1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Businessmen invited to NDP fund-raising dinners.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 555

Plans for renovation of ferry, Queen of Nanaimo.

Mr. McClelland — 556

Trading of posthumous stock in Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Mr. Gardom — 557

Standing committees. Mr. Curtis — 557

Need for housing. Mr. Rolston — 557

Termination of employment of Victor Parker.

Mr. Williams — 558

Motion Motion to adjourn on matter of urgent public importance.

Mr. Phillips — 558

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 559

Mr. Phillips — 559

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 559

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 559

Speaker's ruling Recording of amendments — 560

Point of order Withdrawal of Motion 2. Mr. Gorst — 560

Routine proceedings

Motions Adjourned debate on Motion 7.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 560

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 561

Mr. Speaker — 561

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 561

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 562

Mr. Wallace — 564

Motion 9.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 564

Mr. Phillips — 564

Mr. McGeer — 565

Mr. Smith — 565

Mr. Wallace — 566

Mr. Gardom — 567

Hon. Mr. Hall — 567

Motion 11.

Mr. Steves — 568

Mr. Gorst — 569

Mr. Gardom — 570

Department of Consumer Services Act. (Bill 48).

Second reading. Hon. Ms. Young — 570

Mr. Schroeder — 572

Mrs. Webster — 573

Mr. McGeer — 575

Mr. Curtis — 576

Mr. Kelly — 576

Mr. Wallace — 578

Mr. Lewis — 579

Mr. Gorst — 580

Mr. Rolston — 580

Mr. Steves — 582

Mr. Gardom — 582

Mr. Phillips — 583

Hon. Ms. Young — 585

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act. (Bill

67).

Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 589

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to adjourn the House on a matter of urgent public

importance.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if there could be some introductions

first.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It won't be forgotten.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to introduce to the House, sitting in the public galleries on

your left, Mr. Speaker, a number of students from the Fraser

Valley Christian High School in Surrey who are keen students of

the democratic process. I'm sure that they are going to look

forward to the debates with interest.

Also sitting in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, are three members

of the National Defence College, three of some 44 members of

that college who are visiting British Columbia and other parts

of Canada and who I had the pleasure of addressing and lunching

with earlier today: Dr. J.M. Stewart, Paul LaRose, and Colonel

L. Williams. I wish the House would welcome these members of

the National Defence College.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this

afternoon to introduce a guest who is seated on the floor of

the House this afternoon — a guest who is a dedicated Canadian

and an intrepid navigator. Mr. Dave McTaggart of the Greenpeace

has skippered his own vessel twice into the South Seas waters

where the French were carrying out atmospheric testing of

nuclear devices.

His defiant voyages have done much to draw the attention of

British Columbians, Canadians, and, indeed, the whole world to

the folly of nuclear testing, and also to the dangers inherent

in the proliferation of nuclear arms. I think that he has also

shown what an individual, a brave individual, can do on his own

to affect the course of world events.

In addition to having his vessel damaged this summer and

seized, Mr. McTaggart himself suffered personal injury and has

suffered permanent eye damage as a result of his brave

adventures.

Now I feel sure that we all honour Mr. McTaggart's

high-minded sacrifice, and welcome him very warmly to the House

this afternoon.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Members, standing order 35

clearly states that any motion such as the Hon. Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) contemplates take place at a

specific time in standing orders. If you consult standing order

35, clause 1, you will see that question period comes first,

and that will be the next order of business.

BUSINESSMEN INVITED TO

NDP FUND-RAISING DINNERS

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to answer a

question that was raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)?

The questioner asked me whether or not it was the regular

function of the Department of Industrial Development to send

out invitations to people in the business community to attend

fund-raising functions of the NDP. He indicated further that

one of the participants at this dinner maintained that he

received an invitation from my department.

This allegation is totally false. There was no such

invitation issued. No person in my department or staff

communicated with anyone with respect to this fund-raising

dinner.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order. I

wish the Minister, if he's going to take 24 hours to prepare

his answers…

MR. SPEAKER: Are you making a statement or asking a

question?

MR. CHABOT: …and prepare his alibis.

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

House you don't question the motives of any other Member in the

fashion you are doing.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not questioning….

MR. SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw that.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not withdrawing anything. I didn't make any

allegations whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, you misconstrue it.

MR. SPEAKER: You said that the Hon. Member made his alibi.

You know perfectly well that that is imputing a motive to

another Hon. Member and you should not do so.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I think that you should really, in

good conscience, suggest to the Minister, who's new in this

House, that he will take

[ Page 556 ]

the question as notice and give the answer the following day

instead of just ignoring the question when it's put to him,

because it's embarrassing when he has no answers.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the allegation made by the Hon.

Member was a very serious one. I thought it would be apparent

even to a three-year-old child that what I was about to do was

to check out his story. I resent him bringing false allegations

into this House reflecting on my character. I'm just fed up

with that Member doing it.

PLANS FOR RENOVATION OF

FERRY, QUEEN OF NANAIMO

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with regard to the

continuing problems in the B.C. ferry fleet. Would the Minister

confirm that the Queen of Nanaimo is going in for stretching in

the immediate future, and that there are no plans for a dining

room aboard?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I heard

the question. I can confirm that, but the ability to feed people will be increased.

I'll have more to say about that later.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question on the

same subject. Has the Minister given any consideration, because

of the unrest in the ferry system among the employees, to

implementing a management survey of the entire system as

quickly as possible, as has been suggested by some of the

employees?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's obvious, of course, that the Member

gets information about the ferries as quickly, or perhaps more

quickly than I get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute, just a minute. This Member

raised a question yesterday.

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the one I raised today?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute, it's the same question. There was

a letter sent to me dated October 1. I was away all last week. I got to my office

on Tuesday; yesterday you raised the question; this letter was on my desk and

I have only had time to look at it; I have not had time to consider it. And

you raised the question just the minute I was in this House. The question you

just raised today…it's obvious.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no. Mr. Speaker, the Minister himself

referred to the telegram which was on his desk, as he admitted,

before the walkout of the ferry personnel; that's what we were

talking about, not some letter of which I have no knowledge

that was on your desk yesterday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in Hansard it will show that

he got up and referred to the fulfilment of a promise that was

made. I asked him to refer to the telegram. I have considered

the telegram, and I'm checking it out as to what was said

afterwards because, in going on strike, the ferry workers

rejected the offer that was in this telegram.

I also received a telegram from Local 2, rejecting the offer

that I have made to have a survey of the whole situation. So

that was the situation as I had it in mind yesterday. What I

was considering was that particular viewpoint. I have no

objection of any kind to having such a survey — none at all. I

intend to have one.

MR. McCLELLAND: In regard to the ferry system, would the

Minister confirm that it is true that many of the people the

Minister has accused of standing around in the dining rooms

with nothing to do all carry lifeboat certificates and are

necessary for the safety of the passengers on board the ferry

system?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is a set crew that is required. Our

crew requirements right now are beyond the requirements.

MR. McCLELLAND: A further question, just a very….

MR. SPEAKER: You are taking up a great deal of the time of

the House, of the 15 minutes allotted.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is the purpose of the question period not to

concern itself with urgent problems?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, and I think you have had a considerable

share of the time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I understood….

MR. SPEAKER: One more. All right, if it's good.

MR. PHILLIPS: Give him more time. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the

Minister if it is true that the cut-back

[ Page 557 ]

in staff to which he referred to conform with the winter

schedules were made two days before the long holiday weekend

when the ferry capacity was at its peak.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I couldn't give you the exact date when

they were made. It is my understanding that they were made at

the same time of the year as they always have been made. The

ferry has a certain time when it goes on the winter

schedule.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will you look into that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Look, it happened and I'm told it was at

the usual date. Whether it was two days before — I'm not

exactly sure of the date that it happened, but that's when it

happened. It's the normal time of the year to cut back to the

existing crew.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the boss,

TRADING OF POSTHUMOUS

STOCK IN VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A couple of weeks

ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Attorney General about the

problems dealing with the trading of posthumous stock in the

Vancouver Stock Exchange and he took the question as notice. I

do hope he is doing a little more than just taking it as

notice, because we haven't had any replies.

I would ask him today whether or not it is true that the

provincial government is investigating charges of fraud in the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. And were 36 brokerage salesmen,

mining promoters and officers of some 18 companies subject to

RCMP raids last weekend? If that is true, I would ask the

Attorney General what protections are going to be offered to

the innocent members of the public who are ignorant of these

matters and who continue to trade in the stocks that may well

be under inquiry. Does he have any proposals to see that these

people will be prevented from suffering loss, or are there any

restrictions on their trading in these securities today being

suggested by his department, at least until such time as the

investigation is complete? Because a great deal of loss can

happen from now until then.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would

assume that the companies under investigation are no longer

listed at the present time, either by the stock exchange

or….

MR. GARDOM: You don't know?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't know for sure.

MR. GARDOM: You'd better find out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take your question as notice, but I

would think it is well known in the investing community that

that is going on. I wouldn't imagine they are still trading

shares, but I will take your question as notice.

It's a little bit broad, you know. You have mentioned 36

companies and I am not sure. If you have more particulars so

that my answer will be more definite as to what companies you

are referring to and so that I can tell you definitely whether

they are listed or de-listed, I would appreciate that.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental to the Attorney General. If you

do determine that these stocks that are under investigation are

currently trading, will you order them to desist?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that under

the rules, when a question deals with a matter either before

the court or where an investigation is going on before charges

are laid, there is some limit to the amount of questions you

can ask on that subject.

MR. GARDOM: No, with every respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not

talking about charges, nor am I talking about matters before

court, nor am I talking about the consistence of the

investigation. I'm merely asking the Attorney General if he's

going to put a cease and desist order on the trading of any

stocks that are under investigation. It is a perfectly simple

question and he is taking it as notice.

STANDING COMMITTEES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may

I ask the Premier, in view of the fact that there are several

matters of important but unfinished business, does he intend to

re-establish or reconstitute any or some standing committees of

this House within the next few weeks?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact

on private Members' day, today, we will immediately proceed to

motions, and one of the motions to be dealt with will be the

committee motion.

NEED FOR HOUSING

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, a question of the

Minister Without Portfolio on housing. What has the response

been to date on letters sent by your predecessor and a letter

you sent

[ Page 558 ]

to the municipalities pointing out the need for housing and

help regarding land, or assembling of land that they own?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. ROLSTON: The second question is, could you elaborate a

little bit on your press release of yesterday? Are you

restricting…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One question at a time, please.

Would the Member be seated?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

I could open up this briefcase and, I think, answer that

question, strangely enough. But it was not a cooked-up

question. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think I will take it as notice,

however, and not show off my preparedness. (Laughter.)

MR. ROLSTON: A supplementary, while you are on your feet.

Could you elaborate a little bit about your press release

yesterday regarding the mobile homes? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are no invitations for

speeches.

TERMINATION OF

EMPLOYMENT OF VICTOR PARKER

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to

the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. May I ask the Minister

if he has taken steps to terminate the employment of Mr. Victor

Parker who has been engaged by the government on matters of

urban transportation?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No.

(Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. If you

haven't terminated the employment of Mr. Parker, would you

please tell the House what he is going to do in view of the

ultimatum that you delivered yesterday to the members of the

Greater Vancouver Regional District?

AN HON. MEMBER: On instructions from upstairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Member, you should know that I never

deliver ultimatums. (Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true

that you delivered the ultimatum from upstairs to the members

of the Greater Vancouver Regional District canceling any rights

they had to negotiate with this government on rapid

transit?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I have never cancelled anything of

that sort. I think I told them that they were going to have to

start thinking about their share of the financing, and I think

some of them were upset about that. Other areas in the province

have been financing their transit for a great length of time

and the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been told that

they are going to have to assist in the financing. They were

told by me over a year ago. I reminded them again that I

expected that they would have their tackle in order by January

1, because that is when they are going to start to pay.

MR. WILLIAMS: A last question, Mr. Speaker. Is the soaking

of the property tax owner the NDP's view of free public

transit?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I at no time suggested to them that they

had to tax by way of the property tax. I told them that the

method of taxation would be an amount equal to what could be

raised on a mill basis. Now at no time did I suggest that there

should be a straight overall tax over the whole of an area or

anything of that sort. They could arrange their own taxation. I

gave them a few suggestions.

MR. CURTIS: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker. How else, Mr.

Minister, are the municipalities to find the funds to which you

have referred if it is not by property tax increases?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Property tax increase can take a variety

of methods of raising this money by property tax. You can have

a general tax, or you can have a tax of benefiting areas, or

you can have business tax, you can have a number of different

things, a number of different features that can be used. I

think the questioner is considering only the idea of having a

flat rate of taxation over the whole community and I at no time

suggested that.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that asking a legal opinion, as

it were, or how to solve a problem is not part of question

period.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to adjourn the House

on a matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to state the matter?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes I do, Mr. Speaker. I have been

[ Page 559 ]

informed that members of the United Fruit Growers in the

Okanagan Valley are talking of violence, are talking of

militancy, and I have further been informed that some of them

are starting to pack firearms. The members of this group feel

they are justified in protecting their rights, their produce,

their assets and their way of life. They know that a market

exists in the lower mainland and are continuing to service that

market.

The reason for the militancy is that they will no longer

stand for the continued harassment they are receiving in moving

their produce to market.

In view of the Minister's remarks about a proposed

plebiscite to establish the wishes of the fruit farmers with

regard to one or more selling desks, I ask that the House be

adjourned to discuss this matter of urgent public

importance.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the question of the urgency of debate

of this matter, if the Hon. Member has information that is of a

serious nature with some definiteness to it, I wish he'd draw

it to my attention as Attorney General, where it will be

treated as a normal matter of the protection of citizens and

their rights in their business and other occupations.

But there is no urgency for debate, in my submission, Mr.

Speaker. The laws are there; they are observed by the citizens

of B.C. If there is a threatened breach by some group or

individual, I would appreciate being informed of that

matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is a sincere matter of urgent

public importance. I was just informed of this this morning.

The matter is growing worse daily and the idea of debate would

be to ask the Minister to ask the Fruit Board either to cool it

or do something to alleviate the situation immediately.

I have my responsibility as a legislator in bringing this

matter before this House and if something happens, if there is

violence, the responsibility will rest on this House. I am

merely bringing to you, Mr. Speaker, the matter that has been

brought before me. Being a member of the agriculture committee,

I am aware of the situation and I think it is very, very

urgent. I think this House should take time right now to debate

this situation because if it grows worse there is a possibility

of violence and the responsibility will be on this

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there are laws in this land that govern

all people. If people make a conscious decision to break the law, it is their

responsibility for making that decision — not on this House. Laws are made for

people to obey. It is the responsibility of this House to pass laws and we expect

people to obey. If someone breaks the law, that is a decision by them, not a

decision of this House and we urge all citizens to be law abiding.

Now, to bring to the attention of this House the possibility

that someone will break the law and to have a debate on that

possibility would mean that this House would be in debate every

single day about that possibility. We have a law enforcement

agency. We ask all people to be law abiding. If some law is

harsh or people find difficulty in handling that law, then an

appeal must be made to the legislators to consider a change in

that law. But while a law is in effect we expect all citizens,

regardless of their walk of life, to obey that law.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I just say one word, please?

MR. SPEAKER: No, it is not a debate. You are now, I presume,

attempting to commence a debate. May I point out to you in May ….

MR. PHILLIPS: Allow me to….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I have got your statement; that is what you are required to

give. I am required to look at it. I have listened to points of

order on this and it is clear in May, 16th ed., page 372 — when

the British rule is exactly the same as ours and has been,

prior to that, for centuries — that this is a matter which must

involve more than the ordinary administration of the law. And

it gives examples on page 372 — including a deputation that was

threatening parliament…marching on Westminster Bridge,

stopped by the police…a Member gets up to move the same

motion, urgent…importance of debate.

That fact of the matter: this is a matter involving the

ordinary administration of the law. To give countenance to it

is to give countenance to other than the administration of law

in its present form. Therefore, the rules of our House clearly

say that this would not be a purpose which I could put to the

House in view of the rulings that have previously been made — page 372.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling, but I

want to point out that there is pending an amendment to this

law coming. The Minister has said that he may allow a

plebiscite. An amendment to the law is pending; therefore it is

different to somebody just saying they are going to break a

law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

[ Page 560 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The House has a right to amend laws as well as

make laws and see that they are enforced. An amendment to this

law is….

HON. MR. BARRETT: We will not be blackmailed by anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't threaten this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Then the obvious answer to that is that the

Hon. Member is anticipating a debate that he says is going to

happen. Nonetheless, it is still the present law that exists,

the law to which every citizen is bound. This does not include

anything other than the ordinary administration of the law,

therefore, I must rule it out of order.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to

withdraw the amendment in my name on orders of the day, page

27, dealing with

section 31 of Bill 11.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, Hon. Member, my staff and I

looked at the question raised in regard to reporting from

committees. If you look at our standing orders, it states

clearly that there shall not be reports of this kind involving

what happened in committee, under our rules, unless the

unanimous leave of the House is given. Therefore, it has not

been considered a practice in our rules for many years to have

reports of what has transpired in committee.

Over the years what has happened, though, not having had a

Hansard of debates in committee, this means was used to bring

from committee reports of votes that took place and divisions

that took place. Now we are getting a request that the

particulars that deal with amendments to bills be brought into

the records of the House — Votes and Proceedings and the

Journals.

I suggest to the Hon. Members, after looking at the problem,

and I promised I would report back to you on it, that now we

have a Hansard that records the debates and the divisions in

committee and records the amendments in particular from

committees in the Hansard every day when they occur, when we

have reports, a bill on report where amendments have occurred,

the amended sections are then included in the reprinted bill.

There's ample coverage of the situation without burdening again

Votes and Proceedings by this additional printed material which

causes great problems for the staff and the Queen's

Printer.

I would ask the Hon. Members if they would agree to the underlining of the

amended sections so that the public will know that amended sections were made

in the bills. When it comes up for report, it is put in your books and is given

to the public with the underlining of the amended sections to whatever bill

was amended. That should cover the situation, I hope, and avoid this problem

of reports from committee.

MR. GARDOM: (Mike not on) …is this point yesterday and it

is one which has been troubling certain Members of the House

for a number of years. I think this is an effective compromise,

providing the amendments are underlined in the bill as

reported. It's not really so much keeping the Members of the

House properly informed as giving the general public an

opportunity to be properly informed, which heretofore they were

not.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the circumstances are such that it

would make it possible that the public would be properly

informed.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): This is private Members' day. I

move we proceed to motions and adjourn debates on motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want a motion on that? You don't need a

motion on this matter of procedure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary adjourned the

debate.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, a point of order? What is your point

of order?

MR. GORST: I ask leave of the House to withdraw motion 2

standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it takes unanimous consent of the

House to withdraw a motion that's before it where there has

already been debate commenced. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary adjourned the

debate.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, the House

will remember that I actually adjourned this debate on behalf

of the Minister of

[ Page 561 ]

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who was

absent on government business in the east of the country. In so

doing, I assured the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that he

would not lose sight of this motion, as indeed I thought he

would be pressing the case either privately with the Minister

or publicly on the floor of this Legislative Assembly. I did

welcome his assurances that those of us who have observed the

odd tussle between the members of the Hibernian race realize it

wasn't as serious as it appeared to be at that particular point

in time.

In adjourning the debate, I really adjourned it on behalf of

the Minister. I will now take my seat and let the debate take

its normal course.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on this debate on

this motion I would like to say a few words.

You will recall that the debate arose out of the questioning

in this House on the decision of the Minister to give a

contract for $10,000 to an American firm of marine architects — Nikum Spalding — to do preliminary design work, sketch-work,

for two new ferries. And the debate or at least the questioning

and the replies — I guess we could call it debate in a general

sense — the debate arose over whether or not this could have

gone to a Canadian firm.

That was the first question which was raised and then later

on we got onto the question of safety.

To briefly recapitulate: the two principal concepts which

are in opposition are those of the American and Canadian

coastguards. Essentially the American coast guard has a concept

whereby if a ship gets into trouble — at least if the

Washington state ferries get into trouble within an area which

is relatively shelving, islands nearby, a good amount of other

traffic nearby, the safest thing to do is to keep people on the

boat and not give them the opportunity of drowning themselves

by their attempt to escape from a vessel on fire, a vessel

involved in a collision or a vessel involved in grounding. It's

the Titanic concept: you make a boat safe and you don't let

people get off.

The Canadian coast guard concept, by contrast, if you will

permit me to recapitulate again, is that you provide the full

opportunity for people to get off the boat — full opportunity

to abandon ship, in other words.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This motion says to ask the Minister to

consider tabling with the Legislature the full details and

guidelines of a proposal made by British Columbia Ferry

Authority.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is details of correspondence. The

government has indicated that it is willing to table such

documents….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …and it has not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's way off the motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier would

perhaps show a little more patience — he's not a particularly

patient man — he would realize that the government has not yet

promised to table this documentation, and has not done so up to

the present time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we will….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's why this motion still remains on

our order paper; that's why it's on the floor now.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the Hon. Member is persuading

the House and the government, by his speech, of the

advisability of tabling. Is that the purpose of your…?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of my

speech.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): If I

could get the floor, I would accept the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we can save time in the House. If the

government, the Hon. Minister, accepts the motion, there is

really nothing left to debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, how on earth can we on this

side of the House know what the Minister is going to say when

the motion comes up? The motion was adjourned by the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) prior to….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are going to table the

correspondence.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …It's no criticism of him; the

Minister was not in the House. But can we not debate motions?

The Minister can at any time….

Interjections.

[ Page 562 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think we need to debate

a motion if it's accepted. I think the motion is accepted;

therefore, it would help the business of the House if we went

on to some other business. I'll put the motion now if the

Member wants to….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have

the floor. I'm interrupted by the Minister — two Ministers: one

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the other the

Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). They have their

opportunity to speak in this debate. They may now have realized

the foolishness of their previous decisions…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …but I at least should have the

opportunity of partaking in this debate like any other Member

on the basis of the fact that I had the floor.

Now if you disagree, or if any Minister disagrees — fine. But

unfortunately the rules of our Legislature give me a right to

speak. If you wish me to sit down for reasons of allowing the

Minister to speak…if you would make a polite request, I

might do so; but I'm tired of the arrogance of that Minister.

I'm tired of his rudeness and I'm tired of his refusal to

consider questions on this subject and many others.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. On the point of order, I wish to draw to

your attention that a motion of this kind is confined to the

motion that the details and guidelines of a proposal made by

the B.C. Ferry Authority to a Seattle firm in seeking a design

for a new ferry be tabled. That is the scope of the debate, not

on what is a good ferry and what is a bad ferry and so on. It

must relate to the advisability of tabling the details between

these two bodies or persons.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is precisely, Mr. Speaker, why I am

indicating why it was necessary to get the original American

designs which were presented to CSI in Ottawa, which the

Minister consistently refused to reveal in this House or even

mention in this House. He talked consistently about later

designs which were the result, of course, of conversations with

CSI.

The reason that I am on my feet discussing this is that it's

a matter of a certain amount of concern, in particular to

people who live on Vancouver Island and have really no other

means of getting off — not having Citation jet aircraft, and

now Beechcraft, like the Minister or other people who have the

opportunity of getting off.

If the firm hired by the Minister were putting proposals

forward for a ship which…and I am sure that the

correspondence he is going to give us will indicate what the

type of proposal was: a ship which would allow life rafts for

less than 10 per cent of the crew and passengers of the vessel;

only four rescue boats — man-overboard boats; no double hull; a

double bottom only under the engine compartment; no davits

except for the man-overboard boats; no fire protection at the

point where people get off the car deck and onto the passenger

deck, and also at the point of embarkation and, finally, a

reduction of crew.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member for a minute to

point out to him that the advisability of a different hull, the

advisability of more boats or less boats, is not the subject of

this motion. We are not debating what a ferry should be. We are

debating whether certain details that were given between one

body and another should be tabled with this House. The

government has indicated that they will table it. We are not

debating what kind of ferries we will have in British

Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, on a point

of order, whether or not you will take cognizance of every

interjection of a government Minister, designed to cut off

debate of opposition Members, such as he has just done.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I won't. If the Hon. Member wishes to

debate the motion I will urge him to debate the motion, but I

will not permit him to debate the advisability of what kind of

ferries we will have in British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads that "the

Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications table with the

Legislature the full details and guidelines of a proposal made

by British Columbia Ferry Authority to the Seattle firm of

Nikum Spalding in seeking the design for a new ferry." Now the

only way I can get any indication as to why this information on

new design should be made public is to give what information I

have about the original proposals concerning safety. I don't

see how, under the suggestion you have made, it would be

possible to discuss any motion whatsoever if we cannot talk

about the substance of it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I indicated across the floor of the

House, I have every intention…and the government accepts

the motion. When? Right now. Right now we accept the motion.

It's the first chance I have had to speak on the motion, and I

don't think

[ Page 563 ]

I can accept it any quicker than that, with all due

deference to the Hon. Member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, all right my friend. Anyway,

to repeat: the government accepts the motion. A lot of things

have been said about the ferries. I think we have a reasonably

good ferry system. I think we can agree that there are some

problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is not

entitled to debate the ferry system. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm like the Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Discuss the new ferry proposal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to discuss the new ferry

proposal. The reason is that I must do this in order to support

the motion for tabling, because the proposals that were made

were made on the basis of the allowance by the CSI to the CPR

when they constructed the carrier Princess.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now this is the proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We thought perhaps the CS1….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must draw the attention of the

Hon. Minister to the fact there's only one question before the

House; whether you will table the full details and guidelines

of a proposal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is a proposal that was made. That is

a specific fact — a proposal that was made. I'm giving the

House the reasons why they should support this motion. I'm

giving the House the reasons why they should support this

motion, and I'm giving the background to the papers that are

referred to, and I have that right.

MR. SPEAKER: You have the right to discuss the advisability

of tabling the proposal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm giving the reasons why we should

support the motion, because I want this motion to pass. I want

the people to know why I support it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I was saying, the CPR have built a new

carrier ship with a design that had some attraction, and

because this design had been approved by the CSI we thought

perhaps the Government of British Columbia and the people of

British Columbia would get the same prerogative to change

design as that enjoyed by the CPR.

On that basis we put forward some proposals — and I have the

CPR plan here — and there are three sections that have double

bottom and two major sections that haven't got a double bottom.

It's only a two-compartment design, and the CPR were given

approval to build that, and it carries 450 people.

We assumed that the CSI would allow the Government of

British Columbia to put forward some alternative designs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order raised?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I am a new Member

in this House, and the Minister has had many years experience.

But for the life of me I cannot see what this has to do with

the motion before the House.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Didn't you read the

Vancouver Province this morning? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to quote from one of the documents

that will be tabled to indicate what's in mind and what the

documents contain so you will support the motion. We are

speaking of the original submission to them. "We are seeking

approval for design concepts for ferries"…and incidentally

your reference to an American firm — the individual who has

been doing the objecting — when he applied for design when they

were accepting designs for the Walla Walla and the Spokane

said, "I will have no problems because I'm an American

citizen." We made the submission.

"We are seeking approval for design concepts for ferries, travelling on scheduled routes in the Gulf of

Georgia south of Nanaimo, operating in sheltered waters, where

rough weather conditions resulting in high seas are rare. In

fact, the Swan Wooster Engineering Company Limited design

criteria for Roberts Bank Coal Terminal was based on the

highest wave being 11.5 feet in a westerly direction, with a

predicted incidence of once per two years. B.C. Ferries has had

a policy in effect right from the commencement of its

operations that masters are not to operate in severe weather

conditions.

"As a result, over the years service has only

[ Page 564 ]

been disrupted for an average of two or three days per year a

few hours at a time. Damage and injury involving ferries, terminals and passengers

has been minimal."

MR. SPEAKER: May I say in interrupting again, Hon. Minister,

that I can understand advisability being debated of whether a

motion should be complied with where it deals with something

that is still secret and should not be revealed publicly at

some stage of delicate negotiations and the Minister standing

and defending that secrecy as an important matter of government

policy, But I don't think either the first person who spoke

today or the second person, the Minister speaking, should

indulge in a complete debate on ship design, the standards of

safety for ships, when the real question is whether there's any

reason that this material should not be tabled with the House.

Therefore I would ask the Minister to confine it simply to that

question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll accept your strictures, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the rules of the House as you've outlined them. I

just wanted to point out to you that we get complaints that

things are said outside of the House before they're said inside

the House and this is the first chance that I've had to make

any statement. But it's obvious that the rules don't allow me

to and the Members across the way don't want to listen, so I

would ask the House to support the motion so the documents may

be tabled.

Interjections.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in closing the

debate first of all let me say that I am pleased that the

motion is acceptable to the government. It's not always that

opposition Members have this exciting privilege afforded to

them. But in further comment to the Hon. Provincial Secretary,

the motion was placed on the order paper for the specific

purpose of public debate in relation to possible safety

precautions on the new proposed ferries.

I feel that the Minister, while he's a very busy man and was

out of the House, and so on, is rather late in tabling the

document when he now gives the impression that he meant to do

it all along. I don't think that is what I expect of that

particular Minister because when he was on this side of the

House probing into matters of public safety, he did just what I

am doing.

I think that while it's a delayed agreement by government to

table these documents, I think in all fairness they could have

been tabled when we asked the Minister in question several

weeks ago in the oral question period.

However, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of informing the public the Minister, I

believe, has met his responsibility. But I think he could have done it much

sooner.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I

move we proceed to motion 9.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: In motion 9, the government seeks to change

the names of the standing committees of the House. There are,

Mr. Speaker, eight standing committees of the House and they

have currently the names that are so well known. It seems to me

that in order to carry on this new work of the House that has

been so remarkably well accepted in the last few months we get

a little bit more modern in this way.

There could be a debate that lasted a long time as to

whether this went with that subject, or the other subject went

with the one you first thought of and all that kind of thing. I

think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that if we look through

the lists of committees in other jurisdictions we can find

perhaps the same kind of criticism about this new list. You

know, why does transportation deserve one of its own when

you've got education mixed in with something else? Why should

labour and justice be in one when you've got something else

over on the left-hand side of the ledger and all that kind of

argument.

Mr. Speaker, I think we're masters of our own destiny. We

can send whatever we want to whichever committee we want. I

think that we can work with this kind of listing.

In looking at the committees in other jurisdictions, Mr.

Speaker, I see that they too have from time to time strayed

from what could be a rather pedestrian approach to the naming

of these committees and the duties that they would have as a

responsibility on direction from this House.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in doing this kind of

change we're following the patterns that were formed when we

moved that Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

We're getting on with the job and I take pleasure in moving

motion 9 standing in my name on the order paper, and then we

can get the committees to work again.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I certainly can agree

with the principle of this bill. However, there is a question I

would like the Provincial Secretary to answer, The government

has seen fit to put sufficient attention upon consumer affairs

in this province as to form a special department of consumer

affairs with a Minister of

[ Page 565 ]

consumer affairs who will be drawing a large salary, and a

very, very small staff.

I'm wondering under which one of these committees he would

recommend that consumer affairs go for study. Because if it's

important enough to form this new portfolio, it should be

important enough to come under the scrutiny of one of these

committees. Maybe the Provincial Secretary would answer that

for me.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, certainly we'll support this

motion. It's very much in order to change the name of

committees and I think that the House and the government

shouldn't hesitate to rearrange the committees of the House,

their titles and their functions, in the same way that they

rearrange the cabinet portfolios.

But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should

delude ourselves into thinking that the changing of names of

these committees will make this House function in a committee

way, in the way a parliament really should. Because in the

final analysis, what this Legislature does is to recommend and

pass bills. These bills provide the guidelines for the cabinet

to carry on the work of government when this Legislature is not

in session.

In this particular sitting of the House, we've been going on

for a month now without a single bit of committee work having

been done, without a single matter or a single bill having been

referred to any committee of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, for

practical purposes, the committee system in this particular

sitting of the Legislature is nothing but a sham and a

delusion. It's all very well to have had these committees

junketing around the province, but it does cost money and the

public should be aware that the Members who travel get an

income for that particular work.

They bring recommendations before the House in the form of

reports, but when you get right down to the crunch of drafting

legislation and having legislation introduced into this House

being referred to these committees whose purpose in travelling

around the province should be to prepare legislation and to

study legislation that's introduced to the House — when you get

right down to the final crunch, the committees and their

functions disappear.

We don't have properly functioning committees in this

Legislature, even though this is the heart of democracy. While

we support the motion, and while I personally believe that it's

entirely in order to have appropriate names for committees in

this House, Mr. Speaker, I also think it's appropriate that

committees of this House should do the kind of work that

committees are intended to do.

What that means is that every single piece of legislation that's introduced

into this House should automatically be referred to one of these standing committees

and should not appear for full debate in this House until it has been combed

by the elected Members who've been trained in a particular line of legislative

endeavour, with the help of properly appointed legislative counsel, then brought

before the full House for debate.

When you have a Legislature that starts to function in this

manner, then the level of the bills in their competency that

are passed will of course escalate very sharply. Perhaps then

we'll have the kind of open government, the kind of working

MLAs, the kind of successful legislation that the Premier has

talked about, but hasn't yet fully introduced into the

democratic process in British Columbia.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I wish to make a few

comments concerning the motion and perhaps echo some of the

sentiments of the speaker who has just taken his place, and

that is that the changing of the name of the committees to

bring them into the sharper focus of the public eye will not

necessarily do anything to help improve the type of work the

committee will be able to do.

I, too, believe that much of the legislation that comes

before the House could be put, after first reading, into the

hands of the committees or, for that matter, even before it

comes before the House, if that was the pleasure of the

government. Because I can well recall pieces of legislation

which have been introduced to this House, then went to the

standing committee where a great deal of discussion and debate

took place and amendments were made….

HON. MR. HALL: Name two.

MR. SMITH: Okay, the mining legislation that went to the

mining and railways committee with a number of major changes in

the legislation before it came back into the House. The

Minister who was then Minister of Mines, the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), accepted the

amendments.

HON. MR. HALL: That's one.

MR. SMITH: It was certainly an improved bill from what we

had before us in draft form. I would hope that that type of

procedure would be carried on with much of our legislation in

future sessions of the Legislature.

I'd also like to ask the Minister, when he closes the debate

on this particular matter, a question. I may have missed his

remarks in this respect, but I see that we are doing away with

the name of the mining and railways committee and the forestry

and fisheries committee, and presumably that is being replaced

with a committee called the Committee on Environment and

Resources. Is it the intent of the

[ Page 566 ]

Minister that all resource functions of the particular

portfolios will come under this committee, with the exception

of agriculture? I would like him to comment on that when he

closes the debate.

I feel that the committees have, over the last year, proven

that they can be a very effective arm of the process of

government. I know from experience that the Members who sat on

the committees were able to function, to their credit, without

bringing party lines and party politics into play as much as we

do here in the House. I think that had a great effect on the

type of recommendations that the committees were able to come

up with because there was not a matter of playing politics for

the benefit of the press in the committees that I travelled

with. I think that we were able, on the forestry committee, to

have a better appreciation for the individual Members of the

House and their respective vocations, their areas, because of

the fact that we travelled in a smaller group than the 55 of us

sitting in the House today.

I would hope that the government will make more use of the

committee system and also perhaps pay more attention to the

type of recommendations the committee makes, because the

recommendations are only a reflection of what has been said to

the committee in meetings and in public assemblies throughout

the Province of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: I had to be out of the House when the Minister

introduced the motion but I assume that we're debating the

change in title, and I hope, a change in philosophy from the

previous administration. We've had evidence of that already by

the work which this government has encouraged standing

committees to do, and I would like to echo the comments of the

former speaker with particular relation to the committee that

studied the hospital problem of intermediate care and home

care. I think, particularly in subjects of that nature, getting

around the province to listen to people whose needs vary quite

a bit from the people in the urban areas is of extreme

importance, and I think the committee was well worthwhile.

I'd like to say, and I say this not so much to criticize as

to offer suggestions for the future, but one of our

difficulties was that the notice available to people prior to

our going on tour was somewhat short and inadequate, and lots

of people who apparently would have wished to appear before the

committee had inadequate time to prepare any kind of brief. I

realized that this was the first time the committees had gone

on tour, and I'm not suggesting that probably that difficulty

could have been avoided, but I think in future the terms of

reference for the committee should be very clear and, if

possible, fairly brief, and they should be available quite some

time before the committee does go on tour.

The other point which I think perhaps just was not considered, but which I

feel very strongly about, is that I do not believe that cabinet Ministers should

be on touring committees. Now if the cabinet Ministers can attend committee

work while the House is in session, and they don't have to travel, I would certainly

accept that. But on this particular committee on which I served, there were

three cabinet Ministers, all important to the work of the committee in my opinion:

the Ministers of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), and

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), I just don't think, Mr. Speaker, that it's

really reasonable or fair to expect that cabinet Ministers can attend two or

three days every week, perhaps for four or five weeks on end. It just is not

practical in the pattern of their work and their responsibility here in Victoria.

So, with no disrespect intended to the input which they could give if they were

able to attend the hearings, I would hope that in setting up committees in future,

cabinet Ministers would not be included.

I've already mentioned the terms of reference, and again

this is a new ballgame, to use a popular expression. Many of

the people who had attended the public hearings were miles off

the mark in regard to the terms of reference. In some rural

areas they had travelled a considerable distance and then

proceeded to talk about something which really had very little

to do with our terms of reference, but it was the feeling of

the chairman and the committee that nevertheless, out of

courtesy, we should listen to what they had to say. Perhaps

these are all teething problems, Mr. Speaker, which can be got

around with experience, and I'm sure they will be, but I think

they're not small points, they're pretty important. If nothing

else, it's an expense to the government and the taxpayer to

send us around the province. We must use our time and our

energies economically, and I'm not sure that we were doing that

on this first experience of public hearings in different parts

of the province.

I like the change on the title; I like to think we have a

committee on the environment and resources. The renaming of the

Health, Education, and Human Resources, that title I also think

is an improvement. But my last comment would be, I'm just

wondering, in the light of the fact that committees haven't

functioned at all this session, just how intent and

conscientious the government is regarding the use of these

committees during sessions of the Legislature. We've had some

examples and, without being out of order, I would say we've

already got a motion on the order paper suggesting the referral

to a committee in relation to legislation.

It would just be my hope that in the future the government

would show a greater propensity for submitting important public

issues to committees first, before bringing in legislation, and

a greater tendency, once contentious legislation has been

[ Page 567 ]

tabled, to hold hearings of the appropriate committee to

perhaps hear all points of view regarding the proposals in the

legislation. Again, I'm thinking of such matters as the bill to

give public service employees collective bargaining rights. It

might never change the ultimate legislation, Mr. Speaker, but

the most important function of any legislator is to have big

ears and to listen. If, in a democratic system, someone listens

to me and then ignores me, that really doesn't bother me, but

it certainly bothers me that, in the public area, people

responsible for legislation don't even listen sometimes, or

don't provide the opportunity for people to present their point

of view.

If these committees are given the opportunity, and if

they're used fairly frequently and yet judiciously, if the

terms of reference are sound, and if the committee members are

appointed in such a way that they can attend the hearings, then

these committees hold tremendous potential for the improvement

of legislation in this province and, in my view, they hold

great potential to enhance the system we were accustomed to not

too many years ago in this House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A few short

observations, Mr. Speaker. I think that all the Members of the

House will agree that the committees over the years that

functioned did, on the whole, a good job and I think with a

rather remarkable lack of political partisanship. But I find it

somewhat surprising that in bringing forth this amendment, with

the experience the Members of the government have had on

committees over the years, they did this without consultation

of the other parties. I think if that had occasioned, we could

have come up with a list more suited to the needs of the people

of British Columbia than has the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall).

I do indeed recognize his dilemma; it is quite impossible to

please everyone. But just in taking a look at his list here, it

seems to me that we've got certain areas which do not

necessarily clash but they don't obviously combine: maybe

environment and resources. Maybe the philosophy there is that

you did wish to have a situation where there was an obvious

conflict of interest. If that is the case, perhaps there is

some logic to it. But if that is not the case, it is totally

illogical.

Secondly, labour and justice. It would seem to me that

justice is rather a hallowed thing that should be separated

unto a committee, really, of its own. I certainly hope there is

not any inference that, when talking labour and justice, on the

other side of the coin one would find management and injustice.

It is a peculiar link to see that justice has been brought into

this one particular section.

The one re health, education and human resources could become literally a back-breaker

for Member participation. I think it is too large as it is, and, in view of

the fact that our economy has expanded, the numbers of our people have grown,

the potential that we have in British Columbia is almost limitless, it would

seem to me that it would have been much more prudent if the government had not

only altered a few names but had increased the number of committees and had,

in certain instances as I have illustrated, broken them down into other areas

and other portfolios.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'm just answering the questions

and commenting on a couple of the remarks.

In answer to the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

the consumer affairs legislation would likely — but I can't

prejudge the wishes of the House — it would likely go to

committee No. 2. That would be, I think, logical in that it is

dealing with monetary and economic affairs.

Secondly, I want to deal with the request from the Member

for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), who I think looked at the

committee work in a more reasonable way than the one-time

Liberal leader. He asked a definite question about mining, the

railways, forestry and fisheries. I think it's fair to say that

mining, forestry and fisheries would go to the resources

committee, and railways would go to transportation and

communication. I never really did know why, any more than we

know today, what occasioned the split in the first place, which

perhaps is my way of answering the now-departed Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: There you are.

Now then, the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) in my view, Mr. Speaker, insulted every Member of this

House by calling it junketing. The tragedy about that Member,

Mr. Speaker, is that he insults the Members of the House

without knowing he's doing it. Perhaps that's even more

important to realize than the fact of the insult itself. But

anybody accusing the members of the committees of this House

who travelled the length and breadth of this province last

summer with junketing really is disgraceful and only proves the

misgivings that we've all had about his leadership of that

one-time great party.

Mr. Speaker, to consider his speech in connection with his

seat-mate's speech, who realizes the value of committee work,

really shows perhaps the dichotomy of that party if nothing

else does.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who has

[ Page 568 ]

also left, asked if the committee work would start this

session. I don't know. I'm just the Provincial Secretary. I

don't have control of everything in this House, although some

people think I have. The House will decide when the committees

meet; the House will decide what work is sent to those

committees. Resolutions, I am sure, will appear on the order

paper in the fullness of time.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have got a dichotomy of

viewpoints — I use that word again because the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) didn't know what it meant.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What does it mean?

HON. MR. HALL: Some people think everything should go to a

committee before any action is done. Mr. Speaker, time after

time after time, bills have gone through second reading and

nobody on the other side has said a word except, "I support

it." So really, I think they have to be a little bit more

consistent.

There have in the last 10 years been two bills that have

gone to committee and the Member could remember one. I can

remember the other one: the Workmen's Compensation Act went

there.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think our record speaks rather highly of

the new approach. We shouldn't mistake a new name for anything

other than a sincere attempt to reflect some of the portfolios

and to combine some of the interests.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, may I say that one of the problems

we've had — and really this has been looking after the

opposition — is that if we were very, very rational indeed, we

would probably have 20 committees. If we had 20 committees

there's no way the opposition could be on them because they

just don't have enough Members. If they get a little bit

better, maybe we can increase those committees and have a

Member on each one. At the moment we are stuck with eight

because we're stuck with them.

I move the question be asked.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I

move that we proceed to motion 11.

Leave granted.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure

in moving the motion standing in my name on the order paper and

seconded by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst).

Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware of the concern expressed over

the past couple of years for the bomb-testing at Amchitka, and,

in 1972 and 1973, French bomb tests in the south Pacific. The feelings of

thousands of Canadians and particularly British Columbians were

expressed in the historic voyages of the Greenpeace. I would

like to pay tribute today to David McTaggart and the people who

sailed on the Greenpeace with him, and to those who otherwise

expressed their desire for an end to nuclear testing, who spoke

out against the physical and environmental dangers of nuclear

testing, and who spoke out against the dangers of the spread of

the nuclear power block.

Last March I received a letter from the Prime Minister of

New Zealand, Mr. Norman Kirk, who stated that New Zealand's

clearly- expressed desires and the growing weight of

international opposition to nuclear testing would not go

unheeded by France. Unfortunately, this international

opposition — the views of New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Peru

and at least a dozen other countries — did go unheeded by

France. The tests, as you know, were carried out and further

tests are being proposed by France at the present time.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Canada's voice against these

tests was weak, and it is still not too strong. It is time, Mr.

Speaker, that Canada took a stronger stand against the French

tests and the spread of the nuclear power block. It is time,

Mr. Speaker, that Canada also encouraged other countries to do

the same so that in the future, international opinion will not

go unheeded by France.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on to the boarding of the

Greenpeace, the blatant and brutal boarding of the Greenpeace,

which was carried out by the French navy on August 15. There is

little doubt that the French navy, using brute force and

commando tactics, illegally boarded and seized the Greenpeace

in international waters, waters that were outside the 12-mile

limit near Mururoa Atoll on August 15. Greenpeace crew members

have made sworn statements and have produced photographic

evidence to prove it.

Prime Minister Kirk of New Zealand, upon this evidence on

October 3, protested to the Government of France about the

boarding of the Greenpeace. Mr. Kirk said that two New Zealand

crew members had made sworn statements on the incident. He said

that there is some conflict of evidence as to exactly what

happened at the time of the boarding of the Canadian protest

vessel, but there appeared to be no dispute that the incident

occurred on the high seas outside the 12-mile limit, that force

was employed by a boarding party, and that the yacht's crew was

taken against their will into French territory.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House

photographic evidence taken by a Greenpeace crew member that

indicates how the boarding occurred; photographic evidence that

shows Mr. McTaggart being rough-handled by French navy

[ Page 569 ]

crewmen; photographic evidence showing the crewmen with

rubber truncheons and sheath knives boarding the Greenpeace;

photographic evidence showing Mr. McTaggart being severely

beaten, showing one of the crewmen swinging his arm in a

downswing with a rubber truncheon in his hand, having just

beaten him on the head; and evidence showing Mr. McTaggart with

his damaged eye coming conscious again in a French navy boat

alongside the Greenpeace while French crewmen are again

boarding the Greenpeace to go after further members of the

Greenpeace crew. I would like to pass these around so that you

can take a look at the photographs firsthand.

Mr. Speaker, these photographs were produced when crew

members of the Greenpeace, suspecting that the cameras might be

thrown overboard, were able to keep an extra camera, take a

film, hide the film, replace it with another one and allow them

to throw the camera overboard after the film had been hidden.

They had learned from past experience the previous year exactly

what they might expect.

On June 4, prior to the French testing, Prime Minister

Trudeau praised Mr. McTaggart's courage, determination and

perseverance. Yet, unlike the New Zealand government, Canada

has not made its views clear. In fact, Mr. Speaker, unlike the

action of the New Zealand government in condemning the actions

of the French in the boarding of the Greenpeace, the Canadian

government is merely only going through the motions of

protesting that boarding. They obviously consider maintaining

friendly relations with France more important than the just

claims of a Canadian citizen under international law — a

citizen who was savagely and deliberately beaten with clubs in

such circumstances that would warrant criminal proceedings in

any civilized nation, a citizen who had his property and an

undefended sailboat, flying a Canadian flag, supported by the

B.C. government and by many people in Canadian politics and the

federal government, illegally boarded and seized in

international waters.

The Canadian government has failed to carry out its

obligations to see that flagrant violations of international

law have been properly investigated and condemned. It is

imperative that the Canadian government take vigorous and

strong action now to assure that Mr. McTaggart is compensated

for the serious eye damage inflicted when the Greenpeace was

boarded, to be sure that Mr. McTaggart and his crew are

compensated for their vessel, which to this date I understand

is still under seizure by the French government.

It is imperative that the Canadian government also demand

restitution for the damage when the Greenpeace was rammed by

the French government in a similar incident in 1972.

In moving this motion, I ask the support of this House for the brave Canadians who sailed on the Greenpeace,

who had the courage to stand up to one of the world's great

powers and say "no".

MR. GORST: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my hon.

colleague, the Member for Delta or Richmond — we had that

Delta-Richmond mix-up last session, didn't we? — in supporting

this motion.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You haven't

got it straight yet.

MR. GORST: Well, I didn't have anything to do with it.

I am supporting this motion on behalf of the Greenpeace

mission, David McTaggart, who is here today and the other

members of the crew, and opposing the French nuclear test

programme in the Pacific.

But not only the French nuclear programme. I am sure we all

oppose — I do — other nations and their nuclear testing

programmes. I personally took

part in the protest on the

Amchitka programme and I know that there are other countries

that test and we are not able to protest against those

countries, as we have been able to protest against the

Americans and the French. That may be because it is the French

and Americans who are more accessible to our protests.

However, I know that these protests would be made by all

those concerned if they could have access to those other

nations and their testing programmes in the nuclear field.

Speaking on the Greenpeace, there is the serious question

that this ship was apprehended and boarded in international

waters, not territorial, and that poses the question of piracy

by a country on the high seas against a ship registered, in

this case, in Canada — a Canadian registered ship, carrying

Canadian citizens. The aggression that was committed thereby,

by France against Canada, must be deplored by all Canadians and

I am very pleased and I am proud in this House to make our

position in that regard.

I think that we should all, particularly here in British

Columbia, join with all our friends and the families of the

Pacific Rim in this case. Because there is more than just the

Greenpeace itself at stake here. There is the whole general

question of the proliferation of nuclear capability and nuclear

weapons, not always in the concept of the bomb itself, but in

the development of tactical weapons that can be used on the

battlefield, We have today in the Middle East a tremendously serious

situation which is not going to be readily solved excepting

with great destruction and great distortion to people in those

countries. Let us ask ourselves if the testing for nuclear

capability and weaponry continues to develop destructive

weapons to destroy mankind, destroy your enemy in such a

[ Page 570 ]

horrible manner, it is only a question of time, and not a

great deal of time, until that capability finds itself into the

hands of less-powerful nations, such as those that are engaged

in warfare today in the Middle East.

I am sure that when those tactical weapons of nuclear

capability are available to what we call the smaller nations,

the less wealthy nations, where they can acquire that kind of

weaponry, then placed in the context of the situation in the

Middle East today, those weapons surely would be used.

When that happens, we all know what the final result of that

will be, That will be a broadening of such a conflict to bring

us all in on the resulting holocaust that only nuclear weaponry

can bring upon mankind.

I support the motion.

MR. GARDOM: It has been my pleasure to know the very

exceptional, adventuresome Mr. McTaggart and his family for a

number of years and I would say through a number of highlights

in his life. I recall his most colourful and outstanding

exploits in the field of racket sports, especially in the very

precise and demanding sport of international badminton where he

gained worldwide prominence.

I would say that if Mr. McTaggart continues to exhibit the

same determination in his present endeavours as he has in

others and with the same degree of success, that nuclear

blasts, hopefully, could well become things of the past as I

indeed hope they will. I indeed wish him well with his

endeavours.

Motion approved.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I move we now go

to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought it was private Members' day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh! Just like old times.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 48.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES ACT

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): In speaking to

the principle of this bill, I would like to go back in history

and discuss the origins of the consumer movement as we know it

today.

It all began when an inspector in an automobile plant complained about the

shoddy assembly techniques and components of a particular model of car. He kept

rejecting the assembled components, but in spite of this, the component was

installed over his objections. He complained to his superiors, but they refused

to take any action.

Finally, in desperation, he voiced his concern to the very

highest level of the company. These corporate executives took a

very dim view of his constant criticisms and warned him that if

he didn't keep his mouth shut, he would lose his job. He was a

conscientious man. It worried him deeply. He knew that the

weakness in the assembly weakened the whole car and conceivably

such a car could be responsible for killing its occupants.

He wrote to his congressman asking him what to do. The

congressman knew of a brash young lawyer who seemed to be

interested in things that the public bought in good faith and

later found to be defective. The young lawyer contacted the

inspector and learned of the problem. He went on to investigate

the situation in depth and then he wrote a book about his

findings. It was called Unsafe at Any Speed. The lawyer's name

was Ralph Nader.

In car-crazy America, the book became an instant

best-seller. Nader became the focal point and the complaint

repository for every car owner who had paid good money for what

was purported to be the best engineered vehicle in the world,

only to find out later that it wasn't — and to find out at

great expense and frustration.

Ralph Nader had awakened a sleeping giant, a giant that had

been repeatedly brainwashed into believing that American

enterprise and ingenuity made only the very best and finest of

everything in the whole, wide world, and that somehow they

alone were the only ones in 200 million people who had somehow

gotten stuck with the only lemon in the bunch.

They had believed that they had been either stupid or

unlucky. But now they knew different. They were not alone; they

were legion. Nader helped them find their voices and the

consumer movement spread. It leaped boundaries and borders. It

spread from automobiles to every aspect of consumerism, from

quality of goods to credit granting. Governments responded to

the pressure and today we find in nearly every industrialized

country in the world some government agency established to deal

with consumer complaints.

It is a marked shame, Mr. Speaker, that our province has to

be one of the last jurisdictions in the western world to

consider seriously the problems of everybody — because

everybody is a consumer.

In 1967, the Consumer Protection Act was passed in this

Legislature. It was part of a package of what I have long

maintained to be "eyewash" legislation passed during the dying

years of the former administration; "eyewash" legislation that

had great titles and no teeth: the Pollution Control Act

1967,

[ Page 571 ]

the Human Rights Act, the Consumer Protection Act — beautiful-sounding but lacking in substance, precisely as they

were meant to be.

Here's what the former Attorney General (Mr. Peterson) said

about the Consumer Protection Act:

"Our approach is to provide the best legislation

possible to give as many rights to consumers as possible, but not to

look over their shoulders as they sign their contracts. In other words,

we're not going to perform a policing function in consumer affairs."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, "Don't expect us to solve your

problems; go through a cumbersome legal machinery instead. Of

course it may cost you more to recover your loss than the

amount of your loss, but that's your choice. Swallow your loss

or take a chance." Some choice!

In a manner that implied tokenism, a consumer affairs

officer was hired and assigned a secretary. He and his office

were then promptly buried and his existence unpublicized. He

remained in limbo for about three years, a very conscientious

man who grew more and more frustrated with the disinterest his

superiors displayed in the matter of consumer problems and

resolution. He was not allowed to speak to students in schools.

If he wanted to address any group of people interested in

consumer matters, he had to do so on his own time. His

frustrations were great.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the record of the consumer

affairs office over the past four years. In 1970, approximately

54 complaints were handled each month. In 1971, there was a 15

per cent increase to 62 complaints a month. In 1972, the level

was up a mere 8 per cent to 67 complaints a month.

But in January, 1973, in a free-time political broadcast on

the CBC, I revealed the existence of the consumer affairs

officer and the dam broke. In the past nine months, complaints

have averaged 163 per month — 142 per cent increase over 1972.

The refunds, rebates and cancellations the consumer affairs

officer was able to arrange rose from $2,700 a month in 1970 to

$4,600 a month in 1973, almost doubled. This does not take into

consideration the amounts of money that perhaps were recovered

simply by somebody indicating that they were going to file a

complaint with the consumer affairs officer, The complaints the consumer affairs officer dealt with are

only one part of the story. Since my designation as Minister

Without Portfolio responsible for consumer affairs, I have had

to respond to about 400 complaints dealing with the price of

food, the price of gas, the price of animal feed, the

commodities' future market, the unsavoury practices in the

mobile home industry, and just about every aspect of

consumerism there is. Some of these were referred to the

consumer affairs officer and are indicated in the

previously-mentioned statistics.

In the process, we've discovered the inadequacies in the

existing legislation. We have found that jurisdiction over a

particular consumer field may be spread over several

statutes.

A good example lies in the mobile home field. The park

situation and mobile home standards are determined by the

Municipal Act. The health regulations determine the distance

required between mobile homes in a park. The Motor-vehicle Act

deals with the width, axles and braking systems on mobile

homes. And now, with the proposed advent of the department of

housing, that department will have jurisdiction over homeowner

grants, home acquisition grants and second mortgages for the

purchasers of mobile homes.

We get into the contract sales field in the matter of

purchasing. The landlord and tenant relationship is a constant

problem. The mobile home mess is but a demonstration for the

need to investigate, legislate and regulate consumer matters as

proposed in this legislation.

In June of this year, the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) called a conference of all groups interested and

involved in consumer matters. They consisted of representatives

of the Consumer Association of Canada, the Consumer Action

League, the Better Business Bureau, the Legal Aid Society, the

Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, the Vancouver

Province 's "Action Line," consumer representatives from

radio CBC and some just plain interested citizens.

As the conference was totally unstructured, we had a good

roundtable discussion of all aspects of consumerism. Subjects

covered problem areas such as motor vehicles, sales practices,

warranties, the legal system to deal with resolution of

problems, credit practices, licensing deficiencies and, in the

matter of warranties, implied and explicit and that growing

"cancer," the disclaimer clause.

What came out of the conference was a consensus that what we

need is a thorough examination of all consumer legislation now

on the books to see if it is relevant in today's world, a

consolidation of such legislation under one authority and an

urgent need to give the consumer avenues for redress other than

exclusively through the courts.

Another consensus arrived at was the need for greater

consumer education. Many excellent ideas were suggested for

this process and, with the consent of this Legislature, I hope

to be able to implement some of them.

The Hon. Attorney General had the foresight to ask the

Hansard staff to record the proceedings and as a result the

transcript has become almost a "Bible" among the participants.

They constantly refer to it for fresh ideas and

suggestions.

Suggestions and ideas are coming from other sources too, Mr.

Speaker. The business community

[ Page 572 ]

have come to us and asked us to introduce legislation to

halt the underhanded practices of some of their members. Trade

and business associations have asked us to help them police

their own industries. Trade associations have found that they

can police their own members with no difficulty, but their

members are reputable businessmen and women who join the

association because they are principled.

It's the operators who are outside the association that

cause the trouble and frequently throw the entire industry into

disrepute. Over these a trade association has no power and

unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, these operators are the ones with

the biggest advertising budgets and the least conscience. Their

salesmen orally promise everything, but nothing is written into

the contract, which is usually filled with so many disclaimer

clauses that it is virtually worthless to the purchaser.

Then we run across the constant problem of who is

responsible for warranties — is it the dealer or the

manufacturer? This problem exists not only in Canada but in the

U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and most

European countries.

I think the Firenza situation best illustrated it for

everyone. General Motors, under terrific public pressure,

finally acknowledged that the product left a lot to be desired

and gave a niggardly 10 per cent trade-in allowance on the

car.

Just in passing Mr. Speaker, we seem to get more complaints

about GM products than any other line, but in the Firenza

fiasco it was the dealers who took the flak, and they should

not have had to. They didn't build the cars, they only sold

them; and as franchise dealers of GM they were required to do

so. So that is a relationship where ultimate responsibility for

quality and performance must be sorted out.

There are now on the books, Mr. Speaker, approximately 16

Acts that deal directly with consumer interest, and another 16

or 18 that deal indirectly to some degree with consumer

affairs. We see the need to examine this body of legislation,

to update it, and to phase it into one department over a period

of time and in an orderly manner.

We see a pressing need for thorough investigation into

recurring areas of consumer complaints, and the necessary staff

to do so. We also see the need to inform the public, to warn

them and to educate them in this highly technical age.

This Act is an enabling Act which will give us the

legislative framework upon which to build adequate protection

for consumers. Some Members opposite in the past have pointed

out areas of consumer interest that needed more protection. We

welcome their continued concern and their suggestions. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I would like to commend the new Minister

in her new portfolio, and would like to guarantee her our support as soon as

she tells us what it is she is going to do.

The bill is an enabling bill. It tells us that something is

going to happen; it doesn't give us any clear indication of

what it is. There is no way that we can analyse the bill and be

critical, either constructively or otherwise, of any

section.

A disappointment comes chiefly in the area — and I agree

with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he said the

other day that it's almost embarrassing to have to come

repeatedly to this area of criticism — but again the Minister's

duties and her powers are not outlined at all.

What has happened, for instance, to the days when bills were

introduced in this House and the duties and powers of a

Minister were clearly outlined? I have several examples here of

bills introduced in former years with nothing to do with the

political party that happened to be in power, but just strictly

looking at them and seeing the duties of a department clearly

outlined.

For example, may I refer, Mr. Speaker, to Bill 104 of a

previous year: "The duties of the department are to collect, to

abstract, to compile and publish statistical information

relative to the commercial, industrial, social, economic…." It gives clear indication.

That's one

section only of the duties. There are 10 clear

and distinct directives as to the duties and the powers of a

department. I wish that the government would return to the

principle of telling the House what it is that the duties and

the powers of any Minister would be under any enabling Act such

as we have here.

Other than that, we were waiting with bated breath to find

out what's going to happen in the new department of consumer

services. We trust that the new Minister will not fall into the

same category of criticism that the dear Mrs. Plumptre has

fallen into. I trust that she will have better and greater

success. There are areas that we would like to suggest that she

look into immediately, not only the area of weights and

measures, and making sure that the people are being charged the

right and constant price for the same

article on any given

day.

We are not only concerned about quality control, but we wish

that she'd look into the area of guarantees and make sure that

a guarantee is a guarantee; that the producer can be held to

the warranty that is given with his product; not only that he

stands by the servicing of it, but also the replacement of that

product if it should prove to be faulty; and as to the accuracy

of machines and tools that are used for dispensing any product.

We would like her to be sure that everyone in the Province of

British Columbia can go to bed knowing that he made a good deal

today.

[ Page 573 ]

We will be asking some more questions in committee stage.

Just now, we would like to say that we will support the bill in

principle.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I am very happy to be

able to speak in support of this bill and look forward to the

new department of consumer services. I am also delighted with

the choice that has been made for the Minister to head up the

department.

I have had a long association with the Canadian Association

of Consumers, Groups of consumer associations were started

across Canada following World War II because of the new

technologies for producing goods from synthetic products, both

for clothing and for foods, that the public did not understand.

These new technologies, because of automation of systems,

created other problems for consumers. Some of the early studies

of research and of demands that were made went into things that

seem simple to us now, such as the banning of staples for

sealing food products. At that time they were still stapling

the tabs onto cottage cheese cartons and stapling the plastic

covering on food products. There was concern about some of

these staples getting lost within the food product and the

dangers that might result.

In clothing the new synthetics created a problem,

particularly where it came to the cleaning processes. Very

often clothes would come back damaged or marked, and the

manufacturer would take no responsibility because he would

blame the cleaning agency. The cleaning agency would say it was

a new product and that it had no control over how it had to be

cleaned.

Finally, through pressure and through research from the

consumer association, they brought in laws by which there had

to be labeling on the various garments to show the type of

product and the best way of cleaning. Now I am not going to go

into detail on these things, but I would like to be able to let

this House know just how things started in a small way.

Another thing that they researched quite thoroughly was that

of children's toys, so that there could be safe toys for

children. There are more and more toys now being produced with

a type of paint that won't wash off or scrape off. In the early

days following the war a great deal of the paint and the sharp

corners on toys were very harmful to small children.

They have also worked on the standardization of clothing sizes which has been

a great improvement. But those are only a few of the things. That is just the

beginning. Then CAC started to go into other things such as various problems

regarding housing construction — shoddy construction in portable homes, or mobile

homes. There's been a great deal done by the Consumer Association of Canada

in regard to advertising that pressures children, or that is directed to children

so that children can pressure parents. I think these are very, very important

steps that have been taken.

At first all the members of the Consumers Association of

Canada were women, but within about 10 or 12 years after the

association was formed the men started to take an interest too,

because they realized that other things such as cars and strata

titles were things that they studied. Also pyramid selling and

problems of that type were being discussed and the men were

just as interested as the women in seeing that these

improvements were being made.

But the consumers association had to go to a variety of

places to be able to get legislation through. Now, with the

department of consumer services, I hope that we will have just

one place in which we have to go to get legislation that will

take care of some of the complaints that are coming in.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the setting up of this

department is widely welcomed by far more than just the

Consumer Association of Canada. The Canadian Consumer

Association last spring presented a brief and the first thing

they asked for in their brief was a full department of consumer

affairs.

In their brief it stated, "Our research indicates that every

province other than Prince Edward Island has a full consumer

department or equivalent with more staff than exists in the

present office in British Columbia." Hopefully, now that will

be changed.

Another group that will be very, very happy is the Consumer

Action League, who also a year ago presented a brief in which

they asked for a department: of consumer services s, or a

department of consumer affairs. In their brief they stated

their proposal that the government of B.C. establish a full

Ministry of consumer affairs; that the government establish a

debtor's assistance bureau under that department" that the

government establish the office of ombudsman under that

department; that the government set up a consumer advisory

council with representation from consumer groups, business and

government to review and discuss consumer legislation, and that

the government put the enforcement of relevant consumer

legislation such as the B.C. Consumer Protection Act under that

proposed department.

Another group that will welcome it is the Better Business

Bureau of Vancouver. Vince Forbes, who has for years been the

head of the Better Business Bureau, has mentioned that perhaps

80 per cent of Better Business Bureau complaints involve

consumer matters. He says that often these involve

misunderstanding on the part of the consumer.

But he mentioned specifically used car dealers as an area of

concern. The answer to consumer problems in that area was to

get a reputable dealer, as was the

[ Page 574 ]

answer to home repair rip-offs. But he said that, in

general, what we need more than anything else is consumer

education, rather than more legislation.

In regard to that, I would like to go on and say that the

Community Legal Assistance Society will also be pleased because

they have also proposed that education is the answer. I hope

that through this department there will be consumer education.

They say, "The basic answer to consumer problems lies in a

two-pronged attack: that is, both legislation and education."

Education is the most difficult. He said:

"If grade 12 students were taught consumer awareness, then

one missed those students who dropped out before reaching that

level. On the other hand, if consumer education starts too

early, the students might be too young to understand. In

legislation two basic changes need to be made: firstly, fast

action should be included in many of the laws."

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

I am particularly interested myself in consumer legislation

in regard to food and food products, Mr. Speaker, and the

reason is because I have seen too many of these vending

machines and the sale of soft drinks and potato chips and

things of that kind in relation to students in schools and

colleges and other places where, instead, they should be

getting something that is a little more nutritional. From the

Canadian Consumer of January and February of this year, a study

was done across Canada concerning "junk vendors" as they call

it, and they said in it:

"In an effort to raise the nutritional standards of the

community, home economics classes teach the principles that

should form the basis for the selection of good diet. Parents

pay taxes to maintain expensive kitchens and equipment in

schools and pay teachers to carry out the homemaking programmes

in the classroom so that children can learn Canada's food

rules.

"They learn that it's easy to have a diet overloaded with

carbohydrates, that pop is essentially water and sugar, and

that potatoes converted into chips have lost most of the

important nutrients, adding only some fat. The parents who

earnestly try to provide the children with these good diets

have excellent reason to protest the decision of any school

board to permit the sale of junk foods in the schools.

"The junk advocates claim that children should be provided

with pop, candy bars and potato chips because, if they don't

get these things in school, they will buy them in stores."

Isn't that a sad commentary by junk advocates? These junk

vendors violate one of the consumer's basic rights, the right

to choice.

"How many vending machines offer fresh apples, although

they're the hottest sale item in many places at this time of

the season? Students are subjected to a powerful campaign, the

purpose of which is to persuade young people to consume

high-carbohydrate snacks. Pop has become the symbol of fun.

Contests that encourage young people to collect pop bottles and

pop bottle caps, potato chip bags and other tangible proofs of

the consumption of these foods are being conducted without

intermission.

"There is no comparable campaign to counteract these sales

appeals directed at the young people who comprise the market

for pop, candy and chips. The burden of teaching children how

to evaluate the sales programmes concerning the foods they eat

falls mainly on the parents.

"While mothers have some knowledge of the basic principles

of their diet, they do their best; they serve nutritious meals

and try to restrict the purchase of junk foods by their

children as much as possible. These parents have every right to

protest vigorously against the sale of these objectionable

foods in the schools to which they must send their

children.

Parents do not have an adequate knowledge, in a great number

of cases, of what constitutes a proper diet, but they must not

be subjected to these pressures. Good food should be

substituted for junk food. Where milk is supplied, it should

not have to compete with pop.

There are many other items regarding foods that are

researched. For instance, in this same magazine, there is a

research programme on the organic products, organic foods, that

are being sold. There is a research programme on different

types of stews that are being sold as canned stew, showing the

amount of meat and the amount of vegetables and water and all

the other substances that are in these various stews so that

people can make a decision on them.

Another thing that the Consumer Association of Canada has

done is to pressure the federal government to the extent where,

at the end of 1973, all book matches in Canada will have to

have the striker strip on the back of the book rather than on

the front to prevent fire, for instance. I could go on; there

are many more subjects that they take up.

For instance, CAC researchers have gone into the

supermarkets and they have checked on various foods to check

why some foods are being put in see-through plastic bags and

others aren't. For instance, if

[ Page 575 ]

potatoes are put into see-through plastic bags, they start

to sprout. So that is another thing that they have checked up

on.

The objectives of the Canadian Association of Consumers, Mr.

Speaker, are those that I would like to see as part of this

department, and I am certain they will be. One is to unite the

strength of consumers to improve the standard of living in

Canadian homes; secondly, to study consumer problems and make

recommendations for their solution; thirdly, to bring about the

views of consumers to the attention of government, trade and

industry, and to provide a channel from these to the consumer

and, fourthly, to obtain and provide for consumers information

and counsel on consumer goods and services, and to conduct

research and tests for the better accomplishment of the objects

of the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that those will be the objectives of the

new Consumer Services Department, and I wish the new Minister

the very best. I am sure that she will do everything she

possibly can to make this a strong department through which

consumers can channel their complaints and get an education

into consumer problems and consumer affairs. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. McGEER: As the shadow cabinet Minister in the Liberal

group for this new portfolio of Consumer Affairs, I want to…

AN HON. MEMBER: A very shadowy group.

MR. McGEER: …say that we support this legislation in

principle. There are one or two minor amendments that we might

introduce, and I am not going to dwell on those at this time.

But I think it's a wonderful thing that British Columbia is

going to have its own Ralph Nader and Beryl Plumptre all rolled

into one. We know that those of us who've been Members of this

House know that she can be very tough and very fair, We have just presented, from the Liberal caucus, some

flowers for the Hon. lady Minister because we know that it's

not been easy to get prices down.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Everybody's…the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) wants to know why he didn't get flowers. Mr. Speaker,

he's going to get lumps of coal before many more of his

policies come forth.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to get lumps.

MR. McGEER: Just lumps, I'm advised.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): As long as you don't throw

them.

MR. McGEER: Everybody wants this all-out war on high prices, but everybody

recognizes that it's not an easy thing to accomplish. So we know that the Minister

has taken on a very challenging job indeed. She's been given a piece of legislation

which is quite permissive…perhaps not as permissive as the, one the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had.

I don't really know what kind of male chauvinist Legislative

Counsels draw up these Acts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. McGEER: But I think that it was a dirty cut for this Act

to come forward saying that "the Minister may establish such

branches or divisions of the department as 'he' considers

advisable."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: We certainly intend to bring in an amendment to

correct that oversight. I know that the Minister is very fair

and open-minded and that she's going to have a male secretary;

I know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And she's going to chase him around.

(Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: That's the only fair and equal thing to do. But

these are details of how one manages one's office, and the

Minister has had very good experience in that. In the more

general field of tackling the many abuses that various

businesses and people who sell goods put across on the innocent

consumer in British Columbia — that has to be where her

effectiveness will tell.

We've known for many years, in speaking of the necessity for

a Department of Consumer Affairs, that this is an area which

requires more federal-provincial cooperation to achieve a

final result than almost any other. The federal government some

years ago established a Department of Consumer Affairs, but

found itself thwarted again and again in bringing the

effectiveness of that department down to the individual citizen

of the country because the companion effectiveness in

administration at the provincial level was lacking, especially

in the Province of British Columbia.

The Ministers — and there have been more than one at the

federal level — have made the particular point that of all the

provinces that the federal government had to deal with across

Canada in trying to get effective action in the area of

consumer affairs, the most difficult was British Columbia

because of

[ Page 576 ]

the lack of cooperation at the provincial level.

Well, the Premier has stated that British Columbia is going

to become part of Canada once again; he has put the signs up on

the highways saying "Trans-Canada Highway," and has done

many things to try and make the province work with the federal

government for the benefit of all the citizens. This is one of

the ways — through consumer affairs — that this cooperation

can be developed So, Mr. Speaker, we have high hopes for the Minister. We

have high hopes for the portfolio. We recognize that it will

not be easy, and we wish her well.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have no flowers to offer,

as the Liberal benches did, but I would like to assure the

Minister that I can offer a complimentary gift certificate for

dinner at a well-known Greek restaurant in New York city, which

would be good any Monday prior to 6:15 p.m., should she wish to

take advantage of that.

I think Hansard will also understand the full impact of that

kind gesture, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) observed, it is

unfortunate that the bill to establish this important new

department is so sparsely worded — a flimsy piece of paper

comprising some nine sections, including the

interpretation.

Again we have, I think, the spectre of government by

regulation, government which is beyond the reach of this

Legislature.

Section 7: "For the purpose of carrying out the provisions

of this Act" …etc., "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may make such regulations and orders as are ancillary thereto

and not inconsistent therewith; and every regulation shall be

deemed to be part of this Act and has the force of law."

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the new Minister, as she

gets her department rolling, will approach the problems of

consumerism with sincerity and with energy and with the

interest of the community at heart. But how unfortunate that

for some reason or other this government just does not find it

possible to spell out in any detail whatsoever precisely what

it intends to do in a number of new areas of activity; and I

find that most regrettable. It's the barest skeleton of a bill

dealing with a department which is of vital concern to all

citizens of British Columbia.

Now I am going to say something that perhaps might be a little unpopular, but

I think that the Minister responsible for consumer services will agree that

not all consumers are deserving of full government support and protection. It

is the other side of the coin, and I've spoken with her in informal conversation

in the corridors about this problem. I think she has an understanding of that

particular side of the story.

Talk to merchants, through you Mr. Speaker, Madam Minister.

Talk to men and women who are engaged in providing various

goods and services in our communities in British Columbia and

make certain that you hear their side of the story. Some of the

examples perhaps haven't made the consumer affairs magazines.

Some of the examples would not be cited by all Members of this

Legislature.

But we have instances — and I'm sure the Minister knows of

them — where merchandise is purchased by a man or a woman and

used for a specific purpose over a very short time, and then is

returned the following day, or after the weekend, with a demand

for full refund.

I know personally, on the basis of association with a

family engaged in the shoe business in this greater Victoria

area, of an instance where a pair of men's shoes was returned — the Hon. Member looks at mine but these are not the ones — one

full year after they were purchased with the flimsy excuse that

they were defective and could the purchaser please have his

money back. How do we know it was one full year? Because the

stock record inside the shoe, the stock record of the purchases

made by the shoe store bore out the fact that these shoes had

not, in fact, been in stock for something in the neighbourhood

of 11 to 12 months.

I don't in any way, Mr. Speaker, attempt to suggest that all

consumers are so oriented or so inclined, but I do hope that

the department will objectively, carefully and with reason

investigate both sides of any particular complaint and

particularly, I think, move out into the community and identify

those typical merchants and providers of goods and services in

the community who can be of assistance to the department in

analyzing ways in which the relationship between buyer and

seller can be improved.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I rise with great delight to speak

on the creation of this new Ministry. I think that I have lived

just long enough to understand the plight of the average

citizen of this province in all facets of our everyday life,

whether in the home, at work or in the recreational end of our

everyday lives. I have all my life pleaded, somehow or another,

for a department of consumer affairs or somebody in our

government to defend the consumers in this province.

When I am at home, I'm a homebody. I do some of the shopping

for our home. In fact, we have a small lodge and when I go to

town 100 miles away from where I live, I buy the commodities

for our home. I think I am every bit as good a shopper as the

average housewife in this province.

When I buy light bulbs, for example, I buy them by

[ Page 577 ]

the case. When I get home I find that in that case there are

two or three of those bulbs that won't even go on in the first

place and that in many instances these bulbs only last two or

three weeks before they are burned out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to connect the hydro.

MR. KELLY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I am getting little barbs here and there from the opposition.

I think that it is about time that our department of

consumer affairs and our Minister should look into the quality

of light bulbs that are produced in Canada today. For heaven's

sake, you go to flick the light on and it doesn't go on, and

yet we have had people who have had light bulbs — I think some

of them around this building — which they put in 30 and 40

years ago and which are still working today because in those

days they built something to last for a length of time. The

excuse that it is a market for people today — a buyer's market

…. They are truly reaping the profits and giving very little

in return.

Garden hoses are another thing. "Lifetime guarantee, "

it says. But when you buy this thing, after three or four or

five years there's a little leak here and a little leak there

and you can't even find the place where the hose was purchased

because they have either gone out of business or there is no

guarantee.

Interjection.

MR. KELLY: That's right. That lifetime has already reached

its end.

The Minister referred to the Ralph Naders, and I think

that's one thing we should have had in British Columbia a long

time ago. Canada has regulations as to what standards

automobiles should live up to in terms of being allowed to be

sold to the public, but I think British Columbia should have

their own, as far as automobiles are concerned. Apparently

years ago automobiles were supposed to have been thrown

together. Well, don't believe that that doesn't happen today

because it does.

I was one of those saps who bought a brand new car last year, over $6,000 worth,

and up to today I have spent many hundreds of dollars keeping that vehicle running.

It is just a piece of junk. When we arrived home with our automobile, a Chevrolet,

the bracket holding the torsion bar to the frame was hanging loose. We found

that only one side of this clamp that holds the torsion bar to the frame had

been fastened. Now, this is a mechanical fault. At the same time the body bolts

had been only run up hand tight. Other things that were wrong with that automobile

could have caused a serious accident, and yet nobody had to bear the responsibility

because of these things happening. Certainly I didn't have an accident and I

fixed them all myself. But it shows you what can happen. I think that these

are some of the things that should be looked into.

In my area of the country, where there is a tremendous

amount of logging going on, millions of dollars of heavy-duty

machinery are brought in for the forest industry. British

Columbia is a proving ground for these large companies for this

equipment. Some of these companies, of course, are United

States based and the balance of them are in eastern Canada — Caterpillar, International, Allis-Chalmers and many other

companies. When they bring equipment into British Columbia and

put it into the forest where these contractors are working, in

many cases this equipment breaks down within a few days or a

few weeks. There are many reasons for it breaking down — cold,

severe weather, the soil or rock that the machine is working in

and in some instances the operator. The fact remains that if

this machine breaks down because of a mechanical failure

because of design, I feel that these contractors who buy these

machines are really taking it in the neck, because they are the

ones that are out of production and they are the ones that have

to bear the cost in a lot of these cases to repair these

machines.

I have a friend who bought a brand new snipper (a machine

used for shearing off trees) two years ago from a large

manufacturing company right here in British Columbia. He paid

cash to have that machine delivered to his job site, and he

didn't work it for three or four hours before the machine

broke down because of design, That machine was out of

production for over one month, and yet he bore the cost of the

whole thing himself.

I know that this happens in many instances in large

machines. I have a large machine of my own. It has broken down

on the job and it was strictly through construction at the

factory that this happened. There is, in fact, no proving

ground here in British Columbia for any of these large firms

where they might take their machine out and test it for a

matter of weeks or months on an extreme type of job where there

might be rock work or handling of timber to see whether that

machine will work.

I'm really looking forward to this department that is being

created having people go into that field and seeing whether

this equipment should, in fact, be sold to these contractors.

We're talking about many hundreds of thousands or millions of

dollars in terms of overall sales for a year — in fact,

individual pieces of equipment are over $100,000. I have seen

brand new equipment laying idle because of a broken part which

certainly was caused by poor design at the factory. It is easy

to talk about it when you are in the design room and making the

equipment, but when you put it on the job it will falter.

[ Page 578 ]

This summer, while the agricultural committee was travelling

in the Peace River area, we were approached by delegations and

individuals talking about farm equipment. Farm equipment is the

very backbone of that industry in the Peace.

In many cases farmers had brand new equipment that broke

down and they waited for several weeks for a replacement part.

Once you take this piece of equipment out of business, out of

work, the farmer is not able to operate and he either has to

rent or borrow another machine if he can find one. Either that

or lose his crop. That has actually happened this fall because

of the lack of equipment and because of equipment that has

broken down and parts were not available.

We found, for example, in many of the large centres, that

for two or three types of tractors and other types of farm

equipment they didn't even have an agency in a local town; a

parts place wasn't available. Also, much of this equipment

broke down through the slightest bit of overwork. It didn't

break down because of wearing out or other causes; faulty

design was really responsible for this.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am really looking forward to much action

by that consumer affairs department. I don't know where the

Minister will find these people to look into the facets of

consumerism that I've been referring to because of the kind of

people who would have to be available. In the odd case, I think

you might be looking at an engineer, but I think there are many

people who could handle this kind of a job. In reference just

to these few items, I'm certainly looking forward to action

from this department of consumer affairs.

Thank you.

MR. WALLACE: As the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) has

pointed out, we support this bill. Despite the flowers, Madam

Minister, I'm sure your job will be no bed of roses.

While we do support the bill, I would like to sound one or

two notes of caution. Many ideas of this kind originated in the

United Kingdom when I lived there. We often finished up with

people whom we called super-snoopers, who were so busy

exercising the job within their own bureaucracy that they

forgot to achieve the purpose for which they were first

employed.

It is obvious — and the Member who has just spoken makes it

very plain — that you can buy shoddy goods and workmanship

which breaks down readily and so on. This, indeed, must be the

function of the department: "to investigate," as

section

5 makes very plain, to investigate complaints…and to carry

out inquiries into alleged contraventions…."

But I just say, let's not lose sight of the fact of individual rights and freedoms,

also. In an overzealous desire, perhaps, to protect the consumer, certain minorities

or individuals might find themselves being subjected to unwarranted criticism

or an undue amount of investigation perhaps based on inadequate evidence. I'm

only saying, Mr. Speaker, that there could be a danger in this kind of bill.

A zealous member of the consumer affairs department, on flimsy evidence, might

start to investigate alleged complaints. I admit that the wording of

section

5 says "alleged contravention," but let's not forget the importance of the

word "alleged."

As individual providers of goods and manufacturers of goods

and providers of service, I hope it will never be forgotten

that when some complaints are laid, investigation shall be done

with fairness and justice and tact. Certainly if the individual

is found to have contravened the legislation, the whole weight

of the law should then be brought to bear on that person.

I just worry a little bit about setting up a department of

this kind when I think of the tendency of this kind of civil

service structure possibly to lose sight of the purpose for

which it was set up and not to be simply an investigative

agency per se.

The word "guarantee" has been mentioned in the debate today

already. I think we are all aware of the tremendous campaign

put on by the Midas Muffler people who create the impression — I don't know