1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st

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, MAY 11, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Emergency employment programmes. Mr. King — 1565

Jubilee Hospital strike negotiations. Mr. Wallace — 1566

Move of PWA head office. Mr. Gibson — 1566

Deterioration of patient care at VGH. Mr. Cocke — 1567

Gas price increase by Imperial oil, Mr. Lauk — 1567

Capilano College Principal dismissal. Mr. Wallace — 1567

Olympic Lottery continuation. Mr. Davidson — 1567

CUPE/employers meeting. Mr. Stupich — 1568

Motion

Adjournment on matter of urgent public importance. Mr.

King — 1568

Mr. Speaker rules — 1568

Mr. Gibson — 1570

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply:

Department of Consumer Services estimates.

On vote 30.

Mr. Hewitt — 1571

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1573

Mr. Levi — 1573

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1576

Ms. Sanford — 1577

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1579

Mrs. Wallace — 1580

Mr. Lauk — 1581

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1585

Ms. Sanford — 1585

On vote 34.

Mrs. Wallace — 1587

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1587

On vote 35.

Ms. Brown — 1587

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1587

Mrs. Wallace — 1588

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1588

Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mrs. Dailly — 1588

Mr. Gibson — 1593

Mr. Wallace — 1598

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's always a great

pleasure to welcome colleagues from the federal House, and today seated

on the floor of the House is the Progressive Conservative member for

Surrey–White Rock. I would like the House to extend a warm welcome to

Mr. Benno Friesen.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome a large delegation from Coquitlam, and representing

the Parent-Teachers Association, B.C. Home and School, SHARE

representatives and the school trustees, all from School District 43.

This group is here under the very able leadership of Mrs. Ona May Roy,

president of the district council of the Parent-Teachers Association.

This is a three-part introduction. I'd also like to introduce and

welcome Mrs. Katherine Schoer of the Surrey Home and School Federation,

a friend of the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). She's

played a major role in parent-school programmes and is a past president.

Last, but most certainly not least, also in the gallery are three

ladies from the mainland, two of whom are from my riding, Coquitlam:

Mrs. Nichols and Mrs. Audley, and Mrs. Stenberg from Vancouver. These

ladies are in Victoria for the day, and this is their first visit to

the buildings and to the session. Would you join me in making them

welcome?

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, seated in

the gallery today is Mrs. Pamela Hall. Mrs. Hall is the co-ordinator of

the Marpole-Oakridge seniors programme. I would ask that the House make

this very dedicated woman welcome.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in

the gallery today is a group of women representing the Burnaby

Parent-Teachers Association. I would like this House to make them

welcome.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would

ask the members to welcome Mr. Dave Wall and a contingent of senior

secondary students from Sentinel school in West Vancouver.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House

to extend a warm welcome to some students from St. Andrew's Elementary

School who will be visiting the buildings this afternoon and taking a

look in on our sitting here.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'd like the House to join

me in welcoming a group of students from Alpha Secondary School in

Burnaby.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): It's very seldom that we

have guests who visit with us from my particular area, but today we

have the mayor of the district of Abbotsford, Mr. Ferguson, and also

the mayor of Matsqui, Mr. Harry De Jong. Please make them welcome.

Oral questions.

POSSIBILITY OF EMERGENCY

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the

hon. Premier. In light of the unprecedented unemployment rate, as

released just yesterday, I believe, by Statistics Canada, which

indicates that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 110,000

British Columbia workers unemployed, could the Premier tell the House

whether the government has plans to initiate any emergency employment

programmes to assuage and ease the hardship on the citizens of British

Columbia?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, government is

concerned, as I'm sure the opposition is now, and as they were as

government, about the high rate of unemployment.

He's right that unemployment has been around 100,000 since the end

of 1974 and reached its peak at 110,000 last September. Today it's

measured at 108,000 on the seasonally adjusted rate for April as

produced by the federal government, who prefers to use the seasonally

adjusted rate.

Yes, we're concerned; we're concerned in two or three ways. We have

a plan for producing employment which involves using our resources and

taking advantage of their low price at source in British Columbia, and

that means energy. That's why I tried to speak in favour of this

province maintaining control of its natural resources and energy

yesterday in this House. It also involves a railway that runs

continuously, and that's why the government hopes that the BCR will not

have the labour trouble that it has had for the last three years in

this province that has not allowed it to run consistently.

So, yes, but I have found out, and this government's found out, that

it's not possible to turn the province around in four months from the

position of high unemployment that it has maintained since the end of

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that political

[ Page 1566 ]

rhetoric is going to do anything to ease the impact

on the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, you asked a

question...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: ...and the hon. leader answered the question.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed I asked a question, to

which I received no answer. Rather I got an assurance that the

government is concerned. The question I asked was whether or not the

government has plans to initiate some emergency programme of employment

creation to offset what is the highest rate of unemployment in this

province in recent years, if not in the history of this province —

110,000 people.

When the Premier gets up in a pious way and talks about concern...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: ...may I say, Mr. Speaker, that concern can best

be demonstrated by positive action, not political rhetoric.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I

presume that you meant to ask a supplemental question. I didn't really

hear what the supplemental question was, but...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: ...this is not to become a debate between two

sides of the House. For that reason, I'll pass to the next question.

STATUS OF JUBILEE

HOSPITAL STRIKE NEGOTIATIONS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour:

in view of the serious concern being expressed by residents of the

greater Victoria area over the strike at the Royal Jubilee Hospital,

can the minister tell the House the outcome of his meeting with Mr.

Hooper and other officials of the Health Labour Relations Association?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a lengthy and worthwhile

meeting was held this morning with the representatives of the Health

Labour Relations Association. As a result of that meeting, I have this

afternoon extended an invitation to the president of the union to visit

with me in Victoria tomorrow. I hope, as a result of those two

meetings, that I will be able to make some statement later.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the understandable concern of the

community, and in light of the union representative's announcement to

escalate the strike situation by calling strikes in various additional

hospitals, and in view of the union's statement that they wish to stick

strictly to the industrial inquiry commission report, has the minister

taken any decision regarding the invoking of subsection 7(

a) of

section

73 of the Labour Code, namely to prescribe a cooling-off period of 21

days?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The simple answer is no.

MOVE OF PWA HEAD OFFICE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Transport and Communications in the matter

of the planned move of the head office of Pacific Western Airlines from

Vancouver to Calgary. At the request of the air transport committee of

the Canadian Transportation Commission, British Columbia was to file by

May 3 counter-arguments to Alberta's filing of April 23. I wonder if

the minister could, first of all, confirm that such a filing was made

and, secondly, table a copy of it in this House.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, we will be pleased to file that contribution in the House.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the

fact that details of the move have already been announced by the

company, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether a hearing or a

decision is expected soon on this matter or, if not, what other moves

might be instituted by the Government of the Province of British

Columbia in order that there be a cease-and-desist order until this is

finally resolved by the Supreme Court.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this

matter is also before the courts in Canada, namely the question as to

whether or not the Canadian Transport Commission has jurisdiction over

the province of Alberta. There are really two arenas in which this play

is taking place: one is before the courts, and the other is before the

Canadian Transport Commission. The issue really has to be resolved in

the courts before the transport commission has the necessary authority

and we have the real opportunity to make our case.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a further

[ Page 1567 ]

supplementary: if I understand the minister

correctly, inasmuch as the CTC doesn't plan to move on this until the

Supreme Court judgment, and inasmuch as there's a danger that

theSupreme Court

might not hear the case until some time in the fall, which is to say

after the move has been effected, are there any steps the government

proposes to take to maintain the status quo of office personnel in the

meantime? I think that's very important.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the only avenue really open to

us is that of discussions directly with the responsible authorities in

Alberta.

DETERIORATION OF PATIENT CARE AT VGH

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health. I would ask the Minister

of Health: is there any evidence of deterioration in patient care in

the Vancouver General Hospital as a result of labour relations?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

through you to the member for New Westminster, our assessment committee

is in constant touch with us. They tell us that the maintenance of care

is at as high level as possible. We had the administrators of the

hospital in and we've been talking with them constantly, and we're

satisfied that they're doing as good a job as possible in a very

difficult situation.

GAS PRICE INCREASE

REQUEST BY IMPERIAL OIL

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Premier: Imperial Oil Co., which had admitted they had contributed

to the Social Credit Party campaign funds, issued a public request

yesterday....

Interjections.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Read it again, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Imperial Oil Co., which had admitted they

contributed to the Social Credit Party campaign funds, issued a public

request yesterday that all provincial governments allow them to

increase the price of gasoline immediately the oil barrel price

increases, as advocated by the Premier when he was visiting back east.

Does the Premier intend to comply with this request from Imperial Oil?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the member may or may not

know, but as most people know, this province has a freeze at the

refinery level. When they unfroze prices it was only at the retail

level, where true competition takes place. That freeze has not been

lifted for Imperial Oil or any other oil firm, nor at the present time

is it contemplated lifting that freeze.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary. In other words, is the Premier

saying that he does intend to comply with this request from Imperial

Oil? I didn't understand his answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll say it again because I

understand the hon. member was a lawyer before he became a member, and

perhaps we should put it in language he understands. Right now the

price is frozen in British Columbia. Two provinces in Canada have it

frozen at the refinery level — that is, at the producer level. That

freeze is not being contemplated as being lifted right now and is not

being contemplated being lifted in the future.

CAPILANO COLLEGE PRINCIPAL DISMISSAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Education a question with regard to the report tabled in the House and

dealing with the dismissal of the principal at Capilano College who

received severance pay of $41,700 after serving as principal for 18

months. Has the minister accepted the report as submitted to him, or

does he intend to take further action on the issue?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): To the member,

through you, Mr. Speaker: I did indicate to the member that as soon as

I received a report from Capilano College I would table it in the

House. That was done yesterday. The department is studying it at the

present time, and we'll make an announcement if further action is to be

taken.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister:

since the minister has appealed constantly for restraint and

responsible financing of education, does he have any plans to meet with

representatives of college councils to explore this matter of salaries,

sabbaticals and severance arrangements for senior administrative

officials in our college system?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

OLYMPIC LOTTERY CONTINUATION

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial

Secretary: in view of the fact that the federal government has

introduced plans to continue the Olympic Lottery to finance the

billion-dollar loss

[ Page 1568 ]

of the Drapeau stadium in Montreal, can the

minister announce any plans or commitments to British Columbians to

offset the resulting loss to the Western Canada Lottery and the plans

that were made for that money for amateur sport?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to share with the hon. member the knowledge that our

government has gone on record yesterday, on hearing of the federal

government's national lottery called Loto Scheme, that we were very

much opposed to the federal government taking over the proceeds that

would come to the provinces. If you will, I will, to explain our stand,

read you a telegram that is going to Ottawa.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary has

the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The telegram explains the province's

stand and answers the question. It would be a lot quicker for me to

read it and share it. I'd be pleased to table it, but I would like to

assure the member and the House that the provincial government in

British Columbia is opposed to the sharing, or for the distribution, of

the funds of a national lottery going to the Olympics in Montreal and...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...and taking from all of the provinces

across Canada moneys that would go into sports, recreation and culture

across this country and to each individual province.

The western Canadian ministers will be meeting tomorrow, and that

stand will be taken very strongly by our province.

CUPE/EMPLOYERS MEETING

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Labour, I understand, was meeting with representatives of the

Mid-Island Employers Association and of CUPE this morning, relative to

the situation in Nanaimo and other areas. I wonder if he has any

comment at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment, except to

say that the meetings are continuing at 3 o'clock.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask leave to move

adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is the emergency revealed today by the Statistics Canada

figures showing that unemployment has again increased in B.C., to the

extent of 9.7 per cent of the work force. This means that no less than

110,000 persons are unemployed at a time when government taxation

policies are creating untold hardships on all members of society and

particularly on those who are unemployed. The figures call for

immediate emergency measures to alleviate the hardships being caused by

government policies. I provide a copy of the motion, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to present the House with my

reasons supporting the emergent nature of the circumstances at the

moment.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

You've presented me with the motion paper, and you've stated the matter

about which you would like this debate to take place, in a short

statement.

Now at this particular time I must determine whether the motion is

in order under standing order 35 of the standing orders of our House.

It would seem to me that your request for a motion to adjourn the House

to discuss this matter of urgent public importance is based upon not

only unemployment in British Columbia but really on the revelation

today by Statistics Canada of figures showing that the rate of

unemployment has increased in B.C.

I would suggest this, and recall to your memory, as well as to the

memory of all of the members of this House, that similar motions on

exactly the same matter of unemployment being presented from time to

time to the House have been refused, basically on the grounds that they

fail to meet the need under standing order 35 for an emergency debate,

since unemployment is an ongoing thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! While the increase in the

percentage rate of unemployment is higher now than it perhaps was at

other times, it is not a matter of urgent public importance at this

time.

I would also refer you to the same point which was ruled on. It was

ruled out of order to debate unemployment as a matter of urgency. While

it may be argued that the percentage rate is greater today than at

other times, that in itself does not qualify the matter for a debate

under standing order 35. Therefore I must rule that the matter you have

put before the House in the form of a motion is not in order in that it

fails to meet the tests as outlined in standing order 35.

[ Page 1569 ]

If you would also refer to the 16th edition of May on page

370, you will see that the same matter was dealt with on a number of

occasions and the same page of May has been quoted in the

decision by previous Speakers.

MR. KING: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: I must say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition

before he raises the point of order that it is not a matter of debate

now. I have ruled that it is not a matter of urgent public importance

under standing order 35.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your guidance, but I

would respectfully suggest that my point of order should not be

anticipated. I respect the Chair, and I do not intend to abuse the

ruling that has been made by the Chair. However, I just wanted to make

this point and elicit from the Chair some additional clarification.

In terms of making a judgment as to when a matter becomes an

emergency, surely it's a subjective matter to some extent. In the case

of a natural disaster such as a flood or a fire or an earthquake or

something of that nature, surely the enormity of it, the number of

people involved, the cost factors and all these things must add to the

subjective matter on which the Chair must make its decision as to

whether or not a real emergency does exist.

I just want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this situation....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! What the hon. Leader of the

Opposition is attempting to do now is in an indirect manner debate the

motion that he put before the House.

MR. KING: Not at all, Mr. Speaker! I am attempting....

MR. SPEAKER: The matter has been ruled upon by the Speaker.

If you do not agree with the ruling of the Speaker, you have the

opportunity to challenge it. But you cannot at this time enter into a

debate upon the matter.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you would

please let me continue, I have not raised the unemployment issue, so I

fail to see how you can accuse me of debating that point. What I rose

on the point of order for, as I clearly indicated to you, was to elicit

from you whether or not under standing order 35 it is possible under

any circumstances to raise an emergent matter that is in order in this

House. Simply cutting off my opportunity to elicit some clear

guidelines from you...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: ...is hardly consistent with free debate in this

House and the rules, in my view. Surely I am entitled to some

clarification — that's what I'm seeking.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Watch your

temper!

MR. KING: Yes, I'm angry. You don't care about those 110,000

unemployed....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. members please come to order — all

of the hon. members?

A matter of urgent public debate under standing order 35 has at

times qualified and has been allowed by Speakers of the House. It's a

matter of decision at the time the proposition is put to the Chair as

to whether it is in order and whether it qualifies or not. I have

looked at your motion; I have looked at your

summary in support of the

motion; I have ruled that it does not qualify as a matter of urgent

public importance for debate. That ends the debate on the matter, Hon.

Member.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: A point of order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the point of

order that I have....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! I recognize the Premier,

who....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I'll follow it up if you have a point of order,

Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I ask leave to table documents showing the

high rate of unemployment since January, 1975, which show a peak of...

[ Page 1570 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...people unemployed of about 108,000 in

September of 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing order?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just asked to table documents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Shall leave be granted to

table documents?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I requested from you

some clarification of circumstances under which matters of emergency

can be raised under standing order 35 — and I appreciate the fact that

my motion has been ruled out of order. But it seems to me that the

House is entitled to some indication of what the parameters are which

would qualify a matter as being an emergent issue — an emergent social

and economic issue in this province — that would be recognized as an

emergency by the Chair. That's what I am trying to elicit from you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, in order not to take up the time of

the House, I would suggest to you that the matter is fully dealt with

by a previous Speaker of the House in 1974, page 285 in our Journals ,

and I would suggest that if after perusing that decision handed down by

the then Speaker of this assembly you have any further questions, you

should meet with me and we will discuss them.

MR. KING: I would ask leave of the House, then, by unanimous

leave to debate this important matter. I know the Premier has expressed

his concern. I believe the government must be concerned. I think it's a

primary issue and should be dealt with now. Therefore I ask that the

government extend to the opposition the same courtesy and consideration

that the opposition just extended to the Premier...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: ...in granting leave to present his statement to

the House. I ask the unanimous leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? I hear a "no."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no division, as the hon. member knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would ask that whoever said "no" stand in

his place.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a rule of this House, Hon. Member,

as you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: A division according to May .

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the millionaires don't care.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you know better, Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, you can call a division if

unanimous leave is disputed.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no recorded vote when leave is requested.

HON. MR. McGEER: Everybody said no.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a different point of order for the

future but relating to the same standing order: there are, I imagine,

two ways we could proceed on this question of a definite....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, are you now dealing with the same

matter that was just ruled out of order?

MR. GIBSON: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with a

standing order....

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, I would suggest that if you wish

to deal with a standing order which has nothing to do with the matter

which I just ruled out of order you bring it to my attention outside of

the hours that we have for debate on the floor of the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that it

has to do with some of the difficulties we've been having with this

standing order. I just want to make a very brief suggestion to you,

Sir, and if you will be good enough to hear me....

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that you said it will be

brief, I'll listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1571 ]

MR. GIBSON: I would submit that even if it were lengthy, it's

the merit that should qualify it, not the length.

I would suggest to you, Sir, that it might expedite these

proceedings considerably to have a short statement of the matter of

definite and urgent public importance, as the hon. Leader of the

Opposition introduced today, and then allow brief argument as to

urgency. Because it seems to me that urgency is not always a

transparent or an apparent question. A brief discussion of this might

be helpful from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows that it may fail on

several grounds, not only on the matter of urgency.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 30: minister's office, $88,756 — continued.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I would

like to make a few comments regarding consumer credit and mortgage

financing as it relates, I think, to the Department of Consumer

Services. I have been involved in consumer credit and mortgage

financing for a number of years and I had the pleasure of being

involved with the former Social Credit government in explaining some of

the facts about the proposed consumer legislation at that time.

I would like to compliment, as other members have done today, the

consumer brochures that were put out by the Department of Consumer

Services, the ones that are available to the public and the ones that

are available in the schools for our students. Mr. Chairman, I believe

the main thing that is needed in the field of consumer credit is

education, and I feel very strongly that the education is needed mainly

by our children who are about to graduate from school. What they are

faced with today is a raft of advertising which leads them to believe

that it is very simple to buy today and pay for it tomorrow and

tomorrow and tomorrow.

I can tell you that the age of the charge card is something that is

very beneficial to those who handle it right, but it can be a load on

those consumers who do not recognize that they are paying for something

with tomorrow's dollars and there is a cost. The cost of the Chargex

card, if it is allowed to carry on over a period of time, is 18 per

cent. Department store credit cards are 21 per cent. In most instances,

what you buy through the department store are non-durable goods and, in

the end, when those goods or services are used up, you are still paying

for them. As a result, the debt load is carried on to future

paycheques, so when you have to replace it you haven't paid for the one

you've already consumed.

Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest things that I've found in consumer

credit, and serving the public in that field, was the young high school

student who graduated and got his first job. After two or three weeks

on the job, he was led to believe that the simple way of enjoying life

was to finance a car. He would finance a car — not just a car to get

him to and from work, but a car probably to impress his girl friend —

and it would end up that he would go into debt to the tune of $5,000.

That debt load may have a charge on it — the cost of that financing may

be anywhere from 12 to 24 per cent — and he doesn't recognize what he

has to do to keep that car operational. Of course, if there is a layoff

in the job that he's doing, he is faced with trying to carry a car —

car payments and maintenance of that car — on unemployment insurance.

It is very difficult.

One of the other things that I think I've come across more than

anything in the matter of financial counselling is that it relates to

marriage counselling, because one of the things that really creates a

problem in the household today is the fact that money is required to

cover the debt service of the family. Those who are caught are the ones

who can least afford it. I would only say to the Department of Consumer

Services, to the minister, that education is the one thing that can

save, in many instances, problems in the household if all members of

that household know how to handle consumer credit. As long as we can

instil that in the high schools, in the grade 12s, grade 11s, so that

when they come out of school they have some idea that there is a cost

to buying things on time....

The effect on the family, through the loss of dollars because of

paying for debt service, is becoming very tragic. Heavier and heavier

the burden gets, and it even affects, I think, our working force to

such an extent that today, in many instances, strikes are not brought

about because you cannot put food on the table; labour forces are

sometimes influenced and go on strike for higher pay because members of

the working force have to pay for the Skidoo, the camper in the

driveway and the two cars in the garage. Mr. Chairman, if we can do one

thing, it's to make sure that we make every effort to educate the young

and the old in the use of consumer credit.

One of the things that came to my attention last night in the paper

was that in New Zealand they have now looked at curtailing consumer

credit. All credit purchases on cars and light trucks have been banned,

and the deposit requirement on some household equipment has been

increased by as much as 50 per

[ Page 1572 ]

cent. If I recall, back in the late 1940s in this

country you had to have 25 per cent down before you could purchase an

automobile.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): How old were you then?

MR. HEWITT: Very young at that time. I wasn't in the class

where I could buy an automobile, but that was the law at that time. I,

for one, feel that if that law had been instilled throughout the last

20 years, we probably wouldn't have the problems of today in regard to

consumer credit. If we did have such regulations, we would lower the

cost to the consumer — his carrying charge — and he would be able to

cope a little more with his day-to-day living. I would ask the minister

to consider it. I must say that I'm not aware whether that would be

provincial or federal legislation, but I think it is a point we could

consider in regard to keeping the inflation down and keeping the people

from running into situations where they have to apply for debtor's

assistance through the legislation and through the services of the

Consumer Services department.

One of the biggest problems that I have found in the field of

finance is that the house purchase is the largest consumer purchase any

family will make. I feel very strongly that government should look at

protection of that consumer at the time the contract is made, at the

time the sale is completed, at the time the mortgage or agreement for

sale is signed. I'm not talking about all mortgage companies or money

lenders — there are good money lenders, good mortgage companies — I'm

talking about the exceptions to the rule. I would like to cover three

things mainly: one is the interest rate when you relate it to a

discount on a mortgage or to a bonused mortgage or to the famous

balloon payment at the end of a term on a mortgage.

In last night's paper there was a headline that stated: "Eighty-five

Per Cent Third Mortgage Interest, and It's Perfectly Legal." If I could

read for a moment regarding one particular case, there was a first

mortgage on a particular piece of property at 18 per cent on which this

party still owed $14,300. In addition, they owed $4,800 on a second

mortgage at 24 per cent. Then the third mortgage came along and this

document was for $3,000 at 24 per cent interest, but they didn't get

the $3,000. The company only gave them $1,600, keeping the $1,400 for

expenses, if you can imagine $1,400 expenses to draw a $3,000 third

mortgage! These people signed a contract, signed a legal mortgage,

initialed the pages, probably, but didn't really understand what they

were doing. They were desperate. As a result, they would undoubtedly in

the end lose their house.

Mr. Chairman, one of the other problems — that's a very severe case

I just quoted — that I have seen many times is the balloon payment at

the end of a five-year contract where a person who's purchasing a home

signs up to a mortgage that may be for $20,000. It has a five-year term

but it's amortized over 25 years. At the end of the five-year term,

they get a letter which states: "You may now pay this mortgage out or

you have the choice of re-financing it." That person, of course, can't

pay it out, so they go to refinance it, but they find that in order to

refinance it they have to pay a bonus of $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000.

All of sudden they're back to where they started or they're in a worse

position than when they originally started to pay on the mortgage that

they took out.

Mr. Chairman, again I quote that it is not the respectable mortgage

companies that do this, but it is the ones that walk in the shadows

that take advantage of the people who can least afford it. I would ask

the minister that he review that, that his department look at the

problem and see whether or not we can give assistance to those people

who really don't have, possibly, the education to understand the

severity of the problem when they sign that document.

Mr. Chairman, another instance of a problem is where a person

decides to sell their home. They list it, they get a purchaser, but

they must take back a second mortgage. They have a second mortgage

drawn up, usually with the assistance possibly of the real estate

agent, and the conditions of that second mortgage are very liberal to

the purchaser but very severe to the vendor of the property. The vendor

is led to believe that there is no problem because they can

automatically, after the sale is completed, sell that second mortgage

and get their cash. And they can, but they can only sell it at a

discount. They may be an elderly couple who want to move into a

retirement centre. They sell their property, they think they are going

to get possibly $10,000 out of a second mortgage that they're going to

sell, and they find out, because of the terms of that second mortgage,

that when they go to sell it it's only worth $5,000, because it may

have had a 30-year term or the interest rate may have been below the

market rate, and they are forced to sell at such a discount that it

severely penalizes them. They were led to believe that they could sell

it for the full value of the mortgage.

To the minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, I would suggest, if

possible, that his department look at the regulation to limit the rate

of interest to be charged with relationship to a discount on a

mortgage. The interest may well be the current market rate plus cost of

drawing that mortgage or transferring the mortgage to the new owner.

Mr. Chairman, the interest penalty on a lump-sum payout or a

lump-sum payment on a mortgage is also a problem, where a person who

wants to make a lump-sum payment on their mortgage finds that they pay

three months' or six months' interest penalty or,

[ Page 1573 ]

if they wish to pay the mortgage out, they have to

pay the penalty on the outstanding balance. Sometimes it's difficult to

understand when the lender receives the money back and can use that

money and reinvest it on the market again, and yet the person who is

paying it out is penalized for paying off a charge on their property. I

think the Department of Consumer Services might well look at that to

see whether or not there could be some safeguards put in so that people

are protected against this type of use of mortgage documents.

Mr. Minister, if your department would study the matter of a minimum

down payment required on consumer purchases, I think it might do well

to help curb inflation in this province. I think it might do well to

soften the debt load that consumers are carrying if the department can

look at the regulation and control in the abuse of the mortgage field,

not by the many, many mortgage companies that are reputable firms but

by those companies that walk in the shadows and take advantage of the

people who can least afford it.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I'll try very

briefly to answer the member for Boundary-SimiIkameen's questions.

Unfortunately, most of the questions he raised in the latter part of

his speech relate to things over which my department has no control and

which, quite frankly, ought to be directed to the Attorney-General —

particularly those things which relate to mortgages and things of that

nature.

A number of other things that he raised, I'm afraid, are questions

for the federal government — enforcement of their statutes such as the

Interest Act and things of that nature.

Getting back to the original part of his question, Mr. Chairman, to

the member through you, I would like the House to know that the whole

area of consumer credit is under study and has been under study for

some time, dating well back into the previous administration. I must

also say that the constitutional legislation battle is probably being

fought on this field more than any other field.

The whole question of consumer credit, of course, as I'm sure the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) knows, has come under consideration of

the borrowers and depositors protection Act, a proposed federal statute

which has caused us a great deal of grief in my department and within

the government because it proposes, in our view, to take over a great

deal of legislation that British Columbia has now and has had for a

great length of time, and also would curtail what we consider to be our

legitimate area of interest.

I would like also to point out to the member for

Boundary-Similkameen that we have had under study, along with the

federal government, the question of electronic payments, the whole

question of credit cards and, as a matter of fact, the whole question

of consumer credit.

Insofar as house-buying is concerned, I think, as I indicated to the

House yesterday, we are looking very seriously at that problem. HUDAC

has already got the plan which will come into force in a month's time,

and that too is under study.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm interested

in the remarks of the member for Boundary-Similkameen. He reminded me a

little bit of the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano. But he's

the only member on that side, to my knowledge, who's actually come out

and showed any concern about inflation. We haven't heard anything from

anybody other than that member. But then I remember that he's probably

somewhat misplaced in that party; I understand he was a Liberal before

he became a Socred.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): No, he fits right in.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he fits right in. I'm sorry, yes, he fits right

in. That's right. My colleague tells me that they all fit together.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I've always been what I've always been. I don't

have any problems about that. I don't wake up in the middle of the

night and wonder which hat I've got to put on.

I was hoping that we would hear something from the.... Oh, the

Premier's back. That's really good because I would think that under

this vote he would be getting up and telling us what he's going to do

for the consumer, particularly those 110,000 consumers that are

presently unable to consume too much because they are not employed.

I would hope that the minister will have something to say about

that. After all, the fact that we have 110,000 consumers in this

province unemployed has a significant impact on our economy. Yes, the

Premier agrees. He was the one who predicted way back in October, that

we would have 130,000 in this province by April. Well, I think he's

about to achieve one of the only promises he ever made and that he's

likely to keep — that we're likely to have 130,000 unemployed in this

province by next month.

We've yet to hear from that government about what they're going to

do. We know what the minister of shovels is going to do; he's got 75

people, and he's going to put some of those consumers to work. But

we've heard nothing from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) about what he's going to do for consumers. We don't even know

what

[ Page 1574 ]

he's going to do for the farmers.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): We know what

you are going to do.

MR. LEVI: Aha, here we go. There's that man again. He's

moving his mouth, and he's not saying anything.

But what I'd like to talk about now, Mr....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The million-dollar man.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I'd like to talk

about two concerns that I have in relation to private pension plans and

the RRSP. I'm talking about these matters from the point of view of

workers who are consumers. Although it's not a matter that has

previously been brought to the attention, in a broad way, even to his

predecessor, I think it is in the interests of the consumer, and

certainly should become a concern of the minister in respect to the

problems that exist in private pension plans and the RRSP.

Now as you know, the time has long since passed when workers have to

rely on their personal savings to take care of their future security.

It was this party, along with the trade union movement, that set out to

establish and demonstrate the need for pension plans, but there was a

great deal of trouble and there were some very strong and difficult

struggles in order to get those pension plans.

In Canada today we have about 20,000 private pension plans. They

cover about 40 per cent of the work force, and that is approximately

what kind of coverage we have in this province. Ninety-eight percent of

the people in the pension plans in Canada are civil servants.

The best kind of administered plans are the public ones, in the

terms of the public service, but there's a continuing debate in respect

to private pension plans regarding two major concerns. One of them is

inflation and its effect on private pension plans, and the other one,

as characterized by people in the field who know, is the abysmal

investment performance of some of the people who have been managing

pension plans.

Now with respect to inflation, if there is a 10 per cent inflation

in effect, as we have now — or almost 11 — a pension that presently is

$5,000 a year will be worth about $2,900 in five years.

Mr. Gibson, who was the former executive vice-president of the Bank

of Nova Scotia, said that pension plans are not built to absorb more

than about 3 per cent in terms of inflation. At the time he said this,

about a year ago, the question of indexing in order for pensions to

keep up was going to be an extremely costly matter.

But in respect to pensions from the investment point of view,

pension funds, both private and public — but I want to deal with the

private ones — play an ever-increasing role in the national investment

policy. It's always interesting to me that the workers who work on the

line, who are the contributors to these pensions, who are the

consumers, never really see themselves as having a major role in the

investment policy of this country. Yet they do have, because they

contribute half of the money that goes toward the Canada Pension Plan

and about 35 per cent of all the money that goes into private pension

plans. At the moment we have about a $30 billion investment in private

pension plans, and the worker is contributing somewhere between $12 and

$15 billion of this.

It's again interesting that these workers, as consumers, have great

difficulty in getting mortgages. Yet they are making available to that

investment community some $12 to $15 billion. Yet, as the member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) said...he talks about the high costs

of obtaining mortgages.

Now having regard to all this, I do want to raise the question and

the need in this province for pension benefit legislation. At the

moment there are five provinces that have it, but we don't. It is a

question of looking at what the best kind of legislation is that we

need. Again, because we are dealing with consumers, I think it's

important that the minister talk with his colleagues, the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom).

I guess he, at the moment, seems to be involved in insurance matters.

At the present time there is no legislation, and certainly there is a

need that there should be. I want to discuss in terms of that future

legislation three possible areas that should be covered: one is the

improved portability arrangements, the second one is the survivor and

disability benefits, and the third one relates to pension fund

management.

The improved portability arrangement is one of the major factors in

pensions. You know, as I said, there are five provinces that have it.

Now the average Canadian worker is moving once every five years. He's

going to another job, not necessarily to another town. Because he

doesn't have a portability situation, unless he happens to be in one of

the few major industries that has done this portability, he has to

start all over again. So much so that the Canadian Labour Congress in

its report states that only between 4 and 10 per cent of all people who

contribute to private pension plans actually receive a full pension.

Now I'm not saying that the other people don't receive pensions. They

may receive partial pensions, but only that 4 per cent to 10 per cent

actually receive a full pension.

Now there is great concern across Canada — and there must be in our

province — that the performance in terms of the private pension plans

must be improved. There was a recent recommendation from

[ Page 1575 ]

the Canadian Association of Pension Supervising

Authorities that met last June for the first time — the province had

two people present — that there be some specific issues discussed and

then recommended in respect to investing and the time period. At the

present time the age is usually 45, and the time period is 10 years,

and the recommendation there is that it go down to 40 and it be five

years.

Now these technicalities are something that, in terms of drawing up

legislation, are the kinds of things that have to be discussed. I would

hope that we will have an opportunity in the future to discuss such a

bill.

Now on the survivors and the disability benefits, this is really one

of the poorest aspects of private pension plans. You know, at present

it's a virtual law of nature, unfortunately, that is condemning

thousands of women who become widows to an even further reduction in

their standard of living. In British Columbia under the previous

government we had the Mincome programme for people over the age of 60,

and the handicapped as well were assured....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): It went broke!

MR. LEVI: Who said that?

MR. KAHL: You did!

MR. LEVI: Ah! There's the member for Esquimalt, who is

against Mincome. Now we've got it. That's the man! Went broke, my foot!

Now the important thing is that we have in place a basic pension

fund, particularly to take care of widows, because at the present time

in pension plans widows have no guarantee whatsoever that they can....

They can't take over the husband's pension, that's for sure. They get a

reduced pension, and in some plans they don't get any pension. We have

to look at that as a major concern. That's a major concern in terms of

future costs for income assurance for people who are going into

retirement.

There is the possibility, in looking at a British proposal that was

made in 1969 — in terms of equity it was a good one — that the widow

would simply inherit the husband's pension entitlement. But, of course,

as we know actually, because the men are living fewer years than the

widows, what is involved there is an enormous amount of money.

There has been discussion of the pension as an issue in terms of it

being property. It was something discussed in the marriage property

paper that was put out by the Berger commission, and, again, we have to

pay some attrition to this. Also, there is the question of the disabled.

Now these are important questions in terms of the consumers in this

province who are participating in pension plans. Particularly, we must

see and be sure that both the private and the public one.... The public

one, I must say, is a well-administered programme. But the minister

must convince his leader, who sits in front of him, that as a result of

an alteration in the Mincome programme, thousands of people are going

to suffer because they are not going to receive the same kind of income

that they have expectations to receive.

I'm talking particularly about the 60-64 who are now frozen at a

particular level. I'm talking about the handicapped who are not going

to be able to get the cost-of-living increase — something which that

Premier promised when he was campaigning, that they would not only give

Mincome but would add to it. Well, they've done exactly the opposite.

Now I want to deal with pension-fund management — and that's a

pretty sore point across the country. Given the persistent inflation,

it turns the investment process into a kind of roulette game — one

might say it's even a Russian roulette. There must be, as a matter of

law — and this is one of the things that I'm directing to the minister

— a joint employer-management direction of funds. Pensions are deferred

wages, and workers have a right to be involved in the decision-making

process. We're not dealing with the matter of expertise in terms of

management, because you can purchase that. What I'm dealing with, the

basic issue, is a question of equity between the workers and the

management.

It is interesting that following the June conference I referred to,

the Ottawa Journal

reported a statement that one trust company actually, over a period of

10 years, achieved an interest level of one-half of 1 per cent. Yet the

average interest level is about 4 to 5 per cent, but it's less now

because of inflation. One can wonder, I think, when in this day and

age, where workers are setting aside money for their future security,

the most they can expect to get from that is 4 to 5 per cent, when you

can get Canada Savings Bonds at 9 per cent, and you can get some

five-year term deposits at 10.2 or 10.3 per cent. So obviously there's

got to be much better provision for that kind of joint management and

the whole question of how to deal with the investment portfolio.

I just want to deal now with the RRSPs, the registered retirement

savings plans. I think that this is an area, Mr. Minister, for consumer

education. At the present time the RRSPs are sold something like new

cars. There are at least 16 models you can purchase; seven are handled

by banks, nine are handled by trust companies. Some of the jargon that

is used is perhaps familiar to some of the car dealers over there. Mr.

Derek Smith, manager of the special deposits for the Royal Bank, has

said: "....and the reputation of the institution and the kind of

service you get have to be worth something." He's talking about the

particular programme that is issued. There's a whole language

[ Page 1576 ]

for the consumer to learn. It's not like filling

out a lottery

ticket. When you're after a registered retirement savings plan, it's

very complicated, and it does have some of the elements of chance in it.

Now the consumer has to sort out what the 16 competitors are

offering; he has to select the best investment vehicle. Canada

Permanent Trust has got three: they've got one called Guaranteed Fund;

they've got Fixed Income Fund; and they've got Equity Fund. The Royal

Bank has three: they've got Royal Bank Retirement Deposits, Royal Fund

Income Trust, and Royal Fund Limited. Then you have to understand the

type of investment: is it bank deposits, common stock, mortgages,

savings accounts, U.S. dollar deposits account, variable rates,

government incorporation bonds...and a host of other types of

investments? So it's tough. You might say: "Pity the poor consumer."

Then you have the acquisition charge, better known as the front-end

load — you know: what is it going to cost you to get into the game?

Then there's the rate of interest.

Of the 16 organizations, none of them seem to have the same kind of

interest rates. Then you have an administration fee, or a trust fee,

and for that decision you're going to need a calculator.

Then there's a management fee. Some people have difficulty in

distinguishing between the trust fee and the management fee. Some

charge both a management fee and an administration fee.

Then there are the transfer privileges — about one-third of the

programmes charge for that privilege.

Then there's the minimum contribution to get into the plan, and that

can be anywhere from $50 to $1,000 — but generally the plans are

between $100 and $500. Finally, there's the termination or

part-withdrawal fee.

I would, at this time, like to pay tribute to a member of the press,

a business writer, Mr. Mike Grenby of The Vancouver Sun ,

who wrote a very interesting series of articles dealing with the RRSP.

I would recommend to the minister that taking up this particular

problem in terms of the consumer.... I presume he may have seen the

article, because they are good. They take quite a bit of studying, and

I think it would be very much in the interest of the consumers of the

province if the minister's department would undertake to look at the

RRSP.

Now I realize that we have some time between now and next year,

because the big rush comes.... You know, there's always the big

advertising rush that comes 60 days before the income tax documents

have to be in,

But there is a very genuine need, because people are looking to

their future security. At the same time as the minister is looking, I

would hope that we can look forward to some legislation in this

province in respect to private pension funds.

In closing about the RRSP, I've spent some time studying it, and I

find that it's really virtually a minefield, and a lot of the consumers

tend to go ploughing into it. What's really needed is the minister's

office, the minister's department, who can go in there and develop an

education programme very much in the same way they were able to do with

the Trade Practices Act and debtors' counselling, both very excellent

programmes which are being continued. Certainly there is a need in this

particular area.

I would be interested in hearing the minister's remarks in respect

to the legislation aspect of private pensions and the kind of education

programme that we do need in respect to the registered retirement

savings plans.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, as the member has pointed out,

Mr. Grenby wrote a six-part article. I have before me here a veritable

sheaf of newspaper articles and information relating to this particular

subject. I agree with the member that it's complicated, but one must

remember that it is a tax-saving device brought about principally by

federal legislation.

When you're looking at tax-saving devices, I suggest to the member,

through you, Mr. Chairman, it is often necessary to get counsel. There

is a great deal of counsel available. There will always be good

investments, bad investments and mediocre investments. I conceive it to

be the duty of my department, the obligation of my department, to see

that there is fair play in the marketplace, but not to lead people by

the hand down to what I consider to be the right investment — or, even

worse, leave it to some others at a future date to do the same thing.

The member, through you, Mr. Chairman, made some interesting

observations about pensions. I was interested to note that, so far as

my department is concerned, nothing was done in this regard prior to

the change in government. It seems to have been a very good idea that

the member has brought forward. I rather wonder why it wasn't brought

up before, because I can certainly think of a number of programmes that

were brought in that we could easily have sacrificed to make way for

this type of a study.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): You're doing really well,

but don't spoil it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go back to the other government, Rafe.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the members opposite....

MS. BROWN: He was doing really well, and then he blew it.

[ Page 1577 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Ah, Rosemary!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. MAIR: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I think that the

idea has merit for study. I will certainly take it up with my

colleagues and see whether or not they agree with me that a study ought

to be brought forth.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no influence with them at all.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to point out also, Mr. Chairman,

that not all private plans, by any means, are the same. I can think of

two, for example, which are excellent to the point of almost being

extravagantly generous. I'm referring — and I don't mind naming the

companies — to Simpsons-Sears as one and Woodward's Stores as another.

You

know, it's very easy to stand up in this House and categorize private

pensions as if they were all bad. But that's far from the truth; there

are lots that are very, very good indeed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. MAIR: B.C. Hydro — I was just going to mention that.

Thank you, Mr. Premier, I was going to mention that we have some

pension plans....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: We have some pension plans in the province

that after two or three years of service pay $10,000 a year out to the

end of the wife's life. It's not all private pension plans or public

ones that are the same.

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's have orderly debate!

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did just want to

make one further point. I am indeed grateful to the member for bringing

this to our attention.

I will, indeed, look at the question of private pension plans. I

must, though, if I may, just raise one thing as a minor point of order,

Mr. Chairman, through you, to the member. I think all of us on this

side of the House get a little tired of the members opposite referring

to Mincome as if they had invented it instead of just the name. I would

point out to the member opposite that we give you credit for inventing

the name but not the programme.

SOME H ON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Do you feel better having said

that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I sure do. You betcha!

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I was

speaking under these estimates and brought up the question of ferry

rates. I commented on the statements which had appeared in The

Daily

Colonist with respect to a speech that the minister had made in

Campbell River. As a result of all of this, I am really quite confused.

As I understand it, the Colonist reported that the minister had

stated

that ferry rates would be under review. On Sunday, according to radio

reports, the minister said that he was referring only to the ferries in

the Campbell River area. Then yesterday we received in the House a copy

of a letter which is going to the editor of the Colonist with

respect

to his position. In that letter, he says that he did not say that there

would be any review but that they would always be prepared to take a

second look.

Now this really doesn't jibe with what the members of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities, the Vancouver Island section, heard at the meeting

that night. I'm very confused by it all, but I am just appealing again

to the minister to take this up with the cabinet — to take it up and

ask that those ferry rates be reviewed.

I was just talking this morning to some people who are living on the

southern Gulf Islands. I am concerned that the high unemployment that

we were hearing about today is going to increase even more, because

there are people from those islands who commute every day to work and

are not going to be able to afford the rates. They're going to have to

go on unemployment insurance; either that, or sell their homes and move

onto Vancouver Island in order to retain their employment. I feel that

on behalf of the consumers, and in view of the statements that he did

make in Campbell River — although, as I say, I am somewhat confused on

those statements at this stage — he should take up in cabinet the

matter

of a reduction in ferry rates.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I hope you will reply. I am not through yet, Mr.

Minister, so just sit tight. I also sent over yesterday a copy of an ad

which appeared in one of the local papers. I ask today whether or not

he has had an opportunity to study that or to have comments from his

department on that ad, as it relates to misleading advertising.

One other point that I raised yesterday was a request to the

minister that the increase in gasoline

[ Page 1578 ]

prices and home-heating fuel prices not be passed

on to the consumer

in this province. I pointed out that under the Energy Act it is quite

possible to hold those prices and not pass them on, in spite of

whatever

the federal government might do or whatever the oil companies might do.

The Premier today indicated that there is a price freeze at the

refinery level and that those prices, therefore, will not be passed on

to the consumers. I am quite pleased to hear that. I am wondering if

you had the ear of the Premier this morning as a result of the comments

made in the House yesterday with respect to the Energy Act. It is my

understanding that the Premier has said that these freezes will not be

lifted at this time or at any time in the future. I am delighted to

hear that.

I would like to raise a question that relates to the tax refund

buyers. This is an insidious system in our province where people can

set up shop here, there and everywhere and offer to purchase the income

tax forms from people and pay them a given sum for it. As you know, the

people who go to these firms are the ones who can least afford to be

bilked, and they are being bilked. I am sure that you are aware of it;

certainly the deputy minister is aware of what is happening. He has

promised, as a matter of fact, in The Vancouver Sun , January

21.... Some time ago the deputy minister promised to "shout from the

rooftops" about the unscrupulous companies offering so-called loans

against their income tax rebates.

The deputy minister also is quoted as saying that in most cases the

cash received is "a small fraction" of what is returned in the rebate.

He says: "If we had a usury law, these people would be in prison." I'm

sure that he is.... Yes, the deputy minister is quoted as saying that,

and I'm sure that he means it.

In January of this year — January 23 in The Vancouver Sun —

you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are quoted as saying that

you will take action. Now I am still not aware of what action you are

planning to take, and I would like to hear a report on that. Because

this system must be stopped in this province. It's an incredible

ripoff, usury.

MR. LAUK: He's still looking at the situation. Or are you

dissociating yourself from your deputy's remarks?

HON. MR. MAIR: What deputy?

MS. SANFORD: Oh, after all those kind comments about the

deputy minister yesterday, I am sure that the minister wishes to

retract that statement.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think any discussion on Consumer Services, in

view of the publicity this particular issue has had in the last two or

three years, would be complete without some reference to canning lids.

I would like to know if the minister can assure the people of the

province that this summer there will be an ample supply of canning lids

available and also that these canning lids will be of top quality. You

may recall, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Safeway had

to refund to customers in the province because the canning lids they

had sold were no good. Unfortunately, the food which had been canned by

the people who had bought those canning lids was wasted, and there was

no refund to them for the loss of food.

The next item that I would like to deal with briefly, Mr. Chairman,

relates to a situation that is now occurring back east. This is as a

result of hearings which are being held by the CRTC on plans which Bell

Telephone planned to introduce into Ontario and Quebec later this year.

The company is planning to modify the telephone receiver in such a way

that people who must wear hearing aids will not be able to use

telephones. Now this is regrettable. You are obviously not familiar

with this situation, and I would be quite happy to send you the

information about it.

But what is happening is that there is a new type of telephone

receiver which is being installed in Ontario and Quebec. Appealing to

the CRTC is a coalition of hearing aid users who are requesting that

the CRTC make some ruling with respect to the introduction of these

telephones back east. Now it seems to me that it would be tragic,

indeed, if people who are required to wear hearing aids would be denied

access to the telephone. I don't know what's going to be required here,

whether they would have to have adapters on their own phones in order

to make the hearing aid work or whether they are going to have to have

new hearing aids to fit the telephone. But one way or the other, those

people who now wear hearing aids, I know, are going to suffer as a

result of this particular move. I would ask that you look into that.

Because if the move is being made back in Ontario and Quebec, it's

likely to be made here. If we can make some move in advance of that, I

think we may be able to alleviate the problems created for those who

must wear hearing aids.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that the federal government or the

provincial government?

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's the CRTC. The federal government is

holding the hearings. But I think that you, as minister, may be able to

make some moves here before the actual changes are made. I would be

happy to send that particular clipping over to the minister if he would

take it.

The next point that I would like to raise fairly briefly relates to

eye care. There was an

article in The Vancouver Sun in February

of this year which had a headline saying: "Market Control Charged as

Adding

[ Page 1579 ]

to High Cost of Eye Care in B.C." This again, Mr.

Minister, is the

federal Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which was holding

hearings at that time. But allegations were made there by one of the

optical companies that the two major companies involved in the

manufacture of eyeglasses are, in fact, charging far too much. What

they are requesting is that the federal government bring in some

regulations which would prohibit the expansion of those two particular

companies for a period of 10 years.

What I am wondering is whether or not this department made any

representations to the trade practices commission when it was holding

public hearings and, secondly, whether or not you have, in fact,

followed up as a result of the information which appeared in the press

at that time with respect to market control in the area of eye care.

I think, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like to answer some of

these points I will take my seat at this time.

HON. MR. MAIR: Dealing with the last point first, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the member for Comox, I am instructed that the

B.C. Department of Health did make representations to that commission.

It was not done through my department.

MS. SANFORD: Is there any follow-up? Do you know what's

happening? Has there been any follow-up on that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am instructed that proceedings are still

continuing, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member. I certainly don't

want to dwell on this question of Campbell River and the speech I gave

up there last Friday, except to say two things. First of all, the

letter

which I filed in this House is a true explanation of what did, in fact,

happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Legally.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it's the truth, Gary — sorry — through

you, Mr. Chairman, to the noisy member across.

Secondly, the radio reports that I think you've heard, Madam Member,

ought to be taken in this light. I didn't hear them, first of all,

myself. The speech was made on Friday night; the publication was on

Sunday morning — a full day intervened. I was not contacted by anybody

Saturday at all. The first contact I had from anybody in the media was

from CJVI, which, I understand, is a local Victoria radio station. That

contact was approximately 9:30 Sunday night. I gave a voice clip, and

that's the only contact I had with anybody other than the Vancouver Province ,

which chose not to run it as any kind of a story.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Any kind of a real story. They had a little

story on the back of the front section, which didn't really amount to a

great deal.

MR. LAUK: Attacking the press.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, they had a little better sense of

proportion, I think, under all of the circumstances, but suffice it to

say also that I looked at the comments this morning in the Colonist ,

which I'm sure were direct quotes from the people who were there.

However, I know who those people were, and I know what their mental

attitude was at the time. They were extremely agitated, and quite

frankly, I think they were prepared to hear what they wanted to hear. I

stand by what I said in the letter which I filed in this House.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying they lied?

HON. MR. MAIR: At the moment that's enough of that.

Dealing with the tax refund buyers, to the member for Comox (Ms.

Sanford), I am extremely agitated about this problem and have been

since I took office. It is not a question that we're constantly

studying, as the noisy member across would have us believe. It's

something we have been discussing actively with the federal government,

and I have said this, and I'll say it again in this House: if the

federal government does not live up to what its obvious responsibility

is — because it clearly comes within their constitutional obligations

and constitutional rights — I will recommend to our government that we

do something. Of course, you understand, Madam Member, that what I

recommend may or may not be taken up by the government. I rather hope

that this would. In all events, I am hopeful that the federal

government will install legislation to take care of the situation.

We're concerned, and one of the reasons that we are concerned about

getting into this, quite frankly, is our constitutional right to do so.

Normally, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Comox, I'm the

last person to be concerned about provincial rights to legislate. I

would rather take them first and ask questions later, but it seems to

me, not only as a lawyer myself, but on the advice of my staff, that

this is something that quite clearly comes within the federal preserve,

and were we to legislate on it at this point probably it would be

attacked on a constitutional basis by the people that we're trying to

control. I would not want to come in with legislation only to have it

challenged by the tax buyers in the courts at tax time next year, have

the matter sub judice, and have them able to carry on and do it again

for one year through the dodge of testing its

[ Page 1580 ]

constitutionality. At least I would not want to

have that

responsibility on the provincial government, so we will continue to

urge the federal government to legislate in this field, and if they

don't, you have this undertaking: I will take it to the government I

have the honour of representing, and I will ask them to seek the

legislation from this House to cure the problem.

So far as canning lids are concerned, Madam Member, this is, of

course, as you know and my predecessor knew, a very difficult question

indeed. It's very hard to get a full grasp of how many canning lids are

required and how many are available. Moreover, we've discovered a new

dimension this year — not entirely new, but certainly new in its

magnitude — and that's the quality of the canning lids that have been

supplied. There has been such a problem raised with the supply of them

that a number of new suppliers have come into the market. It's

impossible for us, with our facilities, to know whether or not these

supplies are of good quality. We are now asking for sufficient funds to

put in a type of testing. It's not going to be a very fancy, very

sophisticated type of testing, but we would like to enter into that

field at least to a degree so that we can eliminate the ones that are

obviously bad. I'm not going to give this as an undertaking, but I'm

fairly confident that this year the problem is under control so far as

canning lids are concerned. I certainly hope so. We've certainly done

our best and worked very hard at it.

There's the question of the ad that the member sent over to me

yesterday. I have given that ad — as I'm sure you would have wanted me

to do — to the department and asked them to investigate it.

This is probably a very useful time, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the House, to say that if all these individual cases which cause

concern to the members — I know that the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) yesterday was concerned about one or two

things — are brought to my department, I'm not going to assure the

House that they'll be taken care of in the sense that the result you

desire will be achieved, but they will be looked at and investigated in

the same way that all complaints are investigated by my department —

thoroughly and properly.

MS. SANFORD: There is one other matter that I would like to

bring to the minister's attention and to ask him a question about.

One of the things that is happening back east is that supermarkets

are going into the computer business in a big way. Companies are now

applying a code system to all of the products. This code system

consists of a series of bars that appears on.... I've got some examples

here. On almost every item that you buy now, you find a series of bars

which indicates the code which can then be fed into the computer.

Now this is rather an insidious system. I don't like this approach,

Mr. Chairman, to the marketing of food products, and I'm concerned

about it. One thing apparently that can happen is that the master

computer, which simply marks up the price of whatever product it is

that you're buying, can put on a price which is different from the one

that you read on the shelves, because by the time you carry it from the

shelf to the scanner which feeds the information to the computer, the

price can change.

Now that kind of thing can happen, but in addition to that, it is

my understanding that back east, where some of these have come into

effect, the supermarkets are no longer marking each item on the shelves

with its individual price. All they're doing is putting up a label

along the shelf which supposedly applies to a given

section of goods

that appear on those shelves. These labels, from my own experience in

supermarkets, are very often moved — they can be slid back and forth;

very often one of the numbers falls out onto the floor — so it is my

suggestion to you, Mr. Minister, that if this system is initiated in

British Columbia, as I'm sure it will be, the Consumer Services

department ensure that each item on the supermarket shelves continues

to have a price on it. I'm wondering if you would comment on that.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd be pleased to comment on that. We have now

funded the Consumers' Association of Canada, I believe in the amount of

$3,000, to study the situation and report back to us.

We're aware of the problems, and we've been in touch with the

industry. Two or three weeks ago we met with a number of them on this

problem, and I think I can say it's in hand.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Just two or three short

points to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, on the staffing of his department, I took through with

great interest and see that there are some additions to a couple of the

votes: nine to the trade practices branch and five to the community

programmes. Anyway, there is a total addition of 13 people in areas in

the field where it seems it would be a very good place to have these

people.

However, this particular department, like the other departments of

government, is going to be subject to a 15 per cent staff reduction.

It's interesting to me to note that if you take the total number of

staff and reduce it by 15 per cent, it's reduced by exactly the number

of people you're proposing to add. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, if in fact these new people you're proposing to add

are the ones that are going to be cut or are you proposing to make some

cuts of existing staff in other areas?

[ Page 1581 ]

Secondly, and this has been touched on to some degree, but I'm sure

all the members saw this headline in the Victoria Times the

other

night: "Eighty-Five Per Cent Third Mortgage Interest Rate." You know,

that is just shocking. Then it goes on to say, "It's Perfectly Legal,"

and it is perfectly legal in the very narrow sense of the term, but

there is no moral legality about that kind of an interest rate, Mr.

Chairman. Of course, the method by which it is arrived at is that this

particular couple borrowed, I think it was, $3,600 at 24 per cent, but

when the expenses were taken off by the loan broker the actual cash

that they received was only $1,400, which reduced the amount of cash

and increased the actual, factual interest rate to 85 per cent.

Now I know there are all kinds of jurisdictional problems and other

kinds of problems, but I would urge that the minister have a good close

look at these kinds of tactics in the loan field. It's just disgraceful

that consumers can be put into a position of paying 85 per cent

interest.

Just very briefly, I want to touch on one thing that has concerned

me for a long time. It really relates to what I consider to be false

advertising, and that is in connection with B.C.-grown produce or

non-B.C.-grown produce. It is apparently perfectly legal in this

province to display a large sign reading "Canada grade No. 1" or "B.C.

grade No. 1" and then, in very small letters underneath that, "grown in

California." I would ask the minister to have a good look at this

practice and see if he cannot move to protect our agricultural industry

to some greater degree than by allowing that kind of practice to

continue.

I don't know if in this debate we have actually discussed anything

about spreads and markups, but I want to deal with just a couple of

agricultural products where I feel there is evidence of some very

specific areas where an investigation would be well advised on the part

of the minister.

I mentioned chicken during the agricultural estimates, and I would

refer this to the Minister of Consumer Services: the producers' price,

eviscerated equivalent, is something less than 48 cents. The

processors, who are also the wholesalers, indicate that their costs

range between 14 and 15 per cent. So we are talking about 62, 63 cents

to put that product in the hands of the retailers. And we all know that

price bears no relation to the kind of price we pay. If you go out and

price chicken on the retail shelves, or if you buy chicken, there's a

tremendous markup in that area. I would urge the Minister of Consumer

Services to investigate that.

Regarding beef: now my figures are not absolutely up to date, but

even though the prices might be different, the amount of spread has not

changed. You would note that a producer who sells an animal live weight

that might weigh 800 pounds would receive, say, between 40 and 48 cents

a pound, or an average of 44 cents, which would be $352. He sells that

to the feeder; the feeder is obliged to buy grain, which has become

quite high — feed grains have been suffering inflationary costs in the

last few years too. He fattens that animal till it gains 300 pounds in

weight and equals 1,100 pounds. At that point he sells it at less than

he paid for it per pound. So if it weighs 1,100 pounds, he is selling

it between 42 and 43 cents, for an average of, say, $467. In return for

all the feed and all the time, he has gained something just in excess

of $100.

He sells it to the packer, who, of course, dresses the animal. When

he finishes he only has 616 pounds to sell. He sells that at 75 cents a

pound which, in effect, returns him less than he paid; it only returns

him $462. I would suggest that the only thing keeping the packer in

business is the fact that he can sell the byproducts like hides and

other products for fertilizer and so on from that animal. But it

doesn't look like he's making very much. In fact, one packer says here

that the packing houses...it's a wonder how they're even staying alive.

This is one of the the packers that's making this statement.

Then it goes to the butcher who sells 432 pounds of meat, and that

meat will average from in excess of $1 to nearly $4 a pound, but if

you take the average price it would be $2.54. He is selling that animal

for in excess of $1,000, so once again it's that spread between the

wholesale and the retail; that's where we're finding the great spread

in these kinds of products. I would urge upon the Minister of Consumer

Services to investigate those areas as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, at long last I'm able to enter into

the debate and question the minister about consumer services.

There's a situation developing in this province that is quite

serious, and which I fear may not be handled by this minister for a

number of reasons.

Just to recapitulate what has been discussed from time to time

during this first session of this 31st parliament, Mr. Chairman, there

were a number of promises made by the Social Credit Party during the

election campaign in November of last year: they promised that they

would freeze taxes; they promised to keep rent control as it was. We

even had the Premier sign an ad to that effect in the local newspapers

— he promised that he would keep rent control as it was. Well, they

kept rent control, but they raised it to 10.6 per cent from the

indicated 8.7 or 8.4 per cent, in the reports that we had available to

us.

They promised, generally, to fight inflation. What did they really

do, Mr. Chairman? As this Minister of Consumer Services sat swinging

back and forth in his

[ Page 1582 ]

chair in the House — and figuratively during the

last five months —

underemployed, ineffectual in cabinet, the government raised ferry

rates, tampered with rent control, raised income taxes, sales taxes and

automobile insurance rates.

Another promise, Mr. Chairman, of the Premier — and I'm sorry he's

not in his chair; perhaps he should be for this....

I was going to point this out, Mr. Chairman, during the estimates of

the various ministers here. In the last two administrations in this

province, the Premiers of the various provinces were available more

often in this House for committee work and for the work of the House

than the present Premier. He's seldom in his chair, Mr. Chairman,

seldom in his chair to receive the legitimate criticisms of the

opposition and to be available to hear the debate in this committee.

He said: "Unemployment is the most serious issue of this election."

He accused the government of the day of attacking and restricting major

industries of the province. He said that we'd lost the heavy flow of

tax dollars. Well, they've certainly gained that back, haven't they,

Mr. Chairman? They've got a nice flow of tax dollars now, the very

dollars he said that provide programmes for people that need

assistance. And he's cut back on spending; everybody knows that.

He said: "To get B.C. moving again we need a government that will

work responsibly with industries and establish strong policies that

will create jobs. We need a government that will end mistrust and

restore confidence." He said: "100,000 people out of work; can we

afford the Barrett way?" Today, referring to the cost-of-living

statistics....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm waiting patiently for you to

relate this to the administrative responsibility of this minister,

please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Protector of the company world!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfair tactic. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Your monthly labour force data for B.C. and Canada

indicates the highest number of persons unemployed in the history of

this province — 110,000 people. That's 10,000 more than he claimed at

the time were unemployed in B.C. — 10,000 more people unemployed in

this province today, Mr. Chairman.

Now I know that we did not have the opportunity to debate this

urgent matter of public importance that was clearly within the rules of

the House. It was for some unexplainable reason ruled out of order by

the Speaker. But I had hoped — as he indicated, at least, by turning

down

the motion — that he didn't think it was urgent because we'd have an

opportunity in estimates to raise this issue. And I would like....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. Under the

administration of the proper minister, perhaps this debate would be in

order. But I fail to see how it's in order under the administrative

responsibility of the Department of Consumer Services. So I would ask,

please, that you relate your remarks....

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to point out is

that I want to point out the unemployment rate and indicate how that

has been caused by the inaction of the Minister of Consumer Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the minister's administrative

responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it must be within the ministerial

responsibility. I will be listening, and if I sense that you're

wandering, I will direct it to your attention.

MR. LAUK: I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, he said: "100,000 people are out of work. Can

we afford the Barrett way?" Well, a question is being asked across this

province today, Mr. Chairman. They don't even ask the question: can we

afford the Bennett way? They know they can't afford it because they're

out of work. They're paying higher taxes. They're paying higher rates

for insurance premiums. They're paying higher rates for Hydro. And the

Minister of Consumer Services has no clout, says nothing in cabinet,

sits on his hands as the average householder in this province is being

taxed to death, is working harder than ever — if they have a job — to

try and pay those taxes. And the Minister of Consumer Services allows

these rate increases by government betraying the promise to the people

of this province that they would fight inflation.

"Get B.C. moving again, " they said. "Provide more jobs...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must interrupt you again to

remind you that a debate on unemployment does not seem to fall within

the responsibility of this minister's department.

MR. LAUK: Well, what then is this minister's responsibility?

He's not responsible for rate increases in the ferries. He's not

responsible for Hydro increases. He dissociates himself completely from

his deputy's remarks on income tax buying. He denies

[ Page 1583 ]

making statements that he made up in Campbell

River. He sends

legalistic letters around, trying to get off the hook. He's spending

more time writing letters to newspapers than he is spending time on his

job. I'll describe that job to you, Mr. Chairman.

What's the history of the Department of Consumer Services in this

province? Let's discuss that for a moment.

A lady by the name of Phyllis Young was asked to establish a

department in the government service that would be designed for the

protection of the consumers in this province, the average person in

this province — not the big corporations, not B.C. Hydro and not B.C.

Ferries, a department that was akin to the Department of the

Attorney-General, a department that was committed to doing what was

just and right by the consumer, and have the guts to stand up against

one's colleagues in caucus and in government and protect that

consumer's interest.

Now this lady, a former member of this House, established one of the

finest departments of consumer services in the country, and enabled the

passage of legislation in this House that is modelled throughout North

America — the most advanced legislation in North America, legislation

that is emulated in many other jurisdictions.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

But you know, Mr. Chairman, legislation is meaningless unless there

is a strong minister to perform the tasks that were contemplated by the

legislation, a minister who is heard and respected in his cabinet. A

minister who takes the side of the consumer should be heard in his

cabinet.

Let me point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that no later than last fall,

Phyllis Young, in the strongest possible terms, indicated to the

government of the day that she was the Minister of Consumer Services,

that food prices were soaring to the detriment and disadvantage of the

average person in British Columbia, more than in any other province in

the country, and that so long as she was minister of that department,

that must be stopped.

What we need now, and what the consumers of this province need more

than ever in this province, is a minister like Phyllis Young.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They need Phyllis Young.

MR. LAUK: They need Phyllis Young, Mr. Chairman, not a

minister who will say: "Well, the only thing a consumer needs is a...."

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Where is she? The

people didn't seem to want her back.

MR. LEA: That was before you had five months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's only taken them a

couple of months to become arrogant and contemptuous of the opposition.

You sit there, and because you've got your numbers, you figure you can

make comments like that across the floor of this House. You are

disrespectful to the 40 per cent of the people that elected this

opposition; you are disrespectful to the other 11 per cent who elected

a Tory (Mr. Wallace) and a Liberal (Mr. Gibson) to this House. The

majority of the people in this province did not support a Social Credit

government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, on vote 30.

MR. LAUK: I'm referring to vote 30, on the interruption of a

very arrogant Minister of Health who is sitting here wasting his time

when there is a very dangerous labour dispute going on outside.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You're wasting your

time!

MR. LAUK: You're sitting here wasting your time

cross-commenting in an arrogant way, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 30 please, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Would you call those members to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Do you know, Mr. Chairman...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver

Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Whenever we start to hurt them a little bit, they

start to yell and scream and bang their Pablum spoons on their desks,

and their sand shovels, and start to shout over. It's the typical

reaction we get from a very arrogant group of coalition elitists.

[ Page 1584 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 30.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister believes in the free

market system, he believes that the buyer must beware, and he believes

that there should be no.... Really, his philosophy is there should be

restrictions on unscrupulous vendors in our society — sales people and

so on. He believes that because actions speak louder than words.

We are tired, as the minister so often has stood in this House and

told us he was about something we had said, tired of hearing that

minister say things and doing the opposite.

HON. MR. MAIR: Action speaks louder than words.

MR. LAUK: Actions speak louder than words; and the Minister

of Consumer Services is a total failure. He has sat back in his chair

and allowed those unscrupulous increases in government rates to occur

at the maximum disadvantage of the people of this province. He has done

nothing; he has said nothing. He's a disaster, Mr. Chairman.

The only thing we have got from him was his statement of what he was

going to do for the consumer: let them get kicked in the rotunda. Well,

the minister has fallen on his rather large aplomb, because in five

months, Mr. Chairman, he has done absolutely nothing for the consumer

except talk, try and change his speeches, send letters to newspapers

and get carried away with his image.

Well, more than the minister's image is at stake in this province

today. At stake today is the highest cost of living in this province.

The highest unemployment rate in the history of British Columbia has

taken place, and it's the third-highest today in Canada, including the

Atlantic provinces.

It's an outrage: 110,000 people unemployed, the highest cost of

living in this country, Mr. Chairman, and he does nothing. He has

contempt for the average householder and consumer in this province. If

former lawyer, a distinguished lawyer, I might say, an articulate man,

not without intelligence, by contrast.... No, not without intelligence,

but he has a fear to be heard in his cabinet unparalleled in the

history of executive councils in this province. In the face of the

highest cost of living in the history of British Columbia, he does

nothing but make fatuous statements to the press.

He's a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. I regret very much saying that, but

we have people coming to us every day with letters and complaints and

frustration after frustration.

As the Minister of Consumer Services sits on his hands, there are

110,000 people unemployed. Can it be said too often, Mr. Chairman? It

should be said in this House 110,000 times, one time at least for

every member who is unemployed, every British Columbian...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: ...who cannot pay the high cost of living and the

increase in rates in taxes that have come about because of the sheer

negligence of that minister of the Crown.

I don't have any specific questions for this minister. One time they

described Waldo Skillings.... There's nothing to ask, because he's not

going to do anything, and he hasn't done anything! He has taken the

best

piece of legislation on consumer protection in the history of Canada,

and he's letting it lie fallow to gather dust, turn yellow, gather

cobwebs, sitting on his hands, swinging back and forth in his seat,

chortling and laughing, our jolly Minister of Consumer Services. "Let

them be kicked in the rotunda," he says.

Mr. Chairman, very disappointing indeed! The message that will get

out to the people of British Columbia is that the Minister of Consumer

Services is all talk and no action. He quivers in his boots when he

goes to cabinet meetings. He's afraid to even mention what's happening

to the consumer in the face of that Minister of Education over there

who ruthlessly raised ICBC rates, in the face of the Minister of

Transport and Communications, who, with his Rhodes Scholarship, knows

full

well that he needs four times the ferry rates to make a profit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, could you deal with the specific

minister?

MR. LAUK: I am dealing with him. I'm saying that that

minister's incapable of dealing with these rate increases because he's

afraid of them. He can't be afraid. I'm asking him to take courage and

speak up on behalf of the consumer in this province.

Do you realize what's happened in the last two or three months in

this province? The price freeze was lifted. Phyllis Young's price

freeze was lifted without any protest whatsoever from the Minister of

Consumer Services, and in that period of time both unemployment and the

cost of food have risen to disastrous proportions, so much so that

people on fixed incomes are completely strapped and cut out from the

mainstream of society. They cannot afford the transportation. They

cannot afford ICBC rates, so they're without automobiles. They can't

travel by ferry. There's going to be an increase in bus rates that

we're threatened with. They can't pay the sales taxes, because they're

on fixed incomes. They can't pay the increased cost of food. All we

have from the Minister of Consumer Services is: "Oh, well, it's under

review"

[ Page 1585 ]

or "We're monitoring; we have a little basket." He

said there were

80 basket items. That minister's a basket case. All he can report to

this committee and to this House is that he's got 80 basket items and

one went up and one went down and this happened and that happened. Oh,

I'm glad he's contenting himself monitoring price increases. The people

are tired of monitoring. They're tired of studies. They're tired of

reviews. They're tired with "Oh, we're having a look." They want action!

Today we were struck with a lightning bolt, 110,000 people

unemployed in this province with the cost of living rising. This

minister does nothing!

I regret very much having to say that, Mr. Chairman. I really do. I

haven't said it about any minister this session. I hoped I wouldn't

have to. If anything, the other ministers have been too active for me.

I wish they would be a little less active and the people a little less

taxed to death.

This minister is a do-nothing minister. They used to say Waldo

Skillings was a rubber duck. Well, I won't pursue that. I was going to

say this minister's a lame duck.

You know, he's got some opportunity to recover, not only his image,

which he'll admit is not important — I hope — but recover the stature

of the Department of Consumer Services that Phyllis Young gave it, the

stature to the ministry that Phyllis Young gave it, and give real

protection to the consumers of this province as Phyllis Young gave.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I would allow my anger perhaps

to get the better of me if I did not consider the source of the remarks

made a moment ago.

MR. LEA: Have some charity.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll content myself by saying two things, if I

may, Mr. Chairman, through you to that member. In answer to the charge

that my department is doing nothing I might just point out one fact

under the Trade Practices Act.

Last year a total of $375,000 was returned under the Trade Practices

Act by way of rebates and refunds. That's for the entire year. For the

first three months this year, it's $230,000, which would work out to

$920,000 if this pace continues. I rather expect that the pace will

increase, if anything.

As far as my personal courage is concerned, Mr. Chairman, through

you to that member, I have not found it necessary to defend my personal

courage either in a court of law...nor do I think I have to in this

Legislature. I know I don't have to to my cabinet colleagues. If I come

under attack from either of my cabinet colleagues or anybody who really

matters, then I will indeed take the remarks seriously, and I perhaps

might get angry and answer back.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): What did you say?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend some time

this afternoon discussing the price of food. Many people have mentioned

that already under these estimates; I feel that it needs more

attention. The cost is increasing and increasing and increasing to

consumers. The minister recognizes how important this is in terms of

what it does to take money out of the pockets of the consumers in this

province, because a 1 per cent increase in the price of food in British

Columbia removes in one year $10 million from those consumers.

Now that we read that we have 110,000 unemployed, those are the

consumers that are going to be hardest hit by these increases in food

prices. The Anti-Inflation Board indicates that the price of food is

likely to take a sharp increase during the next few months — go up

another 2 or 3 percentage points. As I point out, $10 million a year

for every percentage increase in the price of food in the province.

According to the Malin report — this is a report that was

commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board — Canadians are paying an

average of 4 per cent more for food costs than they should be. One of

the reasons for this, according to that report, is the lack of

competition amongst the four largest food dealers. The major

supermarkets are so vertically integrated at this stage that they

virtually control the price of food in this country. The Malin report

gives some indication of that in their study.

They control it from every level from the farm on — even before the

farm, because they are involved in the manufacture of equipment that is

sold to farmers to utilize on the farms. They are involved in the seed

production and the sale of seeds that farmers use to produce food.

This kind of vertical integration, I think, can be demonstrated very

easily by just looking at one of them — the George Weston empire —

and what's happening there. Many of these major companies control the

manufacture of machinery that's used on the farms. They are involved in

the seed production. They are involved in the production of

fertilizers. They are involved in the production of actually the paper

and the cardboard that is used in the packaging. They are involved in

the processing level; they are involved in the wholesaling level.

Some of them even have companies which are part of the empire that

they are involved in that provide the shelves and the office equipment

that is used in these various supermarkets. So the whole chain is so

completely controlled by those four major companies that the consumers

of this country are paying more than they should be paying.

If you just look at this Weston empire, they are

[ Page 1586 ]

involved with the Eddy Paper Co. — that is part of

the Weston food

chain. They control Kelly Douglas; they control Nabob Foods; they

control Cloverdale Paint — I suppose that's the paint that is used to

paint the supermarkets that we purchase our food from.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not any more they don't.

MS. SANFORD: All right. That may have changed very recently;

I may stand corrected on that. Malkin's, Dixon's Food Service, Foremost

Foods Ltd., Loblaw's, Super-Valu, OK Economy Stores — all of these are

part of the same empire. Biscuit manufacturing, dairy industry,

chocolate industry — it doesn't matter where you look; these major

companies are involved in some form or other.

Now the surveys that have been done on food prices in Canada

indicate that while there may be wide variations from district to

district, generally the municipalities in the northern parts of the

provinces and in the outlying towns pay higher prices for their food

than can be accounted for in transportation costs. There is also,

according to surveys that are done, very little difference between the

actual supermarkets in one region. There may be great variety, but

within each region they stay pretty close to each other.

There was a Batten Report, way back in 1948, Mr. Chairman, which

said the same thing. This was a royal commission headed by Judge

Batten, who studied food prices in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Judge Batten said at that time: "The dominant positions of Canada

Safeway and the Weston companies have led to the currently

unsatisfactory performance of the grocery industry in the prairies."

That's mild language, but it's a strong statement coming from a judge

heading up a royal commission. She recommended at that time that a

royal commission be set up to investigate, under the Combines

Investigation Act, and that if that Act couldn't nail them, then the

Act should be changed. She felt very strongly about the influence of

these chains in the prairie provinces.

Just in case the judge may have been correct, the director of the

investigation branch of the federal government at that time launched

his own survey under the combines Act. What did he find? He found that

comparison shopping at Safeway's in Edmonton revealed that people in

the poorer areas of town were paying more for their groceries than

people in the richer sections. In the poorer areas these supermarkets

charge more than they do in the richer areas. They know that the poor

can't afford to travel and do the kind of comparison shopping that

others can.

Finally, in 1972, as a result of this Batten Report and the

investigation by the director under the combines Act, certain

conditions were laid down by the federal government for Safeway's

operation in Calgary and Edmonton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, are you relating to vote 30 and

this particular ministry?

MS. SANFORD: This relates directly to food prices, Mr.

Chairman, and I think that this is one of the most important items that

the minister should be concerned about at this time.

Safeway accepted the requirements at that time, because they had no

real effect on their operation. Safeway's merchandising chief at that

time said: "What they were charging us with was standard practice —

standard business practice — and nothing immoral or illegal." He also

said: "We grew from" — and here I have to delete the expletive — "to a

significant operation." Then he goes on to say: "Isn't that the aim of

private enterprise — to grow and make money?" That's not much comfort

for the people who are living in the poorer sections of Edmonton, who

had to pay higher prices for their food in that particular area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly relate your

remarks to this province and this minister?

MS. SANFORD: It applies — because these supermarkets are

present everywhere. The point that I want to make at this time is that

the Minister of Consumer Services for this province does meet with the

federal minister responsible as well as the other ministers across the

country. I am appealing today that this minister do something. He's

been criticized for having done nothing. I recommend that he does go

back to Ottawa, or to whatever province they're going to meet in next,

and call for some legislation with teeth in it so that we can begin to

control the growth of these major supermarkets, so that we don't have

pay more for our food than is absolutely necessary.

There's one other point. I'm going to ask the minister to initiate a

programme in which he publishes the prices found by the monitoring

that's been undertaken by his department. This was done in Saskatchewan

— I brought this out the other day — and the experience in Saskatchewan

has shown that as a result of the publication of food prices there,

food prices dropped. In Regina, on March 27, 1976, there was a 3.65 per

cent drop from the food prices in November. Now this, according to the

people that we have been able to talk to back there, has been a

successful experiment. It has brought some sense of competition back

into the supermarket chains, not only in terms of prices but in terms

of services.

[ Page 1587 ]

I'm asking that the minister here, in an attempt to

bring down the cost

of food in British Columbia, initiate a system of publishing food

prices here in British Columbia. If, based on the experience in

Saskatchewan, we are able to bring down the cost by one percentage

point, we will save the consumers of this province, in one year, $10

million.

I would suggest that the minister do undertake this and that the

costs involved are really not that significant. I have the figures for

the five-month period for the province of Saskatchewan. It's not that

significant, and in order to save $10 million or more to the consumers

of this province I think that money is worth spending.

They have stopped the programme for the moment. They are evaluating

it and intend to re-initiate it again. They want to refine it and bring

it back in in the province of Saskatchewan.

Again I want to go back to my original request to the minister that

he appeal in cabinet to have those ferry rates brought down. The

increase in prices of food on Vancouver Island is being felt as a

result of that increase, even though the increase has not been applied

yet. Once June 1 arrives I'm sure that we will again see higher

increases in the cost of food on Vancouver Island as a result of it.

Work in cabinet. Speak on behalf of the consumers of this province

in cabinet. Bring down those ferry rates on behalf of the consumers on

Vancouver Island.

Again, ensure that the increased costs in energy are not passed on

to the consumers of the province. The Premier made a statement earlier

today, and I'm asking you, Mr. Minister, to ensure that that freeze

stays on so that the increase in cost of the price of a barrel of

gasoline or a barrel of oil is not passed on to the consumer in terms

of increased gasoline costs. Use your voice in Ottawa. Get some

legislation in this country which will prevent the kind of ripoff that

takes place in the food markets and use your voice here in Victoria as

a member of cabinet on behalf of the consumers of this province. Speak

out. Ask that price increases be reviewed, taxes be reviewed and

medicare premiums be reviewed.

Mr. Minister, you have a responsibility; show that you have a voice.

Speak for the consumers of the province.

Vote 30 approved.

Vote 31: deputy minister's office, $146,778 — approved.

Vote 32: administrative services branch, $249,725 — approved.

Vote 33: legal services branch, $72,028 — approved.

On vote 34: trade practices branch, $586,800.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister did not answer my questions about

staffing. I wonder if he could explain to me just how he intends to use

the people that are added in this vote.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — I did overlook that

question. I can't answer it with precision, but I can say that the

basic

increase is caused by us taking over, after the last budget and before

this budget, cemeteries and also motor-vehicle dealer licensing. You

may recall that the latter function was transferred to us last fall and

the cemeteries also sometime last year. The hon. member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) managed to whiz that out of his former

department and into our department, and he's still smiling.

Vote 34 approved.

On vote 35: community programme branch, $1,353,942.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister has had a couple of

days to think over some of the statements made by the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and myself about the Consumer Action

League. I'm not sure whether the funding for that community group would

come under this vote or not, but I would like to ask the minister to

reconsider it, taking into account the really valuable work being done

by those groups around the communities, as well as the fact that they

are publishing a newsletter which is of great importance to a lot of

people who receive it.

Yesterday, in speaking on this particular area, I mentioned the work

that this particular group in Vancouver did in terms of helping the

senior citizens to do their income tax returns and to file them on time

as was necessary. I think that they are worthy of some kind of

reconsideration by the minister. He seems to be a minister who is

prepared to think again and take a second look at some of his

decisions. I certainly hope that this is one area in which he's

prepared to do so.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I

don't want any actions of my department to be taken as reflecting upon

the work of any group. That's not the point. I tried to make it clear

yesterday that we have to make, in this year particularly, a value

judgment as to where we spend our dollars and make sure we spend them

wisely. I don't expect that those decisions would be agreed to by all

members of the House. That would be most unnatural if they were.

However, I want to assure the member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

we gave

[ Page 1588 ]

long, anxious thought to the grants that we gave.

We have made those

decisions. I have thought about them long and hard, and I am content

that, while they are unfortunate and unpleasant decisions to make, they

are the proper decisions. I am content with them, and I intend to abide

by them.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like under this vote to

pose again the questions relative to the spread of food costs. I would

suggest that this is the vote wherein the research staff is working. I

am wondering if the minister can assure me that he does anticipate

reviewing the spreads in the food industry, particularly relative to

the spread between the wholesale and retail levels. Secondly, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask whether or not he is considering any

thoroughgoing investigation into the mortgage rates and the operations

of the mortgage brokers within the province.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the question

of the spread in food prices has been already under discussion by an

advisory committee to the Department of Agriculture, which of course

is not under my department.

Insofar as mortgage rates are concerned, I thought that I had made

that clear earlier. But I will repeat now, Mr. Chairman, for the

benefit of the member for Cowichan-Malahat that this, strictly

speaking, does not come within our department and actually does not

come within the department by actual legislation — by the words of the

legislation itself, particularly the Trade Practices Act. There may be

areas where it does come within our jurisdiction, but basically we

consider — and I think rightly so — that it is a federal matter, a

matter of federal jurisdiction. Therefore it is simply out of our

bailiwick.

Vote 35 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

On vote 39: minister's office, $126,940.

Interjections.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Well, Mr. Chairman, I am

certainly ready to comment, but really, for a portfolio of this size

it's rather astounding that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

is not opening up this debate for us so we can have some idea of what

his goals and philosophies are and just where he's moved since he took

office. But so be it. I am quite prepared to start in and certainly

hope that, with the questions that I propose and the ones which I know

other members of the opposition will be proposing, we will then be able

to get the minister on his feet.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I hope the minister is listening. I would

like to welcome his new deputy here. I would like to start off with a

couple of congratulations to the minister and then reserve the rest of

my remarks for, maybe, some criticisms and comments and concerns which

I have.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the minister on the

continuation of the provincial learning assessment programme which, as

you know, I heartily endorsed. I am very pleased that the department,

under the new minister, is continuing this. But in saying that, I would

like to pose to the minister one of my first questions relative to

this. Although we know that the intent of the programme is strictly

evaluation and not to be taken in any way in the form of the old type

of testing given to children in the province of British Columbia, the

idea, of course, is to assist the minister and his department in

developing a core curriculum and in upgrading the basic skills. I think

the parents of the province, teachers and the students themselves are

aware that there have been areas which have been somewhat blank in the

development of basic skills. I know that we are all going to wait with

great interest the results of the first evaluation tests.

But the question I want to ask the minister, and I hope he will

comment on it, is: would he explain to the House the very sensitive

area of the

interpretation of those results? I think this is an area

which could cause great concern. I know that we are developing a

committee of teachers, trustees and department officials who were,

first of all, going to look at the overall provincial results and then,

I believe, release them to the school boards — which in turn, we hoped,

would handle the results very carefully, involving parents and teachers

in looking at the results before they are released for general

consumption.

My concern, to the minister, is: are you continuing on that

programme of very careful background preparation for

interpretation of

those results? I'm very conce