1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1405 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Human Resources

Facilities Development Act (Bill 82).

Hon. Mr. Levi.

Introduction and first reading — 1405

Community Resources Act (Bill 84). Hon. Mr. Levi.

Introduction and first reading — 1405

Lotteries Act (Bill 83). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1405

Presenting petitions Preservation of University

Endowment Lands. Mr. McGeer — 1406

Oral Questions

Truth of Sun report on development in northwest. Mr.

Bennett — 1406

Awarding of helicopter contracts in the north. Hon. R.A.

Williams — 1406

BCHA-RNABC impasse. Mrs. Jordan — 1406

Feasibility study on Ocean Falls. Mr. Gibson — 1407

Effect of federal beef subsidy on B.C. Mr. Curtis — 1407

Legality of dismissal of John Bremer. Mr. Gardom — 1407

Stays of proceedings in Vancouver drug cases. Mr.

McClelland — 1408

Provincial assistance in West Kamloops flooding. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 1408

Number of provincial ICBC wrecking yards. Mr. Schroeder

— 1408

Hunting by permit. Mr. Smith — 1409

Compensation for cherry trees. Mrs. Jordan — 1409

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services

estimates.

On vote 37. Mr. Phillips — 1422

Mr. Phillips — 1409 Hon. Ms. Young — 1422

Hon. Ms. Young — 1412 Mr. Phillips — 1423

Mr. Phillips — 1412 Mrs. Jordan — 1423

Mr. Bennett — 1413 Hon. Ms. Young — 1424

Hon. Ms. Young — 1414 Mrs. Jordan — 1424

Mr. Gibson — 1414 Mr. Phillips — 1425

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1416 On vote 38.

Hon. Ms. Young — 1417 Mr. Phillips — 1425

Mr. McGeer — 1418 Hon. Ms. Young — 1425

Hon. Ms. Young — 1421 Mrs. Jordan — 1425

Mr. Schroeder — 1421 Hon. Ms. Young — 1426

Department of Education estimates On vote 39.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1426

Mr. Schroeder — 1429

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today a large group of students from Delta. They're from the

Burnsview Junior Secondary School along with their teachers,

Mr. Godwin and Mr. Wenman. I hope the Members will make them

welcome.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, at 4 o'clock this

afternoon a group of students from Pleasant Valley school at

Armstrong will be in the House and I would ask the Members to

be on their best behaviour during that period as it's very

seldom that a class of students comes down from Shuswap. I

wouldn't want them going back with a story that would upset my

constituents. (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): It gives me pleasure to

introduce two people today. First I did want the Members to

recognize in a little more formal manner a person seated on the

floor of the House who served as a Member of this Legislature

from 1966 to 1972, Mr. Bob Wenman.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome the mayor of the

great municipality of Langley, George Preston, who is in the

Member's gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say before we proceed, under the House

rules it's really not permitted to bring newspapers into the

House, even ancient Egyptian ones. Would the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey explain what that newspaper is doing

there? The Egyptian one?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, there

are a few friends here today I'd like to introduce. (Laughter.)

I'll resist a temptation and at this time only introduce Mr.

Frank Low-Beer who is in the gallery and who led a delegation

to Victoria to present the signatures of 12,000 people who

think the University Endowment Lands should not be turned into

a housing development. Mr. Frank Low-Beer is in the

gallery.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): In the gallery

this afternoon are a group of students from North Vancouver

Senior Secondary School. The group is so large that half of

them are coming in now and the other half will be here at 3

o'clock. They're accompanied by their teachers. Mr. Rossetti

and Mr. Scott. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

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

introduce two citizens from Campbell River who are in the

Member's gallery this afternoon: Chief and Mrs. William Roberts

of the Campbell River Indian band. I wish the House would make

them welcome.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, it

must be student day in the galleries today. There's another

group — from the junior secondary at Cedar. I suppose Cedar's

main claim to fame is that it's near Nanaimo. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member withdraw that

statement?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let me finish it; there may be much more

reason to withdraw it. (Laughter.) They're just the advance

group of some 90 students who would like to come in. I'd just

like to ask the House to remember that they'll be reporting to

their fellows, so I would like you all to be on your best

behaviour.

Introduction of bills

HUMAN RESOURCES FACILITIES

DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Resources

Facilities Development Act .

Bill 82 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Resources

Act.

Bill 84 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

LOTTERIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Lotteries Act .

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Presenting petitions

[ Page 1406 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

It is a petition from: Mr. Frank Low-Beer, Sarah McAlpine,

Anthony Tripp, Janet Sutherland and Kate Parfitt, all of the

City of Vancouver, praying that your Hon. House may be pleased

to recommend the necessary legislation to preserve

substantially all of the undeveloped portion of the University

Endowment Lands as a lower mainland regional park, backed up by

the signatures of more than 11,000 residents of the lower

mainland and other parts of British Columbia.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to table a paper,"The Public School System. Directions

for Change."

Leave granted.

Oral questions

TRUTH OF SUN REPORT

ON DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHWEST

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): My question,

Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. Yesterday The Vancouver Sun had a headline

baring a leak of a secret report of a vast development for the

northwest. I would just ask him if this is true.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): Is what true, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member is faced with a problem

of how to phrase the question. According to Beauchesne

you can't ask whether a newspaper

article is true. That's

not the way to go about it.

MR. BENNETT: Then I would like to know if the environment

and land use secretariat report for the Pacific northwest which

was reported in The Vancouver Sun exists and if it will

be tabled in the Legislature.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is that there is such a

report. We haven't given the question of tabling any

consideration, so I couldn't answer that at this time Mr.

Speaker.

AWARDING OF HELICOPTER

CONTRACTS IN THE NORTH

I might answer a question of yesterday with respect to the awarding

of helicopter contracts in northern British Columbia. It's my

understanding that the bid was awarded to Frontier Helicopters at a

price of $37,470 for forest inventory work in the northern part of the

province.

Frontier Helicopters is a company licensed to operate in

British Columbia with registered offices at 475 Howe Street.

The company's major operations are on both sides of the British

Columbia-Yukon border. Its headquarters are at Watson Lake. The

company pays sales tax on equipment used in British Columbia.

It has a hangar in Delta municipality where much of their

maintenance and overhaul work is done. The bid was 10.5 per

cent less than the next lowest bid, which was an Alberta

company.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a supplementary to

that, I beg to differ with the location of Frontier

Helicopters. They're licensed under the Ministry of Transport

in Watson Lake, Yukon. It involves three various locations in

the province. They're not in northern British Columbia; they're

in Quesnel, Port Hardy, and Invermere, B.C. There are people in

British Columbia as well that have helicopters. I realize that....

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. Will you come to the question,

please?

MR. CHABOT: The tenders are called for the use of three

helicopters. What would have been the attitude of the Minister

had one of the bids for one of the locations been a lower

bid?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that

questions must not be hypothetical.

MR. CHABOT: It's not hypothetical.

BCHA-RNABC IMPASSE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Hon. Minister of Health. In view of

the fact that the Minister's unprecedented intervention in

negotiations between the B.C. Hospital Association and the

Hospital Employees Union and the resulting agreement is the

basis of conflict in the current nurses' strike vote, is the

Minister prepared to intervene on behalf of the registered

nurses to allay this tension and the dangers to health care in

the province at this time?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker the

unprecedented intervention, of course, is the political speech.

We don't have to answer that other than to say that the

problems that were created for me were vast. I've had to do

some heavy, heavy work in the last 18 months to overcome some

of those problems.

Mr. Speaker, naturally I'm concerned about this RNABC

situation. I've had informal discussions with

[ Page 1407 ]

a great many people with respect to that; I continue those

informal discussions but I am not making any formal approach at

this time.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I just want to dry

my tears. Has the Minister had informal discussions with the

RNABC?

HON. MR. COCKE: Not personally.

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON OCEAN FALLS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): My question to

the Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

fact that the feasibility study on Ocean Falls is expected to

be in the hands of the government this week, would the Minister

undertake to table it in the Legislature before his estimates

are considered?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

EFFECT OF FEDERAL

BEEF SUBSIDY ON B.C.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Agriculture: has the Minister or his department given views

to the federal Department of Agriculture on the effect on

British Columbia of the newly introduced and apparently

ill-fated federal beef subsidy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: No, we haven't yet. "Ill-fated," of

course, is your appraisal of the situation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. The Minister would agree, I'm

sure, that the matter is contentious, to say the least.

MR. SPEAKER: Surely that's not a proper question.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I would agree that it's ill-fated.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker, on the same subject: in view of the fact

that the federal government is implementing a beef subsidy, is

the provincial government negotiating in any way to participate

in the cattle industry in any way, shape or form in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. STUPICH: In the beginning of our talks on income

insurance we have said we would negotiate with the producers. The

cattlemen have said they want no part of this subsidy programme, and

actually don't want to participate in our income assurance programme

either.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: are you

negotiating to participate with any ranch or on any piece of

land where the government will participate in a cattle company

livestock operation, like Panco Poultry?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are you asking me something about Panco

Poultry? I don't know what you're asking about.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking you: are you negotiating a deal in

the cattle industry similar to Panco Poultry where you become a

co-owner of an operation raising cattle?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member making a statement in his

question? If he is, he ought to take responsibility for the

facts. If he's just groping around at large the question is

just not proper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the question

is proper. I asked him if he is negotiating in the cattle

industry. He didn't understand my question, but I can't help

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You can ask any question you like, but it will

not be a proper question unless it relates to a real situation

that exists now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take a shot at

it. I think he may be asking whether or not we are continuing

the talks that I discussed last fall when I said we were

talking with representatives of the cattle industry about the

possibility of developing a feedlot in the Interior.

Yes, we are continuing them. We are waiting now to hear

further reports from the cattlemen themselves as to the

possibility of going ahead with this project.

MR. SPEAKER: I apologize to the Hon. Member if that's what

he was thinking about.

LEGALITY OF DISMISSAL

OF JOHN BREMER

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I've been doing knee

bends here for five minutes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Hon. Minister of Education whether or not there were legal

grounds to order the dismissal of Mr. Bremer.

MR. SPEAKER: There again, this may be a legal question. Are

you asking for a legal opinion?

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm just asking for her

[ Page 1408 ]

opinion. Were there grounds to order the dismissal of Mr.

Bremer?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm not able to give that legal opinion.

I'll take that as notice.

MR. GARDOM: Is the hon. lady Minister prepared to table in

the House the agreement the government had with Mr. Bremer and

the settlement agreement?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll also take that one as notice.

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of Education: in the

event that the above-mentioned Mr. Bremer's salary is to

continue, as Mr. Adams' of the ICBC is continuing, do the

government and the Minister have other assignments for Mr.

Bremer so that the taxpayers' money is not totally wasted?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not at this particular time, Mr.

Member.

STAYS OF PROCEEDINGS

IN VANCOUVER DRUG CASES

MR. McCLELLAND: My question is to the Attorney-General.

Would the Attorney-General inform the House whether or not his

department has ordered any kind of a study or inquiry into

certain stays of proceedings in relation to drug cases in

Vancouver over the past three years or in any other time

period?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the

answer would be no, because these are federal drug

prosecutions. I suppose the Hon. Member is referring to one in

New Westminster where there was a stay of proceedings in a

fairly major case. That would be

an act of the federal

government.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: has the

Attorney-General's department entered into any kind of a survey

of stays of proceedings for any purposes, then?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not to my knowledge, but I'll take it as

notice and have the thing checked out.

PROVINCIAL ASSISTANCE

IN WEST KAMLOOPS FLOODING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs: in the light of yesterday's decision by

the Kamloops city council to support by legal means the residents of

West Kamloops in their efforts to have their serious flooding problems

and the expenses involved dealt with by the provincial government, is

the Minister reconsidering his decision to not accept the

responsibility for the problems and damages which occurred in that area

through Highways department mistakes?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Well, I'm

not quite sure of what you are talking about on that matter. I

at no time made any statements regarding the acceptance or

denial of any responsibility regarding Westside Road.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary to the Minister. I

appreciate the fact that he's not accepted responsibility. The

impression was given by the Member for the area that the

government rejected it. Can I assume from his reply that he is

still considering the question of assisting the residence of

the west side?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The whole thing is under

consideration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No decision has been made?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, no decisions.

NUMBER OF PROVINCIAL

ICBC WRECKING YARDS

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): For the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Under ICBC, how many wrecking

yards are being planned for the province?

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: While you're looking, you could also tell us

where they are going to be located, and what you are doing with

wrecks now.

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

Nanaimo, Kamloops, Upper Okanagan, Prince George. Holding yards have

been located as required, wherever they are required.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary on the same subject, Mr.

Speaker. Is ICBC planning to include any currently privately

operated salvage depots in their plans, or are they forcing

them out of business?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll take that as notice to be sure of

what's happening.

[ Page 1409 ]

HUNTING BY PERMIT

MR. D.E. SMITH (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

Prior to introduction of hunting by permit in three game

management areas of the province, did the Minister consult

with, or seek recommendations from the B.C. Wildlife Federation

concerning this particular move?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Yes, meetings were held.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question. Did the Minister meet or

seek recommendations, prior to making this a law, with the

Western Guides and Outfitters Association?

HON. MR. RADFORD: Yes, discussions were held with them

also.

COMPENSATION FOR CHERRY TREES

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture. In view of the fact that a number of Interior

cherry orchardists, particularly those in the Naramata area,

are being ordered to tear out their healthy cherry trees in

order to try and stop the spread of cherry fruit flies, what

dollar compensation is the government contributing to these

orchardists?

HON. MR. STUPICH: $50 per tree.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That's $50 per

tree for the loss of seven years income? Is this the total

compensation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: The level of compensation was one worked

out with representatives of the industry who felt that under

the circumstances it was an equitable figure.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I rise to ask the Speaker's

ruling on a matter which affects the order paper and the work

of a special committee of this House, namely the committee on

assessment. We have now introduced into the order paper a

message bill which totally prejudices the work of this

committee. The introduction of the bill is an affront to the

clear terms of reference given to this special committee by the

House. I would like your ruling on the position of Bill 16.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly

welcome your ruling. It is definitely my impression that that

bill in no way hinders the committee in its work; but I would

welcome your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on that question.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the

House to read a

section of a telegram from the Prime Minister

and table the full telegram and my reply.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The lengthy telegram arrived in my office

this morning and the last paragraph goes on to say, "... In

these circumstances..." and I would advise the Members of

the House to read the circumstances, which are really not too

consequential to the conclusion, but part of it. "I feel it is

essential that the First Ministers plan to meet privately here

in Ottawa" — that is on the energy question — "On March 27,

Wednesday next, if at all possible."

Mr. Speaker, I have replied by saying that I will be there

next Wednesday to meet with the Prime Minister. With leave of

the House I will table the total of his telegram and my

response.

Leave granted.

MR. BENNETT: On the question of privilege made by the Member

for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), may we have a ruling on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would naturally want to study the matter

with my advisers as to what the actual status is in view of a

precedence motion that is introduced and passed by this House

unanimously at the commencement of the session: that

introduction of bills shall have priority over all other

business — then the appointment of a committee. I think I

understand the point taken by the Hon. Member. But as you can

imagine it's a serious matter of study, and I will report back

to the House at the earliest possible moment.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 37, Minister's office, $80,184.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I can appreciate the

Premier's concern that he has asked for this vote several

times, but he must realize, in setting up this department, that

is was in his estimation and his mind that it was a very

important department; otherwise he would not have anticipated

spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to set

[ Page 1410 ]

such a department.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the Minister of

Consumer Services a question that I discussed with her last

fall, and one for which I was not given a satisfactory answer.

I'd like to see if she has possibly changed her views in this

regard since that time.

I refer to the fact that she has stated in this House that

she intends to go into the schools of this province to educate

the persons taking learning in those institutions regarding

certain products that are sold or merchandised, or indeed

available within the province.

At that time I stated that I thought it was a very dangerous

situation where she could take a particular product and

possibly promote it over and above other products. I agreed

with her that consumers should certainly be educated with

regard to common law and about about their rights in contracts.

They should be educated with regard to interest rates, and

mortgage rights, and so forth.

But I was concerned about her taking this step regarding

particular products and advising the advantages of one product

over the other, because I think it's a very dangerous

situation.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, there are several types and

brands of holiday trailers and campers on the market. All of

these must be manufactured to very, very, very rigid

specifications, laid down by the Department of Public Works,

with regard to propane hook-ups and with regard to the type and

quality of the plumbing, in order that they may indeed be safe

for the consumer. However, some of these particular products

have much better quality than others.

Now if you get into a situation where you're going to advise

against one of these manufacturers who might be a manufacturer

from out of the province, would you be discriminating in a

round-about way against products entering the province from,

we'll say, Manitoba, over and above the products that are

manufactured here in British Columbia?

I would like really to have some assurance from the Minister

that she's going to be very, very cautious in this regard. She

has mentioned on previous occasions the book called Consumer

Reports . Well, this book is printed in the States and I

feel in many cases it has been ill-advised in some of the

advice that it has given citizens.

There were also rumours that editors in this book were being paid

off by certain companies, so I don't have that much faith in that

particular book. I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if the Madam

Minister would give me some more assurance and then advise me how she

intends to do this, because she mentioned yesterday that she would be

going into closed circuit television in the schools when it becomes

available — that you were studying television techniques.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. All right,

filmstrips. And if there happens to be television within the

school it would be....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, you can clarify the point and I'd

like to have it in the record.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss with the Minister the

point that there are products on the market which are

definitely harmful to our youth; I refer to tobacco products. I

would like the Minister's assurance that if she's going to take

the time and effort to go into our educational institutions and

advise the children about various other products that may not

be harmful, advise them on the quality of these products, one

above the other, is she going to plan an educational programme

for the students about the harmful effects of tobacco? It's

been proven, and there are medical records to prove that

tobacco is definitely harmful to the body.

I think she has a fantastic opportunity here to assist the

Minister of Health, if indeed this is going to be her purpose.

She has stated that she is going to discuss, in the educational

institutions, products that are on the market. I feel she has a

fantastic opportunity to assist the Minister of Health to

educate the youth of this province against the harmful effects

of a product which is sold openly.

I was pleased in a recent newspaper article, just this week,

where a druggist, who feels very strongly about tobacco

products, put a sign up in his drugstore that no tobacco

products were sold in his drugstore because of the harmful

effects.

We go on spending, and the cost of health services continue

to climb in this province. Many of the people who enter our

hospitals, which are subsidized by the Crown, enter them

because of self-inflicted health injuries which are caused from

tobacco, and I refer to those who suffer from lung cancer which

in my thinking is a self-inflicted disease caused from the use

of tobacco.

I would like some assurances from the Minister this

afternoon what her intentions are in this regard.

There is one company in Canada which maybe the Minister

doesn't have as high opinion of as I have, but one large

department store in Canada which will not sell any tobacco

products whatsoever. There are certain pieces of clothing that

they sell which may not be as good as some other stores, but at

least this particular department store does ban in all their

stores the sale of tobacco products. I think this is being a

very good citizen and showing a lot of civic

responsibility.

The second item: I would like to have some assurances from

the Minister that she is going to point

[ Page 1411 ]

out the ill effects of one product from which this m provincial

government rakes off millions and millions and millions of dollars a

year in taxes. I refer to alcoholic beverages.

I think this is a very important subject also, Mr. Chairman, because

recently in the United States the wine industry promoted very

successfully the sale of what is referred to as "pop" wines. Not father

wines, pop wines.

I'll have to admit that this particular alcoholic product has,

indeed, been helpful and healthy for the agricultural industry in the

States of Washington, Oregon, and California. Surplus apples, for

instance, from the State of Washington are being sold at very, very

high prices to the wineries in California who are converting this

particular fruit into pop wines, selling them in cartons of six with

pop-open bottles and in a sort of pop carton. This has been a very

successful operation in the United States of America.

Should our wineries be given permission to do then same thing here

in British Columbia, what would the Department of Consumer

Services...what attitude would the lady Minister take, because this is

a war of in

promoting alcoholism in our youth? These pop wines are not that

strong, I understand, but they get the idea starting to drink wines and

they go on to bigger and better hangovers.

There is a third product, Mr. Chairman, that gives me a great deal

of concern. This is the product which the provincial government doesn't

reap any benefits from; it doesn't even get the sales tax — as a matter

of t fact, no taxes whatsoever. I refer to the various drugs that are

being consumed by citizens in British Columbia today.

These products are available, Mr. Chairman. They are available. As

I say, they're not available legitimately, but they are products that

are available in British Columbia. During the course of the last

three weeks in the estimates, particularly those of the

Attorney-General, if we've heard in this Legislature thousands of words

by the opposition and the Attorney-General regarding the use of

drugs in the province. Here again, I think if the Minister of Consumer

Services is going to go into our educational institutions, she should

carry a very, very strong message to those whom she is endeavouring

to influence about those products which are available on the illegal

market.

I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, having the Minister give me her

views and assuring me, and the other Members of this Legislature

because here is this great opportunity for her to do a great service

to all of the citizens of British Columbia. I certainly hope she

will take advantage of this opportunity.

The one other subject I would like to discuss with the Minister is

with regard to government operations. She explained to me yesterday afternoon that she was not going to be

an ombudsman. I mentioned Hydro, I mentioned insurance, the Energy

Commission, the railway. The people dealing with those corporations,

if they had a complaint against a particular government agency...and

she explained to me that she was not going to be an ombudsman.

However, now we have the government, particularly in the

Department of Agriculture, going be co-owners and operators of

secondary manufacturing in the

food industry — agricultural products.

The Province of British Columbia, or the department of

Agriculture, has already entered into an agreement with Panco

Poultry to own a large share of that particular operation, and

they will be offering food products for sale. Here we have a

situation where if you have a complaint about that particular

operation — your chicken is rotten or it's been frozen then

thawed and it's tough, or the price is not right or there's

something wrong with it — the lady Minister, Mr. Chairman, is

not going to act as, indeed, is her role in the retail trade.

In other words, if the government has some interest in it

and there's a complaint against it, well, she's going to wash

her hands of it.

We just heard from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) that he was negotiating to become partner in the

cattle operation, and that beef would be sold on the retail

trade. So, there we have another situation. I can see, as years

and months go by, that the government that you represent, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the Minister, could be involved in the

processing of fruit, could be involved in the processing of

vegetables. Indeed, you could be involved in many, many

industries which are processing products for the retail

trade.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, the Minister informs me that she is not

going to act on behalf of any consumer who has a complaint

against any institution of which the government is a

shareholder. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give me further

assurance that she will

indeed act on behalf of the consumer because she is the head of

the Department of Consumer Services.

Another situation could come up, Mr. Chairman, whereby the

Minister would have to have a laboratory to test certain

products. I would like to know just how she intends to test,

particularly, children's toys.

In the past we have had situations where toys are imported.

We had a case not too many years ago where inflammable dolls

which caused in homes were on the market. Toys every year come

into this province by the hundreds of thousands as new

products.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Playboy? Is that a toy? The inflammable doll

is just one aspect of it. We have

[ Page 1412 ]

coming into the market every year hundreds of thousands of

pieces of toys that are manufactured everywhere from Japan to

Taiwan to eastern Canada to the United States. You name it;

these products come in. Are you going to check each one of

these? There are many, many war toys that are coming. Are you

going to advise against the purchase of them? What is your

attitude going to be? This is a multi-million-dollar business.

It's one which has, in my estimation, many, many problems. I

would like to know just exactly what your intentions are in

this regard to protect.

In most cases parents of children who purchase these toys

are working. The mother is working, the father is working, and

they don't have time to selectively shop. Many of these toys

are purchased out of the catalogues because they are busy and

they want to make sure the children have something they can get

enjoyment out of. There isn't, in many cases, in the purchase

of toys as much thought given as there would be, for instance,

to a piece of clothing or something. I think this is a very

important aspect of consumerism.

I have some other questions I would like to ask the

Minister, but maybe if I take my place now she would elaborate

on some of the points I have raised this afternoon.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): In relation

to what the Hon. Member said about instructing or advising

young people in schools about good purchasing habits and good

credit habits, yes, I intend to do that. My department intends

to teach quality and how to recognize quality. I can give you

an example. Isn't it better to teach young people to eat

Okanagan apples instead of potato chips? That's the kind of

consumerism we need. There's a case for nutrition in

education.

In reference to the magazine the Hon. Member couldn't

remember, it's Consumer Reports . It's an American

magazine but it reports on many products sold in Canada. It is

an independent agency; it has never, ever been convicted of any

fraud or any charge of influence of any kind. There is another

excellent magazine called Canadian Consumer put out by

the Consumers Association of Canada (CAC) and I do not think,

in all conscience, you can fault that magazine. They do a

fabulous job of testing products. It's a voluntary organization

and they are just first-rate.

As far as teaching tobacco in the school, this in my view

would come under the Department of Health.

As far as alcoholic beverages, you've already exhausted that

point with the Attorney-General's department. Where pop wines

are concerned, I don't know if they have entered the Canadian

market or not. I think you are anticipating something that is

not a fact as yet.

Drugs. You are looking at the food and drug law and that's under

federal jurisdiction. It's also the federal people who have controlled

standards.

In the matter of food products, the quality of food and the

standards for food, regardless of who owns the plant or

processor, it is controlled by the federal authorities. All

plants must come up to federal standards: they have total

control about that.

Are we going to test toys? It would take a budget twice as

large as this to test all the toys that come into this country.

The CAC does an excellent job; the federal people under the

Hazardous Products Act do a good job of product testing

in the matter of toys. In one case you are telling us not to

warn young people about what to buy and what not to buy, and on

the other hand you are telling us to. So I am slightly

confused.

Yes, we may do some product testing that has a great impact,

particularly on the B.C. market. But in these cases we will

contract to private laboratories or the B.C. Research Council

to do the testing for us and give us independent views.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River on a

further point. I would ask the Hon. Member to try to make his

questions more appropriate to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Consumer Services. Some of

them are obviously more appropriately directed to other

Ministers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am not following you. Have I

brought up something that is not rightfully under the

Department of Consumer Services?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not directly ruling the Hon. Member out

of order. I am just simply indicating that the Department of

Consumer Services is a new area of responsibility and the

opposition Members are merely feeling their way. I would ask

them to make their questions more appropriate in terms of who

they are to be directed to. For example, tobacco would

obviously be more appropriately directed to the Minister of

Health. In regard to alcohol it would be more appropriately

directed to the Attorney-General or the Minister of Human

Resources. Therefore I would just ask him to consider his

questions when he is directing them to the Minister of Consumer

Services.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult

to follow your line of reasoning. We are talking about a

Department of Consumer Services. Certainly there are millions

and millions of dollars worth of tobacco consumed in this

province every year; there are millions and millions of dollars

worth of alcoholic beverages consumed in this province every

year; there are I don't know how many millions

[ Page 1413 ]

of dollars worth of illegal drugs consumed in this province

every year. And this is a Department of Consumer Services. I

fail to follow your reasoning. However, I would be perfectly

willing to abide by your decision.

If I have never seen a double-shuffle and a sidestep, the

Minister of Consumer Services just performed it in this

Legislature. She is going to advise, in the educational system,

people to eat Okanagan apples rather than potato chips because

it's better for them. Yet when I mention a product which is

much more deteriorating to the human body than potato chips,

she says it should come under the Department of Health.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I feel this department is

costing the taxpayers of this province a million-plus dollars.

I fail to follow through the estimates where they are actually

going to get value for their money unless, indeed, some of the

problems which exist today — and these are very obvious

problems — are corrected or an endeavour to correct them is

made by the Department of Consumer Services.

Certainly if she is going to talk about foods, and some are

better for you than others, I feel she has a real

responsibility to discuss the harmful side-effects of tobacco

and alcohol. If you are going to follow one line of this

product, you must follow another. I don't buy that argument at

all, Mr. Chairman. I would like further explanation by the lady

Minister.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): On this same

subject, I would refer back to Hansard when this

Department was introduced in the fall — from the Minister's own

statement. I thought it was a good idea at the time.

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....

I believe that was part of the rationale for bringing these

subjects and these areas all under one department where they

related to the consumer and to have one Minister rather than a

myriad of Ministers responsible for many different areas.

It's under this, and I am referring back to the same

Hansard of last year:

...that I think we need a more definitive statement on many

areas that may be coming under this department, one of which

may be the censorship department, or the censor, which is under

the Attorney-General now, but which is directly related to

whether consumers go to movies or whether it ties into the

advertising with which people are brought to theatres, which

ties into the area of what may or may not be misleading

advertising.

I only bring this in as an area that deals directly with

consumers, and is not, in fact, a legal matter any more but

more a matter for this Minister. I feel not only should the

censor be under the Minister, but also the type of advertising

that tries to draw people into entertainment events these days.

Certainly if there is misleading advertising anywhere in the

province, it has to do with the field of entertainment.

Perhaps you might even investigate some of the sporting

events and the type of advertising that deals with enticing

people to go and see some of the Vancouver hockey games. I'm

sure some of that must be misleading advertising. At $7.50 a

throw, that's the same value as a defective electric kettle or

steam iron.

But there's one area, and another point I would like to

bring out to the Minister. This is in discussing consumers'

magazines. The difficulty with American publications is the

fact that many of the products covered in American magazines

are not the same products that end up in the Canadian market. I

refer particularly to electrical appliances or products with

electrical parts that have to be changed to meet the Canadian

Standard Association, so the models that are reported in the

American consumers' magazine are not the same models or the

same standards that are eventually delivered in Canada.

I refer particularly to things like electric razors, where

the Canadian Standards Association demands we have fuses in

electric razors, and of course the American standards don't

call for this, so the public isn't getting a true picture of

the relative merits of those products. I think it is incumbent

upon the Minister to encourage more and better use of Canadian

publications, and to point out the dangers in using American

information, because it may not be the same product.

Another area brought up by the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) and the type of thing he talked about — pop

wines.... But something more serious where it affects the

young is pop now delivered in beer bottles to the grocery store

shelves. It is only one particular brand, but brought out in a

particular effort to precondition youngsters to maybe develop a

taste or an affinity for a certain type of beer. I believe the

Minister should look into this in British Columbia.

The other area I was interested in is: in the definition of

your department, we talked a lot about hard goods which are easy

to identify — whether there is a defective toaster or a

defective automobile. But we haven't gone into that area of

services promised and not delivered. I refer particularly to a

lot of complaints I get. Perhaps the Minister can advise how

she intends to investigate these — services that should be

delivered by professional groups.

What do you do when you get bad legal advice? Is there a

complaint through the Consumer Services

[ Page 1414 ]

department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: What do you do when an accountant makes a

serious mistake in advice to a client? Is the Consumer Services

department going to look into this? The medical profession,

dentists — all of these other areas are consumer services and

consumer oriented and are subject to many disputes. What about

disputes about architects who take no responsibility for

mistakes that lead to overruns in costs of houses and public

buildings, and their responsibility. Is the Minister of

Consumer Services going to deal with this area?

There is a whole area of consumer services that we haven't

dealt with because we have dealt with the most obvious ones,

and these are areas of professional services that are

intangible. These are ones that concern the public the most. It

is easy for us to identify when we have taken on a bad car; we

can complain. But who is going to help us and show us the way

when there are all these areas of services. I'd like the

Minister to advise how her department will react to this.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I think the Hon. Member has raised very good

points. In reference to the legislation that I mentioned last

fall, already the Consumer Protection Act has been

delegated to this department, and the, Trading Stamp

Act , the Closing-out Sales Act , the Pawnbrokers

Act . We will be receiving the Fair Sales Practices

Act very shortly, and eventually, in the not too distant

future, the Personal Information Reporting Act .

As I mentioned earlier in this debate, we are going to be

absorbing those Acts that have a consumer interest, as we are

able to take them on, establish the staff, and absorb them into

the department.

In the matter of the difference in qualities between

American products and Canadian products. That's a very good

point. There has been some talk by all provincial Ministers as

to the feasibility of the federal department, inasmuch as these

products flow across the provincial lines, of establishing a

product-testing facility themselves, or financing one. It is

more or less in the discussion stage at the present time.

In relation to misleading advertising in reference to

entertainment. As you know, in the matter of films we already

have the classification board. We are definitely planning steps

that we will bring before this House at this session to correct

that problem of misleading advertising. Right now, as I know

the Hon. Member appreciates, the legislation on the books deals

with goods. Right now we have a very large portion of our

economy service oriented, so our legislation will encompass

services as well.

As far as services by professionals such as lawyers,

accountants dentists and doctors, I empathize with the Hon.

Member, and I feel that perhaps in some cases something should

be done in this regard. These are all self-policing

organizations, societies, as you know, and we, the Legislature,

in establishing these societies, assume that they will police

themselves. We hope they do, but I know we occasionally have

doubts.

Whenever I have had occasion to receive a complaint

regarding one of these, a lawyer, an accountant, a doctor, a

dentist, of course it is referred to the applicable society and

we ask them to take whatever action is deemed necessary, or to

investigate.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I'd like to join

in the felicitations to the Minister on her choice of a new

Deputy, and wish her good fortune and good judgment as she

builds up her staff during the coming year in expanding her

department.

I would suggest one of the principles she should follow is

that the best guardian of the consumer, in my view, is the

maintenance of a healthy, competitive system in our economy,

and an educated consumer, as has been said by many speakers

here. I would suggest to her that that, where it is possible,

is far preferable to an attempt by government to regulate every

detail of commerce. I think this government would rapidly find

that to be the case if it tried to do so. There are just too

many problems that not even the largest bureaucracy can handle.

So, a lot of the protective work of her department has to be,

in essence, in an educated consumer and in a good, healthy

competitive system.

I'd like to refer to two specific topics today, Mr.

Chairman. The first of these relates to credit cards and the

general acquisition of consumer credit in our economy, because

we are moving to something of a cashless society, but it is not

being done at zero cost. It's being done at two kinds of cost.

One kind of cost, of course, is the invasion of privacy on

general credit checks, and there have been actions taken in

this regard, which I commend.

The other cost which I want to talk about at greater length

is the cost to the economy in dollar terms of the credit card

system, especially the cost to those not using credit cards,

Mr. Chairman. What the use of credit cards does, in effect, is

raise the price to all of us who don't use them.

It is getting to be that there are a lot of credit cards in

circulation. The figures for Canada — and I don't have specific

figures for British Columbia, I'm afraid, but perhaps as a

rule-of-thumb we could divide by 10 — are quite astonishing:

Chargex, 3.8 million cards out; Eaton's, 2.5 million;

Simpson Sears, 1.2 million; American Express green card, 1

million; Simpson's, 775,000; Hudson's Bay Company,

700,000;

[ Page 1415 ]

Master Charge, 600,000 — that of course is one of the newer

cards and growing rapidly; Avis and Hertz, 200,000 each; Air

Canada, 175,000 and so on.

Now these cards can be used for a considerable volume of

purchases. In the Chargex system, for example, one of the

officials calculated that the average card holder uses it about

30 times a year. The average purchase is around $18 a time with

Chargex. Others may be larger or smaller. Let's say — a little

quick arithmetic — that's around $700 a year and the Chargex

cost ranges from 2 to 5 per cent; so this can be a significant

cost factor which is paid only in part by those who use the

Chargex card, because really it comes out of the cost that the

merchant charges to the consumer. All of us that don't have a

Chargex card have to pay that cost, because we can't get a

reduction. I'll move to that specific point later of not being

able to get a cash reduction.

Now the co-chairman of the National Research Committee of

the Consumers' Association of Canada had some interesting

things to say in this regard. She's quoted in the February 23

article of the Financial Post and it's prefaced by saying that

people who don't have credit cards these days are thought to be

as odd as those who did have cards 20 years ago. Here's what

Helen Morningstar said:

" 'Anything that extends credit encourages people to

overspend. If a person has a credit card, he feels

that he can spend more than if he just had a certain amount of

cash in his wallet,' Mrs. Morningstar says. 'Bank credit cards

in particular have greatly increased the use of credit. It used

to be considered socially acceptable to borrow money from the

bank but not from the finance companies, so when the banks

brought out credit cards, the use of credit greatly increased.'

I think this is probably true. So what's the economic

impact? The charges by the companies putting out the credit

cards vary a great deal from one card to another. The Chargex

and Master Charge, which are the ones mostly used to buy goods

of ordinary commerce at retail, run from 2 per cent to 5% per

cent, depending on the volume of the particular merchant.

Now as to other cards, I think some of the restaurant cards

go as high as 10 per cent. One of the most vexatious things of

this credit card system is that many of the contracts, Madam

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, provide that the merchant

may not give a discount to someone who wishes to make his

purchase for cash. In many cases that is actually written in

the contract, and it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that is

wrong.

It seems to me that the person who is prepared to go to a merchant

or to a restaurant and say,"I will give you cash, and therefore it

reduces your costs because you don't have to go through this credit

card system," should be able to get that discount. Any contract that

says he can't get that discount should be illegal.

I would ask that the Minister might study the possibility of

legislation to prohibit sections in contracts that prevent

merchants from giving a discount for cash. It's absolutely

wrong to me. If somebody else wants to use a credit card

company either to extend their credit or keep their records for

them, that's just fine by me, but I do argue very strenuously

that those who do not use credit cards in those circumstances

shouldn't have to pay those charges. In effect, that's what's

happening now.

I think, in a general sense, it might be a very instructive

exercise for the department when the Minister gets the staff to

credit cards and the extent of consumer credit outstanding. I

think it unquestionably contributes to inflation, Mr. Chairman.

It's difficult for any one province to do much about this, but

we can perhaps give some leadership of ideas in the field.

Now the Minister stressed — and many of the speakers have

stressed — the need for education in consumerism. I very much

endorse that and the importance of it. I suggest to the

Minister that the place that education must start to be most

effective is in the schools. We can try and educate consumers

at every level, but the time when people are getting their

training for life is during their schooling years. Schools

hopefully teach people to be whole citizens, to be whole people

and realize their potentialities; that's their most important

function. They teach people to contribute to the economy.

But the other thing that every person does as they move

through life is to participate in the economy on the taking-out

side, on the consumer side. I think our schools have lacked in

training for this before.

The old thoughts of savings and thrift and getting a good

deal and buying in bulk and where to get consumer information;

how to get credit if you need it, and to assess its cost in

particular; how to shop around — the fundamentals of buying the

major capital commitments that most people make during their

lifetimes of a house or a car or major household appliances;

how to judge repairmen, or repair persons, if they're going to

fix your TV set or your car or whatever it is: that's just as

important to the ordinary person as judging doctors or lawyers,

and just as hard too — judging supermarket specials and

co-operative buying; freezer clubs...all of these things.

These kinds of training programmes at the school level, I

suggest, wouldn't take a great deal of time away from the

students' other studies. It's perhaps something that the

Minister can negotiate with her counterpart in the Department

of Education and have the students as well get out into the

community to see consumerism on the spot and have people

from

[ Page 1416 ]

the community, merchants, Better Business Bureau, people

from her own department, come into the schools and give quick

lectures on these kinds of topics.

That's all I have to say at this point, Mr. Chairman. I wish

the Minister well as she works towards expanding her department

in the coming year.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I just have a few things to

say on the estimates of the Minister. I think all of us who

have lived very long have certainly got a few complaints about

consumer affairs that they'd like to bring out. Now that we

have a Minister of Consumer Services, there's no better place

to bring them.

One of my worst hang-ups I think is on bargains. We've all

seen these advertisements that come in the paper — usually just

after Christmas when people haven't money to spend any longer.

The advertisements go in such as a big sale on ladies winter

coats, half price. So the result is, you might take a day off

from work and bundle your wife into the car and head down there

to buy one of these fabulous bargains, only to find that

there's only six on the rack; five of them are size 65 and two

are about size 2.

However, you're informed that: "Well, I'm sorry you didn't

get here in time. They're all sold out, but we do have some

very good buys over here." Well, how can they be sold out? You

were maybe the third or fourth customer in the store and all

the decent sizes were sold out.

Another one, of course, is shoes. When you get down to these

sales you find that they have a sale on shoes all right, but

they're only size 12 and 14; all the rest — well, you just

weren't there in time, even if you were the second customer in

the store. It might fit me, Mr. Member, but most of the public

I don't think they would fit. I think this is one of the worst

things we see in merchandising today. It isn't false

advertising really; the coats are there and there are the

bargains, except that they won't fit anyone that wants to buy

them.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was speaking yesterday

in this debate and he was referring to how much protection

people should have if they make a stupid bargain, or make some

mistake, and how much they can be protected. Well, I know

several cases where people have signed a contract to have a

home built in my own riding.

The contractor gets most of the work; but, let's say, the asphalt

drive that was supposed to be installed is not there. When he doesn't

show up to put it in, the buyer contacts him to find out when it's

going to be done. He finds out that the contractor is not going to come

back; he's been paid his final amount of money, the mortgagor has

released it to him and he's no longer interested in completing the work.

I know several cases where this has happened, and it just

depends on how much is involved whether something is done about

it or not. In one case it was about $2,000 that was involved

and by the time the man had finished the court case and was out

$500, it was worth his while to go to court to get the $1,500

for unfinished work. But in the case of a driveway or some

unfinished work inside the house that only amounts to $500 or

$700, it usually isn't worth his while.

A builder that can do this 5 or 10 or 15 times is making

extra money to put in his pocket and the consumer is

suffering.

The people that get involved in these situations are not

necessarily stupid. They have signed a contract in good faith

and there hasn't been good faith on the other end. This is the

kind of thing, I think, that can be handled with education and

advice in the local offices that you open.

Marketing boards have been referred to a couple of times.

The Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) said that they

never were marketing boards, they were producer boards, and of

course this is true.

There was a time when anyone who went into the building of,

let's say, a chicken farm with all of the equipment and

buildings and money that was involved, only found themselves in

business for a year or two, very little of the debt paid off,

and so many had gone into the business, the bottom fell out of

the market and you had several of these people who were

bankrupt.

Now I'm not saying that the marketing boards are right in

everything they've done, but I feel that they have been unduly

criticized in many ways in this House, because one of the

things they have done is stabilize the market for the producer

so that when he makes the big investment that's required to

take to go into one of these ventures, he has some reasonable

hope of getting his investment out and making a decent

living.

We've seen quite a lot of news in the paper today about beef

and the subsidy that's being paid by the federal government — $2.75

million a week being paid out of the taxpayers' pockets

by the Liberal government in Ottawa to sustain some of our beef

producers in business. I think it's a necessary thing to do.

The information that I have is that there's two feedlots have

gone bankrupt in Manitoba and at least one in Alberta to the

tune of $170,000. So no doubt there's been a shock to the

market.

The thing I find hard to understand is that the price of

beef went up in Canada when the price freeze was on in the

United States. The Americans were holding back their cattle

until the price went up to a place where they would be

satisfied to market their beef. This resulted in a rise in the

price of Canadian beef as some was going down to the United

States

[ Page 1417 ]

and their buyers were coming up here.

But when the freeze went off in the United States and the

American cattle flooded the market and started coming up to

Canada, I would assume that they were getting the price they

now wanted for their beef and yet they knocked the bottom out

of the market in Canada for our producers, for our feedlots and

our producers both. Now we're faced with $2.25 million a week

and possibly, I understand, today it could be more if they put

it up to 9 cents a pound rather than seven.

It's too bad the Second

Member for Point Grey isn't here.

I'd like to know what his legal mind would think of the

government in Ottawa assessing all the citizens of Canada a

certain amount of tax money to pay this subsidy when I

understand there's quite a good percentage of them are

vegetarians that never eat meat. I would think that this would

be sort of an unequal or illegal levy to put on these people

who have no interest in meat of any kind but have to put some

of their tax money into a subsidy for beef.

The previous speaker, Mr. Chairman, referred to the

education. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I hope Madam

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that one of the largest

parts of your budget will be on education for the general

public. There are a lot of people that get into bad situations,

not because they're stupid, simply because they don't know the

situation and there is no equality in that marketplace. You

could talk all they want about everybody should know exactly

what they're doing and what they're buying, but if you put one

fox in the chicken run you haven't got equal opportunity once

that fox gets there. And we have many foxes out there trying to

trim the consumers every day of the week.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I think the Member for Kamloops raised a

very good point, that it is an unequal marketplace. I recently

attended a meeting where one of the members of the audience

asked if there was any way we could investigate the quality of

tires because there seem to be so many grades of tires on the

market. I explained that in the United States some studies were

going on at the time, and in the same audience was a man who

sold tires for a living.

He said: "I don't know the difference between the various

grades," and he said,"all I can do is take Goodrich,

Goodyear and Firestone's word for it, on what's good." But he

said,"I am no judge of what is a good tire and what

isn't."

So there we have a case where it's so complicated, it's such

a technical issue that it's just impossible for the average

person, including the suppliers, to know precisely how good his

product is.

In the matter of building homes, we are receiving some complaints in

this area. This is not only happening in British Columbia, it's

happening across the country, and the federal people are looking into

it along with provincial bodies. We are beginning a concerted effort at

all levels to examine this problem because the number of complaints

dealing with home building is increasing.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I too concurred

heartedly with his remarks vis--vis education in

schools. We certainly are going to direct a great deal of our

attention to that because as I said before a well-educated

consumer will have no need for our complaint services. That's

our goal. Our ideal is that someday there won't be a need for a

Consumer Services Department, period. That's nirvana I'm sure

because we'd also like to see the day we don't have to have a

police force either.

In regard to credit cards, a very interesting subject that

the Member brought up. There were amendments to the Consumer

Protection Act a few years ago that drastically reduced the

number of unsolicited credit cards in British Columbia. The

reason was of course, as you're aware, banks and every credit

card company in the country were flooding the mail with these

cards, and once they were used, you were billed. So the Act was

amended to say that you could use the card to any degree you

wished because you didn't ask for the card in the beginning. So

now that stopped that right off the bat. Of course the

companies require that you sign a request for the card.

We interestingly enough have done a cursory investigation

into the percentages of the credit card business, and they

range from about two to seven per cent. We contacted about four

or five of the major card companies and they charge between two

and seven per cent to the merchant. That does not include the

one and a half per cent if your account is over 30 days or

beyond. So they're not doing too badly in that regard.

What the merchants are also not aware of, it so happens that

I worked for Diners' Club once, so I know the credit card

business pretty well, there's a cash flow law also. While your

money is out there tied up in a credit card for maybe two to

three months before you get the money back from the charges,

you have the loss of that cash flow.

So I don't know, I sometimes think that merchants might

think again about the advisability of using credit cards. Of

course from the consumer standpoint, some people cannot tell

the difference between cash and their credit card and they

over-use it. Well, of course, that's their responsibility. It's

unfortunate that some people have that problem. Others

don't.

I think the idea of bringing in legislation prohibiting the

contract provision to refuse discounts is something we would

have to look at. I think that the Nader organization in the

United States has started an action on this very matter and

it's before the courts in the United States at this time. It

will be

[ Page 1418 ]

interesting to see the decision coming out of that.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

barely got in this debate up to my toenails last night when the

clock was noted by the Premier and the House adjourned. At that

time, I was in the midst of reading a letter to the Minister

from a constituent of Vancouver–Point Grey which dealt with one

of the big fellows that the Minister of Consumer Affairs is

going to have to cope with if she's to do her job.

Of course the biggest fellow of all in British Columbia is

the government itself. If you're going to protect the consumer,

there are many ways in which you must gain access to the

government and to government corporations.

This particular letter which I was in the midst of reading

when I was so rudely interrupted by the Premier last night

dealt with one of these corporations, the ICBC. Yes I'm going

to read it slowly and I hope to have the attention of the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Chairman and the

Minister and all the other Members who are not particularly

interested right at this moment. I'm sure that they'll listen

because it's a well-written letter, and the constituent makes a

point.

"As a constituent of Point Grey, I would like to add

voice to the many already bemoaning 'Autogouge'. This scheme

may be beneficial to the majority of drivers but I personally

feel as if I am being shaken down by a legalized

extortionist.

"First there was the car insurance. I own a 1967 Ford

Ranchwagon. It is badly rusted and has 132,500 miles on the

odometer. To insure this car for the compulsory $250 deductible

collision policy, I must pay an extra $70 above the basic PL

and PD (Property Loss and Property Damage) for the 1966 model.

This is a joke. Though it is listed in the Gold Book at a

retail value of about $1,200, my car is probably not worth even

$250. I am paying a premium based on the value of a car worth

nearly five times the value of mine.

"Today I received a further insult. I must pay $13 to

renew

my driver's licence. 'Autogouge' called this one

euphemistically a 'driver's insurance policy.' This kind of

insurance, I believe, is offered for sale on the south side of

Chicago, only there it is called 'protection.' Strangely

enough, that is the word used in the 'Autogouge' pamphlet where

this marvelous policy is outlined.

"As I understand it, this $10 per year fee — a thousand

per cent increase over the old system which charged $5 for five years —

protects me from liability in the unlikely event that I should be hit

by an uninsured driver or in the even more unlikely event that I should

have an accident while driving a car which I did not know was

uninsured. It probably also protects me from liability against air

sickness while riding bareback on a two-ton canary. Mostly what it

protects me from is the $250 fine for not having it. Such a policy is

sheer extortion as it offers virtually no hope of return for a

compulsory fee.

"It's not the $10 I resent but the deliberately sneaky

method 'Autogouge' is using to separate me from my

savings."

Now, Mr. Chairman, how about that for a shakedown system? Of

course, the man is absolutely correct. He probably is

protected, as he says,"from air sickness while riding bareback

on a two-ton canary." He's paying a lot of other protection

that he doesn't need any more than the people on the south side

of Chicago needed the protection of their friends in

Cicero.

I don't find any consumers sitting on the board of ICBC. Oh,

there's the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) but he's in that different category now. He's not one

of the boys and he's not an ordinary union member; he's a big

important Minister.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): He drives the company car.

MR. McGEER: There are provisions for one or two other

Ministers, but they aren't ordinary people any longer. If you

look at the board of directors of ICBC, B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro,

Can-Cel, or any of these other Crown corporations, you just

don't see ordinary people represented at all. There is no

meeting of the shareholders where they could complain.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the points made by the signer of

this letter, Mr. Mason, are absolutely correct. When it comes

to these gigantic state operations, the consumer is entirely at

the mercy of the state and completely unprotected as a

consumer. I'm sure the new Deputy (Mr. Neilson) we brought from

Osgoode Hall at $39,000 a year didn't come here just to deal

with dance studios and credit cards and all the other small

matters. I'm not going to call them trivial because they

aren't; the people are injured. But they are small in

comparison with these great big things like "Autogouge." Even

though that corporation may not make a profit, it still may

unfairly charge a significant percentage of the people who are

obliged by compulsion to accept that policy and that service.

These people need to have protection by consumer

representatives being on the board.

I want to deal with another set of boards where there should

be consumer representation. I refer to

[ Page 1419 ]

the marketing boards.

Think how different the decisions of the Egg Marketing Board

would have been had a representative of the consumers been

there. I thought the Minister really made the best contribution

of any government Member to that debate on the Egg Marketing

Board when we were discussing the Minister of Agriculture's

estimates and then the Premier's estimates. She did get up and

speak for the consumer, as I understood her address at that

time. She felt the Egg Marketing Boards were setting prices

that were unnecessarily high.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has

spoken out about how these are really producer boards that

control production, except when an agreement is made between

the Premier and, one of the producers. Then the Premier is in

the position of controlling the production.

It's worth something to have a quota from these Egg

Marketing Boards. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) couldn't remember anything about the meeting between

Sy Kovachich and the Premier at the time his estimates were

being discussed, but then when the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) began to bring forward definitive evidence

that the whole truth had not been told in this chamber...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the....

MR. McGEER: ...the Minister and the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I would ask the Hon.

Member to confine his remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. McGEER: I was coming right to that just right now. That

letter the Minister of Agriculture and the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) called a press conference to release, which

talked about the agreement that the Minister has reread between

Mr. Sy Kovachich and the Premier, also mentioned the value of

these quotas. Do you know what they were worth, Mr. Chairman? — $300 a

case. That's the value of one of those egg-marketing

production units. I ask you, who in the final analysis is

paying that $300 a case? You're right; the consumer. It's on

the price of those two eggs you eat for breakfast.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, they sell. They sell, and they sell at a

good price. The price is so good that the right to produce is

worth $300 a case. The price is so good that a man can support

the NDP, pay $200 at election time, come down and exert muscle

on the Premier and the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: I'm just telling you what these things are

really worth because the consumers are paying the shot. What

I'm about to say, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: if there were

consumers sitting on these marketing boards, this kind of

political hanky-panky wouldn't be possible.

Mr. Chairman, you're an open-minded man and you know that.

If there was a consumer there watching what was going on,

they'd know these quotas were being slicked around in

Minister's offices.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member....

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm only....

MR. CHAIRMAN: This subject has been canvassed very

thoroughly.

MR. McGEER: There was a press conference on this letter. I

regret, Mr. Chairman, sincerely that that particular letter was

not tabled in this Legislative Assembly. No, the Minister of

Agriculture and the Provincial Secretary got together in a back

room with the press boys.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! I would....

MR. McGEER: Then when we tried to bring it up in the House

it was out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

try to confine his remarks to the Minister of Consumer

Services.

MR. McGEER: I'm trying to make what I hope is a compelling

case to that Minister as to exactly how she can bring

discipline to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

and the Premier so she won't have to get up and attempt the

sort of weak defences that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.,

Cocke) has attempted in this House. He's at his worse when he

is trying to defend the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture, and he's at his best when he's defending his own

particular field. The Minister has an opportunity to do a

service to the consumer. I know the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall) wants us to get on with all of this, but what we want

to see is some justice for the consumer in British

Columbia.

Why do we set up a department with a $39,000 Deputy,

somebody with very high credentials coming all the way out here

from Osgoode Hall, unless we are

[ Page 1420 ]

going to tackle some of these great big problems in British

Columbia? If you ignore the big fellows — and I am talking

about the Premier and his fellow cabinet Ministers, who are the

most powerful men in British Columbia today — if you ignore the

corporations they set up and if you ignore the marketing boards

that were established by previous governments that had been

manipulated by those Ministers, then you are not giving the

consumer a fair shake.

If the Minister wants to get into cement, that might be fine

too, but she's got things that are really her direct

responsibility that she can look after first. If she wants to

take on the cement industry and their price-gouging, she is

certainly going to get support from me, because I believe that

these little fellows like dance studios, encyclopedia salesmen

and the vacuum cleaner people that give you prizes and so on

are the little fish. We want to go after the great whales like

Autoplan and marketing boards.

Mr. Chairman, this long list of order-in-council

appointments that the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) read off took him most of the afternoon to do it, and

it was so long that there were a couple of Socreds and a couple

of Liberals actually mixed in with that list. Many of those

people were following through on a principle that the NDP had

repeatedly brought up in this House, namely the necessity of

having consumer representation on everything — consumer

representatives on hospital boards, medical boards and so on — feeling

that the consumer representative would have a function

in exerting discipline. I like that thinking. I think that was

a very sound approach. Though some of us may ask a few

questions about the political backgrounds of the people who are

appointed, nevertheless I agree with the principle.

Now that those little opposition fellows have become great

big Ministers and now that they have got through the short list

of appointments to these boards, they've kind of forgotten that

principle. ICBC and the marketing boards are only part of the

story. How about the Energy Commission? Now, here's a case

where a commission has been set up....

HON. MS. YOUNG: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister state her point of

order?

HON. MS. YOUNG: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is

(1) this Member is talking about something that has been thoroughly

canvassed in this House on numerous occasions, and (2) it has

no bearing whatsoever on my department. It comes under the

estimates of other Ministers and I wish you would keep that in

mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken in the respect

that certainly matters are being discussed in detail which have

previously been discussed. I would also rule that I think the point has

been well made and any further discussion on it would tend to be

repetitious.

MR. McGEER: What point is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point that the Hon. Minister should give

consideration to having more consumer representation on boards

and such. I think that point has now been thoroughly canvassed.

I would ask him not to be too repetitive.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, what you've got to do is to detail

some of these areas that are lacking in consumer

representation. You can talk all you like about dance studios,

but the increase in the cost of natural gas to the consumer in

British Columbia, at something like 16.5 per cent, bore no

relation at all to the cost of production and distribution. Yet

out of every consumer's pocket in British Columbia who uses

natural gas, there's a pretty large percentage of them, there

is a huge bit out of purchasing power. Very few people go to

Arthur Murray studios, and they don't call up everybody saying

they just won a prize of a $50 vacuum cleaner. But everybody

has to have a heated home in the wintertime. That's what I mean

about taking on the big fellows.

I know that the cabinet is unhappy over the suggestion, and

I know the Minister wishes the whole problem would go away.

You've got to look at the things that take money out of the

pockets of people of modest income. These boards happen to be

doing it. The fact that they are government-sponsored boards

doesn't matter a whit to the person who has to put up money

that he otherwise would not have to put up. I am talking about

the kind of rules that would be established if there were

proper consumer representations on some of these government

committees.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Sure. Doctor bills.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would also point out to the Hon.

Member that the Minister of Consumer Services has no power to

appoint anyone to these boards. Therefore I would suggest....

MR. McGEER: This is where she is going to have to fight her

battles, because if she is really to blaze a trail in consumer

affairs and not just deal with the kind of trivia that Consumer

Services deals with in most provinces in Canada, this is the

sort of thing she's going to have to tackle.

Mr. Chairman, I want to hear from the Minister

[ Page 1421 ]

and get some idea of the breadth of her vision in this

broader aspect of consumer problems in British Columbia.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member may think that

health spas and dance studios are trivial, but allow me to tell

you that 700 women in Kamloops do not think so, to the tune of

$186,000. They are very concerned about it. It's quite a nick

out of their pockets. The people that have received bad homes

or poor roofing jobs don't consider it a trivial matter.

In dealing with other departments, we will act on behalf of

people, but we feel that we can refer these matters and the

departments will respond, and they have. We have no problem

that way. I would remind the House that if you look at other

jurisdictions, this is the way it is done also, so I don't see

any area there.

Other than that, in the matter of marketing boards, I, have

spoken to this issue about six times in this debate. I see no

reason for saying it again and again and again. I have made my

position and the department's position perfectly clear. I see

no further use in talking about it.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack) ; Of major concern to the

consumers of British Columbia is the cost of dental work. I have no

other Minister to bring this to but to you, Madam Minister, because

there is no legislation that places this directly under the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). We have no dental programme in this province.

As a result, I have to bring it to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I believe the regulation of

dentists does come under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Minister

of Health. It would be more appropriate to bring it up at that

time.

MR. SCHROEDER: That's fine, as far as the actual dental work

is concerned. Now, in my opinion, there is a rip-off here that

I would like the Minister of Consumer Services to look

into.

This is what happens. Dental work in itself is expensive.

I'm not here to decide and I don't think the Minister can

decide whether or not it's extravagant, but the work that

accompanies the dental work is, in my opinion, unnecessary many

times, yet it always finds its way to the bill for that dental

work.

I will give you an example. You go to a dentist and the first thing

that happens is that you have to have a checkup. Now, that's reasonable

enough but before you can have the checkup you must have your teeth

cleaned. It doesn't make any difference that you have only been to the

dentist a few weeks or months before and that you have had all of

whatever gathers in your teeth scraped off.

You have a cleaning job first of all; and this cleaning job

has a certain fee: $5, $8, $10, $14. It varies from place to

place. The fact that it varies tells me that if it could be

done for $5 by dentist A, why could it not be done for $5 by

dentist B?

A little research, I think, and a little pressure from your

department, perhaps, could bring these charges more in

line.

Now if cleaning were the only thing, and if after cleaning

the dentist could do his job, it would be great. But along

comes the next thing. "We cannot do any work on your teeth

until we have an X-ray." It doesn't make any difference what

the date of your previous X-ray was; you must have one now. As

a result, before a tool is placed in your mouth to do any

dental repair work at all, you walk away with a bill of

anywhere from $20 to $35.

It seems to me, although you cannot expect the dentist to

work or do his duties for nothing, that there should be some

continuity, some sameness in the price levels, as you go from

one dentist to the next.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I would like the Minister of Consumer Services to take a

look at this area. Then, secondly, I'd like to support the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in an approach that

he made to your department. This is in the field of

education.

I am so glad that you are planning to take a major portion

of your time and a major portion of your budget and involve it

in consumer education. One of the areas that you need to

consider in education is the consumption of toxic substances — and it

doesn't make any difference whether you call this

tobacco, whether you call this alcohol, or whether it is a

toxic substance that might be in a plastic toy, because several

toys have been recalled from the market strictly because when

they are placed in the mouth of a child, a baby, some toxic

substance is exuded from the material. As a result they have

been called off the market.

This was of major concern several years back. Some of these

toys find their way back to the market, and they are of major

concern. I know that the Minister would be actively engaged in

recalling this kind of an

article from the market.

But I have to support the Member for South Peace River when

he suggests that just as toxic and just as much in need of

education is the consumption of alcohol or the use of tobacco.

I don't believe it is the duty or the responsibility of the

Minister to try to curb the use of tobacco or the use of

alcoholic beverages. I don't believe this is right. But I do

believe that the Minister has a responsibility to teach and to

train and to educate the people who are now in our

[ Page 1422 ]

pre-schools, who are now in our primary schools, secondary

schools — yea, even in our universities — to teach them what

the result is of the abuse.

I can't support strongly enough what the Member for South

Peace River has said, and would urge very, very much that the

Minister take this into grave consideration when she lays out

her own budget for her own department for the coming year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of

Consumer Services: she is being very, very evasive on this

matter of education of products which are harmful. I feel that

she is not living up to her responsibilities, Mr. Chairman,

unless she advises this House before she gets her vote that she

realizes that this is a problem. If indeed she is going to be

the Minister of Consumer Services and is going to live up to

her obligations to the people of this province who are paying

her salary and voting $1,169,000 to her department, indeed, she

has a responsibility in this area; and any side-stepping of the

issue is not going to satisfy me.

She mentioned a moment ago that she was going to teach in

our educational system that apples were more nutritious than

potato chips.

Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Consumer Services against

the potato growers in Idaho? Is she against the potato growers

in British Columbia? Is she against the manufacture of potato

chips? This is the very thing that I have warned against time

and time again in this Legislature. I have warned against this,

Mr. Chairman — the very thing that I warned against that would

happen in this department — that you would be educating one

product against the other.

Is the Minister of Consumer Services going to advise the

people of this province that cocoa is better for them than

coffee? Well, it's the same thing. If apples are better than

potato chips, cocoa is better for you than coffee. Milk is

better for you than tea. The non-use of tobacco is better for

you than the use of tobacco. Oatmeal is better for you than

cornflakes. But neither oatmeal or cornflakes are harmful to

the human body. Neither apples or potato chips are harmful to

the human body.

But there are products on the market...tobacco, which has

no nutritional value whatsoever; it is indeed harmful to the

body. And here is the Minister of Consumer Services telling me

that no, she's not going to educate against the use of this

harmful product. And she wants me to say yea to a vote of

$1,169,000.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer Services looks like a

crusader; why doesn't she act like one? There is an opportunity

for her to go out and do the people of this great province a

real service.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, when I was young and foolish I became

addicted to tobacco. We didn't have a Department of Consumer Services

back in New Brunswick in those days. We didn't know that tobacco would

bring on lung cancer. We didn't know that it was harmful to the heart.

We didn't have any of the scientific research that is available today.

Young people are taking up this habit every day. The young

people of this province are being bled millions and millions of

dollars by the tobacco companies, while our Minister of

Consumer Services is going to sit idly by and let this practice

continue.

Mr. Chairman, if you buy a toaster that is going to give you

a momentary shock, she's going to go on the airwaves and in the

papers and in the educational system and she's going to say,

"Don't buy that toaster; it's defective. It'll give you a

shock." But by the same token, Mr. Chairman, you can go buy a

package of cigars or cigarettes or pipe tobacco or chewing

tobacco or snuff, or what have you, which won't just give you a

momentary shock, but which will harm your health for the rest

of your life.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer Services is going to

sit idly by. We had a case here just a short time ago where

there were some chocolates imported from one of the provinces

into the Province of British Columbia. And, my gracious sakes,

these chocolates were a bit defective and it was on the

airwaves and it was in the newspapers that you shouldn't buy

these chocolates, and they were being recalled. If you had

eaten one of these chocolates you might have been temporarily

ill. But smoke tobacco, chew snuff, drink alcohol, and the

effects are with you for the rest of your life.

Yet the Department of Consumer Services is not going to take

any action in this regard. It would appear to me, Mr. Chairman,

that all they want to do is the easy and the obvious. Something

that has a real challenge, that might be tremendously,

politically unpopular, is going to be kicked under the table.

"No, we can't touch that; it's the Department of Health." Mr.

Chairman, it doesn't seem to me that the Minister of Consumer

Services is doing her job, that she's conscientious.

I feel very sincerely about this subject. Because not only

is the Department of Consumer Services costing the taxpayers

over $1 million. But the cost of bad health for the taxpayers

of this province Mr. Chairman are hundreds and hundreds of

millions of dollars — many of it caused by the abuses of

alcohol and tobacco. I think this Minister has a responsibility

to the taxpayers of this province, Mr. Chairman, to accept this

as their obligation and to include this as part of her

educational system.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the lady Minister just once

more if she will even consider this.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that this is

distinctly under the Department of Health. The Health

department has initiated some programmes in this regard, Action

B.C. being one of

[ Page 1423 ]

them, and there's been quite a few others. The Drug and

Alcohol Commission is coming up with some suggestions, the

Department of Education has some programmes going. So I think

this would be repetitious, it would be duplication of

efforts.

When the Hon. Member says that I want to do the easy and

obvious things, I'd like to point out to him that the easy and

the obvious have never been done in this province to date.

They've been done in every other province in Canada, but not in

this one, and this is the new one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just to follow up on this: it's awfully easy

for this department to sort of shuffle the responsibilities

from one department to the other. We're talking about consumer

products and it comes directly under the Department of Consumer

Services.

Mr. Chairman, I want to touch just briefly on another

subject that I would like the Minister's remarks on.

Yesterday afternoon I purchased a tin of crab meat. This tin

of crab meat was processed in Canada. I'm not going to name the

brand, but it was processed in Canada. And this tin of crab

meat cost me $2.35.

Today Mr. Chairman, I purchased a tin of crab meat and this

tin of crab meat was processed in Taiwan. Now, is this the

responsibility of the Department of Consumer Services to advise

the people of British Columbia that they are, would you call

it, being ripped-off by this Canadian processor? The Taiwan can

cost me $1.35 — same size can. The Canadian manufacturer:

$2.35.

Now, crab meat is crab meat, they've both supposedly been

tested for human consumption, there should be no difference.

Are the crabs any different in Taiwan than they are in British

Columbia? Now that is the question, maybe that is the leading

question.

What I want to know — and this is a very important subject — I made

the Minister aware of this today here on the floor of

the Legislature. Is she going to go out and educate the people

of British Columbia so that they should buy crab from

Taiwan?

This is part of her service. Well, last week I purchased a

tin of lobster — $4.35. Is the lobster any better? Same size

tin — is the lobster any better for me than crab? Is she going

to advise the people that they can buy crab, but you can buy

shrimp for less money than that. These are all part of what we

are talking about when the Minister's going to go out and

educate the people of British Columbia.

A couple of summers ago I drove down Georgia Street in

Vancouver. Here's a huge sign, Mr. Chairman, a huge sign: "New

Zealand Spring Lamb". I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think

those are huge lambs that they grow in New Zealand. Because if

you get a lamb chop it's about the size of a good size beef

steak.

So there is another import. New Zealand lamb is less

expensive to purchase than is our own lamb grown on Saltspring,

Cortes or in the Peace River area.

Is the Department of Consumer Services going to educate the

people of British Columbia about the best buys in the meat

department? Is there going to be discrimination against imports

in fruits, meats — which are less expensive to buy — vegetables;

lettuce from California, during our own season when it's

available? Is she going to protect the agricultural industry in

British Columbia? It all has to do with prices, it all has to

do with consumerism.

Will you put out a book weekly or monthly or semi-annually

which will outline to the consumers of British Columbia the

best buys? The best buys in the fruit and vegetable industry,

best buys in meat, best buys in fish products, all to my

estimation comes under consumer services, Mr. Chairman.

It would be a service to the consumers of British Columbia

and indeed if it were being done, what attitude would our

Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) take when it

comes to promoting British Columbia agricultural products over

those imported from other provinces and from other nations?

I feel I've brought up two situations here that presently

exist. I would like to hear the Minister's reaction.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Minister appears to

be getting on her feet....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, what a surprise.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's telling the Minister what to say.

MRS. JORDAN: She may be the only person that's voting for

this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister

of Consumer Services on two occasions, both in the afternoon

and the evening and I believe the night before, whether in fact

she was going to canvass the costs of foods around this

province. There have been charges and counter charges,

re-charges, and over-charges, so people say in this area.

I asked if she would investigate this matter once and for

all. I quoted some prices to her of B.C. products from four

sections of this province, and I don't intend to repeat them

today, which pointed out that there appeared to be no rhyme nor

reason for the variance in price in the Kootenays. Some

foods

[ Page 1424 ]

were more expensive than they were in Fort St. John, and in

Abbotsford. In one instance it was more expensive than it was

in Victoria. And yet it's a product grown near Abbotsford.

I'd like to know without repeating the debate if the

Minister intends to follow up on my suggestion. Just what is

she going to do and is she going to act in this area?

I also asked the Minister — and there was no answer on this

— if in light of the fact that she is going into the schools,

and she is going into public meetings to advise consumers on

what she considers to be acceptable products, and advise them

to stay away from what she considers non-acceptable products,

that in the event of an error on her part what recourse is

there going to be for a company, or the producer of a product

that she has damned?

Will there be, Madam Minister, an official type of procedure

where a wronged products producer or a wronged company can take

recourse? Or for that matter anyone who might be offended by

the Minister in line of her work, and her speeches or anyone in

her department — will there be recourse for them without going

to court?

If in fact the Minister or her staff are proven wrong, will

there be a proper means of re-establishing that company or that

product's name in the light of the public?

So often we see mis-statements, and false accusations get

headlines and then when the truth prevails it's a small

retraction on the back page or in fact it doesn't reach the

public at all. Some very innocent people have suffered because

of this type of mis-information.

The Minister herself is aware that she fell into the trap

when she most wrongly attacked a responsible company in British

Columbia last year, and eventually apologized. As I mentioned

before I certainly give her credit for apologizing.

But the wrong was done. It takes years and years of

conscientious management and effort and awareness for a company

or a product to gain a legitimately good reputation. That

reputation and those years of work and years and years of

dollar input can be dashed to the ground within a matter of

minutes by an irresponsible statement or perhaps a false

statement. Again I would ask the Minister: what effective

procedure are you going to establish to protect the innocent

from — not intentional, I'm sure — unintentional or accidental

errors on her

part in promoting certain products or damning

other products, or those who are affected by the words of her

officials.

HON. MS. YOUNG: In the matter of regional differences in the

cost of food, I think we will be looking into this sort of thing this

summer to some degree. You're right, there are some discrepancies and

there needs to be an overview taken to find out the whys.

As far as naming products, we would not name them unless we

were taking action against them, unless they became a matter of

public record. Therefore it would be before the courts, so

either we win or lose or whatever.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) wanted to

know if I would tell people whether they should buy imported or

domestic products, or what to do. I'd advise consumers to check

the product, the price, the place of origin and to make their

own choice. Some people happen to like little ears of corn that

come from Taiwan. I don't know why they do, but I'm certainly

not going to tell them not to buy little ears of corn from

Taiwan because maybe we have good trading relationships with

Taiwan.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) referred to dental

charges. I concur with him; they are interesting and we may be

taking a look sometime at just how they arrive at their fee

schedules. I won't give you a time or anything of that matter

because, as I say, we're still getting it all together.

In the matter of toxic substances, of course the federal

authorities are alerted to this. But we have now with our

department an additional communications branch for them to

advertise, and also a facility to recall some of the products

on their behalf. In other words, they won't be the only ones

who will have to disseminate the information. Perhaps we can

assist them in this, get the information out and also set up

recall centres. Say it is chocolates. The local communities

will be able to get them faster on behalf of the federal

authorities.

MRS. JORDAN: I have a question I would like to ask the

Minister. A number of years ago, in fact about four years ago,

there was a book printed in British Columbia called "Women and

the Law in British Columbia." This was a serious attempt to

take the more common Acts, the more common legislation in

British Columbia, translate it into an understandable form of

this as a guide to what their rights were and where they might

go or follow up for more information in an area where they felt

they had been offended. It was clearly stated that this was not

a legal guide and was in no way to be interpreted as such. In

spite of the fact that there was great concern that the legal

fraternity would be distressed by this type of publication, it

was a huge success and 20,000 booklets were distributed without

any advertising in less than two months.

The book was in the process of revision at the change of

administration. The information is housed in the

Attorney-General's department and in the Women's Bureau of the

Department of Labour. While it now to a certain extent will be

out of date, I would

[ Page 1425 ]

urgently request that the Minister undertake the republishing of

"Women and the Law in British Columbia," that this be revised and

that it be put

out in a form which has holes in it in order that it can be used as a loose-leaf manual so that amendments can be put in.

It's merely a matter of about $10,000 for around 40,000 copies. I

have seven packing crates in my office at home of requests for this

book. I have no objection if it comes out under your name; that's not important. It was a very useful function to the public. It did compile a lot of information in which more detail can be

obtained by reference to which department.

The Minister might be interested to know that I I found it was used

as a simplified guide by many I barristers in this province. They used

to sit there very professorily and say: "Yes, yes, let me think now." They'd open their bottom drawer and thumb through "Women and the Law in British Columbia." I'd urge the

Minister to do this.

There's just one other point I want to make. It's with regret

because I believe this Minister is most sincere in trying to carry out

her responsibilities. She has been absolutely hamstrung on any of the major issues by the

policies of her own government. We appreciate her concern and her

efforts. When they're genuine, we will support them. We can't let this

salary go through without commenting on the fact that the Minister

has been prepared to tackle many issues, but because of the control

imposed by the Premier of this province or her colleagues, whenever she

comes up against something that's really tough, that is major and

requires a tough decision in light of public opinion and coming down on

the side of right, she has to back off. She has to back off so quickly,

Mr. Chairman, you'd almost think she needs backup lights.

The area has been canvassed; I won't go over it. Again,"Jonathan Livingston" came in on it today: this whole matter of ICBC and the business practices of ICBC in

relation to its overcharging in premiums, gaining interest on those

premiums, changing the premiums and not making any effort to notify the

public, and not paying interest on the overcharging of the premiums.

I'm led to believe, in fact, they are even making a service charge.

It appears, in spite of her own efforts, this Minister is being

charged with using the big stick on the private sector and the love pat

on the government sector. There is no question that the policy of the

government is to let this Minister operate in the areas of consumer

interests on a selected basis. She is not going to be able to carry out

her responsibility of applying the same demands in terms of proper

business practice and proper business intent in the government sphere

as she is in the private sector.

It is with regret that I have to say this epitomizes he attitude of

this government. It's a holier-than-thou attitude that implies it has

two standards: one for the public and one for the business sector,

which go together, and one for itself. It implies that Big Brother

government can do no wrong, Big Brother government knows best and Big

Brother government will use the big stick on the consumer and the

private sector. It will let ICBC in its business practices rip-off the

public and it will only allow a very dedicated Minister to stand by and

smile.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Consumer Affairs would have

done well in vaudeville because of her soft-shoe, sidestepping

effect. I wasn't talking about little corncobs from Taiwan; I

was talking about a product that is manufactured in Canada and

one that is manufactured in Taiwan. I would like an answer as to

what your attitude is going to be.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I gave you my answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's not your attitude at all. We don't

grow little corncobs in British Columbia; they are only grown in

Taiwan.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, typical; no more answers, no

satisfaction.

Vote 37 approved.

On vote 38: general administration, $1,089,244.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in your estimates book. It's

$1,089,244.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't seagulls wear glasses?

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister explain to me, not in great

detail, the Trade Practices Branch. What exactly is going to be

the function of this particular branch?

HON. MS. YOUNG: The Trade Practices Branch will be

responsible for carrying out the department's regulatory

licensing, complaint actions, investigative activities, and

developing enforcement programmes for a number of consumer

protection statutes and to operate the storefront consumer

services offices.

MRS. JORDAN: I think you asked what the duties of the public

information officer too will be. If in fact he is to compile

suggest that he's grossly underpaid, I would suggest he's

grossly overpaid. I'd like the Minister's comments on what his

duties will

[ Page 1426 ]

be and whether in fact he's going to be just a public

relations officer like the Minister of Education has with these

big ads — "Go to college, Hon. Dilly Dally Dailly" — this sort

of thing, or whether there's going to be something more

challenging for him.

The Minister under this vote in her estimates estimated that

there would be four storefront offices in British Columbia. I

would respectfully suggest and ask her to comment on the fact

that there's a need to have a consumer access area not just in

the lower mainland or the metropolitan area or even in the

Kamloops area or the Kelowna area. There's a need to have

access to someone for guidance as to where to go for

information or more detailed services in nearly every community

in this province.

I would suggest, Madam Minister, that you utilize the

present government buildings all around the province. It

doesn't need to be a big office. It doesn't even have to be

staffed full-time. You might even start by using someone who's

within the system now, such as a court reporter or someone

affiliated with the court who actually utilizes half their time

in the court and the rest of their time doing clerical work,

when in fact they'd be better qualified to meet the demands of

your department and the consumer department and the consumer.

You might establish these people all around the province as

information officers. If the demand grows, utilize resource

people within the community who would not be in the office all

the time, but would be available — people who are semi-retired

business people and men and women who have been in

business.

I mentioned dietary functions. I didn't mean you to hire

dietitians, I meant you to utilize the service of a retired

dietitian or retired home economics teacher of an active

dietitian or home economics teacher on a consultative basis. If

you find that there are four or five people in a community who

need this service in conjunction with consolidation of debt

actions as well as your own office, then it would be sufficient

to have them come in on a basis of teaching a programme, not

necessarily being hired all the time. It wouldn't necessarily

have to go through the Minister of Health.

I was anxious to know within your educational programme if

you have made provision to utilize community resources people,

but bring them to Victoria or take them to a central point for

a short training course, bringing them up to date on

information relating to the consumer that they wouldn't have

otherwise, giving them a programme on how to go about budget

counseling and perhaps how to go about dietary counseling.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I

think the Hon. Member's suggestions are excellent. As far as

the public information officer is concerned, it will be a

public information officer.

In other words, it will be issuing newsletters, et cetera.

If you claim it's grossly underpaid, I tend to agree with

you.

MRS. JORDAN: It depends on what he does.

Vote 38 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

On vote 39: Minister's office, $77,408.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, when

I accepted this portfolio 18 months ago, two of my major

concerns — there were many, of course — were to provide first

of all additional resources for our whole public education

system, which has suffered from very serious neglect over the

previous years under the policies of the former government.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would have to spend almost an hour, Mr.

Member — special education services, class sizes, capital

construction, the very areas I'm going to mention now which we

put money and resources into.

One of my major concerns, of course, was not only to ensure

that we would put back into the system the very necessary

resources for a good learning environment, but I also had a

concern that we would be able to create a climate throughout

the whole province for good, frank, open discussion on

educational issues.

Unfortunately, I think, under the former government, the

main concerns of the school board and generally the public were

entirely based on the financial problems, because they

superseded at that time almost every other problem. Therefore

when it came down to basic discussions of what was going on in

the school system, we didn't find there was too much

opportunity for those discussions. Boards and parents, et

cetera, were entirely caught up in a climate of school freezes

and financial cutbacks.

So I believe that our government has achieved, 18 months

later, two of these basic objectives. We have put far more

resources into the school system and we have certainly created,

I believe, a climate for public discussion on educational

issues.

As a matter of fact, when it comes to resources, the Member was just

asking me to name some. We've certainly put much more money into

special educational services. There have been approximately 1,500 new

teachers added to the public school systems since we came into office.

This is before we even attempted to start on the concentrated

three-year drop in the pupil-teacher ratio.

[ Page 1427 ]

We have allotted far more moneys into capital expenditures

for public schools and colleges. During the budget debate, I

elaborated on many of these areas in which our government has

moved to create what we consider to be a far better system for

our children and adults in the province in education. So I

don't intend to repeat that at this particular time.

Speaking of the climate for change, approximately 2,500

letters a month are received in our office. We average at least

2,500. These letters are primarily letters, as I said earlier

in the House, from concerned citizens, parents, students, and

teachers about all aspects of education, from kindergarten

right through to post-secondary.

We have taken note of all these letters. We have attempted

to answer the majority of them. We have filed away the ones

that we considered had very concrete, positive suggestions for

change. We have established during the last 18 months, as

you're aware, a university task force which has been engaged in

a review of the university governance and the relationship of

government and universities. Their final report will be brought

down very shortly, and it's hopeful that we will be ready to

produce complete legislation in the fall.

The task force on community colleges, as you know, has just

completed its first interim report. The members of that task

force will be starting a tour of the province to get the

reaction to that report within the next two months. Of course,

there's also been the special royal commission report on the

Kootenays and the post-secondary needs there. There has been a

major conference on the whole area of teacher training, which

will be followed by in-depth studies of the needs and perhaps

the new things one should be looking at in the whole area of

teacher training.

We have found that the school boards have been most

co-operative in holding public discussions in their schools on

educational issues. Many of the school boards had been doing

this before on their own initiative. Our attempt was to ensure

that all citizens in all our schools had an opportunity to talk

about educational issues. A great number of answered

questionnaires have been sent into the research department for

study on the reaction from those discussions.

From certain areas there's been considerable pressure on the

Minister of Education and the department to bring in very

specific legislation to reform the whole system. I know

everyone is waiting and saying: "Why don't you bring in and

completely change that whole system?" However, it appears to me

that it's wrong to try and use legislation alone to accomplish

educational reform. Certainly it's needed, but not alone.

This is true for two reasons. First, we want reform of our system

that will truly meet the needs of the students out there. Reform must

result from a very planned action and approach which considers all

parts of the school system, not just isolated parts.

Implementation of reform must always have the co-operative

effort of a major number of people in the community and in

school system.

Public school reform must not only be desirable, but we want

it to work for the best of the students in the province. We

must implement change, but we must also always keep in mind

that there are practices and programmes existing right now in

the schools of our province which are excellent. We don't

intend to throw them all out.

Educational reform must provide for our differences as well

as for our common objectives. Instead of producing far-reaching

legislation this session which may or may not have been

possible to implement — because you must have the co-operation

of the people out there — I have taken what I consider to be a

more realistic view and that is to give the House first and

then the public some basic issues for consideration.

You know, the Member for Point Grey considers that we should

have it ready now. I'm sure he, above all, who has had a number

of children go through the system, would be rather disturbed, I

think, if I tried to turn the whole system completely around in

one piece of legislation. That is not our intent.

We waited many, many years for a change. We don't intend to

rush into it under pressure and then find out we haven't been

able to implement some of the very high hopes and expectations

out there.

Instead of that, at this time, as you know, we have produced

a bill — which I can't talk about, and which we will discuss

later when it comes up — that has to do with some direction of

change in education. But I've also put on your desks today a

very small paper, but one which I want to assure you has taken

a considerable amount of thought and discussion to produce.

This paper basically outlines what we in the department have

found to be the major issues which have come before us during

the last 18 months, and the directions and the areas which we

think must be looked at very seriously. It does not mean that

this is going to delay needed reform. It simply means that when

we talk about reform we want to talk about the whole structure

of the system and know exactly in what direction we should be

going. We want the public to be involved in that change.

Very briefly, I just want to outline for you what the issues

are. One of the first is the whole area of authority and

responsibility. I'd like to read to you at this time what I

consider a pertinent part of this particular issue. That is

where we state in the paper that the structure of the system

should be redesigned in such a way that authority and

responsibility are distributed more appropriately, keeping in

mind the principle that the primary relationship in education

[ Page 1428 ]

between the teacher, the pupil and the parent, and that

other parts of the system must be in support of that

relationship.

I think that will be a

section which should be widely

discussed. I'm sure that the teachers and the trustees will be

most interested in this and will assist us in finding out if

that system out there is truly supportive of the child. This

will mean that we will be examining the present administrative

structures within the school system and their relationship to

the teacher, the student and the parent.

Then, of course, the other vital area is programming what

actually goes on in the school. What should the young people in

our system be learning? We stress in the paper that one of the

most important functions of any school system.... You know, one

could spend hours trying to make a philosophical statement on

the direction of education.

We did take the