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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 261 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1972

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce

that we have with us today a group of students from the Semiahmoo

Senior Secondary School in White Rock along with their teacher, Mr. Doug Oram.

I ask the House to join with me to welcome these students to our

assembly.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to welcome to the floor of the House today a past Member of this

Legislature for some nine years, a Member of the previous

government and our last Whip. I'd like all the Members to join in

welcoming to the House today Hunter Vogel.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my

welcome to the former government Whip. He's a man of humour,

gentleness, conciliation and understanding as a former Whip. I can only say that

because he is a former Whip. (Laughter).

I'd also like the House to welcome a group of students from

Mary Hill Junior Secondary School in the town of Port

Coquitlam.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to

introduce a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations

Act.

Leave granted.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the bill be introduced

and now read a first time.

Motion approved. Bill No. 29 read a first time and ordered to

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw the amendments to Bill No. 3, Guaranteed Minimum

Income Assistance Act, standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a

message from His Honour the Administrator.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Administrator transmits herewith

amendments to Bill No. 3 intituled Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance

Act, enclosed herewith, and recommends the same to the legislative

assembly.

Dated at Government House, October 25, 1972.

[ Page 262 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and the

bill accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the

Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 3 amendments.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

recommending the introduction of the proposed amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee's resolution recommending the introduction of the

proposed amendments to Bill No. 3 approved. Amendments referred

to the committee having in charge Bill No. 3.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are

numerous amendments to Bill No. 4, Handicapped Persons Income

Assistance Act, I'm adopting the normal practice and asking leave of the House to

substitute a new Bill No. 4 in the revised form.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members there will be a short adjournment

until the new bill is distributed — the substitution.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue the

amendments to Bill No. 3 that are available for the Members on

the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: They'll be distributed as well. Hon. Members, I

think we can proceed now.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move we proceed to public bills and

orders.

Motion approved.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill No. 3. Was material made available to the

opposite group? Adjourned debate on Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I

would like first to also welcome our good friend from Langley,

the former Whip, who was not only a gentleman and a scholar but

an extremely accomplished debater in this Legislature. It makes

me feel all too painfully, my own inadequacies in this area.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Clap while you can, my friends, because I must

say I'm a little taken aback by the amendments that are introduced to

this bill. I don't intend to discuss them at this time but I do feel that

it is further evidence that this government is confused and that it is

having to listen to what the Members of this side of the House told them a long

time ago.

[ Page 263 ]

It's further evidence of the so-called semantics that the

Premier talks about, that we're in danger of costing the

taxpayers of this province $50 million. I think $50 million

semantics are very, very expensive. It's not the bill, Mr.

Premier, it's the amendment, and we're not debating that at this

moment.

However, we are pleased that he got it in even if it is a

little difficult at this time.

I would like to say, Mr. Premier, that the opposition will

support this bill, Bill No. 3, on second reading in principle.

However, we must state very emphatically that we are alarmed and

more alarmed in light of what is going on in this House today, at

the removal of bills because they're so cluttered with amendments

and the putting in of amendments and roller-coaster of amendments

around this House. We are alarmed with the loose way that the

government has approached the question of pensions for elderly

people in this province. Indeed their story is one which has

evolved on a changing basis day by day, as the days go by. It is

a bill, Mr. Speaker, cluttered with regulatory powers, the

application of which I suggest, is unknown to all — unknown to

the very fine civil servants that the Minister has in his

department, unknown to the executive assistants of the Minister,

and I would suggest unknown to the Minister, unknown to the

federal civil servants, unknown to the federal officials and

unknown indeed to the federal Minister and even to the Prime

Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: It is a bill…. No, Mr. Minister, we don't

know how your bill operates. We know how it should operate and we

do know how pensions and assistance to the elderly in this

province should operate.

It is a bill, as well, which would have been far better had it

been brought into this House as a result of agreement, signed and

sealed by the federal government, and then delivered to this

House. As we warned the Members opposite when they were in

Opposition and we've warned them since they were the government

that in order to have federal sharing you had to have agreement

with the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan.

And on pages 411 to 435 in the 1972 edition of Hansard there

is a record of warning after warning which was given to the

Members of the Opposition concerning the procedure for

establishing federal sharing. You have chosen, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, and your cabinet colleagues to ignore

those warnings and we see the result of it — this

roller-coastering of bills and amendments.

As I have suggested, you have chosen to ignore the warnings,

and in choosing to ignore these warnings, you have not only

confused everyone on the issue, you have placed the taxpayers of

British Columbia in the position of perhaps being out of the

picture as far as federal cost sharing is concerned.

You have been raising false hopes in the minds of the senior

citizens of this province as well as extreme confusion. When one

reads the statements by the new Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) when he was known as the Member for Cowichan-Malahat,

and as they existed in our Act, when he talked about confusion

and fuddle-duddle regulations and how he could do better, we

wonder where that Minister was when this bill was drafted. Isn't

there any contact between….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: You just can't sit still can you, you've got to

say something.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I never used that

phrase.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't recall which phrase you are

referring to, but I would suggest that your very eloquent

expressions to the House at that time — and if you've read

Hansard and then hear, you know he is quite

[ Page 264 ]

eloquent — complained of this confusion, complained of the

red tape, complained of the regulations and we want to know where

you were when this bill was drafted, because it becomes clear

that this bill has even more opportunity for confusing the

regulations for the elderly assistance. This is particularly true

in the light of the amendments which are now on the order paper

and those of course which have been withdrawn.

How many more amendments are coming in, Mr. Minister, before

we get through this bill. The Minister is obviously withdrawing

from the income test originally considered because the amendment

to

section I permits him to do this. I now see that he has

withdrawn it and we'll speak of that change when we come to the

amendment that he submitted.

The Minister is acting more and more, as this story evolves,

as he issues false ultimatums to the federal government, and

says, "You'll do this" and "I'll do that", as he weaves this way

and that way, like a confused bewildered pixie.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I don't like to interrupt but you

shouldn't say the Minister uttered false ultimatums.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. If you request it, I

withdraw the statement suggested. It appears that he uttered

false….

MR. SPEAKER: Well, no. You can't say it indirectly if you

can't say it directly, and I suggest that….

MRS. JORDAN: His ultimatum to the federal government, made in

all good conscience, was utterly hollow and he is weaving this

way and that way and acting like a bewildered pixie as he tries

desperately to make the British Columbia legislation fit the

realities of the agreement with the federal government which is

Canada-wise with all the provinces.

Even more remarkable is the amendment which stands in his name

with respect to

section 2, which has now been withdrawn, but at

that time it was associated with and defined assistance which

could be regulated under the Social Assistance Act of British

Columbia. I see by your amendment that you have heeded this.

Members here will recall the often acrimonious debate which

took place with our former Minister with respect to

section 3 of

the Social Assistance Act. One wonders if the most compelling

reason for this exercise in confusion, however, is to lay the

political groundwork to this, so that the government can easily

say to the citizens of British Columbia over 65, "If the

regulations are faulty, if the regulations are obscure, if the

regulations are confusing to you, then blame Ottawa". Are you

not saying, "If the way in which the benefits are arrived at

under this plan is obscure, if they are insufficient, blame

Ottawa. If your position with respect to eligibility prevents us

from doing what we said we would do in the political arena, don't

blame us, blame Ottawa."?

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that the shenanigans of this

government in the way in which this bill has been handled and the

confusion which has generally surrounded it will haunt this

government. The bureaucratic implications involved in this bill

and in this confusion are frightening. Already the Premier has

indicated that the start-up date for the introduction of this

plan may need to be moved past December. Why? Because nobody on

that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, understands what they are

doing. In other words, this bill provides a veritable treasure

house, an opportunity for the Minister to have a blank cheque in

the matter of regulation, who's to blame for his failings and how

to cover up for his political statements.

And we see the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

smiling over there and he has said, "What we did in the

Opposition, we will do in government". And he agreed to that

statement again when it was made on the floor of this House

during this session. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a complete

opposite of what the Opposition said they would do if they were

government.

[ Page 265 ]

I should indicate that the bill that we have on the order

paper from our side of the House indicates the willingness to

work out a sharing arrangement with the federal government so the

benefits for those in need can be maximized and federal sharing

to help bear this cost can be obtained. Working with the federal

authority — through you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, you should

listen, you are only just beginning to get the message — those

in need would have been able to enjoy a maximum of $225 a month.

And there is the money there for them under regulations which

were more widely established and certainly more widely

understood.

We have no confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the stated financial

commitments which this bill represents. From Members opposite we

have had an estimate of anywhere from $40 to $60 million in

recent times, sometimes with only a 48 hour period in between.

And then sometimes we have heard it suggested that it will cost

$60 million by the Premier and again sometimes within only a 48

hour period. I suggested this shouldn't surprise the people of

British Columbia because the financial ability of the Premier is

under serious question and because, as recently as last February,

he suggested that the programme as reported on page 413 of

Hansard and February 10, 1972 was $16 million a month and would

cost $96 million a year. No wonder the Premier's financial

ability is in question.

When one sees the amendments, the bills coming in and being

withdrawn, the changes that are taking place, one might well ask

what is the role of the Premier in this art of what can be called

nothing else but camouflage. I've already discussed the records

of debate during the last session of the Legislature which shows

that the Premier had no understanding whatsoever with respect to

the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan. We might wonder then

why the continuing suggestion that somehow the

interpretation of

the Canada Assistance Plan is so obscure to him even yet. Surely

the Premier has read it carefully.

I'm sorry he is not in the House to hear this debate but I

will quote for him sections from that Act and perhaps he will

listen. And I quote from the Act regulation C sub-section 9, "The

Governor-in-Council may make regulations defining the expression,

personal requirements, budgetary requirements, or further, on

agreement with provinces, shall contain such other items, terms

and conditions as the Minister," referred to here as the

Federal Minister, "and the province may agree upon…or as the

regulation," and in this case it is the federal regulation, "may

require. Furthermore," quoting, "an agreement shall

provide that the province (

a) will provide financial aid or other

assistance to, or in respect of, any person in the province who

is a person in need." And "need" is described in paragraph (

a) of

the definition, and "persons in need" in

section 2, "Any amount

or manner that takes into account his basic requirements." It is

very clear, Mr. Speaker, the terms of that Act.

So what is the real basis for the Premier's

baggage-compartment meeting with the Prime Minister

yesterday?

First of all, I regretfully must suggest that it is to fog up

the issue. And to fog up the contractual agreements which exist

with respect to the application of the Canada Assistance

Plan.

And secondly, I regretfully must suggest that it is to obscure

the fact that, in moving towards the use of the Social Assistance

Act, persons over the age of 65 will be under social assistance.

They will not in fact be recipients of pension legislation. And I

would ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister would

deny that.

And if, even there, the amount of shareability with the

federal government, Mr. Speaker, must be through agreement and

must bring the British Columbia Social Assistance Act into

harmony with the regulations which might be required under the

Canada Assistance Plan and to ensure the eligibility for the

people involved and to ensure the shareability on the cost of

this programme.

Mr. Speaker, the financial or understanding of the Canada

Assistance Plan by the Premier and by that Minister must be

questioned. Because when seeking to establish this programme on

an income test basis as provided under the

[ Page 266 ]

current income supplement programme of the federal government,

he knew the facts on February 10, 1972 and on that date he knew

that this was not possible.

It's quoted in Hansard by the then Leader of the opposition

and now the socialist Premier as follows, "The federal government

will continue to be prepared to share with the province in the

cost of additional supplementary allowances based on need. Based

on need. Alright. There is no ceiling. There is no ceiling on the

level of federal contribution to this purpose. It is being left

to the provinces to determine the amount of supplementary

allowance it wishes to pay."

Mr. Premier, or Mr. Speaker, the Premier, the socialist

Premier of this province and his Ministers have bounded all over

British Columbia giving this message to senior citizens and

confusing them. We can only conclude, because of the recent and

past statements, that he simply and charitably didn't then and

probably doesn't now know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the Ministers opposite, with their hands in the

cookie jars, are giving every indication that in authorizing and

coordinating expenditure in the Province of British Columbia

fiscal chaos is your policy and is their stock in trade.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt? I don't think that

it is parliamentary to accuse the ministers of having their hands in

cookie jars unless you're talking about their appetite for food. If it is

any other implication…

MRS. JORDAN: That could open up a whole new debate.

MR. SPEAKER: …then I think you should withdraw it.

MRS. JORDAN: Withdrawn at your request, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MRS. JORDAN: I would suggest again that the evidence of their

actions since taking office has indicated that in authorizing and

co-ordinating expenditures in this province, fiscal chaos is

their stock-in-trade. And British Columbia has gone in 43 days

from responsibility to chaos. And we regret this very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Hon. Liberal Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel it's only fair to point out to the

Minister who introduced these amendments and also to the Premier

that I was surprised to see the amendments put forward to this

bill and then discuss the bill right away. I've been glancing

through the amendments as fast as I can to make sure that there

is no change in the principle of the bill. It's a very complex

matter we are discussing. I would have preferred more time but

nevertheless….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I gather from this exchange, Mr. Speaker,

that the Premier regards the Hon. lady Member as the Leader of

the Opposition. At least we're getting something straight.

(Laughter).

But as far as we're concerned in the Liberal Party, this has

been a complicated bill. There have been very involved

discussions dealing with the differences among income tests,

means tests, federal or provincial agreements, tax sharing

agreements, agreements with other provinces as well, which is in

this bill. And I am a little distressed that the amendments were

not put forth earlier than today and at this time.

[ Page 267 ]

Nevertheless, I'll try to deal with it, hoping that I have not

omitted something by my very brief reading of the amendments

which are in themselves complicated. I hope that in discussing

the principle of the bill here I will be will not stray too far

because of the fact that these amendments have been put

forward.

First, may I say as far as the principle is concerned, Sir, we

are very definitely in favour in this party of raising the

pension for senior citizens to $200. My Hon. friend from Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) speaking in this House this year in February

spoke long and very well, I thought, in outlining what he then

called a charter of rights for the elderly. And prominent in that

charter was, of course, increasing the pensions for senior

citizens and I would like to pay tribute to him. Tribute which

the Press, that unfortunate dragon which the Premier finds so

difficult, has already paid him in an

article — by the way about

the Premier, and not an unfriendly one, about a week ago Sunday — in which they point out that it was Dr. McGeer — excuse me,

Sir, that it was the First Member for Point Grey — who had

introduced this proposal in the House.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Having pointed that out I would like to add

a few comments, comments which perhaps might have been made by

the Minister in his introduction.

The number of senior citizens that we're dealing with, the

number of people affected in such legislation, is going up steadily. In

less than 20 years, for example, the number of senior citizens has

increased from just over 6 per cent of our population in Canada to its present

level of 7 per cent. As the age for the federal pensions has decreased, and

it has been decreased over the last few years, this has also tended to

increase the number of people brought under the scope of various pension

Acts.

This bill is thus an important matter, not only for the

individuals concerned, but because we are in an area where the

number of people who might be under the coverage of the Act and

the bill that we're discussing today is increasing

substantially.

Mr. Speaker, it's a difficult subject to discuss even in

principle because there is this confusion between a means test

and an income test. Confusion which has been made even greater,

I'm afraid, by the amendments that the Hon. Minister has put

forward. But perhaps if members will bear with me, and some might

keep a pencil in hand because I will be quoting some figures

which I think are important, I would like to explain this scheme

as it stands now.

First you have a federal pension — the Canada Assistance

Plan, the basic federal pension of $82.88 for those over 65.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's old age security.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's correct — the old age security, not

the Canada Assistance Plan.

You then have the guaranteed income supplement, again a

federal programme, which permits another $67.12 to come to a

senior citizen who requires it. On top of that we have the

federal-provincial joint supplement, of which the former Premier

of this province was very proud, bringing up the total potential

income under the three schemes to $191.10 per month. I should

here add, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to bear in mind that

the federal programmes are both fully cost of living adjusted so

that we can expect, with the present rate of cost of living, that

these three schemes together will raise the pension level to

$200, regardless of what we do here today, sometime in the middle

of next year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's the point. The Premier has

mentioned "for how many people?" We'll get into that in a moment.

But I'm trying to explain in step by step form….

[ Page 268 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: So we have a situation where there are two

schemes which are federal and one which is joint

federal-provincial. The number of people involved is very

important and the Minister correctly pointed out yesterday that

in British Columbia we have a far higher percentage of the

population over 65 than other provinces.

The number of people in B.C. obtaining the basic pension, the

old age security, at present, as far as I understand, at least

for the month of August, was 208,000 and a few odd. This cost the

federal government $17,266,000, figures which I'm sure — he's

nodding his head — the Minister agrees with me on these.

The guaranteed income supplement paid 106,000 of those 208,000

people another $5,047,000. He again nods his head, Mr. Speaker.

I'm delighted that at least on a factual basis we agree.

The provincial supplement was slightly under 17,000 in the

month of August, if I'm correct — 17,000 people which cost the

Province of British Columbia $260,000 in that month and cost, of

course, the federal government another $260,000. So it's a joint

fifty-fifty scheme.

So that is the basic situation as it stands now without

amendment. Now, how does this work out? And here we come to the

point, Mr. Speaker, raised by the Premier a moment ago when he

said how many people are under the federal-provincial joint

scheme. If you start looking at it, there aren't a great number

who are under that third joint federal-provincial proposal which

is perhaps erroneously called the provincial supplement. I

understand that the total number of people who receive the

maximum is approximately 1,200 or slightly above that — not a

great number in a province which has as many senior citizens as

we have.

Perhaps if we looked at it from an entirely different point of

view and started dealing with the figures that I just gave to the

House and started looking in terms of the total costs we could

also get another look at this problem we are discussing today. If

we just talk in terms of totals we find that the total federal

contribution to the senior citizens of this province in terms of

straight pension and G.I.S. and half of the other supplement

comes out to about 98.8 per cent of the total money that the

senior citizens receive. The provincial contribution — and again

the Minister nods his head so we are one on the figures — comes

out to something like 1.2 per cent.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He says $3.5 million. I would dispute that

figure but it is not very relevant. I'd say it's slightly above

three million but perhaps his figures are a lot better than

mine.

We have a situation where around 1.2 or 1.3 per cent of the

actual money getting into the hands of the senior citizens of

this province that comes from the provincial treasury. And this

despite the boasts of the former Premier that we of course had

this fantastic scheme. It does appear that senior citizens of

this province were not being given much in the way of a

substantial contribution by the previous government.

Thus we welcome again the determination of the new Premier of

this province to go it alone when the situation requires that. In

other words, as has been reported by people like the Press, that

horrible bogeyman of his, he will go it alone and use provincial

money, it is not possible to share costs under federal and

provincial sharing arrangements.

I think it should well be borne in mind that at present we

only contribute 1.2 per cent and it might well be increased to

something approaching 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 per cent without breaking

the provincial treasury. And of course, as the Premier mentioned — or I should say His Honour the Lieutenant Governor mentioned

in his Throne Speech to us — this is a wealthy province and we

can well afford to supplement what is basic across the country

for all citizens of Canada.

[ Page 269 ]

So I am very pleased that he has taken a cooperative approach

and I'll deal later with the actual cost-sharing arrangements

themselves. I understand that they might be somewhat off the

principle of the bill but now the bill has been so confused by

amendments I think I'll have to take at least some time of the

House to do so.

Now, I mentioned the guaranteed income supplement. The

guaranteed income supplement, for those who were kind enough to

take my suggestion of jotting down the figures, comes up to

$67.12 a month. But, Mr. Speaker, in this guaranteed income

supplement there is a provision which I strongly urge the

government look at most carefully and adopt.

And that is the fact that you are given a certain credit by

the federal pension authorities for income that you have

elsewhere and the ratio of this credit is two to one. In other

words, if you get $20 in outside income, apart from your Canada

Pension of $82.88, you only have to consider $10 of that for

purposes of calculating the G.I.S. Now, what it means is that

there is some encouragement for thrift, and I say "some". I think

it's a pretty penal provision to take away 50 per cent myself.

Taxation at that rate is pretty horrendous and I don't think many

people would like it, but we treat our elderly citizens this way

unfortunately.

Nevertheless, it does allow some credit for income which comes

in from another source. And perhaps at this stage I would just

like to go through one more example. I only wish, Mr. Speaker,

that perhaps I had taken the trouble — it's a mistake on my part — of preparing these figures putting them down in black and

white so Hon. Members can have them in front of them. But,

nevertheless, if they jot them down it's not too difficult to

follow.

The O.A.S. and G.I.S. programme operate so that for every $2

of independent income, you are given a credit of $1. I will give

you an example: a recipient with an independent income of, say,

$50. His G.I.S. would be reduced by $25. He's given a 50 per cent

credit for his other investment income from the current maximum

of the $67.12 which I talked about earlier. O.K.? So his combined

monthly old age security and the G.I.S. would thus be $82.88 plus

$42.12 or $125 from government sources. And then he would be of

course permitted to keep that $50 that he gets from other income

so his total income would be $175 per month.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's no income tax…. No, $175, Mr.

Attorney General. I'm sorry, I should have put this down for

those of us like you and I who are weak in math.

Nevertheless, we have a situation where he then gets $175, $50

of which is from his own sources. Now, this province, and it will

be this government as I understand them and as I understand the

legislation, the principle of this bill would then augment that

$175 by $25. The Minister nods his head. I'm happy that once

again what we understand is correct.

But what I think is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, is that man with

an independent income of $50 means only $600 a year. It means

he's got $9,000 or $10,000 as his total worldly wealth that

provides him with income. It's not a big sum. The man is a small

man, I think in economic terms.

So, what happens to him under the proposed scheme? Well, Mr.

Speaker, as far as I can see, the Minister has given no

indication — in fact he's indicated that the man will not get

any credit as he would get under the G.I.S., the guaranteed

income supplement. He gets no credit whatsoever.

He could theoretically stay with his $175 from his own sources

and federal sources, and then take an extra $25 from his friend,

the Hon. Minister who is being very kind and listening very

attentively to this. But on the other hand if he says, "Gee

whiz! This isn't worth it if I have nothing to my name. I'll get

the same total of $200", and the $50 which he has for himself he

can give away to anybody else.

So say, Mr. Speaker, you're in the position of being that

elderly person. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, you're somewhat younger

than that and so am I. But say you or I were advising that senior

citizen and we said, "Look, if you keep your investment which is

$9,000 or $10,000 you are going to get

[ Page 270 ]

hosed." There is no question about it. The government is

simply going to pay you $50 less. The full amount of what he

would otherwise get from his income, from those investments. So

you have to advise him he has a number of choices.

You could say to him, "Well, you've been thrifty, you've tried

hard to put a little aside, you've got $9,000 or $10,000 and

society is now going to reward you by not allowing you really to

keep a penny of it." That's what it really boils down to. He gets

no benefit whatsoever from having been thrifty. He gets no

benefit from having kept something aside in case of a rainy day

or as my good friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) so eloquently

described the other day, if he gets in trouble with the costs

involved in nursing home care.

That type of nest egg will give him no benefit from the point

of view of income. So back to my example.

You or I, Mr. Speaker, are advising that senior citizen and we

say, "You've got a number of choices. You could take a trip and

blow the whole thing. You would be just as well off, you will get

just as much money per month afterwards. So take a trip, go

first-class on the France or one of the other major liners. Go

around the world, which you could probably do for $9,000 or

$10,000, which is great."

And I see the Premier nodding. I am surprised the Premier

nods. This is a serious matter for many people who would like to

keep something aside. Mr. Premier, in this Act you have admitted

that you are going to be putting — Mr. Speaker, through you, to

the Premier — you have admitted that you are changing the rules.

If I can understand your Act and amendment and other changes, you

are still going to continue a faulty system which you yourself

now have the ability to change.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, after those remarks by the

Premier, I can only say that perhaps he should start looking at

things a little closer. Because here we have

an Act for

provincial senior citizens. And he is using his old happy excuse,

which he learned from the former Premier of this province, simply

saying, "Oh, it's all Ottawa's fault." The provisions of these

various Acts are complex and that's why I am distressed that I

haven't had enough chance to look at your amendments closely.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I can preserve my position, I am willing

to continue to put an adjournment in and continue the debate

later. Mr. Speaker, there has been some interchange here for the

Hansard reporters.

I mentioned to my Hon. friend he had learned a great deal, in

fact too much, from our friend for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr.

Bennett). One thing I have learned is how the present Premier

himself got trapped into precisely that same type of snare, which

was put forward by the former Premier. Now he offers it to

me.

Candidly, his own actions so far in this House and the

legislation that he himself has brought in have resembled in so

many ways previous legislation that I don't intend to risk my

position in this debate, and this discussion….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you accept it. Well, if the Premier is

willing, not only to accept in his own name but also on behalf of

the other Members of his party, I think I'd be happy….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the House Leader assures the House

that he would accept your adjournment.

[ Page 271 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will certainly then move that this

House do now adjourn so that we can consider these amendments

brought in.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. Are you ready for the

question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The adjournment of the debate until the

next sitting of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you. The motion is that the debate on

Bill No. 3 be adjourned until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I may be out of order in bringing

this point of order up at this time, but I am sure you will be

lenient in light of my inexperience in Opposition, but I did

understand from the Whips that the Premier was very anxious to

get second reading of the bill through on a principle basis in

order that we could get on to the amendments in starting the

debate today. I would like to have reserved the same type of

position as the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And I wonder

if the Premier will allow me the same privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member. You have spoken….

MRS. JORDAN: Well I thought our Whips were to indicate to us

the programme of the House….

AN HON. MEMBER: Settle it with your Whips.

MRS. JORDAN: I did. I'm very close to my Whip in seating

arrangements. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please! The Hon. Member indicated

at the start of the debate that she was commencing her speech on

second reading and she has now relinquished the floor. I cannot

reopen it without the unanimous consent of the House at a later

time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is a new experience in this House,

after 20 years. But if you want an adjournment, ask for one. It

will be granted. Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Next order, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill No. 5.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Whips settle their

questions out of the House? We're waiting for the chairman. I've

sent for him.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MEDIATION COMMISSION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend the

Mediation Commission Act.

On the amendment to

section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I had hoped that the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) would make a statement to the

questions that were put to him so late last night.

[ Page 272 ]

Now, he attempted, but it appeared that it might get through

without the necessity of his giving an explanation on the many

questions that were put to him. But to refresh his memory

possibly he is not familiar with, or does not remember, the

points that were raised just last night.

The Attorney General brought up a defence on behalf of the

Minister of Labour in this assembly yesterday and last night as

to the reasons for these awesome powers that are instilled in the

Minister under this

section which we are discussing. And at that

time the Attorney General said that these powers were necessary

in order to insure the safety of workmen in premises or

factories.

Now,

he made a great to-do about the necessity of protecting the workers'

safety. And it's quite obvious that he's not familiar with the

Factories Act and he was not discussing the right Act. Because all the

provisions for protection of safety, and health and sanitation of the

working people of the province — and that includes elevating devices — comes under the Factories Act and has nothing to do with the Mediation

Services Act.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General and Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce): They're ultimately the same.

MR. CHABOT: So I would hope….

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick to business.

MR. CHABOT: I would hope that the Minister when he speaks on

this

section would give us some indication as to why it's

necessary to have the powers which are written down in this

particular

section which are not evident in the Factories Act.

Which are not necessary in the Factories Act. And if it's

necessary as the Attorney General appears to think, it's not

necessary to have those powers in the Factories Act. I cannot

understand why it should be necessary to have them in what is to

be known as the new Mediation Services Act.

The amendment which has been introduced by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) is a pretty sound approach to

the powers that are required for the administration of this

Act.

I would like to hear the Minister explain to us why he does

not support the amendment which has been put forward. An

amendment which I think each and every Member of this House deep

in his heart can readily support. I'm sure that there are members

in this assembly here today that have apprehensions about these

awesome powers that have been put in the hands of the

minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't you when you were

Minister?

MR. CHABOT: There's a great difference.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would have worked great for you.

MR. CHABOT: There's a three-man board. A three-man board — big difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get off it!

MR. CHABOT: Big difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: No it isn't.

MR. CHABOT: I would hope that the amendment be seriously

considered because I think it's an amendment that is worthy of

consideration, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you will agree with me, Mr. Chairman, that

it makes

[ Page 273 ]

sense. That there should be a warrant prior to the invasion of

a factory or a plant in the Province of British Columbia.

There was a lot of criticism just a few months ago when

certain premises, because of a certain labour dispute, were

entered. But I want to assure you that those premises were

entered into only after having obtained a warrant — and the

criticism was still there. And I'm frightened of the criticism

that will come down upon the Minister if he does not have this

authority from the courts of this province. And I ask the

Minister to give this serious consideration and let us know why

he will not accept this amendment. I'm sure in his heart he

believes that the amendment is right and he'll probably when he

stands in his place will support the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I have

listened to the criticism twice by various elements of the

Opposition. The Liberal leader or the Liberal Member, I beg your

pardon, from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) dealt at

length yesterday with the reasons why he had offered the

amendment to

section 11 of the Mediation Services Act.

In doing so he indulged in some pretty sweeping and inaccurate

statements. I just want to point out that the powers that are

contained in

section 11 of the Mediation Services Act, I have to

repeat myself apparently, were contained under the former

Mediation Commission Act. They're identical to those powers

contained in

section 44 of the Mediation Commission Act. That

similar powers are contained in many other statutes in the

province. It seems very unusual to me….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tradesman's Act.

HON. MR. KING: …the Apprenticeship and Tradesman

Qualification Act,

section 18. Department of Labour Act,

section

9. The Hours of Work Act,

section 9. Workman's Compensation Act,

section 63. And on it goes. All the powers under…

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Does that make

it alright?

HON. MR. KING: …all the powers under the Public Inquiries

Act are granted to these policing powers for the purposes of this

Act. And I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the fears and the

apprehensions that are being dragged in by my friends across the

way are simply "red herrings" to divert the issue and I'm

certainly surprised that those people who have tried to portray

themselves as voices of reason in this institution would seize

this opportunity to stir up industrial strife and suspicion when

none exists. None exists whatsoever. There has not been one

criticism registered by an organ of labour, management or the

public regarding this particular power vested in an authority.

The only question and the only debate, Mr. Chairman, has been

regarding the compulsory sections of the former Act which the

former labour minister certainly sat silent and accepted when he

sat as Minister of Labour. I can sympathize a little bit more

with the Liberal Party because I understand that they haven't had

too much experience in industrial relations.

The Hon. the Leader said what we are asking is very simple and

I agree it is a very simple amendment that you are offering and

one that would do harm to the labour relations climate in British

Columbia. The description was yours, not mine. It is simple,

because it would certainly destroy the effectiveness of the

legislation and would create more labour strife and it would

emasculate the Labour Relations Board, which now will exercise

this authority, from performing the duties which will be assigned

to them to the new Mediations Services Act, so I can understand

the ineptness of their amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I have a little more difficulty understanding and accepting

the criticism of the former Minister of Labour. Certainly he

occupied the office

[ Page 274 ]

long enough to be familiar with the powers which were granted

to him under the statutes. Apparently, he didn't know they

existed. Again, I repeat, no wonder we have degenerated in this

province to a situation where we had a climate of confrontation,

constant strikes and lockouts between management and labour.

Certainly if the Minister wasn't familiar with the legislation

that existed he was in a very, very poor position to access its

adequacy and its effectiveness. Now I really don't know what I

can add to this. The powers, as I indicated, are not only common

to other labour legislation in this province, they are necessary

in order to give an industrial inquiry commission the power to

enter into a plant in the case that the labour dispute develops

and to allow the inquiry commission to investigate into the

causes of it.

What would the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

suggest we do in a case of technological change? A material

change during the currency of a collective agreement. Would he

suggest that we run around the country trying to secure warrants

from the court while the strike is developing in a plant and

we're emasculated to the point where we can't act and intervene?

Certainly that's stupidity, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman.

would point out that in the Province of New Brunswick, the industrial

relations Act contains similar powers. In the Province of Newfoundland

the labour relations Act contains similar powers — Nova Scotia,

Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. You know, I could understand the

concern had there been any criticism offered from the people who are

governed by this legislation. But when I find a group of lawyers, for

instance, trying apparently to transfer the authority for conducting

and intervening in labour disputes from the labour department to the

courts of the province, then I must find their motives a little bit

suspect. Because certainly labour management relief and the good

working relationship will never be accomplished through court action.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, that the powers are not unusual. The

inference that they are simply being a "red herring" developed

from across the way without the basis of any illustrations

whatsoever. I think it's necessary for the good conduct and the

sound development of labour management practices within this

province and again, Mr. Chairman, I commend this legislation to

the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just want to make four points briefly, one or two of which

haven't been touched upon in the debates so far. Some of which have been

touched on, but apparently not grasped by many of the Members.

The first point, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment to the Mediation Commission Act was designed primarily to get us back to

square one in order that we could begin to study what changes

needed to be made in labour relations in British Columbia. It

would have been a mistake, Mr. Chairman, in my view for us to

have done other than to get back to square one at this session of

the Legislature and that's what the amendments have done. That's

the first point.

Second point is that labour relations in British Columbia have

deteriorated for a number of reasons. They don't all have to do

with the former Minister, or the former Ministers. One of the

reasons we are having as many problems in North America as we are

in labour relations is because for some reason the lawyers and

the courts have horned their way into the whole ball game.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that one of the major difficulties

today in labour relations is that you can't turn around without

bumping into a lawyer, or you can't turn around without bumping

into a judge and that fouls up the process between labour and

management. That complicates it, not just the question of expense

which the companies can afford and the unions can't. Not just

that question, but the whole question of people coming in with an

entirely different understanding, with an entirely different

framework and with an entirely different purpose.

[ Page 275 ]

If we can keep lawyers and judges out of labour relations, we

would be a lot better off, and I don't like the amendment for

that reason. All by itself, that's reason enough not to accept

that amendment.

The third point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I don't

know whether anybody opposite has read

section 7 of the Mediation

Commission Act. But briefly, Mr. Chairman,

section 7 suggests

that every person who is bound by a collective agreement, if

those terms are not lived up to, it is an offence against the

Mediation Commission Act. That means the Minister has to enforce

the agreements between parties.

If for example, Mr. Member from Columbia River, in the

agreement there are provisions relating to safety and those

provisions are violated by the company, then it is the

responsibility of the Minister of Labour to get himself involved

in that situation. It is his responsibility to look at the safety

situation in that particular mill, plant or whatever.

Therefore, Mr. Member from Columbia River, you have missed

entirely the point that was made by the Attorney General. Read

section 7 of the Mediation Commission Act.

The fourth point that I want to raise is tied in very

generally. It's a simple one, and that is there are a great many

situations in everyday life where people in our society are

vested with the authority to make decisions, like stopping an

automobile then checking to see whether it is safe.

What's the difference between a policeman's responsibility

there and a labour inspector's responsibility in a factory? Mr.

Chairman, I'm really quite disappointed that this debate has had

to happen, because unfortunately I think the public is being

misled terribly by some of the members opposite me. Thank

you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the First Member for

Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm

amazed and astounded at the rationale put forth by the supporters

of the amendment. As was mentioned the labour Minister, the past

labour Minister has had this right of entry, and I would put to

him, that if he had been more involved in the past he would have

solved many of the problems that we have had. He has been asked

to intervene in many of the past disputes and has refused.

Yesterday analogies were used as to the powers of entry for the

Workmen's Compensation Board for health standards for fire

inspection, weights and measures, tests for materials or foods.

22-4 of the Labour Relations Act along with the arbitration

aspects of it gives the arbitrators or chairman of the board the

right to inspect on-the-job sites. The Ontario Labour Relations

Act has a like situation and it's very obvious that the people

across the way here are not really knowledgeable of what goes on

during the job.

I mentioned yesterday for the purpose of inspections, problems

or situations do not remain the same when advance notice is given

of inspection.

One of the old frustrations of many of the employees

concerning the Workmen's Compensation Board is that the Workmen's

Compensation Board Inspector comes to the job, many times he sits

in the office and the word is out that he is in the area and the

unsafe situation maybe occurring on the job may be cleaned up in

rather a hurry. So this is one of the reasons why you need

on-the-spot inspections. For instance, I think many of the

M.L.A.'s here if they had prior knowledge or had knowledge of

some of the constituents coming to the Legislature, they probably

would act a lot different. Very obviously you see some of them

looking up in the galleries to see if some of their constituents

are there before they get up and speak on many of the

subjects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. RADFORD: Now what is the purpose of the bill which has

been mentioned? What's the purpose of the labour Minister or his

designate making

[ Page 276 ]

an inspection, or visiting a work area, the materials, the

machinery, the appliance the equipment or these things? We

mentioned yesterday that technological changes were coming about

very fast in industry. They're causing many problems, they're

causing problems of jurisdiction. Causing problems of changing

work loads. Situations of altering the bargaining unit.

Yet safety causes many disputes. So it's only sensible that a

labour Minister or his designates would go down and see what the

causes of these situations are for himself — rather than sit

behind a desk and listen to somebody else's opinion. For

instance, the situation which comes about in the longshoreman

industry today. You have the problem of the cargotainers. These

are situations that have to be investigated on the spot. They

have to be investigated during working hours. So that the

situations can be seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's good.

MR. RADFORD: And this is one of the reasons why the labour

Minister should have the right of entry. I too agree with the

previous speaker on the problem of legal implications, lawyers,

being involved. When labour relations first came about there was

no involvement of legalistic situations, they were solved. But

because of legislation we had to bring in legal help. I think

warrants would only interfere with our labour legislation. You

know it's hard for you people, I suppose, to assess some of the

feelings of the people on the job but when you get into legal

processes many times this is when feelings get stronger with

people.

Costs are also astronomical today, for both labour and

management, and you know it's often been said, and you've

probably heard this story in past days, the two farmers who have

a dispute over a cow. In the old days they used to shoot it out.

And the winner got the cow. Today the two farmers have a dispute,

and they go to the lawyer and the lawyer ends up with the cow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter).

MR. RADFORD: And I guess we have some learned people right in

our own caucus that have ended up with a few cows too.

(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. RADFORD: The problems in labour relations are very complex

today, because of some of these things that I have mentioned. And

labour relation problems cannot be solved by superficial surveillance. And

labour relation problems cannot be solved by issuing or granting warrants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this

debate with repetition of points. But the Hon. Minister a few

minutes ago suggested that no one in industry or labour had been

objecting to the kind of clause that we are at this time. And I

know there have been a number of interviews in the Press, and a

number of comments made publicly on this subject. Only one comes

to hand quickly and I think this should be clarified for the

benefit of the Hon. Minister. I want to quote from Mr. Herb

Fritz, who is the immediate retiring president of the Amalgamated

Construction Association and a very much respected executive in

the construction industry in British Columbia and right across

Canada. I'm not sure if he was president, certainly he was a

senior officer of the National Construction Association of

Canada. He's been involved for many, many years in labour

negotiations and I think is very much respected on both sides of

the bargaining table.

If I can quote from an interview with Mr. Fritz just three or

four days ago, he started off by approving the bill that we have

in front of us, the entire bill, saying that it's only sensible

to abandon an approach

[ Page 277 ]

which didn't work, and try to find one which will. He said

this gives the government in our industry a chance to get a new

look at the legislation — to come up with a better method than we

had in the past.

But, Mr. Chairman, Fritz was firmly against the sweeping

powers of search without the requirements of a search warrant

proposed for the labour Minister, so he can obtain information

relating to industrial disputes. "I don't believe that any one

person or body should be given that power", said Fritz. "This

goes against the whole idea of the basis of our society and I

hope the government will reconsider this part of the bill." I

think that clearly, Mr. Chairman, spells out the position of a

great many people in management.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I've listened

through the arguments and I feel that as a Member of a party in

this House I should take a stand. I've spoken on this point in

the general debate on the bill and make no apologies for having

changed my mind during the debate. And I feel that in the same

vein that this is a power which will not be used in the light of

the various points and views expressed by the government and for

that reason the Conservative Party will not be supporting the

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,

we've had a number of additional remarks, made today and of course many

last night. Perhaps it's a better debate today when we are all a

little fresher and haven't had such a trying time as some of us had

yesterday.

I should, however, repeat that it's perhaps good that we're

having a second look — and there is an opportunity for second

thought.

We have had statements made last night by the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) asking what law abiding person has

anything to fear from people coming in to the place of business

et cetera. Well that is perfectly true. But it is the same type

of argument that would permit, of course, the police unrestricted

access to a private dwelling. That type of argument.

Now he hasn't suggested this take place, obviously not. But

it's a type of argument which I find most unfortunate because we

are dealing with the what I think is the thin edge of a wedge.

Not planned, not deliberate, but just because this Legislature is

handing powers over to the executive, ignoring their duties to

respect citizens, talking instead about corporate bodies, be they

unions, companies or civil liberties associations, when they

should be talking about their own duties as representatives of

the people of British Columbia to defend the liberties of

individual British Columbians.

Now, we've had a fair bit said about other bits of legislation

where these provisions exist. Right, and in each one we expect

it to be put forward by the government and a need for it in that

specific legislation to be justified. Because otherwise we have a

situation where the bad supports the bad, or perhaps — indeed we

don't know — the good support the bad. But nevertheless what may

be necessary in one Act in terms of safety of elevators may not

be necessary in another.

Therefore we've been listening with great interest to the

reasons being put forward for this power in this legislation. And

we have not been impressed except for one comment of the Minister

of Labour which I think is the kernel of truth in much of the

chaff which we have heard, and that was when he said a short time

ago that this power is necessary for his officials to carry out

the duties that will be assigned under regulation.

I believe that's the correct statement. The Minister nods his

head in agreement with me.

Well, Mr. Chairman, surely it's the duty of the Minister and

the cabinet at this time to indicate what sort of duties will be

assigned under regulation. We don't like the idea of permitting

Ministers almost unlimited discretion under regulation to assign

such powers. And if we are to give a

[ Page 278 ]

power which the government think is necessary for something as

yet unspecified, it's time they told us what it is they intend to

do under the regulations so then we can judge whether or not the

power is required. Now, we don't know — he hasn't told us he's….

HON. MR. KING: It hasn't started yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister states it hasn't started yet.

But the Minister himself must have some idea why this power is

needed for those duties which he is assigning. And I don't think

he's given us a clear understanding of it. Like my friend, I have

no wish to prolong this debate. We feel that it's an important

point of principle and on that we leave our case to rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS-15

Brousson

McClelland

Anderson, D.A.

Chabot

Gardom

Phillips

McGeer

Bennett

Schroeder

Fraser

Smith

Richter

Morrison

Williams, L.A.

Jordan

NAYS-36

Liden

Wallace

Strachan

Lauk

Lewis

Cummings

Dailly

Gabelmann

Webster

Sanford

Barrett

Skelly

Kelly

Radford

Macdonald

Hartley

Curtis

Brown

Hall

King

Steves

Nicolson

Gorst

Cocke

Barnes

Nunweiler

Lockstead

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Stupich

Young

Lorimer

Rolston

Nimsick

Lea

Levi

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I

request that at the rising of the committee, that you do report to the

Speaker that a division took place on the amendment to

section 11 and ask

leave to have the division recorded in the Journals .

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. the Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: On

section 12 I have an amendment deleting the

words "or any court" in the last paragraph. I think it is most

important that this be deleted because there are some, again,

very stringent powers being taken up by the Minister of Labour

and his officials in the Department of Labour. There is a

possibility, and these possibilities always exist that in

obtaining the type of information that might be obtained in this

section, an indiscretion might take place. I think that an

individual or a company or a trade union should have the right of

redress. Unless this deletion "or any court", "by any court" is

redress. I think that there's a possibility of abuse with the

inclusion of these particular words in this particular

section.

[ Page 279 ]

I can't understand what fear there is on the part of the

Minister relative to information he may accumulate in the

carrying out of his responsibility under this Act. I would hope

that he would say why it's necessary to have these powers in

which the courts cannot question some of the information that is

gathered in carrying out the responsibilities under this Act.

I move the amendment standing in my name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the amendment in order. The discussion

will now be confined to the amendment. I recognise the Hon.

Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I think

we've gone through this exercise before where the previous

amendment would have had essentially the same effect of

restricting the powers of an Industrial Inquiry Commission, or an

Industrial Relations Officer to inquire into disputes concerning

the

interpretation of a collective agreement, and various other

matters. Certainly this would be an undue and unnecessary and

restrictive device to hamper him in the carrying out of those

duties.

I think it has very little to commend it, I oppose it, Mr.

Chairman, and urge that the House also reject this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. First Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, just briefly

to clarify my views on the Member from Columbia River's

amendment. If he means by deleting those words to encourage

further investigation by a court, then it's most unfortunate.

I'm not one of those that think labour/management relations

should be kept completely out of courts, but they should be a

last resort.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: And I mean a last resort, not like the history of

the previous government and the previous labour relations in this

province, where they were in court every day.

However, it must be pointed out that the first amendment to

this amendment Act, by the Liberal side, had slightly more merit

than this one.

We have here a power given to the Minister and his agents and

offices to accumulate information and sometimes that information

is acquired on the understanding of the parties of labour and

management that it will be strictly confidential. It's essential

that that Minister or his officers obtain the information to

arrive at a conclusion and a recommendation to the parties. If he

is hampered in this way under the threat that the information may

be ordered revealed to the public by a court, then he will not be

able to obtain the information that is so necessary to reach an

agreement and avoid a work stoppage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to take

this opportunity to welcome a group of students who have come down

from George P. Vanier Secondary School, in Courtenay. They are here with

their sponsors, Mr. Art Tingle and Mr. Peter Sanford. I would ask

the Members to join me in welcoming them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, I would just like to make a point. We

welcome the students, of course, and we're happy to have them

here but, I'd just like to point out to the Hon. Member that….

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I'm just taking this opportunity to do

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the normal course of debate you do not

normally do that.

[ Page 280 ]

MS. SANFORD: Alright. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. SANFORD: I would just also, Mr. Chairman, like to point

out that I feel that the argument that is taking place, the

discussion that is taking place, on this particular

section is a

discussion that we've already had in this House, and I would

encourage the Members to move as quickly as possible towards the

question on this particular section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Closure, closure!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is this, Mr. Chairman,

to be known as closure? Are we not to have our rights in this

House in this debate to speak up on behalf of our constituents?

Because I think this is what this whole bill that we're

discussing is about, taking away the rights of the individual.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member, I would point out there has

been no ruling from the Chair. Every member has the full right to

speak.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very interested

and I wasn't going to enter into this debate until such time

(Laughter) as I felt that my rights as a Member in this

Legislature were being ruled upon by the opposite side. You know,

I was very interested. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have four labour

specialists over on the other side. We have the First Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young), we have the Second Member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and we have the Member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) so by the time we hear from all

the labour specialists on the other side of the House, for they

have certainly had their opportunity to have their say and I

don't propose, Mr. Speaker, to be a specialist on labour. I

don't propose that. But I do propose to know something about the

rights of the individual. The small individual businessman whose

entire rights under this Act could be taken away from him with

the swipe of a pen by the Minister of Labour.

The Second Member for Vancouver Centre stood in this House

last evening and said that this was a simple — I want you to

note the word very closely, Mr. Chairman — a "simple" mechanism.

A simple mechanism. Certainly it's a simple mechanism. The

Minister of Labour doesn't have to do anything. He doesn't even

have to phone the fellow. Just barge right in! It's a very simple

mechanism. I'm surprised that the learned gentlemen from

Vancouver Centre wouldn't give the opportunity to a small

businessman to phone his lawyer first.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on the right section.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now what the Minister has said and something

that….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member get to the point on the

amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is

that certainly there are rules in different labour Acts

permitting various people to go into various businesses to do

various things.

For instance, in the Hours of Work Act, somebody can go into

your place of business and they can look at your payroll to see…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. PHILLIPS: …that the employees haven't worked. But

they can go look at your financial statement and if they start

looking around in other

[ Page 281 ]

than the thing they came in for they're going to be kicked

out. Certainly, or I'll go running to my lawyer. Any small

business would. But under this Act anybody can walk in to any

small business — I'm talking about any small sawmill operation,

any small manufacturer, the Minister of Labour can march in,

unassuming and do anything he wants to. He just can't look at

certain phases. It's all encompassing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, a point of order….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Attorney General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace sit down

and let the Hon. Attorney General make his point?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think the Hon. Member is on the wrong

section.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the wrong bill!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is an amendment to delete three

little words "by any court". And as I understand the

amendment it's agreed that all of the information is

confidential, but the question is whether it should be or it

should not be delivered up in a court in a court proceeding. And

that's the sole question before the committee at this time.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm trying to help the Member. I want

to help him to get down to the point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would merely draw the attention of the Hon.

Member to

section 61-2.

1 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, alright. The thing that I wanted to

point out is that the point was made in this House, very clearly,

that this is a simple mechanism. "A simple mechanism" by the

other side of the House, by the Minister of Labour to walk into

any small manufacturer, any place of business maybe into an

apartment block and check the records….

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the committee has already debated

the amendment that the Hon. Member is referring to. And we're not

on the amendment that deals with whether or not such evidence

shall be admissible for the purposes of litigation. We've already

indulged in the debate the Hon. Member is now referring to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is correct.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, before you debate whether the evidence is

going to be allowable you've got to find out how the evidence is

going to be obtained.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really!

MR. PHILLIPS: However, that's the point I wanted to make, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is 1972, not 1952.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 282 ]

YEAS-10

Schroeder

Phillips

Jordan

Bennett

Morrison

Fraser

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Smith

NAYS-41

Liden

Wallace

Stupich

Lea

Lewis

Williams, L.A.

Mesick

Lauk

Webster

Anderson, D.A.

Strachan

Gabelmann

Kelly

McGeer

Dailly

Skelly

Curtis

Cummings

Barrett

Hartley

Brousson

Sanford

Macdonald

King

Gardom

Radford

Hall

Cocke

Steves

Brown

Gorst

Williams, R.A.

Barnes

Nicolson

Lockstead

Lorimer

Anderson, G.H.

Nunweiler

Young

Levi

Rolston

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rises, I would

hope that you report to the Speaker that a division took place on

the amendment and ask leave that the division be recorded in the

Journals .

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. There are standing on the orders in my name amendments

to this same

section 12 and I refer specifically to the first

amendment to

section 12 dealing with the second sub-section. And

my remarks at this moment are restricted to that specific

amendment, of sub-section 2.

Mr. Chairman, this sub-section deals with the confidentiality

of information which the Minister receives in the course of the

performance of his responsibilities and quite properly extends to

the Minister a discretionary power to determine if in his opinion

that information or the release of it would be prejudicial to the

person from whom the information was received. And to that extent

we are in favour of giving to the Minister this discretion.

However, in the same sub-section the Minister is given a

further discretion. And that is that he can direct that the

information be made public and it can be made public in a manner

which he also may direct. And I suggest to the committee that

this is an excess of discretionary power. Because you see, Mr.

Chairman, what takes place first of all is the Hon. Minister

receives information during the course of a proposal, or a

concerning a dispute. Quite obviously by reason of the nature of

information the person by whom it is supplied indicates to the

Minister that the release of that information would be

prejudicial. The Minister then considers that request, and the

information in respect in which it is made and he arrives at a

decision whereby in his opinion he says, "yes, it would be

prejudicial".

Having reached that decision, Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is

wrong for this assembly then to say to the Minister, "however, if

you reach the decision that's prejudicial you have a choice. You

don't have to keep it in confidence, but you can make a specific

direction as to the way in which the information will be made

public".

I think that it becomes a conflict in the hands of the

Minister who first of all makes a decision that the information

is confidential, it's prejudicial to release it. And then he can

exercise a further by saying by having made that decision I

decide that it's going to be released in a particular newspaper

or in a particular way.

We are opposed to the extension of this power to the Minister.

It's a discretionary power and I appreciate that discretionary

powers don't necessarily result in arbitrary powers in any

sinister sense, but it does introduce the possibility of

ill-controlled authority. It will always raise strong

[ Page 283 ]

suspicion of abuse and the inability of any person that is

injured or who believes he's been injured by the action of the

Minister, by the use of this authority, to obtain redress cannot

fail to convert that suspicion into appearance of certainty.

That the near willingness of a cabinet Minister to accept

political responsibility for the use, or abuse, of this kind of

power is neither a real nor effective safeguard I suggest. The

matter that we are debating in connection with this amendment is

not unlike what we debated a few moments ago. It is the question

of whether or not there is to be a barrier placed between the

powers of the Minister and the citizens.

The Members of this assembly, and I know that the Hon. Second

Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) speaking a few moments

ago, in the light of what he said, I would expect that he would

support this particular amendment.

But the Members will appreciate that there's no redress in the

courts of this province or any citizen who may be injured by the

exercise of this discretionary power even if that is a

discretionary power which has been legally exercised by the

Minister, because that power is given to the Minister by this

Legislature, and it is beyond appeal to the courts of this

province.

I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford)

that too often the intrusion of members of the legal profession,

and of the courts, in the affairs of unions and management in the

resolutionary disputes has resulted in hardship, indeed has

fostered feelings which have been detrimental to the resolution

of the dispute which they are really intending to serve.

Nonetheless, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we can in this

House scarcely contemplate with equanimity any substantial

interference with so fundamental a constitutional principle of

the rule of law. And I trust that's not the direction that we're

going.

It's all very well to say that, "oh, courts do this, and

lawyers do that," but I recall to you, Mr. Chairman, that

in the final analysis it is the strength of the courts of this

land of ours which will provide the only barrier to unbridled use

of bureaucratic power. What issue we have before us is not so

much a matter of whether these powers are being exercised today

by this Minister fairly and equally, and generously, or in a

reasonable or enlightened manner, or whether they'll be exercised

that way in the future. What we have before us in this amendment

is a question of whether or not we will be governed by

clearly-defined laws based upon the principles of equity and

justice rather than laws which are designed to serve the needs of

administrative expediency.

suggest, Mr. Chairman, to those people in this assembly who are

concerned about the directions in which labour/management relations are

going in this province that one of the problems which requires urgent

solutions is to get away from those measures that may seem to be

expedient at the moment. Those measures, those solutions to problems

which seem so fulfilling right now, but which on second and third

consideration, and at a later time prove to have been the wrong

solution. Indeed, the very bill that we are amending is a clear example

of what I say. We had in 1968, following lengthy studies, the

government of the day bring forward the Mediation Commission Act. It

was going to be the be-all, and the end-all, and the solution to the

problem. And we all know it hasn't been.

It was expedient at that time, and expediency throughout the

operation of the Mediation Commission is one of the things that

has destroyed its very usefulness, and has resulted in us dealing

with legislation today to do away with that commission.

Now, I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that in this amendment all

I'm urging the Members to do — yes, give the Minister the

discretion upon the receipt of information to determine whether

or not it should be disclosed. If he determines it should not be

disclosed let that be the end of it. Let us not permit him to

make the second choice of having said, "it shall not be

disclosed, but I direct it be made public in a specific way".

Because that is what these words say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

[ Page 284 ]

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague in

his very learned and eloquent address to this amendment. And to express

my very deep concern over the philosophy of the party opposite, that is

evidenced by the legislation they are bringing into this House.

Mr. Chairman, this is the same kind of blank cheque

legislation they used to oppose so well from this side of the

House. The former government, the former Social Credit government

were a holier-than-thou kind of government. They operated under

the great umbrella that "Father know best". But look, Mr.

Chairman, how the present government starts to operate when they

become government, instead of opposition, when they get into

power. The Member from North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann),

Mr. Chairman, says that he has confidence in the Minister of

Labour. He has given these powers, but he is going to be the

watch dog, and he says we will be the first to speak up if these

powers are in some way abused.

Mr. Chairman, are all the Members of this House, the people of

British Columbia are they satisfied with that kind of protection?

Is that what we are being given? The Minister of Highways, Mr.

Chairman, last night spoke in a slightly different context, but

he said these powers are okay. They are quite satisfactory, as

long as no one has anything to fear.

Mr. Chairman, isn't this as the Liberal leader has already

said, isn't this the beginning of the police state kind of

powers, kind of operation?

Last session, spring of '72, Mr. Chairman, I remember telling

the House how another government across the mountains some 35

years ago brought in a bill,

an Act to Ensure the Publication of

Accurate News and Information. That was 1937, and the Social

Credit government of Alberta.

At that time that government had 56 members. They were a big

government, a really big government. But now on the other side of

this House, Mr. Chairman, we have in terms of the number of seats

in this chamber, a really big government. And aren't they

bringing in, in effect to the wording of this section, some kind

of management of the news?

Listen to the wording, Mr. Chairman. It says: "Where information relates to

the business of any person, the Minister may direct that the information be

made public in such manner as he directs". Isn't that the beginning of the management

of news and information, Mr. Chairman? Isn't that a holier-than-thou kind of

approach? Isn't that a "father knows best" kind of approach? Isn't that blank

cheque legislation?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier and this government during the

election, and since, have promised open democracy. They promised

a new kind of government for British Columbia and then you bring

in this blank cheque kind of legislation, time after time already

in this short session. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to this House that

it is the same script as before — only the players are

different.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: We too campaigned on the concept that there

should be maximum protection of the individual and society in the face

of ever-increasing powers of government, not only this government, any

government. And certainly I always felt that the phrase "in confidence" meant what it

said unless as in the case, let us say, of the medical profession you are

compelled by the court to disclose information which was provided by an

individual.

I certainly feel, and would agree with the speakers from the

Liberal benches, that this wording undoubtedly leaves too much

discretion to the Minister to pick and choose which parts of

confidential information should be disclosed and not only which

parts, but very clearly the manner in which the information can

be disclosed. While I've listened very carefully to this whole

debate both on principle and

section by section, I have tried

very hard to evaluate the arguments from both sides of the House.

But on this particular

section I have no doubt at all that this

gives far too much discretion to any one man, particularly as we

have heard from all quarters that we are dealing with an

extremely complex and involved matter in terms of

labour/management relations.

[ Page 285 ]

We have also heard from one of the members of the government

himself that the ability or the likelihood of participants in a

dispute providing information depends very much on the assurance

given to the person that it is indeed in confidence, and that

useful constructive facts and opinions might not otherwise be

forthcoming.

I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that if a person in a position

to provide important information has some doubt in his mind as to

how that information might subsequently be used by the Minister,

he is certainly less likely to disclose what indeed might be a

very constructive and useful part of the argument, or part of the

whole dispute.

In other words, the phrase "in confidence" should mean such,

and if other than by the courts of the land, the person is

compelled to disclose information considered by the court to be

necessary to be disclosed, then I think that such discretion

should not exist in the hands of the Minister, and we will

support the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I rather doubt whether my

Hon. friends on the other side of the House have read

the section. For their edification, I'll read the introduction.

It says, "the Minister may receive and hold in confidence a

proposal made by any of the parties for settlement of a dispute".

Now, no-one's compelled to reveal anything they don't want to

reveal. I don't know why the Liberal Party insists, Mr. Chairman,

on dragging in all these insidious "cloak and dagger" powers. The

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) suggested that

there was some awesome power that might be well wielded by the

Minister here. I suggest he's not reading the legislation, the

right of….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Labour Minister sit down for a

moment? Would you make your point?

MR. WILLIAMS: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, deals

specifically with an amendment to sub-section 2 of

section 17,

not to sub-section 1. If the Minister would please read that, he

will know, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Minister to confine his remarks

to the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: You cannot divorce

section 2 from the intent of

article 17, it's the information provided there that we are

dealing with in the sub-section, so I don't think you can divide

them. I think that's a little bit unsound. But certainly, Mr.

Chairman, this information can't be elicited from any of the

parties involved unless they are prepared to give it and on that

basis it may be held in confidence, that it would be prejudicial

to them in any way. On the other hand, it could constitute some

type of violation of a collective agreement by either party and

therefore require publication in the provincial department's

statistical information. That's publication and I see nothing

whatsoever insidious or dangerous about such a provision in the

Act. I think the Liberal Opposition are trying to develop another

straw man on this issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if we could get away

from our arguments which were put forward earlier dealing with

legal principles — not that I don't think that the principles

eloquently expressed by my colleague on my left from West

Vancouver are not good ones, but perhaps if the Minister would

look at this in a different way, we may all see this amendment in

a different light, and we may succeed in getting a little further

with this.

[ Page 286 ]

I would ask the Minister once more not to get trapped into

hasty statements in attempts at rebuttal. I think that if he

listens to his colleague, the Second Member from Vancouver

Centre, had he listened to the comments made earlier which may

have been slightly off the point when dealing with the earlier

amendment, but nevertheless apply to this one, he would have

perhaps understood a little better what we are driving at.

Think of this in a practical way. As Minister of Labour you

want to get the confidence of parties. You want to have them come

forward and give you information which will allow you to help

resolve a problem, which you see, Sir — Mr. Chairman, through

you to the Minister — as being a difficulty. Something which may

lead to an industrial dispute. Perhaps a strike, perhaps a

lockout.

You want to get their confidence, and you want to get

information from them, so you can discuss their problem, their

real problem. Therefore I think it's really important to make

sure that anything that could possibly lead them not to give you

that type of information, should not be in this Act.

In other words, if I can quote the Minister, Mr. Chairman, he

stated that "well, if they are prepared to give it, they're

prepared to give it and if its prejudicial to their interests

they of course won't give it."

Well, that's precisely what we should get away from. We should

be getting to a period of trust — which, God knows, has been

talked about long enough in this debate — in to a period of

trust where even if it may be prejudicial to their interest they

trust the Minister enough to tell him what's on their mind.

If they have a

section like this in this bill whereby he can

send it out in dribs and drabs, leak it to gossip columnists and

the papers, if he thinks that's the most appropriate way of

getting this information used, or else putting it in banner

headlines — which I note will annoy his colleague the Premier — nevertheless he could do it that way.

If he goes about it in this sense I'm sure there are many

unions and many companies who simply will not deal with the

Minister on the basis of confidence and trust, which we think is

important, to get labour relations in this province in a better

climate — not that I regard the arguments of my learned

colleague from West Vancouver–Howe Sound as unimportant, they are

critical — but nevertheless there is another, what you might

call more practical, application of this amendment which deals

only with the Minister's ability to handle his portfolio.

I think if he looks upon it in that light and ignores, because

he obviously in his more recent comments did not accept, the

arguments put forward earlier by our friend from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound or indeed the Hon. Member from Oak Bay — if

he ignores that, for a moment goes back and thinks for himself,

as a Minister, trying to get something done, deals with it

practically in those terms perhaps he will see the virtue of the

amendment that my colleague is putting forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 12, the first

part, concerned with

section 17,

part 2 of the original Act,

shall this amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS-17

Curtis

McClelland

Williams, L.A.

Jordan

Brousson

Phillips

Anderson, D.A.

Chabot

Gardom

Fraser

McGeer

Bennett

Schroeder

Wallace

Smith

Richter

Morrison

[ Page 287 ]

NAYS-33

Liden

Sanford

Dailly

Gabelmann

Lewis

Radford

Barrett

Skelly

Webster

Brown

Macdonald

Hartley

Kelly

Nicolson

Hall

King

Steves

Nunweiler

Gorst

Cocke

Barnes

Stupich

Lockstead

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Nimsick

Young

Lorimer

Rolston

Strachan

Lea

Levi

Cummings

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I request that at the rising of

the committee, that you do advise the Speaker that the amendment

was moved to

section 12 and a division took place and ask leave

to have the division recorded in the Journals .

While I'm on my

feet, Mr. Chairman, may I with leave of the committee withdraw

the amendment to

section 12 standing in my name to sub-section 3

section 17?

Leave granted.

Sections 12 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend the Mediation Commission Act,

reported complete without amendment.

Bill No. 5 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS-41

Liden

Wallace

Nunweiler

Young

Lewis

Williams, L.A.

Stupich

Lea

Webster

Anderson, D.A.

Nimsick

Lauk

Kelly

McGeer

Strachan

Gabelmann

Curtis

Dent

Dailly

Skelly

Brousson

Cummings

Barrett

Hartley

Gardom

Sanford

Macdonald

King

Steves

Radford

Hall

Williams, R.A.

Barnes

Brown

Gorst

Lorimer

Anderson, G.H.

Nicolson

Lockstead

Levi

Rolston

NAYS-10

Schroeder

Phillips

Jordan

Bennett

Morrison

Fraser

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Smith

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 6. Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 288 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MALE MINIMUM WAGE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 6,

An Act to Amend the Male

Minimum Wage Act.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Section 4:

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I just

mentioned earlier in the debate that none of us were really sure

by how much the rate should go up and over what period of time.

And the bill in

section 4 states $2 per hour, and no further

suggested raises. I did comment of my concern for some of the

senior citizens in the light of this $2 raise, and by today I

have in the mail a copy of a letter from the Glengarry Private

Hospital announcing to the patients' relatives that on April 1,

it went up to $14 a day, and that the rate will now become

effective at $16 per day, in the Glengarry Private Hospital in

Victoria. And I think, Mr. Chairman, to be complete at least I

should read the letter very briefly.

"It has been announced in the Speech from the Throne that the minimum

wage will be increased in the near future from $1.50 per hour, to $2 per hour.

We are therefore accordingly forced to increase our accommodation rate effective

22nd November 1972 or on the date the new minimum wage becomes effective, whichever

date is later. When this change becomes effective the daily accommodation charge

will be $16 for the above patient. Should you wish to discuss this matter with

me personally please make arrangements to do so at your earliest convenience."

I think, Mr. Chairman, this brings up to date the fears that were expressed

from both sides of the House. In fairness, it wasn't just the Conservative Party.

All parties expressed the concern that perhaps while the raise was necessary

nobody really knew how much it should be raised, and over what period of time

it should perhaps go up again. And I am just suggesting for the information

of the House, Mr. Chairman, that here is one very deserving segment of the community

in Victoria at least where the response has been very quick. This letter is

dated October 23 — two days ago. And I think the House should be aware of this

having happened and the likelihood that it will continue to happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, along the lines of my Hon.

friend from Oak Bay I wonder whether the Hon. Minister might

indicate whether he does have in his mind some scheme or other

which would allow some sort of subsidy for cases such as that

outlined by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay where there is a social

need being performed by people who are very badly paid, at the

present time, or are paid below the minimum wage, or what the

minimum wage will become. Is it not possible for the Minister to

at least let us in on his thinking as to whether he intends to

allow some sort of subsidy scheme so the provincial treasury can

at least cushion the shock and thus patients in private

hospitals, and people in a similar position who might also be

affected are not subjected to the full impact right away — as my

Hon. friend from Oak Bay has indicated will be the case with

respect to this particular private hospital?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Since we're now into a specific under this

section I have to answer in specifics and since the House rules

have been broken I hope I'm allowed the same latitude.

[ Page 289 ]

It is not this government's policy to favour profit-making in

the health field. Let's have that clear. We do not believe in

hospitals operating on a profit. And I think all of us have that

same sympathy.

We have inherited a situation that we wanted altered for

years. The first promise given by the former government to alter

this situation was in a 1956 campaign by the former Minister of

Health Eric Martin. It was a promise continued in every election

campaign by the former government, never acted on. Recognising

that we do not believe in the profit operation of private

hospitals, nonetheless do we believe that any employee in a

private hospital should subsidize the hospital by being

under-paid, therefore making the private hospital economically

viable.

The Members have touched on a very serious problem and it is a

matter of urgent priority with us to ensure that under the

British Columbia Hospital Insurance Scheme, every citizen of this

province gets the service they're paying for through their taxes — that means chronic care — through the Government of British

Columbia.

I will ask the Minister, as I've asked him before, again to

review our present arrangements with private hospitals. I will

ask the Minister to ensure that no patient to the best of our

ability — with the situation that we've inherited — no patient

to the best of our ability will suffer because of this particular

amendment, or any other amendment.

I publicly make the appeal to the private hospital field to

understand very clearly that we are now the government, we intend

to move in this direction and for people in the private hospital

field to avoid the

interpretation of editorials which say that it

is alright to say one thing in opposition but it's not necessary

to do that once you become government because people understand

that politicians change their mind.

I want the private hospital operators to understand that when

we said in an election campaign that we don't believe in private

hospitals operating, we mean it, and we intend to act on it.

To avoid any further cynicism by the public we intend to act

with as much dispatch, with as much openness, as we can.

The Minimum Wage Act must go through now. The consequences we

don't know in many areas. They might pop up from time to time,

from week to week. I've said earlier that we will initiate an

economic study of the consequences of this. We're working in a

vacuum because of 20 years of neglect in this field.

That is a statement of fact. Just a statement of fact. No

research. Nothing, when we came to office. We're trying to do

what we can. I want to thank the Hon. Members for their

statements on this. We'll have to accommodate ourselves as the

situation arises. That's the best that I can say at this

point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would it be possible, Mr. Chairman, and

through you to Mr. Premier, for application to be made to the

government in circumstances such as this? In which case I wonder

if the Premier could indicate whether it should be the Minister

of Health Services, the Minister of Labour, or what area? We

fully understand and appreciate your lack of information on the

effects of this. It's just that in the interim period before your

material is gathered, when hardship may result for certain

segments of the society, particularly the elderly and sick people

and we would like some indication of where they can turn to for

help.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This has been an area of court action

between some hospitals and some municipalities. Outside of our

jurisdiction. The previous administration was forced to court to

take some action in terms of coming to the decision of settlement

with municipalities. I would expect that in specific situations

we have to turn to the Department of Welfare.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 290 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well no…. In instances now that exist,

as the doctor will tell you, it's the Welfare Department has been

subsidizing the private hospital field. I don't see any change in

that for the time being. It's a mechanism that exists. I would

expect that the case should be made directly to the Welfare

Department as it stands now.

I hope it is only an interim period but, as the matter stands

now, the route exists through the Welfare Department.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I realise, Mr. Chairman, we're all speaking out

of order. We'll try and keep it to the point.

Could I interpret it through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Premier, that the government intends, either directly or

indirectly to create non-profit facilities for the provision of

chronic care under the B.C.H.I.S.?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is the ideal goal. In this regard,

knowing very well my feelings about the role of charity, in this

regard, this services clubs and other organizations, do have a role to

play. I welcome that role.

Sections 4, 5 and 6 approved. Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 6,

An Act to Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act reported

complete without amendment.

Bill No. 6 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 7. Mr. Chairman.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 7,

An Act to Amend the Public

Schools Act.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 approved.

section 5:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

under the revisions that we are presently dealing with in

section

5, there is a provision now as there was in the former

section of

this Act for salaries and bonuses to come before an arbitration

board.

Under the old

section of the Act there was a provision that

the Arbitration Board findings would not be final until they had

been approved by the tenant electors. In other words, even though

the Arbitration Board handed down a decision it was possible that

that decision was not final and binding on the school districts

or the teachers until such time as it had received consent from

the tenant, or owner electors, I should say.

Now, that's a change and one of the changes that we opposed

when we were speaking on second reading to this bill.

But, the one thing that I was really concerned about with

respect to this

section is that we deal with a term which says

"salaries or bonuses or both". I would just like to know from the

Hon. Minister within the context of this

section on the Act, what

constitutes a bonus for the purposes of a section.

[ Page 291 ]

Does it include, for instance, rental allowances, paid to a

teacher in certain and special circumstances? Does it include

travel expenses perhaps? Does it include such things as a

sabbatical leave, which would be given to teachers to go into

continued studies or continue studies for degrees? If so, how

would it come into the play of this particular

section of the

Act? Could it include fringe benefits, particularly those that

would not have been declared as income under the meeting of the

Income Tax Act? In effect, when we talk about salaries and

bonuses, just what part will the bonuses play in the future with

regard to the actual costs of the financing of the educational

system within the province?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In reply to the Hon.

Member, you're aware that this

section has the same wording as it was

when your government brought in the Act. But, it doesn't change the fact

that the matter of

interpretation of bonuses was negotiated in the same

manner as when your government was in power. So, we will carry on in

exactly the same manner.

It will be up to the boards when they are discussing the

matter of bonuses to deal with it. I don't quite see the

relationship between your question of bonuses and relating it to

the fact that the referendum has been removed. I don't see the

relevancy of the question, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Peace

River. I would ask the Member to address his remarks to the Chair

please.

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will. The question has been

posed that, by the Hon. Minister to myself I presume, or to me

through you, Mr. Chairman, that there was no relevancy between

the idea of one particular clause within the Act and the question

that I asked regarding bonuses. I wanted a further clarification

of what the position would not be of the Crown and the government

with regard to what would qualify as a bonus under this Act.

I think that we made the point very well and very clear in

this House that regardless as to what may be qualified as

salaries or bonuses, there will be no further requirement on the

school districts or the division, or the school division

involved, to go any further than to arbitrate the case before the

Arbitration Board. I just wanted to explore the area of bonuses

to see if it was to be opened up in applying the

interpretations

of this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As far as opening up, as I think the Hon.

Member knows, there have been districts which have opened up this

area. As a matter of fact we have moved into some degree in working

conditions. I think this is perhaps, the sort of thing you are suggesting

here.

As you know the whole philosophy behind this Act is to restore

to the boards their local autonomy. I think the teachers and the

school boards will negotiate the matter of this, and will come to

an agreement. If one party is concerned about the

interpretation,

of that agreement, and the word "bonus" as it refers to this Act,

then they can bring it to my attention.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I'm under the right

section here. I did have some questions to ask. It's in relation

to kindergarten, for one point. Is this right? On the basis of

instructional units; and my remarks to the Minister will be

addressed through you, Mr. Chairman, at all times.

[ Page 292 ]

I would like to just comment on the fact that the Minister did

mention that kindergartens would be compulsory in all school

districts in the future and I am to assume this is to start in

September of 1973. I regretted in the House and was quite

concerned at that time about whether or not attendance at

kindergartens was going to be compulsory. I see by the media that

she did state outside this House that kindergarten attendance

would not be mandatory in British Columbia and I commend you for

this.

And I assure you, madam Minister, that should you ever try to

make attendance in kindergarten in British Columbia compulsory

you will receive strong opposition from this Member and this citizen in British Columbia.

I feel that there are some points that should be clarified in

relation to kindergartens and I would like to know from the

Minister how she is intending to house these classes in September

of 1973. There are a number of school districts which are using

their school facilities to the fullest and for sometime now….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be seated and the Hon. Minister state

her point of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think the matter of how the

department is going to house kindergartens is really a matter for discussion

under this section. I answered the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) when we were having a general debate on the

principle of the bill with reference to kindergartens.

But under this

section we are simply dealing with the basis

for the calculation of instructional units. You see there is

nothing to do with the capital costs of kindergartens.

MRS. JORDAN: Is there somewhere in this bill where I might ask

this question because I have received a number of enquiries….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say that the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan was out of order under

section 61-2 and I do not believe

that there is a section.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you not wish to discuss kindergartens in any

way, shape or form?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated.

Section 7 approved.

MRS. JORDAN: I asked a question through you, Mr. Chairman,

whether or not the Minister did not wish to discuss kindergartens ….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declared the Hon. Member out of order.

section 8:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: On

section 8, Mr. Chairman, this is the

section

which sets the amount by which a school district may exceed the

basic educational programme as a matter of course up to 110 per

cent, and within certain circumstances they may be allowed to go

beyond that, provided two-thirds of the School Board members vote

in favour of allowing them to go beyond the 110 per cent

limitation set out.

In the old Act the limitation of 110 per cent applied to the

smaller districts and 108 to larger districts. So this is an

increase giving more latitude to most of the school districts

within the province.

[ Page 293 ]

I think it's a fair statement to say that there is going to be

a tremendous amount of pressure on the school boards to provide

whatever services they can, not only within the 100 per cent but

also to perhaps expand beyond that point, if the teaching

profession and those that are advising them feel that they have a

good chance of making a strong case before the elected trustees

of the school district.

It does seem to me, and as I've said in a previous debate on

second reading, that this is going to place the elected board

members in a very critical position. They will be asked to make

decisions, perhaps which they do not completely agree with 100

per cent, and provide funds beyond a limit which they think would

be really advisable when you take into consideration the overall

cost of education and the inflationary effects that it's having

on our economy, as well as many other things that are.

I believe that the authority as it stood before, where it

could be referred back to the Minister of Education, certainly

was a better way of handling this than the way we're presently

proceeding. There's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure

over a period of the next few months even on school boards to

move rapidly into new fields and to increase expenditures to a

great degree.

In that respect we all know the budget of the province can

only devote so much of the total funds available to the

educational field. I would hope that we do not get ourselves into

a position where other fields of service to people will suffer

because of the tremendous increase in demand for funds to finance

our education system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

believe that we've been going backwards in education for some

years in British Columbia, largely because of the kind of

attitude which is expressed in

section 8. And I well recognise

that the amendment to

section 197 that we're discussing now is a

considerable improvement over what we had at the time the new

government took office.

But since we've been going backwards for many years the

present arrangements really only get us back to where we were in

1968 or so. And I hope the Minister today could give us some

indication that this particular

section is going to be scrapped

in the future and we'll have a much better formula for arriving

at school board budgets.

Looking back over the history of the last three or four years

I can't think of any good at all that has come from this 110 per

cent formula. I can think of tremendous amounts of harm. I

disagree completely with what the Member for North Peace River

has just said.

The school populations in British Columbia are relatively

constant in the primary and secondary system, and will remain so

for a number of years. And it just happens to be the way our

population shift has taken place. There will be more in the

secondary school system, fewer in the primary system. We're not

going to have an enormous increase in the number of teachers

because the number of teachers we need is just proportional to

the number of students we have in the system.

But there are some school districts that will experience

considerable growth. And this will take place from year to year

and will demand a considerably greater increase in their budgets

than relatively more static areas of the province. And this sort

of a

section takes a flatiron to the business of school board

budgeting in the province.

Again, may I reiterate that we've been marching backwards for

some years. I compliment the minister on having turned education

around in the province. We still aren't back where we were a

decade ago but I hope that through further amendments to

section

197 we can get ourselves back on the tracks again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Education.

[ Page

294 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I appreciate the remarks just made by

the last speaker. And I just want to reiterate that I'm aware of

these problems in the formula as it now exists. The whole formula

is going to be under review.

But secondly, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member

that there is the

section which was not discussed in any detail

today on the rights of the Minister to change the instructional

units costs. I think the Hon. Member, who is well-versed in the

formula, is aware that if there is a change in that, particularly

at the elementary level, it can certainly alleviate some of the

pressures we have had in some of those areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe this isn't the

time or the place to do it, but we do have in the galleries today a

former Minister without Portfolio, the Hon. Isobel Dawson. I'd like the

members to join with me in welcoming her to the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enquire of the Minister of

Education, and I hope she'll correct me — as a matter of fact, I

know she will — if she is wrong, if this will allow school boards

in rural areas to budget for more busing facilities. Will this

allow school boards in rural areas to carry students to

independent schools? As the Minister may not be aware of, we have

a problem in my constituency which arose last spring. A problem

that was….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. Would the Hon. Member for

South Peace River be seated? Would you make your point?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, the two questions that the Hon. Member

has just asked me are not at all pertinent to this bill. Because,

when you're asking about busing and the busing of independent

school children, you are talking about auxiliary school costs

which do not come under this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would direct the Hon. Member's attention to

section 61,

part 2 — speeches in Committee of the Whole House

must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

discussion.

I recognise the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the Member for Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) dealt a few moments ago with the philosophy of

the finance formula and how it might be applied in the future. I

would like to deal specifically with some of the problems right

now under

section 8 — of the immediate practicalities of the

finance formula and the budgeting of school boards in

1972-1973.

Several weeks ago, the Minister invited school boards to

discuss the present state of their budgets with her. As a result

of those discussions a Press release was put out from the Hon.

Minister on October 13 and I'm just going to read two lines from

that Press release, Mr. Chairman.

First line of the first paragraph said, "28 school districts

will be allowed to over expend their 1972 budgets". The first

line of the second paragraph says "The government has approved

the awarding of grants totaling…" so much, and it went

on.

Now, Mr. Chairman, those statements are really opposite to

each other in terms of the school boards budgeting under this 110

per cent formula. There are some school boards in the province

who interpreted the Minister's request for this discussion of

extra budgets, that anything they receive extra now would be

charged against them next year in the calculation of their budget

for 1973. There has been a good deal of confusion existing about

this.

I think that the Minister, in closing the debate on this

section, might clarify the point. I'm sure the Minister

understands my point and she might clarify the situation.

[ Page 295 ]

The other question I would like to ask the Minister under this

section 8 is on a totally different subject, but I will raise the

question while I am on my feet. That's the matter of the

two-thirds majority requirement of a school board. I asked this

question the other day in discussing the bill in principle and

the Minister, when she so rigorously answered two or three of my

questions, didn't answer this particular one.

If you have a school board of five members attempting to

perhaps pass a bylaw because they had the kind of problem that

rose out of this

section and if they are a scattered school

board, as many districts are in British Columbia, and if there

are weather problems, how do they solve the problem of getting

the four out of five votes required to pass such a bylaw. There

are time deadlines when you have to pass a bylaw of this sort.

You haven't got time to wait until the next meeting sometimes

when somebody who is tied up by weather or sickness or someone

can't get there, and I think a statement from the Minister on

this subject would be welcomed by a number of school boards in

the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes. Well, the first question, and it wasn't

really an accurate report when you were referring to the special

emergency fund which the Department of Education allowed. It wasn't allowing

an excess over their previous budgets, Mr. Member. It was special

emergency funds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: …but it's supposed to be special

emergency funds. That is the principle behind it. I think you are

aware of that. I know your question is quite valid and I want to

answer it, I hope to your satisfaction.

Boards are concerned, you have said, as to whether or not this

special emergency fund which have been given to those which we

felt would create desirable learning environments where they have

been undesirable before, will be placed on them in the next

budget.

A very explicit letter went out to all the school boards which

I will send to you, Mr. Member, and all the school boards have

received it. This letter stated that when their budgets were up

before the department for analysis they would be studied very

carefully, and there is no intention to have this put on their

next year's budget unless, of course, the board showed that