1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

1125 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services estimates.

On vote 32.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1125

Hon. Ms. Young — 1128

Mrs. Webster — 1130

Hon. Ms. Young — 1131

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1132

Hon. Ms. Young — 1132

Mrs. Webster — 1132

Hon. Ms. Young — 1132

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1132

Hon. Ms. Young — 1134

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1135

Hon. Ms. Young — 1135

Mr. Phillips — 1135

Hon. Ms. Young — 1135

Mr. Phillips — 1135

On vote 33.

Mr. Phillips — 1135

Hon. Ms. Young — 1136

Mr. Phillips — 1136

Hon. Ms. Young — 1136

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1137

Mr. Chabot — 1137

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 1138

Hon. Ms. Young — 1140

Mr. Morrison — 1140

Mr. Phillips — 1140

Mr. Morrison — 1141

Mr. Chabot — 1141

Mr. Phillips — 1142

Mr. Chabot — 1144

Appendix — 1145

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 32: general administration, $1,798,344.

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

we adjourned for dinner I had posed one question to the Minister with respect

to the establishment in her department. If I may take the time of the committee,

I would repeat that in the previous fiscal year there were 45 members of her

department, and now it would appear that for the current fiscal year she proposes

to have 68. I'd like to know to what extent the Minister has been able to fill

that commitment as of this time. Does she have 68 people in her department filling

the categories which are listed in this vote and also in the previous one and,

if not...the extent to which she finds herself to be short?

In addition to that particular item, there are some matters in the expense

item of this particular vote which give me some concern. We have spent four

hours this afternoon discussing with the Minister her general responsibilities

in the matter of consumer services. I find to my regret that the Department

of Consumer Services appears to be one of a passive nature. It appears not be

taking any activity on its own, but rather to be responding to complaints which

are directed to the department by members of the community. When complaints

are received, then the department takes some kind of action.

Unfortunately, this is not what we were led to believe when the Minister was

first appointed to head this department. I had thought that the consumers would

have been better served if there had been a more active role on the part of

this department.

The Minister mentioned that the department, when it had received advice as

to certain transgressions of the legislation in this province, took action to

petition companies into bankruptcy, and thereby to preserve to the creditors

of those various companies moneys that might otherwise have been lost. But,

you see, this is a passive role, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the consumer

is only served if the department functions in some other way.

The Minister also indicated that it was her responsibility or the responsibility

of members of her department to receive requests for information. Then, when

unable to fill those requests, those inquiries were passed on to other government

departments, either in the provincial government or in the federal service.

It seems to me that we should have expected on the part of the consumers of

this province some indications from the Minister that there was a greater liaison

between her departments and also between the departments of the federal government.

If otherwise is not the case, then again the consumer in British Columbia is

not being served by this particular department, and, as one Member has had occasion

to suggest earlier today, this department doesn't need a Minister at all. It

could really be better served if it was made a division of the Department of

the Attorney-General.

I'm not suggesting this is what should take....

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You're against the consumers.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not suggesting that this is what should take

place in respect to this department. This is why I think that the Minister must

respond with respect to some of the items of expenditure which are in this vote.

The Minister of Public Works would suggest that I'm against the consumer. Just

the opposite is true, Mr. Chairman. I'm very much on the side of the consumer.

I would hope that the government would respond by ensuring that this department

is enabled to fulfill that role where the consumer would be served. As a matter

of fact, when I think of the actions of the Minister of Public Works, I think

that maybe there should be some very careful consideration to the way in which

the citizen in British Columbia is served by his department. We will come to

deal critically with that, I hope, in a short space of time.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You'd better speed up.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that there will be adequate time to deal

with the Minister of Public Works. It will take all of three or four minutes

to demolish the performance that he has displayed to the people of British Columbia

in this year.

But if I may ask the Minister a further question in this regard, I notice that

in this vote she has a branch which is called legal services branch, consisting

of three clerk-stenographers. Obviously the professional assistance in this

regard is, as the estimates indicate, provided by the Department of the Attorney-General.

I would like to know to what extent personnel is available to the Minister from

the Department of the Attorney-General in this respect because one of the aspects

of consumer services that must cause the greatest concern is the ability of

the consumer in British Columbia to receive advice in advance of

[ Page

1126 ]

engaging himself or herself in business transactions in this province. It has

been my experience as a practising lawyer that it is far more valuable to advise

an individual in advance of a transaction as to the pitfalls which may face

that individual than it is to attempt to extricate that individual from the

problems which result after the event.

If this Consumer Services department is to provide a meaningful

service to people throughout the length and breadth of the province,

then there is one service that they must provide and that is to give

them some legal advice in advance of entering into a transaction,

whether it is buying a television set, a refrigerator, a used car,

before entering into a lending transaction, or whatever the case may

be. That is the stage at which advice is most important to the

consumer, and, indeed, it is at that stage that the advice is the least

expensive to give. I'll deal with that problem of the expense to be

encountered in giving advice after the moment in a short while. So I

would like to know from the Minister the extent to which she receives

legal services from the Department of the Attorney-General in her legal

services division.

There are some other items in the expense list which I would like the Minister

to comment upon. I notice that in the previous fiscal year $40,000 was available

to this Minister for consultive services. In the forthcoming year the Minister

expects, or is budgeting to spend $144,400 for consultive services. I would

like to know what is involved in that respect. In asking the question as to

what is involved in consultive services I would like the Minister to indicate

specifically whether or not consultive services include that legal assistance

which her department is seeking from members of the legal profession outside

the legal services made available to her by the Department of the Attorney-General.

We have recently been treated in the press to releases by this Minister of

actions which are being taken by her department for the very first time. It

almost sounds like the Russian technique. This is the first time anyone has

done this and we must all recognize, I am sure, that with the legislation which

we now have in this province it is the first opportunity there has ever been

for this kind of action to be taken. At the same time, I know that in order

to maintain the actions which the Minister and her department are taking she

is engaging the services of some very distinguished members of the legal profession

outside the Department of the Attorney-General. I would like to know what the

costs of those services are and whether or not they are included within this

vote of $144,400 for consultive services.

The next item of expenditure which comes as a bit of a surprise to me, considering

that the budget for this department has doubled this year from $1.2 million

to $2.5 million, is to recognize that with respect to consumer information and

education the amount which is budgeted is not greater this year but less by

something like $35,000. Last year the Minister budgeted to spend $225,000 on

this aspect which Members of her own party and Members of the opposition have

suggested is one of the appropriate services which this department should render

— the education, the dissemination of information. All of this is suggested

as being an area which this department does with credit, and yet for the forthcoming

year we find that the budget for such information and educational services is

to be decreased.

I think that the committee is entitled to have some explanation from the Minister

as to why she proposes to spend less on what must be one of the most worthwhile

and effective long-range programmes which her department can carry out. To go

into the schools at all levels, to carry on community education programmes to

encourage the citizens of this province to recognize the pitfalls which confront

them as they go into business transactions must be one of the most important,

and perhaps least expensive, ways that this government has of ensuring that

consumerism is properly served in British Columbia. But we are spending less

money. I think that the citizens are entitled to know why.

I also notice that there is a new item of expense called "business liaison

and information — $60,000," and I urgently wish from the Minister some advice

as to how that money will be expended. I trust it will be expended in a way

which she indicated was made evident to her during her recent trip to Australia

as being worthwhile.

The Minister talked about what her department has done: receiving information

from various groups; community groups have been of great assistance to her.

But it is clear to me, unfortunately, that one thing the Minister has failed

to do is to go out and meet with those various trade organizations in the province

in order that she may make known to them and to their members precisely what

she and her department expects of people in that particular segment of the business

community. If this $60,000 is to be expended in this particular function, then

I would commend the Minister. But I wait to hear from her as to the way in which

she approaches this particular problem.

It's all very well to say that there are certain segments of commerce which

are not living up to the standards that the Minister thinks are appropriate.

But you've got to bring this home to these groups.

We had a debate before the dinner hour with the Minister and the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) dealing with one particular subject, and that is

the performance of companies and individuals in this province who deal with

the sale of meat in a particular manner. Obviously this has created some problems

in the eastern part of the province.

[ Page

1127 ]

Until the Minister drives home to people who engage in that particular segment

of business what their responsibilities are, she can't expect to have any real

improvements in the standard that is adhered to by this group.

If you want to complain about the used-car dealers, you've got to meet with

the used-car dealers and suggest to them that what they are doing is not good

enough. If you want to criticize the encyclopedia salesmen, then you've got

to meet with the people who publish, distribute encyclopedias and say: "Look,

what you are doing in the Province of B.C. is not good enough for us. Your sales

techniques are wrong, you are confusing your buyers and we're not going to stand

for it." Each segment of the commercial community must be approached in that

way. I trust that if this $60,000 is to be made worthwhile it will be handled

and used for that purpose.

Now we have two items of investigations: Ministerial investigations and directors'

investigations. I wonder if the Minister would just please advise the committee

that makes those investigations why there is a distinction between investigations

conducted by the Minister and investigations conducted by the directors.

I assume it is the director under the Trade Practices Act, but I'm not sure

because it doesn't make that clear from the wording of the estimates.

As the Second Member for Vancouver Burrard (Ms. Brown) pointed out this afternoon,

the Minister, in seeking applicants for positions in her department, has called

for people who have specialized training in commerce and law or in police work.

The Second Member for Burrard has a question as to why it is that so many ex-police

officers are being employed by the department. Well, are they to form part of

the investigative units established under the Department of Consumer Services?

Why is it that in the list of employees in the community programmes branch,

in the administrations branch, in the legal services branch, and so on, there

is not one investigator mentioned there? Yet we have a blanket vote for Ministerial

investigations and directors' investigations totaling $45,000.

It seems to me

that if we're going to have investigative work carried on, it's necessary to

the performance of this department's responsibilities that we should have people

on payroll — identifiable positions in the Minister's department — who have

investigative skills and specific investigative responsibilities.

It seems unusual to me that a department which can only function by seeking

out improper trade practices does not have a staff within that department whose

sole and specific function is to seek out those people who are failing to abide

with the law. It rather looks as if, as I said a few moments ago, the department

functions in a passive role where if someone complains, then we'll investigate.

I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if that is the basis upon which the Minister

is running her department, then she is destined for failure.

The Minister talks about what she was doing with regard to companies who were

on the verge of bankruptcy yet receiving moneys from the general public. You

will not, Madam Minister, stop any of that practice, because you don't know

in time unless and until you have an investigative group within your department

that is seeking out this problem before it erupts as a serious problem through

the unfortunate experience of individuals in our community. If you wait until

a citizen is hurt, if you wait until enough of our citizens are hurt to result

in a complaint to your department, then you're too late. That's why an investigative

service is essential in order to make your consumer department function.

Now the last item of expense that I wish to deal with at this particular moment

is the matter of grants of $120,000. It was not an item in your budget a year

ago and I think that the committee is entitled to know in what manner these

grants are to be awarded and to which groups in the community. On what basis

does any particular individual or group of individuals qualify for a grant?

This must be clearly stated as part of the policy of your department or else

we're encouraged to the conclusion that somehow or other we have a $120,000

fund here that is available to the Minister to meet needs as they may arise

without any real indication as to whether it's carrying forward the policy direction

of the department. It leads to the suggestion that friends of the government

are somehow or other awarded certain moneys from this department.

I would hate to make that charge to the Minister, but if it is a matter of

community service groups then I think it is essential that the Minister spell

out before the committee precisely what criteria there are for community service

groups to obtain grants from your department. There's no question as to the

value that they may serve in assisting the department to discharge its responsibilities,

but unless you make it clear, there is the possibility — indeed, the likelihood

— that responsible community service organizations will lose the opportunity,

and yet some individual or group of individuals who understands the game of

grantmanship will gain the benefit from your department.

As I said a few moments ago, I think that this is a department which doesn't

need a Minister. With a responsible Deputy and senior staff, it could be carried

on as a division of another department of government. But perhaps there is a

way out, and that is if the Minister, in using the staff available to her and

the various amounts of expense money which are contained in these estimates,

can indicate that somehow or other she will take a more active role

[ Page

1128 ]

through her department in advancing consumerism in British Columbia.

It's not good enough for the Minister to suggest to this committee that so

many of the areas of her responsibility lie within the jurisdiction of the federal

government. If, indeed, that is the case, then she should be joining with the

federal department in getting the job done.

The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke about the problem of advertising

on cereal boxes. There's no question that this Minister can't deal with that

matter. But this Minister can make an impact on the problem.

There is the problem I mentioned yesterday in the Minister of Agriculture's

debate on the nutritional quality of food that is available for children in

our schools. If you just zeroed in actively on that one particular problem and

brought some order out of the chaos that exists in school cafeterias, that would

be justification for your Ministry.

The Minister spoke (I think she was then a Minister Without Portfolio) about

the problem that she herself experienced in buying a pair of shoes which broke

down after a very few weeks of service. If she were actively to pursue that

particular problem which faces many men and women in this province — the quality

of the product that is available in the stores — and produce some positive results,

then it might justify her Ministry.

These are the things that bother consumers. All of us in this province who

daily go to our stores and make purchases are bothered with these problems:

shirts that shrink, clothes that are ill-fitting, sizes that don't match. All

of these things affect the consumer, because a dollar that is spent on something

that is not worthwhile to the consumer is a dollar lost. That is where it really

counts with consumers.

Certainly, if you are misled in advertising, that must be stopped. But it is

relatively simple to do. Unless and until you can zero in on these personal

problems which are much too small to resolve in class action or are much too

small to involve your director in a serious investigation but are constantly

annoying and of serious cost to consumers, for those are the areas in which

you can make the greatest impact, you do not discharge your responsibility.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I am rather surprised

at what the Hon. Member has said in view of what I believe were past remarks

by him relating to my department when the enabling legislation was first being

discussed in this House. I believe that he was afraid my department would go

off on witch hunts and that we would have a lot of "super-snoopers." I think

that was the expression used.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Quote the quote.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Maybe I am wrong; maybe it was another Member of the

House. But I do recall that there was some hesitancy over there relative to

us dancing out into the public and willy-nilly investigating just for the sake

of investigating. Now he criticizes us for what he calls taking a passive role

of only dealing with a problem when we have received a complaint.

I would like to advise the Member that that is untrue. We have over a dozen

assurances of voluntary compliance, most of which were not a result of a single

complaint or several complaints or of a complaint, period. I know of two of

them dealing with Imperial Oil and Texaco that were instituted strictly because

we saw the error and we drew it to their attention and got the AVC.

The Member feels that we are very passive. It is interesting that The Globe

and Mail of March 25 in a very comprehensive

article starts out with the sentence:

"The capital of consumer protection in Canada has moved to Victoria." They are

right on. We are noted throughout the country as having the most progressive

department in the whole country.

As far as investigations go, we have made an investigation that I think the

Member remembers. We have taken action in the matter of tax rebaters. If the

Member has read the press recently, we have taken action in the matter of Household

Finance Co. None of these were as a result of a complaint. There will be other

actions taken in the near future as a result of investigations by my department.

The Member wanted to know, first of all, about the lawyers we have with the

department. We have assigned or seconded to us two lawyers from the Attorney-General's

office and we have one lawyer on contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two.

HON. MS. YOUNG: We also, through the good services of the Attorney-General's

office, retain outside counsel in many cases.

He asked about investigators. How come there were no investigators listed?

My, he has left the chamber. Isn't that a shame? He mentioned there were no

investigators listed here. What in the world did we do without investigators?

Well, for his information, there is no category in the public service entitled

"investigator." It is entitled "administrative officer l," and that is how

it is so listed: "administrative officer 1" We have seven investigators on staff.

We have two retired detectives on contract who are actively investigating at

all times. We have the best squad doing our review work. They are doing an extremely

thorough job, the results of which will be seen in the not-too-distant future.

The Member wondered about advising people in advance before they entered into

contracts. Naturally

[ Page

1129 ]

we do that. If somebody inquires, that is what our information facilities are

for. This is where the 10,000 phone calls a month come from that your colleague

was complaining about. They call up and ask advice relative to purchases, relative

to contract terms, relative to warranties and guarantees, before they buy. These

are some of the information points that are requested, and this is where our

education comes in. A great deal of our budget is going into education and information,

because quite obviously, as I pointed out earlier, that's the whole purpose;

a well-educated consumer will not have need for the services of the department.

You ask, sir, why there was a reduction in the information and education part

of our budget from last year to this year, and also regarding the business liaison

that we have $60,000 set aside for. Well, in last year's budget, we had $225,000

assigned to both of those functions. They came under the one function. In this

budget they have been separated, and the total amounts are now $250,000. The

$35,000 for information and education is now included in the consultative services

and the business liaison which was there previously is now separated. That is

for the purpose of the very thing you were stating: for discussing these matters

with trade associations, with members of the business community when a problem

arises, before we take action. This is the very point I made earlier.

We have discussed many times with many trade associations — I have appeared

at meetings with them, members of my department have appeared at countless meetings

with them. I can't give you the number of speaking engagements that the members

of my department fulfil each week and each month. They are innumerable. And

we are, just in the next two weeks, having four full-day seminars, sponsored

by the University of British Columbia, for the business community. We will go

to any trade group, any chamber of commerce, any industry association at just

about any time they ask us to speak. We're very desirous of doing that, I think,

if you check with some of your colleagues in the business community, they will

tell you they have received full cooperation and information from this department.

You ask about Ministerial investigations and directors' investigations. A directors'

investigation, quite naturally, pertains to violations or possible violations

under the Trade Practices Act. I would refer you to

section 9 of the Act, where,

if the director has reason to believe that an action is about to take place,

has taken place, or is taking place, he has the right to investigate. That is

where his investigation comes in. We have quite a few investigations underway

at this particular time.

Investigations at the Ministerial level may deal with a broad subject, such

as house warranties — looking into the feasibility, the possibility and how it

can be done. Another example is warranties and guarantees — how this can be

done at the provincial level. This is a Ministerial investigation.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Who does it?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Usually we hire outside experts. The prepaid service

inquiry was a Ministerial investigation. The one dealing with the standards

used by the media in accepting advertising was one of these Ministerial investigations.

So these are some of the things that we do.

He asked about our community programmes. Who gets them? How are they selected?

The guidelines are published; they're fully published, and anybody who wants

to apply may do so. They are thoroughly investigated and vetted to make sure

that (1) they fulfil an existing need in a community, (2) there is not a duplication

of service in a community, (3) they have community support. They are thoroughly

looked at from all of those views and interviewed.

I can tell you that right now we've given a grant to the Consumers' Association

of Canada, which enabled them to hire a full-time complaint officer to handle

complaints and also to provide secretarial help, something they've never had

before. They're extremely pleased with that. An example is one that the Member

for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) mentioned in Mission — their community services there.

Another one that has recently been awarded is in the City of Nelson where the

local Human Resources board made the recommendation there, and the organization

receiving the grant had the full support of the community.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Where is he tonight?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Those are merely examples of the way we go about making

grants under the community programme.

The Member wanted to know if it would be possible to recruit these people.

Yes, we're in the process of recruiting some of them. Some of them will only

be recruited after the next office is open. In other words, in our estimates

we're anticipating a half-year's salary rather than a full year because we do

not plan to open another office until the latter part of the year. Of course,

these people must be recruited, they must be trained, and all the other work

that goes into obtaining premises for them and the necessary furniture, telephone

lines, et cetera.

As far as recruitment goes, we have absolutely no trouble recruiting for this

department. I know we have over 1,000 applications, and I'm sure it's higher

than that now. It must be up to about 1,500 or 1,600 applications for this department

because people are

[ Page

1130 ]

so desirous of working for us.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many have you got?

HON. MS. YOUNG: How many what?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many have you got of the 68 employees?

HON. MS. YOUNG: We have 47 on staff now. We have some people who are

listed as temporary, and they will become established staff. There are 15 of

those. It's simply because the work is overwhelming. The volume of work is far

greater than we anticipated and we simply had to have the people. They are now

on temporary and will be changed to established staff.

In the administrative services we need new people there in order just to handle

the payroll and the personnel records of the department. In legal services we

need more clerical aid. Because of the great need for information and education,

we are broadening that aspect of our community programmes group.

[Ms. Brown in the chair.]

In the matter of trade practices we definitely need more trained personnel

because of the numbers of investigations we are conducting. Right now, some

of our people are so overworked that I don't enjoy seeing them taking work home

on the weekend. They're doing it every weekend; they're staying until all hours

of the night. I'm just fed up with that, personally. I just don't think that

people should have to work 12 to 16 hours a day, six and seven days a week.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

HON. MS. YOUNG: That's what they're doing. They're pretty tired. If

you want to find out, I suggest you just walk into one of the offices and talk

confidentially to any of the staff members there. They love their jobs but they

are working very hard and dealing with people who are very upset from a recent

emotional experience they may have had, or believe they may have had, through

a misunderstanding.

I think I've answered all the Members' questions. We are initiating investigations.

I think that under the terms of the legislation, to protect everybody concerned,

it is not worthwhile or conducive to good relations to identify the people or

firms or organizations being investigated at this time. If we feel that there

are grounds, we will take action under the legislation, as we have the right

to do. The courts will adjudicate the matter. So we're certainly not sitting

around waiting for complaints to come in. Far from it.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I just have one or two short questions

for the Minister, and they relate to the educational programmes that her department

is planning and that she speaks about.

In her bulletin I noticed that she says that there are educational kits that

have been prepared by the Consumer Services department for teachers on consumer-related

subjects, which will be particularly useful in the grade 11 and grade 12 levels.

Also, she has mentioned a business seminar for April 16 in relation to consumer

education.

This is what I would like to ask: will these kits contain anything in relation

to metrication? Right now we've just changed over from Fahrenheit to Celsius

on the temperature scale and a lot of people are very, very confused about this.

I don't think that has too much to do with consumer education, but we are also

warned that by September practically everything is going to be in grams and

kilograms and litres and decalitres, et cetera. It's no longer going to be in

pints and quarts and measures that we are familiar with. That in itself is going

to create a great deal of confusion to the consumer — much more confusion to

the adult consumer than to the student in the high school or to the student

in the elementary school.

It will also create a great deal of confusion because there are price differences.

A litre of milk is not as large as a quart of milk. What is the price comparison

going to be? Things of that kind.... Is the Department of Consumer Services

preparing educational material along that line?

Also, in reading from Business in B.C. for March, I believe, there was a very

interesting

article on Dairyland. The management of Dairyland say that one of

their problems is going to be the changeover from the type of equipment they

have now into the equipment that they will require for the metric system. They've

said:

"There is a necessity to move into the metric measurement

in the near future — a most expensive change — with confusion compounded by the

requirement to switch into bilingual labelling."

They have also mentioned in another part of their bulletin:

"Dairyland is a brand name on a variety of products from

milk to ready-to-eat puddings, three types of yogurt, fruit juices, fruit drinks,

butter and ice cream. The "Pacific" label is found on evaporated milk, skim

milk powder, instant chocolate powder and buttermilk powder. Several hundred

packages of myriads of shapes and sizes are used to carry this variety of products

to the consumer. There are more than 100 kinds of ice cream packages alone.

[ Page

1131 ]

"In changing over to the metric system, no one is sure how

much the change will cost. But when it is completed, the cost will be tremendous.

To alter the package of one ice cream product alone" — one ice cream product

alone — "could well cost over $40,000. Every carton will have to be redesigned

and every machine handling that carton will have to be replaced."

You can imagine what the cost will be; you can imagine the increase in cost

of these products, because that cost will eventually be passed on to the consumer.

Surely Dairyland and the other businesses are not going to absorb that cost

themselves; they're going to pass it on. Is there any preparation being done

by the Department of Consumer Services to prepare the public for this to evaluate

the costs that might be entailed, of the differences in prices?

Also, in relation to the fact that all labelling will have to be done bilingually,

is there going to be any consumer education concerning bilingual labelling? Also,

is the Consumer Services department looking into the matter of, for instance,

toys and other materials that might be coming in from the United States or Britain

where they are not interested in putting bilingual labels on their packages?

We may have to put these labels on the packages through our own services if

we are going to be able to sell them in Canada. Now these are some of the questions

I would like the Minister to reply to.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I am glad the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South

brought up the metric system because we are working with the federal government

on this matter. A member of our department is a member of the advisory committee

of the metric commission. Included in the educational kit will be a metric cube

which gives liquid and hard measurements as well as distance and measurements

of that nature.

I would just like to say in passing that in Australia they have gone metric

already in just about every regard, and as pointed out in one of the news magazines,

they did it cold turkey — they just went. There seems to be virtually no problem.

People are used to metric. They just plain got used to it. The only area that

I saw the old measurements being used was in the matter of weights, and they

are still selling bananas at two and a half pounds for 30 cents. In fact, in

tomatoes, vegetables and that sort of thing, they were selling it. I don't know

if they were selling meat on metric or not but everybody, I hope, knows by now

that 500 grams is roughly one pound of meat. We are working with the federal

government, and they have been responsible for this. They have been working

on this for three years and they have advised and been working with the packaging

industry on the problems arising from the conversion to metric.

MRS. WEBSTER: Will this be in the educational kits? Will those kits

be available to adult consumers as well as to students and schools?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I believe we can get them on behalf of the adults. They

are mainly for the schools at the present time, but we can get them on behalf

of the consumers in British Columbia. They can get them from Ottawa direct,

but we certainly can aid in this process. This will be phased in over a period

of time and the packaging industry is aware of it.

As far as bilingualism is concerned, that is a decision of the federal government.

They are aware that the bilingual requirements are causing problems — problems

that they weren't even aware of.

Speaking to the parliamentary secretary for the Hon. Andre Ouellette just recently,

he informed me that where there is a case which will create a hardship to an

importer — let us say that perhaps a Vancouver or a British Columbia importer

is importing dowels or something from the United States — each case will be

judged on its merits. In other words, they are not going to require the importer

to repackage the whole package to make it bilingual, particularly if it is going

to be sold mainly in an area that is unilingual, for instance, in British Columbia.

little flexible on this. They are realizing now that it has caused a considerable

amount of trouble, and will cause a lot of trouble, so they are re-examining

a lot of their positions and redrawing their regulations. That is being phased

in over a period of time.

It was drawn to their attention also that sometimes labels are so small and

also of such a temporary nature that it would just be impossible to get all

the information on a small label in readable size, so sometimes the label would

be bigger than the product. Ottawa is also examining that problem, and they

are having to deal with it too. That's where it's at right now.

I think if we go into metric...from what I saw in Australia, it is working.

There is just no reaction from the people whatsoever. I've queried them about

it. Their first remark was that there was no problem with metric, none whatsoever.

It was a breeze. They had had no trouble converting. In fact, they thought the

greatest thing that ever happened was decimal currency. After they got used

to decimal currency, the rest was very, very simple to them. But, as I say,

it's been phased in over a long period of time by the federal government. We

will be working with them and providing materials to anybody who wishes them.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver – Howe

Sound.

[ Page

1132 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chairman?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister answered a number of questions that

I posed to her, but she didn't indicate what was involved in consultive services,

$144,000. I wonder if the Minister could explain what expenditure is involved

in that category.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, I thought I did, but apparently I didn't put it

in quite those terms. The $144,000 in consultive services is.... You were talking

about the reduction in the amount of the budget in information and education.

Well, this has been put into consultive services.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MS. YOUNG: So, in effect, the....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Look at the estimate book, Phyllis, before you answer.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Take five.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is it lawyers' fees?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Oh, yes, you wanted to know about lawyers' fees and

all that, right. In the consultive services community programmes branch, the

information and education division is getting $36,000. Special investigations

in the trade practices branch is getting $48,000. Miscellaneous research, including

legal research regarding future legislation, $60,400; that's what that is.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Too bad, Al. No extra

money for you.

MRS. WEBSTER: Madam Chairman, I would just like to repeat one question

that I asked the Minister. It is in relation to the cost of changeover for companies,

where they have to change their machinery to the metric type of packaging, et

cetera, where there is going to be a great deal of cost involved. Will her department

be monitoring the cost in relation to the possible increases in the cost to

the consumer of the finished product?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Madam Chairman, in this case this is a federal matter.

The federal government put the packaging industry on alert three years ago that

it was coming and suggested to them that they gear up for this changeover to

phase it in. You will notice that in the matter of many of your toiletry products

this has already been phased in. I can give you toothpaste as an example. You

buy it in 50, 100, and 150 milligram amounts now, but as far as monitoring how

the cost goes, we will certainly keep an eye on that...

MR. GARDOM: How?

HON. MS. YOUNG: ...if there appears to be very obvious differences.

For instance, they found out in Australia that a litre of milk, which I think

was 500 grams, was too small for the existing quart bottle, but the existing

quart bottle could take about 600 grams. So there was a little increase in price

there and they labeled the bottle 600 grams instead of 500 to use the same bottle.

This is one of the problems that you run into. No, we will definitely monitor

if we see anything that is untoward in this matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we have spent a large amount

of time with the Minister indicating she's going to get in and monitor what

the feds are doing on metric, which I think is thoroughly unnecessary. Surely

your very hard-working and overworked civil servants should not go and double

up on what federal people are doing. Even if you get a request from one of your

own backbenchers, surely you should tell her pretty bluntly that, no, you are

going to leave it to the Consumer Affairs department, which is responsible for

handling metric conversion and not have to double up and not have twice the

cost which will result, if you watch closely. I believe I'm quoting you exactly

when I say that "watch closely" is what you're going to do.

Don't do it. Leave it to them. Sure, if things go wrong there are opposition

Members in Ottawa who will be critical. You can be critical yourself when things

go wrong. But for heaven's sake, don't waste the effort of your hard-pressed

little group who are already working 16 hours a day, as you told us, going and

doing something that is somebody else's responsibility. This is the thing that

worried me about the last few minutes of discussion. Sure, there are going to

be problems with the metric conversion — minor ones, major ones, I don't know.

I expect them to be minor, like the Minister. But for heaven's sake, don't get

your people involved in it. Let others do it.

HON. MR. LAUK: What a cheap shot!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your turn comes right next, Mr. Minister of Economic

Development.

What I'd like to know, Ms. Chairperson, is why we have the Simon Fraser University

women's programme — their continuing studies and interdisciplinary studies —

advertising consumer survival, where they have consumer survival course No.

2002. I think it should have been called course No. 1984, where they have topics

that include

[ Page

1133 ]

consuming, women's work in the home, buying happiness, the sales pitch, sex

sells, images of women in advertising, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, self

defence and consumer action. Despite all the money that you're putting into

education, apparently this course has to be paid for. It's just a few lectures

and it will be $12 a throw.

Now it would seem to me that you should be encouraging people to take courses

such as this and that money that you've got in your budget here in this green

book dealing with consumer education should go to help the Simon Fraser women's

programme dealing with consumer affairs. But that's one point.

Another one would be reference to the Minister's own speech of last March 13,

1975, in which she said on page 8:

"An excellent case comes to mind. The mobile home builders

of this province choose to conform to the Canadian Standards Association set

of construction standards. They choose to; they are not required to do so. However,

one manufacturer in Alberta chooses not to conform, nor do several American

manufacturers, all of whom export homes into British Columbia. These homes come

into the province and are substandard to B.C.-built homes.

"What has the local industry asked us to do? Right. Pass

laws requiring that every home built or imported into B.C. meet CSA standards.

Once again, industry comes to government and asks us to interfere. We are studying

the possibilities of such interference because we know it will help the consumer

as well as the industry. I must state, however, that we are merely at the preliminary

stage of studies because we are not all that happy with CSA standards."

I would like to know from the Minister what is happening in this particular

area. The whole problem of mobile homes has been something that we've discussed

on previous occasions in this Legislature over the years. The Consumers Action

League, West Kootenay branch, has headquarters in Nelson and they've had....

Let me quote from their newsletter, volume 3, No. 2:

"In the first two weeks of operation the office has handled 35

cases. The majority of these have to do with the sale of goods, including mobile

homes."

There's an

article shortly after by one Mike Culpepper, West Kootenay, entitled

"Mobile Home Madness." It talks about the government's commission to investigate

mobile homes. He goes on to describe the problems that there are with what he

calls not a mobile home but a pre-fab house. He says: "No building inspector

ever has to approve it."

He talks about the problems of warranty, what happens if the roof leaks, which

is a common complaint, he says. In a second

article in another issue of the

same Consumer Action League News he continues. "Warranties and guarantees flow

like spittle on the lips of a salesman. Like spit, they evaporate." I wonder

what is happening in this area.

Mr. Culpepper complained somewhat bitterly that the parole evidence

section

of the Trade Practices Act has not really been tested in court, and he wants

your department, Madam, to do just that. The examples he gives indicate that

the down payments are often — indeed, as a general rule — not paid back, regardless

if the deal falls through.

"Examples of this practice in the CAL files include refusal

to pay back a deposit and refusal to refund a down payment of $1,000 on a mobile

home that has apparently been discontinued even after the customer put down

his $1,000 for a mobile home of a certain type. Even though the manufacturer

had discontinued it, he still couldn't get his $1,000 deposit back."

Mr. Culpepper goes on to point out that what is needed is to test the Trade

Practices Act in a court of law, in particular with respect to parole evidence.

Now there have been cases on the Trade Practices Act, I understand, and I'd

like to know from the Minister what has happened in this particular area. The

second thing he recommends is that the provincial government must find the means

of providing legal support and information for persons involved in small claims

litigation, et cetera. He thirdly recommends that mobile homes should be subject

to inspection similar to that of automobiles, and it should be illegal to sell

a mobile home that cannot meet certain standards under normal conditions of

climate in British Columbia.

Well, those are three proposals of his. The first and the third, I guess, are

the more critical ones. I wonder whether the Minister, before she gets her vote,

would like to indicate what she has done following along paragraph 2, page 8

of her own speech of a little under a month ago.

Another thing I'd like to mention at this time is an

article that has come

to my attention from Vancouver Magazine . It's called "Waking from the Great

Canadian Dream" and it talks about the problem of mortgages: second, third and

even mortgages of fourth and fifth nature. The

article is detailed and I won't

go into the whole thing at the present time; but there is a very good case here

for a failure....

HON. MS. YOUNG: Wrong department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, okay. If it's the wrong department, I would

presume you mean the

[ Page

1134 ]

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) department. The Minister nods her

head and says: "That's right." It is another example of my colleague for West

Vancouver – Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) being right on when he says that this

particular subject should be under the Attorney-General's department, and not

under a separate Minister.

Could I ask her whether or not the bonus loophole, which is now being put in

to get around the legislation dealing with rates of interest, has been plugged,

or is that, again, something where I must wait for the Attorney-General? I will

give her a moment to have her get some advice on this. But the fact is that

previously when you got, say, a $50,000 mortgage you would have to pay at once

interest in advance. In actual fact you received less money. If the interest

rate were 10 per cent you would receive $5,000 less than the $50,000 you were

contracting for.

In an effort to plug that loophole, the government put in legislation and regulations

dealing with effective rates of interest. But that in turn was overcome by the

unscrupulous — those who did not fulfill the provisions of the disclosure statement

in spirit, even though they did in detail. The latest loophole has the borrower

signing a promissory note which avoids the legal requirements of the disclosure

statement, but has essentially the same effect. Perhaps that also is Attorney-General.

Perhaps, if it is, the Minister would indicate that to me and I'll take it up

with the other Minister when his turn comes.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The Member talks about the need for testing parole evidence

in the courts. We attempted to test that in the Palm Motors case, but Palm Motors

decided they didn't want to try it on for size. But that was the basis of the

case. He claims they told him one thing — they claim they told him something

else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's still not tested.

HON. MS. YOUNG: It is still not tested because in this particular case,

the one case that we took, the dealer caved in and settled out of court. But

we were willing to go to court on behalf of the consumer, and we were willing

to put the whole thing to test.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: It is, I am advised, used every day by the legal-aid

service, it's used every day by consumers, and whether Mr. Culpepper thinks

it needs to be tested in the courts or not, that remains for somebody to bring

a case. It may be us; it may be Mr. Culpepper. I don't know. I find it interesting

that Mr. Culpepper's making all these complaints because he is being funded

by our department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Of course Mr. Culpepper can make complaints and be

funded by your department.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Right. I grant you that, but I would just like to draw

to your attention that in the West Kootenays he is the individual receiving

the grant from our department.

In the matter of mobile homes, this is a very complicated matter. It deals

with Health, Municipal Affairs, Housing, my department, Minister of Finance

— there are about six departments — Transport and Communications....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Warranties.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Warranties — that comes under our department, and we've

done a great deal in this regard for many mobile-home owners, but we want a

comprehensive programme. With the assistance of the Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson), we're working with him to investigate the whole field — and I

mean the whole field. It's a tremendously large field, and we will be assigning

somebody for that, a specific person to do a thorough investigation of every

ramification, not only from land use but from attitudes of municipalities towards

parks to behaviour and actions by park owners, behaviour and actions of mobile

home owners, the industry, the CSA standards — which, in my view, leave a lot

to be desired. They're not as good as they should be. Even the CSA claims they

are preliminary standards, and they didn't come into effect until October, 1972.

So there's a great deal to be done in this field, and we just don't want to

do a lot of Band-aid legislation — which was done previously. Right now, it

comes under six different departments in six different ways.

As far as mortgages go, yes. Real estate, securities and insurance are under

the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). However, Mr.

Ouellette has said that he intends to bring in legislation requiring a true

disclosure — a disclosure of true interest rates — during this session of the

House in Ottawa. He wants this from Ottawa because he wants to amend several

of the Acts dealing with interest, but he wants to create a common standard

across the country. This is an area where the federal Minister has indicated

already that he intends to take action.

You were criticizing that we would be duplicating what Ottawa was doing in

the matter of metrication. This is untrue. I'm not going to lock-step behind

them and monitor them. We are going to work with them. If we can be of assistance

to the federal people in disseminating information, we most certainly will do

this, and this is what I tried to bring out to the Second Member for Vancouver

South (Mrs. Webster).

[ Page

1135 ]

If we see an instance where we believe that it is costing excessive amounts

of money to convert to metric, costing that to the consumer, we will draw the

attention of the federal department to that situation. That is the kind of monitoring

we will do. We will not go out and make sure that everybody's selling the same

litre or the same grams of potatoes that somebody else is selling, that's for

sure. We're not going to do that, but we are going to assist the federal government

in implementing the metric programme. That's the whole object.

You're criticizing us on the one hand for not doing something that the federal

government is doing — so why should we duplicate their efforts? On the other

hand you criticize us because you thought we were going to be duplicating something

they're going to do. Get together.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I mentioned, Madam Chairman, that there was referred

to in the CAL news a mobile home commission of the provincial government. Is

there such a commission? Let me quote again. In Mike Culpepper's

article he

talks about: "Even the provincial government is aroused enough to sponsor 'a

mobile home commission' to investigate." I wonder, is there such a thing in

this area or not? If so, what progress has it made?

HON. MS. YOUNG: There is not a commission at this time. The Department

of Housing and I are working on it together to work out the best means of investigating

the whole matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're really working out the terms of reference

for any group, whatever it might be, that might work.

The second thing is another item I mentioned, the consumer survival programmes

of the SFU women's programmes. These appear to be reasonably expensive — at

least a couple of dollars a lecture — and I wonder whether or not you are indeed

supporting or subsidizing a programme designed to help the housewife, in particular,

in the consumer affairs area. We see great ads; we see all sorts of things

of that nature, but when you have a course of this nature which is right on

what you're meant to be doing, it seems curious that the participants have to

shell out a fairly substantial amount of money. I wonder whether or not you're

funding that women's programme: Consumer Survival 2002.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Madam Chairman, they never asked for any money. They

never asked for any funds. This is the first I've heard of the programme.

MR, D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to ask the Minister.... She mentioned a moment ago that she has 47 people hired now. Does she plan

on going beyond the 68 in the coming year? There are 68 provided for. Do you

plan on going beyond 68 employees in the department?

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, Madam Chairman. We see no need for it now at this

time at all.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: You are recognized, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. (Laughter.)

Would the Minister tell me if she plans on expanding or increasing the number

of offices in the coming year from the number that she has now? Do you plan

on opening more offices than what you have now in the coming year?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Madam Chairman, if the Member had been in the House

earlier he would have heard me speak twice on this. Yes, we are hoping to open

another office later in the second half of the year.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Salmon Arm.

MR. PHILLIPS: So there will only be one more office opened and you do

not plan on going beyond the 68 employees. Then would the Minister explain to

me how come her salary contingency is some $652,683, which is an increase of

approximately....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it is. Well, they're both together, really...which

is approximately 65 per cent of her total payroll including the Minister's office

of $1,083,920? I guess I'm on the wrong vote so I'll just....

Vote 32 approved.

On vote 33: salary contingencies, $673,863.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairman, we have an increase in this department

of 23 people. To look after the salaries of these 23 people, we have a sum of

$419,176. Yet we have salary contingencies of $652,683, which is roughly a 65

per cent increase over the total salary vote, with the increase included. That

to me seems like a tremendous amount of money. In the hardworking Department

of Economic Development, for instance, with a total salary of $1,408,157, he

only has a contingency of $479,600.

HON. MR. LAUK: Is that all?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's all. Yet in the Department

[ Page

1136 ]

of Consumer Services, with a total salary vote some $320,000 less than the

Department of Economic Development, we only have salary contingencies of $479,600.

We're unable to find out what the percentage increase in the civil service payroll

is going to be. We're unable to find out what settlements have been reached.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I guess these are going to be hidden in the secret vaults of the Provincial

Secretary's office until the budget is passed.

I would like the Minister to explain to me, since she has already stated that

she's not going to hire any more than 68 people, how come her salary contingencies

are so high.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: How did you arrive at this figure if you're not planning

on hiring any more people? Even if you give a 50 per cent increase to the top

echelon in the department, you're still allowing a tremendous increase for the

rest of the people in the department.

As was just pointed by one of the other Members of the House, 68 employees

at salary contingencies of $652,000 is getting pretty close to $10,000 per employee.

Maybe the Minister would explain to the committee just how this figure was arrived

at.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The 15 members of the department who have been temporary

are now full-time, and are in that particular figure, as are the estimated salary

increases in the new component bargaining. That's an estimation merely.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Madam Chairman, what you just told me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. (Laughter.)

What the Minister just told me is that the salaries of 15 new people are in

this contingency, and that's not right and it's not true because you already

have an increased salary vote of from $590,444 to $1,009,620, which in itself

is an increase of $419,176. I would suggest that $419,176 doesn't look after

an increase of an additional 15 people. That's a pretty tremendous increase

in itself from last year if it doesn't look after these people.

If the Minister has made a mistake we'll certainly be happy to revise the estimates

at this time. But otherwise I would wish her, once again, to give an explanation

as to the committee where this $652,683 is derived from. I would like the Minister to give me an explanation

about this. This is a fair amount of money; it's hinging on close to three-quarters

of a million dollars. The government could go out and make a lot of refrigerators

and a lot of TVs and a lot of goods on $652,000. But that's not the point.

The point is that I think the Minister owes it to the committee to justify

this figure. We just can't pass these salary contingencies if we feel the figures

are pulled out of the air somewhere. As I say, we are being kept in the dark

thus far in this session, not knowing what the settlements are. Everybody else

seems to know, but the Legislature is kept in the dark.

As I say again, with the greater salary vote in the Department of Economic

Development, a greater salary vote by some $323,000 more, the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has only $479,600 for a contingency vote, which

is some $175,000 less. There has to be some explanation for it. I certainly

would never think of accusing the Minister of padding her salary contingency

vote, but I do think that she has to explain this to the committee before we

are able to pass on it. I, in all consciousness, couldn't really vote on this...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You're unconscious, so what difference

does it make?

MR. PHILLIPS: ...until I really knew what....

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just have to smile at the Minister of Health. He knows

himself that this figure has got to be wrong somewhere. Now we could take a

five-minute recess and let the Minister consult with her accountants. But 65

per cent, Mr. Chairman, a 65 per cent increase, gracious sakes, for 68 people!

Now I realize salaries are going up and the cost of all consultant fees are

going up. But 65 per cent. That's over 50 per cent. That's 15 per cent over

50 per cent.

Are you ready to answer, Madam Chairman?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the Hon. Member will examine the

estimates he will find that the salaries are listed the same as they were last

year in many of the components or the various categories. This is to cover the

current collective bargaining that's going on with the public service components

and there may be temporary help hired.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what you've got that in there, it's up there.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, in one case there's temporary help listed. For

instance, in my office.

[ Page

1137 ]

There's an estimate for the component bargaining that's going on at the present

time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I am glad the Member for South Peace River...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We like to give everyone a turn.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...raised this very important and interesting matter.

The record will show, Mr. Chairman, that I addressed certain questions to the

Minister and she indicated that she currently has in her department 47 employees,

although they are allowing for 68 this year. She indicated that they were going

to open one new office which would probably take 15 employees out of the group

which are now on temporary assistance. They will be taken on full staff.

That brings her up to 62, but it still leaves her with six more spaces to fill

under her current allotment and she is still left with a temporary assistance

allowance of $150,600. Therefore, it would appear to me that there is no justification

for this salary contingency at all, unless it is in respect of salary increases

which are the result of negotiations which have been going on and which were

concluded yesterday, according to the news story.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is really asking the Minister:

"Now that those salary negotiations have been completed, is she telling us that

all these employees have enjoyed a 65 per cent increase in their salaries? If

not, then how does she justify this contingency vote at this particular time?"

It would seem to me that if the Minister is not prepared to deal with this matter,

perhaps she should consider withdrawing this vote until such time as she can

satisfy the committee.

In response a few minutes ago, the Minister said that if we looked carefully

we would see that the salaries for this year are shown at the same level as

the salaries for last year. But I would point out to the Minister that while

her salary is the same, her executive assistant has gone from $17,600 to $19,400;

her secretary has gone from $9,600 to $12,400; clerk-stenographers, $6,600 to

$10,200; clerk-typists, from $5,600 to $8,200. Just picking them at random,

the Deputy Minister has gone from $39,000 to $43,600; his secretary has gone

from $7,600 to $11,400...

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. That's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...the clerk-stenographers in the office, of which

there are two, have gone from $11,700 to $17,016; we have an administrative

officer who has gone from $15,500 to $21,180. As we look down this list, we

find that already in the estimates, totaling $1.009 million, all of the categories

in the Minister's department have received very significant increases, without

even getting to the salary contingencies.

When we discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

during his estimates, he made it quite clear to the committee that the salary

contingencies in each of the departmental votes were limited to two factors:

increases in the establishment of a department beyond that which had been approved

by Treasury Board, and increases in salaries as a result of negotiations. Now,

the Minister has told us that she is not going to go beyond the establishment

for her department of 68 people which has been approved by Treasury Board. In

fact, she said although she is going to open an office, it is only going to

be for part of the year, probably half of the year, so only half a year's salaries

are involved in that. So here is one area where she is not going to have any

increase.

The question then remains: are we, on top of the rather magnanimous increases

in salaries already shown in the estimates, to have increases of 65 more per

cent? If we are not, then I think that this Minister would wish to withdraw

vote 33 and either not present it at all as part of her estimates, or present

it as some reduced amount; either that, or tell us why it is to remain in her

vote and therefore available to her.

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that if this kind of contingency remains in the

department, there is almost an insatiable desire on the part of the department

itself to use the money that is available for it once we vote supply. This is

typical of not only this government but all governments. We've got senior administrators

who say: "If I don't spend the budget this year then I'm going to get cut back

next year, so let's go ahead and spend the $650,000." I think the only way of

curing that — and I'm sure that the Minister would not want that to happen,

to have her department padded with unnecessary personnel and unnecessary wage

increases — is to have her remove vote 33 altogether. She's got 68 people which

she says is all that she requires. They've already had the increases in salaries

that is shown in the estimates. I think we should remove vote 33 altogether.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, this disturbs me as

well because we've received some answers that certainly aren't appropriate from

the Minister regarding the subject we are discussing here in which she has indicated

very clearly that the classifications of positions in this department, the trade

practices branch, are similar to that of last year, which is far from the case.

When one looks at the average salary of the 45 employees who were in the department

last year, one can readily see that the estimates provided for an average salary

of about $13,000. When one takes that $13,000 average salary and uses the figure

of the maximum which the

[ Page

1138 ]

Minister suggests will be employed in the department of 68 employees, one can

readily see that the total would be $884,000 if her argument was true that there

are no provisions for increases on classifications beyond the salary contingencies.

But we find that there is provision for increases based on classifications

under vote 32 in the neighbourhood of 18 per cent, and yet we find provisions

in vote 33 of another 65 per cent — 18 and 65. Would you believe that we have

provisions here in this estimate of salary increases that could come close to

73 per cent?

There is something drastically wrong with this estimate, and certainly I think

the committee is justified in asking for some kind of straightforward answers

as to what this represents. I wonder whether this is a deliberate attempt on

the part of the government to establish a phony surplus in each and every portfolio.

If one looks, it's quite logical to assume that there is no way that that department

will be allocating 73 per cent for salary increases.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Eighty-three per cent.

MR. CHABOT: I'm sorry. That's even worse — 83 per cent. My mental addition

was a little wrong, temporarily, until I was corrected. But 83 per cent salary

increases are beyond belief. I'm sure the Minister has no intention of creating

that kind of inflationary trend in British Columbia by allocating upwards to

83 per cent salary increases.

I'm wondering as well whether there is this deliberate attempt on the part

of the government to create phony surpluses in each and every estimate which

we're debating. If this is the case I think they have a responsibility to level

with the Members who represent people in this province as well. I think we have

a right to know, and so do the people of British Columbia have a right to know.

Also we have a right to know whether this is a figure which the Minister has

put into her estimates or something that was dumped on her by Treasury Board

and put into her estimates, and put into every other estimate of government.

There is no relationship as far as dollars are concerned. It appears that figures

have been taken right out of a hat and dropped in each and every portfolio and

it appears, at the moment at least, until we go through the various estimates,

that the greatest discrepancy that exists, as far as the salary contingencies

are concerned, appears to be right here.

Now we have the firm word of the Minister that at the moment she has 47 employees

in her department and that she will not go beyond the 68 employees which are

allocated in her portfolio. With those kinds of firm statements and the fact

that there is already 18 per cent allocated, certainly an additional 65 per

cent is beyond reason.

The Minister has been very straightforward in all her other answers this afternoon.

She has made it a point to answer very fully, and I want to compliment her on

her straightforwardness. I hope that when it comes to vote 33 she'll be just

as straightforward in giving us the answers — telling us that if it's not her

figures, telling us it's Treasury who dropped these figures in her estimates

after they had been approved by little Treasury Board or big Treasury Board

or both. I think we have a right to know whether she has made this provision.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know you have the right to know.

MR. CHABOT: And I think we have a right to expect the Minister, in view

of the fact she's given us very elaborate and full disclosure of the activities

of her department this afternoon...maybe the deputy leader over there wants

to answer whether this was dumped on her by the Treasury Board.

We've asked this of other Ministers as well on estimates and we haven't received

any answers. We received a suggestion that it was for the provision of additional

positions within the portfolio. It was required so that there would be true

collective bargaining so that provisions would be there to meet the results

of a collective agreement between the government and its employees. Now we have

a firm commitment from the Minister that there won't be additional employees

and that the figure that has been allocated is excessive.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, it's certainly amusing, if it weren't

so serious, to hear the Member for Columbia River using such terms as "phony

collective bargaining."

MR. CHABOT: I never said any such thing.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The ex-Minister of Labour....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The ex-Minister of Labour, getting up here with such

gall and such audacity....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River on a

point of order.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I never used that term, Mr. Chairman.

I'm getting a little fed up, Mr. Chairman, with that Minister distorting what

[ Page

1139 ]

say in this House.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Throw him out!

MR. CHABOT: I want you to have that Minister withdraw that despicable

remark forthwith!

MR. FRASER: Throw him out!

MR. CHABOT: I won't tolerate that from that two-bit Minister over there!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that in order to return the House

to decorum I would ask the Minister of Public Works to withdraw any imputation

that he implied by his remarks and also to ask the Hon. Minister....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If the Hon. Member for Columbia River would get up

and state the words that he wishes withdrawn, I would be pleased to withdraw

them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member did suggest that the Hon.

Member for Columbia River had used a certain term which the Hon. Member denied

using.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I said he used phony arguments. He used the term phony

against the Minister. I said....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I merely played back, Mr. Chairman, some of the words

that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister did say that the Hon. Member for Columbia River had used the term

"phony collective bargaining" and the Hon. Member denied it. I would ask the

Hon. Minister of Public Works to withdraw the imputation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think at this point we can settle the

whole matter simply by saying that the House should accept the word of the Hon.

Member for Columbia River on this matter. Would the Hon. Minister proceed?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll proceed. I accept his denial.

Now you know, Mr. Chairman, it's very, very interesting to hear these people

that stand and speak out for free enterprise. What is free enterprise? Free

enterprise is the system that allows the marketplace to sell the least for the

most; and these people stand up and say that this is the way that they would

like to see more business done. They don't wish to see the marketplace being

served on the basis of service, service to people. They say: "Private enterprise,

go out and exploit the consumer!"

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Public

Works to relate his remarks to vote 33, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I'm speaking to the salaries of these people

that have to enforce the laws of the marketplace, Mr. Chairman. If we had a

proper society, a society that was designed on serving people, just as the credit

union movement is, just as the cooperative movement is, we wouldn't have to

have these policemen. In all the years that those Members across there sat in

the Social Party, sat in the Liberal Party.... We heard the Member for West

Vancouver – Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) criticizing this new Minister of this

new department, and she's doing the best job of any Consumer Services anywhere

in Canada — I would say of anywhere in North America. She is putting the federal

government, the federal Consumer Affairs — the Plumptre department — to shame.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister to speak

to the vote, please.

MR. CHABOT: He wouldn't know how.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I'm speaking to the vote and these salaries that

are being questioned. Without these extra people, Mr. Chairman, the used-car

salesmen, those freezer salesmen who sell freezers and meat that organized under

the Social Credit government.... They gave them a licence to go out and peddle

their wares.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The rest of your cabinet are smiling in shame.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Minister

of Public Works that we are all dealing with vote 33, salary contingencies.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under these salary contingencies,

the reason that they're needed is that you have to have contingencies in this

area because corporate enterprise has been so versatile to keep up with them.

[ Page

1140 ]

HON. MS. YOUNG: I think that the Minister of Public Works has hit the

nail right on the head. It's been our experience in our department that inevitably,

whenever we think we have a situation in hand, we find three more coming up

like mushrooms someplace else and we have to take on additional staff, we have

to take on consultants, we have to bring on specialists to handle the matter

because of the rip-offs going on in the marketplace. They're that bad. I think

the Minister has certainly laid it on the line.

These figures deal with the temporary assistance that one needs from time to

time. They also deal....

MR. PHILLIPS: No way!

HON. MS. YOUNG: Oh, yes it does. It may be over and above what is listed

in the other vote. It also takes care of changes where people are promoted from

one position to another. I have several people in my department that are scheduled

for promotion because they are certainly qualified for it, and I will be very

pleased to recommend them because they've done a fantastic job. Some of them

took pay cuts to come with the department, and I would like to see their remuneration

restored for the dedication that they have given to the department.

It also covers people who are with the department now who were not last year

and also new positions that will be coming in. It will also cover the contingencies

of the collective bargaining that is going on in the public service at the present

time.

I would like to remind the Members that the new staff positions in the estimates

were not there last year and these figures depend on the classifications that

are established by the Public Service Commission. The actual implementation

levels will be determined by them at the time of recruitment.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: No, we have not made provision for that. We have made

an estimation for that, but we do not know if the public service will go above

or below that estimation. This is to be the best of our estimation what our

expenses will be in this regard. That is the purpose of the contingency fund.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): In view of the fact that in vote 32 the

Minister gave us rather explicit information as to exactly what her staff requirements

were, and since the settlements were publicly announced yesterday, perhaps the

Minister could tell us why there is this need for contingencies. There have

been obviously no employees anticipated in vote 33, as you said in vote 32.

Now if we are having a slightly different story in 33, perhaps we could revert

to talk about vote 32 again and get that one squared away. Obviously there is

a very large difference between what you've told us in vote 32 and what you

are now telling us in vote 33. It is obvious that there is an 18 per cent built-in

increase in vote 32 for the staff that you have anticipated hiring — that is,

the 68 people who are listed in vote 32. Those are the people whom you have

just told us tonight you intend to hire. The upward revision classification

is about 18 per cent.

You know that the settlements are now out. Surely at this point we either should

withdraw vote 33 until you can tell us exactly what you need or give us a better

indication of what that amount is. It is a very excessive amount. Throughout

this whole budget there is about $90 million shown in contingencies in various

departments — a tremendous amount of money. Surely we are entitled to a better

explanation than the one we received tonight.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was utterly amazed at the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley), from whom I have come to expect not that much more when he gets

up and chastises the Member for Columbia River and then turns around his back

and buries his head in his lap, laughing. I mean it's a...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the vote,

please?

MR. PHILLIPS: ...disgrace to the Legislature. The Minister went on

to talk about free enterprise, which has absolutely nothing to do with this

vote.

I asked the question specifically, Mr. Chairman, under vote 32: did the Minister

intend to hire any more people over and above the 68 in her estimates? As I

recall — and I could be mistaken, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. LEA: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: If I'm mistaken, I would like the Minister to advise me

that I'm mistaken.

HON. MR. LAUK: You're mistaken.

MR. PHILLIPS: It seems to me the answer I got was fairly clear: "No,

we do not intend to hire any more than the 68."

She also said that there were some 47 people working now and there would be

a total of 23 increased over last year.

When the Minister got up to explain the contingency, Mr. Chairman — and, again,

correct me if I'm wrong — she said that in that $652,000 there were contingency

salaries for last year, and that they were not in her vote. However, if you

look under her vote, you will see, for instance, administrative officer 3: the

salary last year, $14,124; the salary this year is $17,064. So whom does the Minister think she's kidding?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's an increase already in there. All we have to do

is go look at, for instance, the administrative officers 2. Last year the salary

was $41,184; this year the salary is

[ Page

1141 ]

$56,802. Those increases for over and above last year are in there. For the

Minister to think that we're gullible enough to think that she is going to present

new positions in the amount of 65 per cent of her total salary vote, temporary

assistance again.... Does she think that we're stupid when she has temporary

assistance in there under vote 32?

I would like the Minister to honestly tell us. She must have a breakdown by

administrative officers, and the increase for administrative officers, the increase

for audit accountants, the increase for clerk-stenographers. Maybe she could

tell us by individual classification how much the increase is going to be.

Already she says she's going to change positions. Again I have to ask: what

in heaven's name do we even have these estimates before us for if already she

is telling us that she's going to create new positions and these contingencies

come up? Then you might as well forget about voting on the estimates because

already she plans to change them.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You have no use for consumer affairs.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have stated clearly my thoughts on this department.

But I am getting sick and tired of having in this committee, when you ask an

intelligent question....

HON. MR. LEA: Well, ask one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's all right for the Members to laugh and joke.

That's fine; we can have our fun and games. You ask an intelligent question

and you deserve an intelligent answer. Right on. And that's all I've done. I'd

like to know; I'd like it explained to me. It hasn't been explained to me because

the Minister has been double talking.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member should withdraw

the imputation that the Minister is double talking.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I will withdraw. But I think, Mr. Chairman,

you can certainly understand that I'm going to be concerned about a 65 per cent

salary contingency fund. I'm going to be concerned about it. I think it is a

legitimate concern, and I know the rest of the Members of the opposition are

concerned about this. We'd like an intelligent answer. If the Minister realizes

that she has made a mistake, if she realizes that these figures were given to

her by some other department, like Treasury Board, as pointed out by the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), why we will certainly allow her to withdraw

the vote and revise it. But, once again, would the Minister please try and explain

in a little more intelligent manner how this figure of close to three-quarters

of a million dollars was arrived at?

MR. MORRISON: Surely in this Department of Consumer Services we have

every right to expect some truth in presentation. This is the department which

is theoretically requiring truth in presentation from everywhere. Yet in this

particular vote 33, suddenly we are getting no answers. In vote 32, I thought

we had a careful analysis of that department; I thought she answered the questions

fairly. Obviously, it had some care as to what had gone into them. But vote

33, which is about 25 per cent of the total department, indicates that there

is certainly no careful analysis of that contingency requirement.

Now in this department — the one I would least expect to find a failure in

giving us proper answers — I think the Minister owes it to us and owes it to

the public to explain that amount of money since $652,000 is a lot of money

in any man's language. I think we are entitled to a better answer.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister talked about the provision in the

salary contingencies for the upward revision of employee

classification, and this just doesn't hold water. This is partially the

reason for the salary contingency. In vote 32, as the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) points out, there is already $90,000 for

upward revision. Certainly vote 32 takes into consideration the

anticipated classifications of employees within your department. Even

if you were to upwardly revise some of the staff.... For instance, if

you were to move your administrative officers 2 — you have four of them

and their present salary is $14,200 — to the same as administrative

officer 3, which is $17,000, those four with an additional salary of

$3,000 is only $12,000 there. And you look at the same situation with

the upward revision of administrative officers 1 - there are seven

there — if you move them all up to administrative officers 2, the total

cost would be $600 each, which would be $4,200. If you were to take the

eight clerk-steno 2s and move them up to clerk-steno 4s all at once —

miss the three classification and move them to 4s — your additional

cost there is $12,000.

Now I have mentioned more classifications and more positions than could ever

possibly be adjusted under the salary contingencies which are allocated

[ Page

1142 ]

here. And I am talking basically about a very few thousand dollars. I've talked

about $29,000 for which there are already provisions for salary increases. I

am sure there are already provisions for classification of positions within

the portfolio. So it certainly doesn't hold water that this salary contingency

is for that purpose.

The salary contingency is far beyond reason, because an upward adjustment to

all the highest of possible classifications of all employees within your department,

I'm sure, wouldn't absorb more than, say, $100,000. That's not about to happen,

because there is a particular formula for upward revision of a classification

of civil servants.

Really, it's incomprehensible that the Minister hasn't been willing, or is

unable, or has been committed to an oath of secrecy and is unable to tell the

Legislature. Certainly this isn't

section 12 of the Trade Practices Act where

you're committed to refrain from discussing the matters of a case which might

appear before the court. I'm sure that you wouldn't be called before the courts.

You might be called before the cabinet or Treasury Board but you wouldn't be

called before any court if you were to reveal to the Members of this House,

who happen to be representatives of the people in British Columbia, just how

this $652,000 got into your estimates.

I asked you before if the thing was dumped on you and you had no answer. If

you have no answer and if it's the wish of the Treasury Board to create an artificial

surplus by the allocation or the dumping of salary contingencies which are unrealistic

into each and every portfolio, then certainly you have the right and you have

a responsibility to tell the people of British Columbia just what the Treasury

Board is doing to your estimates.

We've had clearcut answers from you in relationship to numbers of jobs in your

portfolio. I think now we're on the last vote. Certainly I know that the Minister

is anxious to get this last vote so her Deputy can get on and fulfill the responsibilities

of his role to support and protect the consumers of British Columbia. If that's

the case, Mr. Chairman, then all the Minister has to do is give us an answer

as to how this $652,000 worked its way into her estimates. I'm sure she knows

nothing about it. It's unfortunate that this was forced on her by Treasury Board.

It appears to me — and it's unfortunate that I have to say this — that it's

a deliberate attempt to mislead, to misinform, to establish a surplus within

these estimates. I think the Minister is anxious now after the questions that

we have put to her....

HON. MR. LEA: Stalling the estimates.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister of Highways. The Minister of Highways

says that we're stalling the estimates. The Minister of Highways has very little

regard for the people of British Columbia. That's why he's unwilling to take

part in this debate discussing this...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: ...peculiar figure of $652,000 which we see in the estimates

of the Department of Consumer Services. He's apparently unconcerned about these

massive allocations for salaries when there are already provisions in the other

votes of this portfolio that take care of some of these salaries. Certainly

there's a need for salary contingencies; no one's going to deny that. Without

that, there's no way you can possibly responsibly bargain with the employees

within your department or the employees of the government. But certainly this

isn't reasonable. Certainly it isn't reasonable. After an 18 per cent allocation

further up on your estimates, now we look down at the last vote and there's

a 65 per cent provision for additional salaries — for increases in salary. Certainly

this can't be realistic; certainly this can't be straightforward; certainly

this can't be an honest assessment of what your salary increase is going to

be.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd certainly be happy to give.... Would the Minister

like the opportunity to explain to the House this fantastic figure?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's 65 per cent. Or is she discussing...?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is she discussing the plight of those small contractors

who were paid off at 40 cents on the dollar in the Casa Loma deal with the Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote,

please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I'd be most happy to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also....

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Minister to answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also

[ Page

1143 ]

caution the Hon. Member on repetition.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to repeat anything. I'm not going to repeat

anything. I'm going to ask completely new questions. I'm going to ask the Minister

of Consumer Affairs, for instance....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not affairs — services.

MR. PHILLIPS: Minister of Consumer Services.

Now this budget had to go before the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)....

MR. CHABOT: Little Treasury first.

MR. PHILLIPS: Little Treasury — big Treasury. It had to go before some

financial wizards in the government. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh! Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that. It had to go before

some of the supposedly financial wizards in the government.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I can see the Minister of Consumer Services

going before this group of financial supposedly wizards in the government, and

she must surely to goodness have had to justify this expenditure to the group

that okays the budget, Mr. Chairman, if she had to justify this figure, all

I'm asking her to do is to give us the same reasoning and the same arguments

that she must have given this group that okayed the budget.

If she did not have to justify this figure of $652,000, that just gives you

an inkling of how the budget was prepared. If there are no questions asked and

figures are accepted holus-bolus, no wonder we have to dispute the estimates

in this House.

But would the Minister of Consumer Services advise me: Did she take her estimates

to the Minister of Finance? Did she take her estimates to the little Treasury?

Did she take her estimates to the big Treasury? Did her estimates have to be

okayed or questioned by anybody?

Or does every Minister of the Crown just come in and say: "This is the amount

of money I want," and the Minister of Finance says: "That's the amount of money

you shall have," and then he goes out and increases the taxes to make sure

that they have it?

Now I have to doubt her again, Mr. Chairman, and I hate to do this.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Ohhhhh.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to doubt the financial responsibility of this government.

Mr. Chairman, we have had too many estimates come before us that can no more

be backed up by fact than the man in the moon.

These estimates in this department here — these salary contingencies — hold

no resemblance whatsoever to reality. Even I won't accept the fact that the

Minister of Consumer Services is going to give the employees in her department

a 65 per cent salary increase, because if she did then the employees in the

Department of Highways would automatically want a 65 per cent salary increase,

and then the Department of Labour and then the Department of Mines, and then

the Department of Economic Development.

Mr. Chairman, you know and I know that in private business when you estimate

you sit down and you work it out and you take the number of employees and you

estimate what the percentage of increased salary is going to be and you justify

your budgets. You have to justify your budgets. The only difference there is

that when you have to justify an additional expenditure in a private business

you have to go out and say that you're going to sell that much additional merchandise

to recover a profit to justify these additional expenditures. Now I know that's

different in government because you just go out and keep taxing the taxpayers,

which this government is very good at. They are past masters at it, Mr. Chairman.

As I pointed out this afternoon, that's why the cost of government has gone

up in three years some 237 per cent from $378 per person per man, woman and

child in British Columbia to the cost today in 1975 of $1,313 per man, woman

and child in British Columbia. That's why the cost of government is going up.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Columbia River treaty?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'll talk to you about that in just a little while

when your estimates come up. Yes, I'll talk to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll also talk about that power plant that went up 33

per cent in cost in two years...!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, yes. I want to point out something to you.

In this budget which we are passing now there is a sum of another $652,000 for

the department of economic planning. An

[ Page

1144 ]

economic planner is a Deputy Minister to the.... Just bear with me a moment

until I check this out — yes, office of planning advisor to the cabinet, Deputy

Minister. No, I was out in my figure, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks

to vote 33?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm trying. Now you said for everybody to remain

calm. Would you just remain calm and let me finish? You're getting jumpy. Now,

I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman, and let's be reasonable.

What I'm saying is that in this budget we have a sum of $276,131 for the office

of planning advisor to cabinet. In the economic policies of the government I

presume that if they do their job they're certainly going to look at the estimated

expenditures, because on the other hand they're going to have to plan the economy

of the province to know how much money is going to come in, so surely to goodness

they would have had some say in planning this budget. If they're doing their

job, if we're getting our $276,000 worth of value from this new department,

surely they would have questioned this figure. Surely the Minister and her department,

or somebody in her department, would have had to go to this economic planning

advisor and justify this figure. All I'm saying is that she must have had to

justify it to somebody. She either had to justify it to the Minister of Finance,

she either had to justify it to the mini Treasury Board, or she had to justify

it to the major Treasury Board, or she must have had to justify it to this economic

planning advisor, the one who's telling the Premier how much money is going

to come in in taxes, because the two have to balance, within some reason.

I'm also saying, Mr. Chairman, that we have voted on literally hundreds of

thousands of dollars — the salaries of planning advisors and assistants to the

Minister. Now, with all of that help, we still can't get an answer to a simple,

straightforward question. What do you expect us to do? Well now, Mr. Chairman,

this is no laughing matter, and I see the Minister of Consumer Services laughing

at this matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you I'm here to protect the taxpayers of

this province, and she may be able to go off and spend money at her leisure.

HON. MR. LAUK: She's laughing at your tie.

MR. PHILLIPS: She shouldn't be laughing at a matter when she has her

estimates up and can't justify the expenditure of $652,000.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: A 65 per cent increase in salary and she should laugh?

To me, Mr. Chairman, it is no laughing matter. I'm concerned for the taxpayers

of this province.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: You know, this reminds me, when we're discussing this particular

estimate, of the ad that appeared in the paper: "If you've got an unconventional

business idea, maybe you should talk to an unconventional government."

Well, it's certainly unconventional as far as I'm concerned, and no doubt unconventional

as far as British Columbians are concerned, to find within the allocation for

salary increases an amount of 65 per cent...

HON. MR. LAUK: Did you read this ad: "Bumbling B.C. Socreds"? Did you

read this one?

MR. CHABOT: ...after having made provisions for an 18 per cent increase.

What really bothers me is the inconsistency that is related in these estimates

as far as allocations of dollars for employees. When one looks at the Department

of Economic Development — it's a hard department to find, it's so thin — but

when we look at his department, Mr. Chairman, we see that there's provision

for salary contingencies of approximately 35 percent increase after having

made provisions for the increases of the various classifications in the general

administration vote. So there we find in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent, roughly,

as compared to 65 per cent here. But we find that far more pronounced in other

departments.

When one looks at the Department of Highways regarding salary contingencies....

Mr. Chairman, I hope you're not heading for the mike to stop me from comparing

salary contingencies. I'm relating the matter to salary contingencies and the

inconsistencies in allocations from portfolio to portfolio and relating it back

to the 65 per cent under the Department of Consumer Services. We find in the

Department of Highways an allocation which appears to be slightly over 100 per

cent.

Now, as I said before, I'm wondering....

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Well, one of the Members says it's to pay for his new haircut

(laughter), but I don't think haircuts cost $7.8 million.

HON. MR. LEA: It depends where you go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cheapskate.

[ Page

1145 ]

MR. CHABOT: Nevertheless, there appears to be a tremendous inconsistency,

and that's what we're trying to establish: whether this is a deliberate attempt

on the part of the government to create a surplus in these estimates which we're

debating, because we see these — somewhere in the neighbourhood of $88 million

in total — throughout the estimates, which is a sizeable sum of money. Unfortunately,

I don't have a little calculator in front of me to figure out the number of

employees and just what kind of a percentage increase this represents.

But I am concerned with just how these figures do find their way into the various

estimates. I don't know just what happens when the Ministers present their estimates

to Treasury Board. Is the money all there in the centre and everybody grabs?

If you have bigger hands, do you get a little bit more? They say: "Salary contingency,

boys," and everybody goes and the big hands get most. One Minister might have

bigger hands than another, but he or she might be pushed aside by one of the

bullies. Is the procedure that a bunch of numbers are thrown in the centre of

the floor and everybody grabs? Do you throw the numbers at a sheet of paper,

and where they fall they rest? It appears very much as if that's how the salary

contingency is arrived at.

I'm disturbed, and I'm sure many British Columbians as well are disturbed with

the means by which we arrive at these estimations where one portfolio has a

salary contingency allocation in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent. This one

has 65 per cent. The Department of Highways has in excess of 100 per cent. Is

there really a deliberate attempt to create a surplus by establishing these

apparent phony salary contingencies which go unexplained from portfolio to portfolio?

Well, maybe time won't allow the Minister to give us an explanation. Maybe

she wants to sleep on it and bring us back the answer tomorrow afternoon. Maybe

she can meet with her colleagues and maybe her colleagues will give her some

answers how this appears in salary estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River

if he's yielding the floor.

MR. CHABOT: No, no.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would just like to ask the Hon. Member a question.

If you wish to carry on this debate tomorrow, I'm ready to move that the committee

rises.

MR. CHABOT: I'm on the floor. I move the committee rise and report resolution.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River has

the floor.

Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks

leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Levi files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

22 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources

the following questions:

With reference to the social assistance cost-sharing formula between the Government

and the municipalities —

1. What was the total amount paid by the Government under this formula in the

fiscal year 1973/74?

2. What was the total amount paid by the municipalities in the fiscal year

1973/74?

3. In the case of each individual municipality, what was the amount paid by

(

a) the Government and (

b) the municipality?

[ Page

1146 ]

APPENDIX

The Hon. Norman Levi replied as follows:

"1. 1973/74, $144,704,519.20.

"2. 1973/74, $24,825,193.80.

"3. See following table:

Municipality

(

a) Amount Paid by the Government

During the Fiscal

Year 1973/74

(

b) Amount Paid by

the Individual

Municipalities

in the Fiscal

Year 1973/74¹

Abbotsford

620,857.28

107,640.00

Burnaby

10,437,046.92

1,809,504.00

Campbell River

830,578.30

144,000.00

Castlegar

491,536.24

85,219.20

Central Saanich

426,585.01

73,958.40

Chilliwack City

758,733.28

131,544.00

Chilliwack District

1,972,706.52

342,014.40

Comox

330,570.16

579312.00

Coquitlam

4,421,168.29

766,512.00

Courtenay

594,611.00

103,032.00

Cranbrook

996,693.96

172,800.00

Creston

266,117.29

46,137.60

Dawson Creek

987,142.31

171,144.00

Delta

3,809,032.08

660,384.00

Duncan

364,457.76

63,180.60

Esquimalt

1,073,273.28

186,076.80

Fernie

367,281.72

63,676.80

Fort St. John

691,871.72

119,952.00

Golden

250,004.07

43,344.00

Grand Forks

263,542.49

45,691.20

Hope

261,881.34

45,403.20

Kamloops

4,575,655.85

678,096.00

Kelowna

3,747,320.12

495,454.80

Kimberley

634,810.99

110,059.20

Kitimat

980,331.57

169,963.20

Ladysmith

305,154.47

52,905.60

Langley City

389,042.88

67,449.60

Langley District

1,821,956.56

315,878.40

Maple Ridge

2,032,923.45

352,454.40

Matsqui

1,956,344.13

339,177.60

Merritt

439,292.86

76,161.60

Mission

8,489,851.02

147,168.00

Nanaimo

1,241,548.44

215,251.20

Nelson

780,743.60

135,360.00

New Westminster

3,557,782.15

616,824.00

North Cowichan

1,010,813.79

175,248.00

North Saanich

299,091.25

51,854.40

North Vancouver City

2,645,142.71

458,596.80

North Vancouver District

4,805,809.10

833,198.40

Oak Bay

1,530,423.58

265,334.40

Penticton

1,507,167.38

261,302.40

Port Alberni

1,666,389.24

288,907.20

Port Coquitlam

1,624,611.16

281,664.00

Port Moody

895,197.29

155,203.20

Powell River

1,140,051.77

197,654.40

Prince George

2,755,775.74

477,777.60

Prince Rupert

1,307,911.65

226,756.80

Quesnel

519,775.90

90,115.20

Revelstoke

404,242.46

70,084.80

Richmond

5,159,635.46

894,542.40

Rossland

323,593.31

56,102.40

Saanich

5,402,081.26

936,576.00

Salmon Arm

647,269.67

112,219.20

Sidney

404,325.52

70,099.20

Smithers

320,935.46

55,641.60

"¹ Excluded is the $444,049.24 rebate granted April 1973 for overbillings to municipalities in 1972/73.

[ Page

1147 ]

Municipality

(

a) Amount Paid by the Government

During the Fiscal

Year 1973/74

(

b) Amount Paid by

the Individual

Municipalities

in the Fiscal

Year 1973/74¹

Squamish

508,396.98

88,142.40

Summerland

461,054.01

79,934.40

Surrey

8,189,585.09

1,419,854.40

Terrace

829,830.78

143,870.40

Trail

926,011.75

160,545.60

Vancouver

35,403,898.38

6,138,086.40

Vernon

1,133,905.50

194,522.40

Victoria

5,129,734.64

889,358.40

West Vancouver

3,026,627.33

524,736.00

White Rock

859,565.48

149,025.60

Williams Lake

338,216.45

58,636.80

Municipalities exempted as of June 1, 1972²

not applicable

8,872.80

------------------

------------------

144,704,519.20

24,825,193.80

"¹ Excluded is the $444,049.24 rebate granted April 1973 for overbillings to municipalities in 1972/73.

"² The municipalities of Armstrong, Enderby, and Greenwood were exempted

from responsibility for Social Allowance costs as of June 1, 1973, as their

respective populations were under 2,500."

32 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Transport and Communications

the following questions:

1. Have the British Columbia Ferries issued passes to any individuals in British

Columbia for passage between Vancouver Island and the Mainland?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what persons have been issued passes on the

ferries?

The Hon. R. M. Strachan replied as follows:

"Please see answer to Question 241, Sessional Journals, April 11, 1973."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada