. That's inflation my friend, inflation of

the public purse. But I think that prior to the move from $2.50,

I think that we have a respons-

[ Page 143 ]

ibility to examine the economic consequences of that move.

Because there is a possibility, and there is a fear in the

community at large that the movement from $2.00 to $2.50 an hour

might create unemployment in the Province of British Columbia. It

might have some severe effect upon business such as marginal

business enterprises in our province. Also it would have a

tendency to be inflationary as well.

One must also look at the influx that it might create into the

Province of British Columbia from other provinces that do not

enjoy the type of minimum wage which we will be enjoying in the

province. I think that we should use a great deal of caution in

moving from $2 an hour because I think we're still a part of

Canada. Although I believe that our minimum wage should be the

highest of all the provinces in this country, I think they should

have some relationship to the minimum wage of other provinces as

well. And I want to urge the Minister that prior to moving from

$2 an hour to any other figure, that he hold public hearings — that his Board of Industrial Relations — hold public hearings in

various parts of the province so that the public will have an

opportunity to express their opinion of this rise in minimum

wage. This would give them an opportunity to, as you use the

word, put a little "input" into decision-making on minimum

wage.

I think it's most important that the Board of Industrial

Relations should be used because there is a possibility; there is

a fear on my part, that there might not be public hearings with a

movement from $2 to $2.50. I think it's most important that this

be considered so that the people can express their opinion on the

movement from $2, and I understand through the Press that it was

from $2 to $2.25, and then on to $2.50 in a period of 18

months.

So I would assume that the minimum wage, as the Minister said,

is going to become law immediately. It's a proclamation bill and

I think he's indicated it's going to become law immediately at $2

an hour. I would assume sometime in 1973 it'll move to $2.25, and

then to $2.50. And I was going to urge you for speedy

implementation that you've indicated to the House that you will

move ahead. But my prime concern really is that public hearings

be held prior to the movement from $2 an hour. And I certainly

support the bill.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we wish

to support the bill, and to applaud the Minister of Labour for

its introduction. And the very sensible way that he has commenced

to handle a very difficult problem. We began to call very

vigorously for reform and an increase in the minimum wage at the

time of Senator Croll hearings in Ottawa, where it was revealed,

I think publicly for the first time, that the people who were

poor in Canada and the people who were really being exploited

were the working poor, and that they made up by far the largest

proportion of those at the poverty level in this country.

I don't agree entirely with what the member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) said, in the changes to the minimum wage are going

to be dangerous to inflation. I think far from it. The Minister

has an opportunity to dig below the crust a little bit and to

identify where exploitation has been taking place in this

country. Heaven knows we've been generous enough with the people

who haven't been working, and all of us know of examples where

people have lost their jobs and because they were high-paying

jobs have been kept alive by the taxpayers at a level of income

far beyond what the many people who make up the working poor have

been receiving.

I think this is the kind of thing that deserves public

attention and to which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

can now address himself to in the future. Indeed if he were to

take on one thing that would allow him to make his mark as the

Minister of Labour without equal in the history of this province,

it would be to get at this whole question of how the working poor

are being exploited.

I think it should he recorded in this chamber that our heart

does go out to these people, that we recognize that they have

really been the most disadvantaged of all in this country and

that finally something is to be done on their behalf. I hope at

the same time, Mr. Speaker, the government

[ Page 144 ]

will recognize its responsibilities too, because one

particular industry caring for the elderly has been done at the

minimum wage level. Almost without exception, these people have

been exploited, those that have provided the care in addition to

the fact to those who must receive it, of course, are in dire

circumstances.

The whole question of rest homes and care for the elderly

needs to be rationalized by government action. So just raising

the minimum wage is by no means sufficient for the Minister, or

for the government. The whole question of exploitation of the

poor has to be raised. And the other move that the government

must make in order to strike a new balance also will be revealed.

Public hearings, absolutely! But I hope we can go far beyond

that, perhaps with all-party hearings involving the labour

committee of the House to get at this question in a far more

profound way than has been attempted in British Columbia in the

past.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

in supporting this bill I would ask the government to give

consideration to a special group of people. And that is the

handicapped people who are either physically handicapped or

mentally handicapped. As the minimum wage gets higher — which we

support — it is going to be more difficult for them to get a

job, or hold a job. And therefore I would ask for some study to

be given by government for a subsidy to people that have some

handicap so that they do not lose their jobs, or so that they can

get in the mainstream of working, because that might be the type

of therapy for them. I ask the Minister to give some thought to

them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the

opposition's new-found concern for the handicapped. And if it's a

change of heart, it's accepted by this House.

One advantage of raising the minimum wage to $2 is to

encourage mentally handicapped people and physically handicapped

people to ease off welfare roles. At the present time the minimum

wage is so low that those people who are on welfare and are

minimal income earners because of some handicapped aren't risk

getting off welfare and taking a job because they're better off

on welfare than they were under the previous government's minimum

wages.

If anything is designed to get people off welfare, it's a bill

like this, which gives a sense of security beyond state support.

When a recipient of welfare becomes a chronic user of the welfare

system the very thought of leaving that welfare system and going

into the employment market at a rate that is less than what he

would get on welfare becomes so threatening that the

psychological problems that they had that lead them to welfare

become reinforced.

Many people have been forced to look upon welfare in North

American society as a loving, comforting mother. Because out in

the cruel world that your system of economics encourages,

low-income earners have actually been subsidizing businesses.

Profits have been made because low wages have been paid. People

have lost a sense of security if they go out to the market-place

and earn incomes that in some instances are actually below what

they could get on welfare.

While I welcome this belated turn of heart, let me tell you

that this move is designed to help the handicapped, to help the

people without trades and to help the low wage earners look to a

more meaningful role in life other than welfare in itself. No

employer, and I say this very, very openly, no just employer

fights this reasonable wage.

For those employers who are skeptical about a good minimum

wage let me tell you that it will cost them more in the long run

in terms of tax dollars unless we make moves like this to get

people off welfare.

I'm glad that the House accepts this move. The move has been

made in sub-ignorance because, on taking office, we find that

absolutely no research was done by the previous government in the

labour department to indicate the impact of minimum wages.

No information was available and I regret that that question

was struck from the order paper. I'll answer it right now since

you're so concerned with information. We can't give you the

answer because on taking office

[ Page 145 ]

there was no research whatsoever conducted on the impact of

minimum wages in the Province of British Columbia.

we were given grab-bag figures in Press statements during the

election campaign — that's what we were given, $1.90 — we're

moving to $2. The reason for the delay, and I welcome the remarks

from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), the

reason for the delay is to do some basic research.

I don't know if public hearing is the best way to do research.

We hope to hire competent, skilled people to find out the true

impact of minimum wages on the marginal enterprises. But, the

first move was obvious; we've made it and we welcome your

assistance from there. But the sanctimonious, somewhat, concern

is almost like reaching out of the past and saying, "Don't forget

those". I try to keep my cynicism down as much as possible, but

after 20 years I find that a little bit cynical.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would add our

support to this bill and remind the Premier who's just spoken,

Mr. Speaker, that this is no change of heart on my part. The

Minister of Labour grins.

In the budget speech, earlier this year, I expressed amazement

that the government in boasting of its financial surplus did very

little to help the poor. That, Mr. Speaker, is clearly on the

record.

One of the Members, today, has already quoted on the Senate

report on poverty, the Croll committee. I think that it is

worthwhile reminding the House that that report said that one

Canadian in four lacks sufficient income to maintain a basic

standard of living. one in four. As the Premier has already

mentioned, it is quite clear in our society today that there is

something far wrong when a person willing to work finds that, in

fact, financially he would be as well off and maybe even better

off to be on welfare. While perhaps the Conservative Party and

the socialist party aren't quite in agreement on the basis of

incentives to industry, I think we are all agreed on the

importance of incentives to individuals in society to

contribute.

One interesting statistic from the Croll report stated that 63

per cent of low income family heads are members of the labour

force. In other words over 60 per cent of the poor people are not

on welfare. I think that when we think on these lines we can well

appreciate the committee's final statement that 5 million

Canadians continue to find life a bleak, bitter and never-ending

struggle for survival. That is a direct quote from the Croll

Report.

The report also mentioned, however, that we should perhaps not

only think in terms of raising minimum wages but move, as the

report stated, iron welfare strategy to an income strategy. I would take this

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say that we must move in the direction of a

guaranteed annual income concept which together with the negative income tax

concept would give a greater measure of social justice across Canada.

And I hope that the Premier and the Minister of Labour will

make some comment in closing the debate as to the relationship to

minimum wage at the present time as, I think, a relatively

interim measure and perhaps the longer term aim of establishing

with the Federal Government a guaranteed income.

I did a little research into wage rates between 1966 and

August 1971 and certainly the average industrial wage has risen

by 46 per cent but the minimum wage had merely gone up from $1.25

to $1.50. So that it's quite clear that as the employed segment

of the community has been negotiating increases in pay that the

minimum wage movement has been far behind — which is one more

reason to raise it at this time.

While I support this concept very strongly, Mr. Speaker, I

would have to say that of all the issues concerning the special

session of the House there is not one that has drawn more comment

or more contact from citizens in all walks of life both by direct

contact and by letter, as this particular topic.

It is very true to say, in my experience at least and. In my

riding, that citizens are very apprehensive. I agree with the

Premier, there is

[ Page 146 ]

not enough information known as to the numbers concerned and

the particular segments of the work force to be affected and to

what degree. I think it all comes back to the old question of

money — "How much?" and in this particular case, "Over what

periods of time?" So I think it's only fair to reemphasize that

in an area already mentioned this afternoon — namely the nursing

homes of this province — there is tremendous concern.

I'm not defending that private nursing homes function by

employing unskilled low-paid people for a very important job. I'm

not defending that, nor am I here to argue about it — not this

time. There'll be plenty of time in the future. But, I'm just

saying that it is an economic fact of life that if we put the

minimum wage up to $2 an hour, the impact on patients in private

nursing homes will just be one more disastrous step in that the

monthly expense would go up.

I would just plead again with the Premier to keep this in mind

in relation to the proposed raise, and please, Mr. Speaker, would

the Premier consider, before this House closes, some even

interim, partial measure to relieve this further blow financially

and economically to patients in the private nursing homes.

The Premier has also said that we must help the handicapped

and I think it is all very well to say that they will be paid

more under this bill. But the fact is that when you raise the

minimum wage by 33 1/3 per cent you are certainly tempting many

employers to cut corners or to try and get by with fewer staff.

This is the other concern that has been voiced to me — that

unemployment might be increased, and again it might be increased

through mechanism of laying off staff at the nursing homes. I

hate to think to what degree the already minimal standard of care

— if we're talking about minimal wages, I think in many nursing

homes we're talking about minimal standards of care — I hate to

think what will happen if private nursing homes attempt to lay

off staff in order to cope with the increased wage.

It was also expressed. from many directions that a raise to

$2.50 in one move would be too drastic and I think that the

Premier and the Minister of Labour, in fact the government, has

shown great sense and wisdom and a great deal of courage really,

because they made an election promise to raise it to $2.50

immediately and they are being criticized now by, I forget his

name, one of the unions in Victoria, I think the Boiler Makers'

Union, was criticizing the Premier for backing down, for not

making it $2.50 immediately. We on this side of the House think

that shows a great measure of wisdom in the light of

reconsideration and that people should not expect that some

well-intentioned statement made to help the working poor should

have to be modified in the light of some reexamination. Therefore

I personally certainly would not criticize the government for

changing its mind.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be recorded very

clearly that the bill only states that the wage will go up to $2

now. There is no statement as to whether it will go to $2.25 or

$2.50 or when it would go any further. The Minister has mentioned

that this could be done by regulation. I would like to make it

clear that we are not too happy about the idea of moves of this

nature by regulation. We feel that if this is to be the policy,

either this should be the policy of the government or it should

be left unsaid — one or the other. But not to make public

statements, to say that it will go up to $2.25 or $2.50 at stated

dates when in fact the legislation does not in any way refer to

that.

I have already mentioned that people are concerned about the

effect on unemployment, simply because some of the operators,

small businessmen, restaurants — one restaurant owner in Oak Bay

just tells me that he would have inevitably to raise prices on

such simple things as a cup of coffee and sandwiches and I see

the Minister of Labour shrugging his shoulders. But, this is

certainly the information I get and there are all of the

M.L.A.'s to convey information to this House from the

people they represent. This is what I'm doing.

I have a headline from the Vancouver Province that restaurant

prices will go up 10 per cent and that's dated Friday October 20. I think it brings us back to the point that nobody knows what

exactly the full impact of this will be, but we feel that it is

justified in the light of the points already raised.

[ Page 147 ]

I think that it should not be overlooked that the highest

minimum wage in any other province at the present time is $1.75

in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and if you'll look at the other

rates across the country, Newfoundland $1.40, Prince Edward

Island $1.25, Nova Scotia $1.55, New Brunswick $1.40, Quebec

$1.50, and so on across the country, there are only two

provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with a rate as high as

$1.75. Therefore the point raised by the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) is valid — that if we go too far too fast

without consulting the other provinces then there is a danger of

unskilled employees moving into British Columbia which can only

make the unemployment problem worse.

Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I think there is one point

I'd like to mention which has come up in speaking to employers.

This is the role of the person in society who earns a great deal

of income by being tipped. The fact is I've spoken to many people

in the hotel and restaurant business, and they tell me that it

would be just as well for the persons earning income by being

tipped to be excluded from the provisions of the Minimum Wage

Act.

The system is a farce and we even have individuals in certain

restaurants and hotels paying the employer for the jobs simply

because of the amount of money that they can earn from tips.

I've made this enquiry in local establishments and the feeling

of the management is that the whole question of referring to some

of these lower paid people, or keeping them within the provisions

of the Minimum Wage Act, is really unrealistic because they make

three or four times more on tips and this is a difficult amount

of income to access. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we're strongly in

favour of the bill. We're just saying that great care will have

to be exercised on the next move above $2. How much should it be

and how long should we take to put it beyond $2.

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

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, fellow Members. It seems to me that I've been a

little mixed-up. The House seems to have changed since I was here

last. In fact, I went through a throne debate without speaking

after 24 years, and. that's doing pretty good. It makes me think

of the carpenter who was working on a house and he was picking

the nails out of his apron and throwing every second one away.

The boss came along and wanted to know why he was throwing them

away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Careful!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He said; "Well you see, the head's on the

wrong end". The boss picked up one of the nails and said:

"There's nothing wrong with the nail except that it should be for

the other side of the house". So, there may be something to

that.

This bill here, Mr. Speaker, is a very important bill. This

bill is going to improve the standard of living of a great many

people.

But, one of the things that I think we've got to be careful

about and I think the business world should be careful about is

that they do not use this increase in the minimum wage as a lever

to increase prices. I think it's a terrible thing when it's

suggested that you have to increase the cost of meals 10 per cent

to handle a 50 increase per hour.

I think it's the unit cost they have to judge because any

waitress will look after quite a number of people and if you

figure it out rightly, the cost of meals has no hearing on the

minimum wage because many of our restaurants that are not

charging any more than the ones that are paying the minimum wage

are paying more than $2 an hour at the present time.

I think it is time that the poor people that are on the

minimum wage quit subsidizing the businesses so that the boss can

go and have a trip to Hawaii or some other place. To say that

they're going to go out of business because of the increased

minimum wage is rather ridiculous. I hope that these people do

not use this increase in the minimum wage as a lever to up the

prices out of all comparison to what the increase in the wage

is.

[ Page

148 ]

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

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): As we've already

said, this party will support the bill. In particular we welcome

the putting of male and female on the same basis in terms of

minimum wage. I particularly also welcome the introduction of a

set of minimum wage regulations for people under the age of 18. I

think this is an excellent step forward.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the philosophy of the

N.D.P. In regard to minimum wages and this kind of economics. I

think we heard an example of one of the reasons I would question

that philosophy — some of the comments of the last speaker. I

think probably many of the people in this House, most of us, have

had the kind of calls that I've had from a great many operators

of small businesses, small restaurants, dress shops, boutiques,

book shops, and a variety of small operations of that sort,

expressing very grave concern with the impact this sort of thing

is going to have on their business.

I had a call from one such operator who had spoken to one of

the N.D.P. M.L.A.'s in this House and expressed a similar kind of

concern, and I'm told Mr. Speaker, by this store owner that the

answer given by this particular N.D.P. M.L.A. was that all stores

that are unable to pay $2.50 an hour minimum wage should be

closed and the people concerned go to work for a big department

store.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the philosophy of the party opposite I

would be very, very concerned. I think it's a shocking

philosophy. Personally, I have an abiding belief in the

importance of small business to the fabric of our society. I

welcome the Premier's earlier comments about the research that is

to be done in this regard in the future. But, I am concerned,

regardless of the research that is done, if the kind of

philosophy is the kind of statement I've just made, the research

won't do us much good.

So, I ask therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, when he

is closing this debate, explain something of the philosophy that

his government will apply when the results of that research is

brought in, because if the impact of this bill is to destroy

small business, to reduce the number of hours that a small

business can have part-time people working for him, then I think

this bill is doing a great disservice rather than the good that

it might do. And I hope the Minister will outline something of

his philosophy in that regard when he closes the debate.

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

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Before I get

into the remarks that I had especially prepared for this debate I

just want to say that I, too, like the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), had a discussion with a small

store owner.

And in this case it was a she, Mr. Speaker, so I'm sure it was

a different individual, who said to me that she was concerned

that if this bill was passed and if the minimum wage did in fact

increase to $2, then to $2.50, that she would have to go out of

business. Because she had been open that day — she told me this

late on Friday evening — and she had only taken in $3.15 gross,

she didn't understand how she could keep herself in business

under those circumstances.

And I said to her that I didn't understand how she could

either and I said, going beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I didn't

understand how her employee was able to live with the $1.55 that

that employee was being paid.

Perhaps the answer, Mr. Speaker, in those kind of cases is, in

fact, that those businesses should go out of business because if

they can't afford to pay a decent wage then I'm not sure that

they should be in existence. In any event, Mr. Speaker, that's

all I want to say about that point.

Any parliament, any Legislature has days of shame and it has

days of greatness. Regrettably, politics, politicians, democracy

itself have often in recent years been judged only by the days of

shame. In reality, however, our democratic system is not

justified by the all-too-infrequent days of greatness. We have an

opportunity to make this one of those days.

[ Page 149 ]

This government, Mr. Speaker, has provided us all with that

opportunity — an opportunity to demonstrate to the men and women

we represent that we have a sense of values. That sense of values

which enables us to recognize clearly that the basic needs of

people take priority over any other consideration.

The report of the Croll Commission and a number of independent

studies have produced undisputed evidence of one hard fact — that a family in Canada cannot maintain a minimum decent standard

of living on income which is based on wage rates of $1.50 per

hour. There are thousands of men and women in British Columbia

who are currently being paid on that level or very little

more.

That means very simply that a great many families in a

province which we all consider to be prosperous are condemned to

substandard living conditions or are condemned to having one or

more members of the family working long hours at second jobs

jeopardizing the whole structure of family life.

This government has taken a firm and decisive step towards the

elimination of that intolerable situation. This government has

stated clearly that any man or woman who is working to produce

goods and services available to us or who is trying

conscientiously to support himself or herself or family is

entitled as a matter of right to be paid a wage which is

sufficient to provide a decent standard of living.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that every Member in this House

will grasp the significance of this decision and will help to

make this day a day of greatness. A day that we, as elected

representatives of the people of British Columbia, make clear

that we uphold the right of every citizen who is trying to

fulfill his or her responsibility to be able to lead a decent

life.

Unfortunately we have to overcome one regrettable error which

has already been made. The Liberal Member for Victoria made an

error a few weeks ago. We all make errors and I don't want to

appear to be too harsh in pointing out the cruel implications of

his remarks to the effect that, "some people are not worth $2.50

an hour and never will be". I am sure he could not have meant

that….

MR. SPEAKER: When you speak of another Member would you

identify the one to whom you refer. You said the Hon. Member for

Victoria?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. Thank you.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I am not altogether clear whether

it's the First or Second Member for Victoria but it's the only

Liberal Member.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Member concerned did not mean

exactly what that sentence appears to say. I don't believe we can

place a dollar value on the worth of any Canadian but if

we could we would surely place it higher than $2.50 per hour. I

can think of very few people in this world whose lives are not

worth more than that. I am sure he meant that the work they do is

not worth $2.50 per hour.

Even then, Mr. Speaker, I think he was very much in error. Who

are the men and women making less than $2.50 per hour today in

B.C.? Well, they are waitresses, cooks, dishwashers, others in

those kind of job classifications. Would any Member of this House

choose to do that work as an interesting and worthwhile

occupation? I think not. But somebody does this work for us and I

am grateful and I want them to have a decent living wage.

Some of them work in laundries, Mr. Speaker, and provide the

elegant shirts and neatly pressed slacks worn by most of the

Members of this House. I don't particularly enjoy doing those

jobs nor do I find them interesting or stimulating. Somebody does

them for me and for the rest of us and I am grateful and I want

them to have a decent living wage.

Others work in retail stores or clean our buildings or provide

any of the other hundred comforts or conveniences which we all

take for granted every day. I am grateful to that legion of men

and women and I want all of

[ Page 150 ]

them to have decent living wages and so, I hope, does every

Member here today.

Some have said that their prices will go up. Some have said

that certain businesses will fold. I have grave doubts about the

truth of those statements but if that is the price I believe we

must pay it.

The suggestion that we should keep a business or industry

alive by condemning to poverty those who work in that business or

industry is uncomfortably close to the arguments made over a

century ago by those who said the mining industry cannot exist

without children working in the mines or those who said the

cotton industry cannot exist without slaves.

We must say very clearly that, in a socially useful industry,

if you don't pay living wages and if you cannot exist on those

terms then you can't exist in British Columbia today.

As for the increases in the cost of services, I suggest that

these increases would only justify a very minimal increase in

prices. There are very few of our citizens who will object to

paying a few cents more for a restaurant meal, or a few cents

more at the laundry if they do so in the knowledge that the men

and women who are making it possible have an opportunity to enjoy

their lives a little.

In conclusion, I want to appeal to all the Members on both

sides of the House to show that politicians are capable of

putting basic human needs first, are capable of rising above

political differences, and are capable of recognising moral

priorities. The unanimous passage of this legislation will ensure

that today, October 23, will be one of the days of greatness in

the history of the Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Liberal Leader.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As

mentioned by the previous speakers from this party, we will be

supporting this bill which we think is a good one. It was indeed

our policy during the last campaign. In addition, we are pleased

by the fact that British Columbia will be brought more in line

with the federal minimum wage which, when it affects the

industries under its jurisdiction within this province, will be

just slightly less. I believe the federal minimum wage will be

$1.90 per hour. So I'm glad the two rates will be very

similar.

I was, however, a little concerned in the remarks by the

Minister, and once again it's a question of what is left out

rather than what is put in. First of all as we are here in a

special or, originally, an emergency session, I believe Ministers

should preface their remarks with some indication as to why this

specific legislation is special or emergency. It's more of a

technicality I expect. But all Ministers, I believe, should make

some indication of that in their speeches.

There was of course reference to hearings held earlier this

year which were chaired by the Deputy Minister of Labour, I

understand. I would like the Minister perhaps to comment, in his

closing remarks, upon why it was necessary to wait until today to

bring in such a bill which must be debated and then has to have

the assent of the Lieutenant-Governor when indeed he could have

perhaps instructed the Deputy Minister under the regulations

existing in the present Act that this be done a great deal sooner

than the method we are adopting today. I say this bearing in mind

very much the remarks of the Premier who quite candidly correctly

indicated that none of us here have much of an idea of what the

effect of minimum wage provisions will be.

We are to go into a discussion in the Legislature and we will

pass a bill even though this matter could be handled by simply a

word to your Deputy Minister who is the Chairman of the Board of

Industrial Relations. I would like to know why it's being done

this way which delays, as I said, introduction of the minimum

wage rather than expedites it and where the impression may be

given because of some of the over-rhetorical and overblown words

that have been used here today, that we are really doing

something when in actual fact we're not doing a great deal. We're

simply raising our minimum wage to within five per cent of the

federal wage, something that

[ Page 151 ]

could have been done very easily by regulation. I hope the

Minister comments upon that.

I would like to suggest in future to Ministers that they speak

a little more fully when they introduce bills because there are

many questions that come up, many questions of this nature, which

I believe are perfectly routine and which of course must now be

discussed a number of times. If the Minister does not announce

and give a full speech, then of course undoubtedly a Member of

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and a Member of this party and of

other parties will raise questions, and the thing will then be

discussed again by the Minister at the end. If the Minister makes

a very short introductory statement the tendency is for the

debate to be lengthened.

I'm very distressed that in the Minister's remarks no mention

was made of the exemptions to the bill that we are bringing in.

It is fine, and we appreciate and we will endorse of course the $2 an hour as the minimum wage.

At the same time it should be pointed out to Hon. Members that

there is a

section in the Act as it presently exists which is

section 8, and it says, "The Board may after due enquiry", etc. etc., "by

regulations publish in the Gazette ". Now, here is the important part: "exempt any

employee or class of employee, or any employer or class of employer, in

whole or in part from the operation of this Act".

So we have exemptions within the Act itself, which of course

has exempted categories of employees — for example the

agricultural industry. I think it might have been a very

worthwhile thing had the Minister perhaps been more clear in

legislating what types of industries should be exempted and what

types shouldn't.

It's all very well for us to talk in glowing terms about this

being a noble day for democracy etc. when at the same time we

leave within the Act the power to wipe out everything we've done

today for some of the people who may feel that they will have

their minimum wage raised.

Now I know of course that the board will act responsibly in

this and other things, but once again it might be a more honest

approach and a better approach in terms of legislation for us to

specify rather than leaving. powers of regulation within

an Act.

This allows a board or somebody, or even the Minister himself, to

wipe out what we are doing in this House this afternoon, for any

individual who may listening to debates believe that he is going

to be assisted.

Now we've heard some discussion about the number of people,

the marginal employees, who may cease to be employed as a result

of the operation of this Act. The question was raised, and raised

by the Premier as well as others in this debate, that there may

be, if the minimum wage goes up too high, certain people who will

cease to be employed.

My Honourable friend from North Vancouver (Mr. Brousson) gave

an example of this. I presume it's a small store, a boutique or

something, where one person is employed and the amount of money

brought in by having that employee in the store is perhaps not

very great. In other words, the marginal amount of extra business

generated by having an employee in the store is not very

great.

This is the type of example I was using when I was speaking to

a journalist which was commented upon from the other Member from

north shore (Mr. Gabelmann) who spoke earlier. In economic

argument, it may be that if say, for example, the minimum wage

was raised to $10 there would be a lot of people unemployed. Now,

it's no good all of us sitting here saying, "Gee, wouldn't it be

great if everybody felt, they were worth $10". And then of course

unemployment being increased as the result.

But the point I was making, which I think you will appreciate,

Sir, and other Members as well, is that in economic terms it may

not be possible for a store, or a boutique or — whatever it was

— and I believe in your case you referred to a boutique — to

continue to employ people. Therefore there will be some people

who will cease to be employed. And what really surprises me in

this bill, especially after the very good discussion by some of

the backbench Members of the government when the earlier bill was

introduced dealing with labour relations, there was some very

good comments made about getting away from the traditional

concepts of what a job is. Some very good remarks were made about

technological change and boredom. And yet in

[ Page 152 ]

this particular bill we are back to the old traditional

ideas.

For example: Opportunities for Youth paid a good number of young people $1,000

during the summer, probably below the minimum wage specified in this Act. They

did excellent work, gave excellent value, and yet in economic terms it may not

have been possible to pay them $2.50 or $2 an hour. So while some of the backbench

on the government side, Mr. Speaker, have been making some very interesting

comments regarding changing attitudes towards work, we have here a very traditional

piece of legislation dealing with very old concepts.

Now having said that I should of course provide a few comments

of my own which might indicate how I think the problem could be

overcome. Well, say for example at this present stage the minimum

wage goes up to $2. Perhaps there is not be too much problem

there, but say it goes up to $2.50. The minimum wage goes up to

$2.50 and an employer states that the two assistants in the shop

will have to be released, even though they enjoy working in the

shop.

I have a relative who works at a small store, and it's just a

small husband and wife operation with this relative of mine who

helps out when times are busy. And I don't think that this

relative will continue to be employed when the minimum wage goes

to $2.50. But it's something she enjoys doing. She likes doing

it, it keeps her involved in meeting people and things of that

nature.

Now, take that single example. Would it not be possible for

the government to set up some sort of review board and when an

employer comes and says, "Look, because of the minimum wage

conditions we will no longer be able to employ this, that and the

other person although we think they should continue to be

employed" Would it not be possible to have some sort of

government subsidy scheme which would allow employment to be

maintained and yet allow minimum wages to be raised? This is not

a new concept I put forward myself — I'm rather embarrassed

indeed that I'm the first to mention this in this debate. It is

something that has been done before by Canada Manpower in this

province, where you have a subsidy scheme to assist the employer

to continue to employ employees who, if I can use my economic

terms again, would not perhaps be worth in economic terms the

minimum wage.

It's the type of imaginative scheme, or even fairly routine

scheme now in so many jurisdictions, which would get around the

problems that we've been talking about today. It would get around

this sort of groping that's been going on here about at what

level does the minimum wage start cutting into employment.

Such a scheme, Mr. Minister, which would permit full and

worthwhile occupations and at the same time would prevent people

from going on welfare with the attendant problems that arise,

some of which were outlined very well by the Premier of the

province…I am distressed that your legislation is, as I said,

unimaginative in this regard.

Now, to the exemptions that are in the Act. There is a

separate section, I might add, which the Hon. Member from

Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett) apparently is unaware of,

dealing with the handicapped. I feel these exceptions really make

the bill that we are passing today a great deal less worthwhile

that it otherwise might have been. I do feel that it is

important, and I repeat what I said on previous occasions when

discussing the Mediation Commission and other changes to the

Mediation Commission, that we must get around to a situation, Mr.

Speaker, in which we in this House make legislation. We don't

simply enable boards, or enable Ministers, to act as they see fit

with full discretion.

We have here in this Act a provision which permits the board,

if it so wishes, to ignore everything we have done today, and

ignore this bill when it passes. And that's true, there is a

legal provision in there that they can exempt as they see

fit.

Now we should be getting away from that type of legislation.

If this House, and all of us here assembled representing the

people of British Columbia feel that the minimum wage should be

$2 an hour, let's for heaven's sakes say so and not then put in

weasel-worded exceptions which continue to remain in the Act,

allowing the board in its wisdom to exempt grape pickers, or

lettuce pickers, or perhaps some other group who are exempt at

the present time.

[ Page 153 ]

It's an important thing to remember that legislation such as

this, despite the fine words that have been expressed, quite

often doesn't trickle down to the people whom it should help. And

one of the reasons for this is that we continue to leave in

provisions which allow the Minister discretion or board

discretion, or things of that nature.

Now if I can finally make one further point before dealing

with directly the remarks of my Hon. friend opposite. We are not

always dealing with a family that has a single income. we are

quite often talking of the second income of a family and things

of that nature.

Now that I believe that should he borne in mind. It's wrong,

perhaps, to suggest that minimum wages will be the minimum wage

or which the family will have to be maintained on that level. It

doesn't generally happen that way. Minimum wages tend to be for

the second incomes of a family. I think that a few words from the

Minister dealing with this, giving statistics on this, might have

made this debate a great deal more worthwhile.

Finally with respect to my friend from North Vancouver.

When I made my remarks "some people not being worth $2.50 per hour

in economic terms," I was in a discussion of some length. This was

a quote from a fairly lengthy, rational, intelligent discussion of the whole

thing we've been talking about this afternoon.

Politics will not remain on those high planes which the Member

for North Vancouver–Seymour suggested, if Members of this House

continue to take out of context remarks which are made in

seriousness when discussing issues affecting people.

The remark of my friend from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) that we can't place a dollar value on any one's worth

is perhaps correct. But unfortunately in this House, high

faluting words apart, we have to get down to the nitty gritty of

what goes on in this province. And it's in these areas that we

have to discuss work in terms of economic worth. Now once again,

may I repeat my example of the opportunities for Youth. May I

repeat what I said earlier. It's not necessarily the value in

terms of dollars — it is sometimes society's ability to pay. And

that's perhaps what I was commenting upon and that's the type of

thing, the type of discussion, in which I hope people interpret

my remarks.

If we insist upon dredging quotations out of context, the

level of debate in this House and the public appreciation of what

our politicians actually are will sink dismally. I do feel that

while the Hon. Member, I believe, has spoken twice in this debate…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …twice in this parliament or in this

legislative session, while most of his fellow backbenchers have

remained silent, I do believe that in his efforts to attract the

eye of the front bench he should be a little more careful with

facts.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill but I do trust

that more attention will be paid in future by Ministers of the

Crown when introducing bills. There are many questions involved

in this bill. Why are these things left out? Why have we got the

weasel-words still in the Act, despite the bill that we're

discussing today? Was this bill really necessary? Was it an

emergency session bill or a special session bill when it could

have been done even before today and the Minister been serious

about the subject matter? These questions should be discussed and

I trust the Minister in his closing remarks will spend some time

on them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, yes, the hordes are

getting restless here. But we made it. I'm really happy about the

feelings that I have somehow got from all of you in the House. I think this is

a great day really for all of you — not just for the New Democratic

Party. Certainly this was part of our thinking, but I think it reflects a lot

of thinking here. I really am glad that really we're not breaking all that

new ground

[ Page 154 ]

because of the federal Senate and the work it's done — that a

lot of legislators in this country are trying to face, you know,

the fact that we are moving this way and that the guaranteed

income is something I think eventually is going to happen.

But can I say some very basic things about people, about

feelings, about self-esteem? Because, you know, I can speak as a

politician, I can speak as a clergyman, as a counselor and

self-esteem is absolutely essential. I mean we have a lot of

self-esteem here, a lot of ego-awareness and maybe it isn't a

problem but maybe really we're on the minimum wage. This is the

first job I've ever applied for where I didn't have the slightest

idea what I was getting paid. And I found out that the hours are

very long and that they're about $2 an hour.

But look, there are a lot of people in this world and in this

province, and I've found this out as a counselor, who have no

intentions of really contributing to society. They don't know how

to contribute. They don't know what they want to do. They have

very little self-esteem. They really aren't certain about getting

out into that free-enterprise system which, you know, I'm really

happy about, with some restraint, as you are.

But believe me, we've got to help those people. And if a

message could leave this Legislature this afternoon that we want

people to have fulfillment, we want them to work. Maybe it won't

be eight hours or maybe it'll be 15 hours but for goodness' sakes

let's be concerned for the guy who's working, you know, as a taxi

dispatcher at $1.50 an hour who has to stay on ridiculously long

hours to get a reasonable take-home pay, or the person who is a

day-care worker or a kindergarten teacher.

You know, I felt embarrassed that across the street there was

a fellow making $18,000 a year working at the Mica, working for

about eight months at the most a year where down the street the

kindergarten teacher who had, I think, a very essential role to

play in the community was getting, you know, $5,000 a year. I

felt embarrassed about that. The consequences of that kind of

attitude, you know, we're going to pick up in future years.

Now, there are a lot of people, and I want labour to hear

this, because there are a lot of people in the so-called labour

world that are really not included. They're not organized.

They're not getting the real benefits from this wealthy province

and I hope that organized labour is hearing this debate this

afternoon as well as small businesses and large business people

and legislators — that we're concerned about all the people.

We really are concerned about that widow, or that person who

is left, maybe was deserted and is looking after those children

and is working at a ridiculous wage to stay off welfare, to have

a sense of dignity and pride to make a contribution.

I'm really glad about the really humanizing feeling that I've

really felt from all of you. As far as studies go I would really

like to go on the record that we talked about restaurants. I

think that maybe inflation is as much caused by demands as by

some of the costs including labour costs. And singling out

restaurants in Vancouver — they have created a demand there.

It's for some restaurants a very booming business and prices are

quite high and they seem to be doing quite well. I hope that in

the research we will look at whether it really is a "cost-push"

type of inflation or whether it's a "demand-push" inflation.

But thank you. I think this is a tremendous debate and I hope

in the history of this province that people will see that for

their dignity. All of us want to make a contribution. We all want

to work. This would be a real incentive to young people who ate

going into the labour force and those who are in very marginal

situations now. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. I too would like to

quote from Senator Croll. In Thursday paper last he said, "There are

600,000 people in Canada who work full-time, part-time, and over-time,

and whose wives and children work, yet they don't make as much as they

would on relief".

[ Page 155 ]

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a disgrace. This

is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker, because this is not a country which

can be euphemistically referred to as being either underdeveloped

or an emerging nation. This is a very wealthy country, Mr.

Speaker, and this is one of the wealthiest provinces in this very

wealthy country.

Yet, up until now we have been employing people and exploiting

them at salaries which made them worse off than if they didn't

work at all.

I am very, very pleased with this legislation, Mr. Speaker,

because it shows that this is our first step in the direction of

putting people before business, corporations or industry. We've

heard a lot of things today about the small businessman and the

small businesswoman. And I for one am very sympathetic about the

shopkeeper in the riding of North Van.–Capilano who had her shop

open all day and made only $3.15. But I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that lowering the minimum wage to 2 an hour would not

have made that business work. We cannot continue to support

failing businesses by exploiting people. Nothing must come before

people, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that makes me happiest about this bill, of

course, is the fact that the Hon. Minister has seen fit to remove

sex from it. I mean, that is, the word "female" from it. In

section 5 it reads that the Female Minimum Wage Act is repealed.

I'm very pleased about this because what we have found over the

years, Mr. Speaker, is that quite often legislation which is

alleged to be designed to protect women has in fact merely served

to confirm our exploitation.

I'm not sure why the bill continues to be called the Male

Minimum Wage Act, but I'm sure that when the Hon. Minister sums

up he'll explain this to US. But I'm very glad anyway that now

women and men are going to be paid the same minimum wage.

One of the things that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, is the

section that deals with the people who are still not covered by

this Act. That is the farm labourers and the domestic

servants.

Now, I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that farming is a very

precarious business and that the Hon. Minister has to take this

into consideration. But I would like to suggest to him that there

is probably no group in our society that works harder for longer

hours and lower pay than do people who work on farms, and

domestic servants.

And so, I would like to ask him in his summing-up if he would

say a word or two about what he plans to do on behalf of the farm

labourers and the domestic servants who are presently not covered

by this bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say one more thing, and

that is that last week on more than one occasion the Hon. Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) remarked that August 30 was a

black day for the people of this province. As a person who feels

very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that black is beautiful, I would like

to endorse what the Hon. Member said. August 30 was indeed one of

the blackest and most beautiful days for the people of this

province.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, this bill which is addressing itself

to the unorganized workers, to the many women working in the

kitchens, to the many women working in the private hospitals,

many women being exploited in the restaurants, and the

dispatchers, men as well as women, throughout this province — this bill which addresses itself to that, to try and ensure that

they can live in some sort of dignity, proves, Mr. Speaker, that

the black day was just heralding the beginning of a beautiful era

for British Columbia. Thank you.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I

appreciate the previous speaker's remarks very much. Every cloud

has a silver lining and I hope that the cloud that came over the

province on August 30 will have a silver lining.

However, as the first female speaker from the government side

of the House, I was very disappointed that the Hon. Member did

not mention a group of people in this province that I consider to

be the hardest working group of people in the province, in the

Dominion and in the world.

[ Page 156 ]

A group of people who seem to receive no recognition

whatsoever in this society, a group of working people for whom

there are no labour laws — a group of people on whose function

the very perpetuation of our life depends, and I would hope, a

group of people whose function our democratic way of life depends

on. Because, as you know certain regimes have taken the produce

of these group of people away and it was called a dictatorship. I

refer to the very, very important group of people-the housewife,

the mother. No compensation Act for her.

AN HON. MEMBER: Homemaker.

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

mother.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good word.

MR. PHILLIPS: The mother, because I don't consider my wife a

homemaker, I consider her the mother. The boss of the family in

other words.

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

wife.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe that's why she doesn't have any laws that

fit into any of these categories, maybe because she is the boss,

and bosses don't have compensation, they don't have labour

legislation — and if you don't consider your wife the boss in

your family, Mr. Attorney General, that is certainly your

business. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Apple pie?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, the bosses make apple pie. But, I'm

very serious about this, because what really bothers me about

this is that we seem to be entering an age where the feminist is

not necessarily a homemaker. The feminist can sometimes be the

breadwinner and if they are not going to have any protection

there should be laws regarding their pension. Why shouldn't the

government and the lady Members of this House speak up for these

people? I won't say that there are any women that I know of in

this province, of house makers or mothers, who are deprived and

who are not well paid. But, what, real compensation do they get

in terms?

What I'm saying again, Mr. Speaker, is that there are a lot of

people who are employed in our province who are employed because

they love to work. Maybe it's a hobby with them. Maybe that's the

case with the housewives, maybe it's a hobby with them, too.

I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, some legislation to protect

probably the largest group of working feminists — is that what

you call it? Is it females, is it females? The largest working

group of — of course now we have male feminists, so we'll have

to stick to the old word — female. The largest working group of

female specimens in our province (laughter). I will say, Mr.

Speaker, certainly I mean this in all sincerity, some of the

pains that these women suffer in doing their work — well, some

of them were born in the hospital, I guess in the hospital, not

in the home — but some of the pains that these females suffer in

carrying out their work they should be paid double time,

certainly for that particular aspect.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as I say, they are certainly the most

important people in the whole world. They should certainly

receive consideration of the highest order.

MR. SPEAKER: There are other Members I think, the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, in

reply to the previous speaker, I too support the women who work

in the home, as well as the women, who work outside of the home.

Because, I regard the women working in the home to be working

just as hard, if not harder, than the women working outside the

home.

[ Page 157 ]

However, there was one comment made that housewives perhaps

work for the fun of it. I would like to give some statistics.

These are from the Department of Labour, Women's Bureau, from

Statistics Canada, Sylvia Gelber.

Fifty per cent of the working women in this country are single

or the sole support of their family. They work because they have

to work or starve to death. Another 33 per cent work because

their husbands make less than the median income, $6,000. Another

study done by the Department of Labour for Stats Canada indicates

that women work, not for luxuries in the home, they work to pay

off debts. That leaves a mere 17 per cent who work because they

may have a psychological need to work, or they might be

professional women, doctors, lawyers and so on. I would just like

to bring that to the Hon. Member's attention.

I also agree with him that the women who work in the home have

not received the consideration, particularly in the matter of

pensions and that this is something that we hope this government

will look into in the future.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I won't take

more than a moment of the House's time.

I, too, have listened to this debate with considerable

interest and I, too, endorse many of the stands taken.

Particularly the amalgamation of the Acts — the Minimum Wage Act,

Male, and the Minimum Wage Act, Female, under one Act even though

the two Acts were previously of the same basic minimum wage to

both sexes.

I listened with great interest to the Member discuss the

concern of the farm worker, those that work on the farm, and the

fact that this is not included in the category as outlined in the

bill, and I would like to again reinforce this by saying that I,

too, would like to know what the government's policy is going to

be in relation to those working in the domestic field and those

working in the agricultural field.

I am aware that many people in the agricultural field are paid

on a piece basis rather than an hourly basis. But still there is

concern here and my concern in bringing it up again is that,

before this House, at this emergency session, there have been no

provisions to assure, by the programmes of the government, that

these people could come under the basic minimum wage. We see no

assurance that the agricultural people will in fact receive a

fair return for their produce.

We also see no assurance in the legislation before this House,

this emergency session of the House, in relation to minimum

wages, that they have made any effort to approach the federal

government to see that the domestic help and domestic gardening

help are made fully deductible through the Income Tax Act. I

think that if we are concerned, and we are, these people should

have a fair return. We also have to recognize that you can't be a

half-baked employer in the House.

If you employ someone to come in and look after your children

and carry on your domestic duties while you're working, a $500

deduction, as is currently allowed under federal income tax, is

simply not enough. I've said before in the House, when the

federal government, the Liberals, if I may mention their name,

brought in this amendment, that it was more a flushing action to

flush out the very people that we're concerned about in this

House — those on limited incomes, pensioners, who tend to work

in this area, partly because they want to, and partly because it

is more in keeping with their interests. They were flushing them

out for income tax purposes, with no intentions to make the

homemaker who is employing someone in her home a proper employer

with the benefits of the employer, which are the proper income

tax deductions, and the responsibility of the employer which is

in fact contributions to pension plans and unemployment.

The domestic person who is in this field, and many people want

to work in this field, should not only be assured of a good

income, a fair income, but they should be assured of the same

benefits that an employee should be assured of, the same

responsibilities and the same benefits.

[ Page 158 ]

Just before going on, I would like to say that I think this

applies also in the area of home gardening — a business can

deduct professional gardening services, any type of gardening

help, if it's on business premises. But in fact, if you employ

someone in your home to look after your garden,you can't. Again

there are many young people, there are many older people, who

would very much like to work in the gardening area. We have a

generation saying to us, "We want to work with the soil". Surely

this type of provision would be in keeping, not only with a

minimum wage and a proper balance in responsibilities in return

in benefits, but also very much in keeping with the new

life-style that we really are groping for. .

I think the new Member, the First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young), was pleading a very strong case. And

she cited her figures. But I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, why that

government isn't listening to their own Member, and why that

Member in being a Member of that government, hasn't made

provisions which would enable people in the agricultural area and

in the domestic area and in the domestic gardening area to

benefit from this Act, and also to benefit from the regular

employee benefits as well as enable their employers to benefit?

It is your responsibility to do this, not your responsibility to

get up and express your concern and do nothing about it. You have

the power, you have the authority, you are the government.

The one other question I would like to ask of the Minister in

this relationship is the point that I mentioned in this House

before. That there are currently 35,000 women in British Columbia

not employed, who were employed in July. This is the time of high

employment, the agricultural industry being at its peak,

processing plants in operation and the fact that stores are

generating more of an economy for back-to-school shopping, late

summer shopping. Again we see in this Act and its relationship to

the rest of the legislation before this session, no provisions to

take care of or even acknowledge that these 35,000 women are

unemployed.

You know as well as I know, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to

a choice of who's going to be let go for the reason the business

feels that it can't pay, it's going to be the women. And this is

a very sad lack in this Act. You have done nothing for the

currently unemployed women, you've done nothing to show that you

are even aware of these problems.

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

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, as a new Member,

I'm sure some of the other new Members here are also a little

perplexed and confused at this point. And I can only blame the

Press and the media for confusing US.

Because apparently a lot of offers were made during the

campaign by the Social Credit Party that I didn't hear about.

Like putting the farm workers on the Minimum Wage Act. I suppose

they promised that. And other promises that we say we promised

and we're going to do, and they're criticizing us for not going

further. It seems rather amazing to me that the Press missed all

these promises that were made by the other party during the

election.

One or two words about some of the expressions that seem to

get bandied around as we go along. One is "marginal" and we hear

"marginal" used — "marginal businesses". This one's marginal and

that one's marginal. I'm not quite sure what "marginal" means.

Does that mean that the employer is taking home $50,000 a year or

$1,000 a year for his own personal living expenses')

I suppose it would depend on how large the business is and how

"marginal" it is. So, Mr. Speaker, you know I would hesitate to

use that word in referring to businesses and how they're doing

financially.

The other is "inflation". You know you can get 12 economists

together and say, "What is inflation?" And not one of them will give

you an answer like the other one gave you. No one really knows, even in the

world of economics, what inflation is, and no one has ever been

able to solve it.

I think we should deal in dollars and cents and I've asked our

local finance department here to draw up a scale of what a person

would take home if he made $350 a month, which is approximately

within, I think, what a person would make on 22 days a month at

$2 an hour. It's $352 a month, and

[ Page 159 ]

and I've asked them to work it out at $350 a month, and the

income tax paid on that by a hypothetical person, a woman with

two children ages 10 and 5.

Before going into that I'd like to read some figures out, and

I'll relate them to Prince Rupert where I live because you can

only relate to what you know. Look at apartment rents. A woman

with two children aged 10 and five — I don't think they could get

by with anything less, or should get by on anything less, than a

two-bedroom apartment. I can't imagine getting one for under $150

in the north and that wouldn't be very much of an apartment.

Phone and hydro would be another $15 approximately, and I'm

underestimating these figures I believe. Food at least $100 — at

least — and I think they would have to do a lot of hunting. Clothes, medical

— I put in $20. Transportation, $10, and $75 for a babysitter.

It comes to a total of $370, and I don't think that's really

high living. By the way, at $350 a month, you can see we're a

little short already but with the tax off, the take-home pay is

$315 a month. So they couldn't reach even what I call an adequate

style of living on this $2 an hour. So I see it as a measure

towards an adequate amount of money.

I was very glad to hear that the reason we are only going $2

at this time is that the previous government didn't leave us

enough data to assess the problem properly and to make our move

properly also.

I would hope that once we have looked into it and have done

some more research, we will be able to come up with a much more

adequate amount of dollars for people to live on. Because I

think, as other people have said in this House, we're the richest

province, and one of the richest countries and surely we can

throw in, oh — little frills to these people, like medical so

they can go and have their teeth looked after. They can maybe go

out on Saturday night or go on holidays during the summer, or buy

an insurance plan. And you can't do that on $2 an hour, or even

$2.50 an hour.

I think that we should put it in terms of dollars and cents so

that people can understand what we're talking about, instead of

talking in grandiose terms as politicians. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support

of the bill. I am a farmer that comes from the Shuswap area and have

to depend upon the consumer dollar to make a living. I think until we

can come to a state in our society where society realizes that the farmer

has to also receive a fair share, I would ask that there be study done on

the effects on the farmer, and in the economy in the area where it's related

to.

I think maybe the story that's told of the man from the labour

board going out to a farm and asking the farmer to see his books.

And he said, "I see there are three people listed on your books.

One is receiving $1.74 an hour, and one is receiving $1.40". He

said, "I'm not interested in those," he said. "How about

the one here that's marked as a darn fool and is receiving 72

cents". And the farmer said to the man from the Labour Relations

Board, "You're looking at him."

I think that possibly the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) has her sympathies in the right place in regard to

agriculture. And I hope that her government had done everything

they could in their power to right some of these things. But I

feel until we have a chance through our provincial government and

federal government to come up with some sort of workable

arrangement where the farmer can survive, I would ask you to take

a second look at it. Thank you.

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

debate.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've listened with a great deal of interest to the various

comments that have been made by Hon. Members this afternoon. I'm

pleased to note that there's a general degree of acceptance for

the bill. I must say that I'm somewhat bemused by the gymnastics

of Members of the Liberal Party on the question.

[ Page 160 ]

I was admonished on the one hand to provide more information.

I was lectured on the other hand about the manner in which I

should produce the legislation.

It seems a little bit inconsistent that if I'm to play the

Liberal game and be instructed on the manner in which I should

bring the legislation in perhaps I could expect to see at least

the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party would have a little bit more

information through his own efforts rather than waiting to be

filled in by the Minister of Labour, who he seeks to

instruct.

For instance he questioned the exemptions under the Act and I

might point out to the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party that they

are all contained in the regulations. They're there for him or

any other Hon. Member to read. Now I see small advantage in me

going through the regulations and pointing them out for the

edification of members of this House. I would expect that they

could do the minimal amount of reading and research necessary to

read the regulations.

Someone, I believe it was the Hon. Member for South Okanagan

(Hon. Mr. Bennett), questioned the need for exemptions for the

handicapped. I might point out that under certain regulations in

the Act this type of exemption is provided. The Leader of the

Liberal Party, I think, queried me on the procedure that the

board might use in changing regulations. He seemed to be afraid

of the proposition that the board might seek to destroy the

intents of the legislation that was presented and passed before

this House. Again, apparently he's not reading the

legislation.

chapter 23 of the Act, it provides that regulations not

inconsistent with the spirit of this Act may be considered

necessary, advisable, or convenient. And here again the important

point is "not inconsistent with the intent". Now once we have

brought this legislation before the House and passed it,

certainly the board would not be authorized to reduce it below

the intent that it was dealt with.

On the other hand he questioned whether or not enough

flexibility was vested in the legislation to provide exemptions

for someone that may be caught in the cost squeeze. You know, I

really don't know which way he wants to go. He's questioning the

flexibility on one hand, and he's questioning the exercise of too

much authority by the board on the other. Certainly you can't

have both.

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

Act.

Another question was raised about the name of the Act. I think

the Hon. Member that raised it, if he'll just take a little

closer look at Bill No. 6, he'll find that although the bill is

presented as

an Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act, in

chapter 1 it has the effect of not only rescinding the Male

Minimum Wage Act and the Female Minimum Wage Act, but

re-establishing them both under the Wage Act period, which I

think removes the connotation that he had questioned.

Now a number of other questions were raised about the

inflationary impact of this type of increase. I might point out

that since perilously little research was done and little study

was done in the last 10 years or so on the impact of minimum wage

increases in this province, it's very difficult in a period of

some 35 or 40 days to make a detailed analysis of the type of

impact this increase might have.

The reason for this session was to provide some purchasing

power in the hands of those people who need it most, old age

pensioners, low income workers, and so on. For the Leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to suggest that this could have

been achieved by regulation is a little bit unusual. On the one

hand he was criticising the powers of regulation, and then he

said, "Why call the session? You could have brought it all in by

regulation. "

What does he want? Now, the situation as far as I'm concerned

is one where certainly it could have been brought in by

regulation, but in order to combine the two Acts and to achieve

some housekeeping and cleaning up, and to remove the offensive

connotations of a female and male minimum wage Act, certainly

legislation was necessary for that purpose.

I wonder about the effects of some people's apprehension in

stating that a $2 minimum wage level in British Columbia at this

point might create a tremendous influx of people from all over

Canada.

[ Page 161 ]

I might point out that at the present time the federal Minimum

Wage Act is higher indeed than that which we have in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know where the influx is going

to go to on that basis.

But certainly it's not this government's intention to try and

barricade or Balkanize British Columbia. It may have been the

attitude of previous administrations. Certainly, if people are

attracted to British Columbia it's through the advanced benefits

that are available here — I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Now I recognize that everyone has tried to get their

criticisms in on this bill, but they've all paid lip service to

it. I don't see too much point in dealing further with it. I

noticed that the people who are running for elective office for

Social Credit and the Liberal Party are campaigning along similar

lines to the legislation contained in this bill. I think they're

all fairly familiar with it. I think there's been a good

discussion on it, some interesting points made.

Perhaps before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I should just say

that certainly I'm receptive to the proposition of further

studies, more detailed studies on the inflationary impact that

may accrue from an increased minimum wage. I'm interested in a

more detailed study, and deeper analysis of the needs of areas of

people, groups that are not presently covered under the minimum

wage law.

I would remind the House though, Mr. Speaker, that hearings

were conducted and I'm a little bit surprised that since we have

so much political interest in all of these groups now, it seems a

little bit unusual — perhaps a little bit shallow — that none

of these people, none of these parties registered similar

interests before the hearings that were conducted in March of

this year. Perhaps they're doing it now for the edification of

the House rather than through any great concern about the

future.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second

reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that Bill No. 6 be

now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 6 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT.

HON. E.E. DAILLY(Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

moving the second reading of this bill, I would like to briefly outline

the basic principles behind it, because after all we are going into

committee stage and we'll have an opportunity to go into detail then. But as

we're discussing it in principle that's what I'm going to refer

my remarks to at this time.

One of the provisions of course is the restoration in the

Province of British Columbia of the right for trustees and

teachers to again engage in free collective bargaining. This bill

— and I know you've all read it — will also remove the

imposition by the Minister of Education of arbitrary limitation

on salary increases.

Also inherent in this bill are changes in the calculation of

the approved operating expenses for school board budgets. This

bill also eliminates the operating budget referenda principle.

Which means that we in this government believe in restoring local

autonomy and decision-making powers to our local school

boards.

These changes we hope, and we are sure to some degree, will

relieve the stringent financial restrictions which were imposed

by the previous government on school boards. These restrictions

had to be relieved because the students in our school system were

suffering from these restrictions. Educational programmes were

curtailed across the province because

[ Page 162 ]

of the very severe restrictions of the former government.

Now we have been asked, particularly by the Hon. Leader of the

Liberal Party, to explain — each Minister — why we are bringing

forward our legislation at this time.

I'm sure it's quite obvious to all the Members of this House

who know how school boards operate that they must prepare their

school budgets now for 1973 budget year. They also right now are

in the process of negotiating salaries with their teachers. And

therefore it was essential to point out to the school boards and

give them directions for their 1973 budgeting year. And this

could only be done by changes to the legislation.

This is why I found it rather shocking to hear a suggestion

that perhaps it was not necessary to have this session at all — and this coming from the Liberal Party where the Members of the

Liberal Party who were here in the past session fought long and

hard against Bill No. 3 and its financial restrictions. I found

them very inconsistent. Of course we had at the same time in an

earlier speech last week someone from Social Credit or the

official Opposition suggesting that this legislation was really

tripe legislation. That is very consistent with the official

Opposition, because they have shown throughout the last 20 years

that they were basically an anti-education government.

At the time that we had long and bitter debates in this House

— and those of you who were here last year will well remember

them — over Bill No. 3, and many of the amendments in here are

being taken from Bill No. 3, we pointed out to the government

that this was going to have a serious effect on the children of

this province. At that time many of the Members more or less

implied this was not an issue — in fact, one of the most

interesting comments I heard was from the defeated Minister of

Education who said on the night of his defeat, "I didn't realize

education was such an issue." (Laughter).

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Par for the course!

HON. MR. BARRETT: What an education!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: But the people of this province were not

taken in by the former government's attempts to whip up a very

phony taxpayers' revolt against education. Because the people of

this province are naturally concerned with increasing taxes, but

are also concerned with what happens to the child in the

classroom. And they showed this when they voted into power a

government which had gone on record throughout the campaign as

stating that education should have one of the highest

priorities.

Mr. Speaker, in no way are we suggesting that money is the

answer to all the problems of education which we face today. In

no way is this bill and the amendment giving a blank cheque to

school boards — as a matter of fact there are certain very

stringent restrictions left in it. Because what we are actually

doing — we have left, these restrictions in only because it is a

short session. We need time to consider a complete revision of

the financial formula, but what we have basically said to the

school boards of this province is, "We have faith in you. You are

elected people. You have a right to make your decisions", just

like you and.1 here in this House make our decisions. And we have

returned to them this autonomy. When I made my first announcement

suggesting that this legislation would be presented at this

session I made the statement that I have faith in the

responsibilities of the school trustees.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks on the amendments to the

Public School Act I wish to say that our government is planning

an overall review of our whole public school system. In essence,

what we want to do is to establish first a philosophy of

education in our public schools. We want to establish a basis for

the direction in which we must move in this province in.

education so we can provide an education within the public school

system that will be truly relevant for our young people

today.

This must be our first step — to decide where we're going in

education. Following this first essential step we must develop a

finance formula. A formula which must also be receptive to the

financial resources of this province. Mr. Speaker, I now move

second reading.

[ Page 163 ]

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In speaking to the

principle of this bill, the proposed amendments to the Public Schools Act,

it is a little difficult to be the one who leads off a debate, particularly

when the lady cabinet Minister is such a charming person. For that reason

the desire or urge to be constructive is certainly with me, but the desire

to be abrasive is not so I'll try to keep my remarks to constructive

suggestions.

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

MR. SMITH: That would not necessarily mean that the one who

just spoke will ever do that. At any rate, I'd like to observe

first of all that the amendments which you have proposed will

certainly result, in the opinion of the official opposition, in a

greater expenditure and a larger budget for school districts

within the province.

This is an obvious conclusion when you read the two provisions

in the amendment that deal with local autonomy and school

districts, and the right for bargaining.

It certainly is not the position of the official Opposition to

support these amendments, because we strongly feel that they set

a precedent which will remove from the Act the systems of checks

and balances which were designed to protect the average citizen

and the average taxpayer from being forced without his consent

into providing large and, in my opinion, potentially inflationary

increases to finance the educational programme.

Now also, Mr. Speaker, school districts will be allowed as a

matter of course to budget up to 110 per cent of the cost of the

basic educational programme. I think it's obvious that all school

districts will budget to that limit as a minimum — not as a

maximum but as a minimum and in the future they will budget to

the 110 per cent limit.

Then in addition they may budget for an even larger

expenditure by simply passing an affirmative vote of two-thirds

of the board members. The whole matter of what is a prudent and

judicious allocation of the provincial budget for the purposes of

financing our school system will not be dictated by people other

than people from this assembly. Namely, school trustees and

teachers will now call the tune. And the ones who pay the piper

— the taxpayers of this province — will become interested

spectators sitting on the sideline.

Who will protect their interest? Because whatever final costs

are involved for the provision of our public school system and

education beyond that level, the source of funds remains the same

— increased taxes, regardless of what the government of this day

may say to the contrary.

The question that I think that every resident of the Province

of British Columbia should be asking themselves right now, this

day, is this: will increased expenditure in the field of

education guarantee a better system? will increased expenditure

in the field of education provide us with more qualified

teachers? Will increased expenditure in the field of education

turn out high school students who are smarter or more mature than

at present?

In other words, and quite simply, what increased benefits can

we reasonably expect by simply spending more dollars?

Increased expenditure — if it provides better classroom

conditions and improved methods of teaching — would probably be

justified by all of the Members of this House. But let no one

forget that 80 per cent, or 80 cents out of every extra dollar

spent in the field of education will go directly into teachers'

salaries. Not bricks, not mortar, not improved equipment, not

more extensive reference material — just teachers' salaries

alone will take 80 cents out of every dollar of extra money that

we provide for education in this province.

. The amendments are designed to bring both salaries and

bonuses in case of a dispute before the arbitration board. This

opens up a field of what constitutes a bonus, a question the

Minister should elaborate on when closing the debate of this bill

because I think that is a very important segment of

[ Page 164 ]

this bill. What constitutes a bonus, and what constitutes

salaries?

The N.D.P. government has indicated their policies will

include the removal of educational taxes from residential

property within a five-year period. While that is not part of the

principle of this bill, it has certainly been a statement of

policy by the government in pre-election and campaigning

days.

Where will the revenue come from to replace this loss? If, Mr.

Speaker, the government continues to pursue the present course,

costs will have escalated so much that within that five-year

period the increased taxation expected to be received from

mineral and petroleum production will not offset the amount of

revenue required.

In fact, pursuit of your present policies will be responsible

for driving both mineral and petroleum and exploration companies

out of this province. Then how will the government generate the

revenue needed to finance the educational programme? In this

respect, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that education is a very

important part of the whole legislative process before US. Not

only at this session but at every session of this House.

Certainly it has a high priority in the thinking of most

people. But it is also only part of the legislative process and

part of the budget for benefits to people within the province. In

that context we have to examine how much of the budget can be

reasonably used for the purposes of education without at the same

time reducing the services in some other field.

I would suggest to the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

that perhaps it would be much more reasonable to take a smaller

bite out of a large pie than to take a large bite out of a small

pie. Because that is exactly what might happen if we face the

prospect of decreasing revenue from all sources to the provincial

coffers within the next few years.

I would suggest that the department and the government should

exercise some restraint or that we will follow down the path

predicted by the Economic Council of Canada when they said that

within a short time, certainly before the turn of the century — and that's not too far away — we will consume our entire gross

national product for education, health and social services if we

continue along the lines that we have operated in the last few

years.

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition dislike the broad,

blank cheque approach encouraged by these amendments and endorsed

by the Minister of Education.

It encourages every school district to budget for 110 per cent

of the basic programme and then appeal for more. Inequities will

occur, of that I'm sure.

Those districts closest to the source of power or the seat of

power will be in a better position to lobby effectively for a

larger share of the amount of money available for education in

the province.

The approach being used and suggested by these bills will pit

rich districts against the not-so-fortunate ones. On balance the

quality of education is bound to suffer. At present, every

district is assured a fair and equitable treatment by statute. If

the board in their wisdom wish to exceed these limits they may do

so provided they will take their appeal to the people who must

ultimately pick up the tab — the taxpayers. What could be more

fair than that? Surely this is preferable to placing every board

in the position of continual lobbying with the Minister of

Education for special or preferential treatment.

As long as the coffers of the province are full, the

government — you all can see that — the government will probably be

able to finance the educational programme that they desire to put

forward. Finance it at least for a very short time, even though

demands from many places may be in excessive of what you'd really

like to see.

But, Mr. Speaker, in all charity I must say to the Minister,

through you, Sir, that it is a boom and bust approach. Not boom

or bust, but boom and bust. The approach in my opinion smacks of

financial irresponsibility by the government. It's an approach

that may be acceptable to a number of people today, who in

retrospect will regret very much that they took advantage of a

situation at this time only to be met with disaster further down

the road.

[ Page 165 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services): Mr. Speaker,

permit me to first offer you congratulations for your position in

the chair — belatedly. However, it's with the same feeling that

those other congratulations were offered.

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened with great interest to the

Hon. Member across the way. He accuses this government of

adopting a position and a policy of financial irresponsibility.

That coming from a Member of the House who represented the

government side and the government thinking in the past. That

kind of thinking, that kind of suggestion, coming from a

government that created so much havoc in this province around the

educational system for years, not just a short while. Because of

the fact that we have gone back to a position temporarily where

that government was just a short while ago, that seems to be one

of the most irresponsible statements that I've heard come from

that side of the floor so far.

Mr. Speaker, that Member also suggests that every school board

in the province or certainly the majority of them are motivated

in one direction and that is to spend the budget no matter what

it might be. He says that they're a group of people who are

inferior to elected Members in this House. That's by implication

what he's saying. He says that school boards will eat up the

budget no matter what it is. But the only people that can make

the right kind of decisions in this province are the people on

the floor of the Legislature.

I say shame, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of attitude that got

us into all the trouble in the first place in this province.

There is no reason this assembly should be the dictatorial

body it has been and that's what we want to circumvent at all

costs. We want a better system, Mr. Speaker, a great deal better

system than that system of chaos. Pitting one side against the

other. Divisiveness, Mr. Speaker, that's gone on and on to a

point where we're placed in a position that there's only one way

to go and that's to improve. We can't go backwards, Mr. Speaker.

We're as far back as we can go right now in the whole scheme of

education in the Province of B.C. In respect to people's feeling

one to another.

Mr. Speaker the whole question is that these matters are

matters that are going to be decided at the level where they

should be decided. They're going to be decided in consultation

with a government that will consult for a change.

We talk about an improved system. Will it be an improved

system? Yes, it will be improved system, Mr. Speaker, with

consultation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will we get better teachers?

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. It's the end of the iron-clad,

know-it-alls in this province. Will we have better teachers, Mr.

Speaker? That's what the Hon. Member across the way asked. Yes,

we'll have better teachers with consultation with the

government.

What are the increased benefits? The increased benefits that

will come in the future in B.C. will be those accrued to the

children of B.C. with an Education Minister, at long last, that

understands the needs of the children of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, just one other little thought. You know that

other terrible 80 per cent that goes to salaries. Where else

would they like it to go, Mr. Speaker? To bricks and mortar? It

should go to salaries of those people who are providing

leadership for our children. That's precisely where it should

go.

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in this Minister and I'm

certainly going to support the bill.

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

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it gives

me a great deal of pleasure to be able to stand up in the House

and warmly congratulate the Minister and the government on this

bill. Not just in its

[ Page 166 ]

content, but the manner in which it was introduced. It's easy

to see why the Minister of Education is the Deputy Leader. From

this Member, you will never hear objections about the direction

taken in the field of education. I was dismayed by the approach

taken by the official opposition in the Legislature. It reminded

me of why I went into politics in the first place, because I can

well recall my first opportunity to speak in this chamber,

saying. that the purpose of education was to unlock the power in

the minds of our youth.

In the decade that I've been in this Legislature education has

gone through its darkest period. I hope, now that the light is

shining, we'll begin to see the effects of a first-class

educational system in our province. Though we couldn't form the

government, may I say the debates this afternoon have made me say

thank heavens there's been a change.

I want to say to the new Members of the House, for heaven

sakes, speak up in support of the Minister of Education and what

she's trying to do. Because I think some damaging attitudes have

been let loose on the land in British Columbia — that we've lost

sight of the forest for the trees in education.

My reasons for saying that is that we have 23,000 teachers in

British Columbia. They use up about 80 per cent of the budget for

primary and secondary education. Again and again we've heard

words issued from the former government to the fact that

education would break the people of British Columbia. We've got a

work force of almost 900,000 people. We have 70,000 unemployed

that are seeking work. And those that are providing the education

and taking up the educational budget are only 23,000. There just

isn't any way at all that they can make a significant dent in the

wealth of British Columbia and its ability to pay taxes.

There is no way that those 23,000 teachers — and they are not

paid generously, they're paid reasonably — there is simply no

way that those people can put the finances of this province in

jeopardy. It was complete irresponsibility on the part of the

former government ever to put that suggestion in the heads of

British Columbia, because it has done more to damage our

educational system than anything that's happened in the history

of our province.

We know, of course, that property taxes which are used to

finance far too much of the educational costs in this province

are the most unpopular taxes of all. I dare say that at any time

in our history had we invited the taxpayers to take a kick at

education in order to save a few dollars on this very unpopular

tax they would have done so.

Again, it has been complete mischief to say that there is a

taxpayers' revolt against the whole concept of education.