1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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, AUGUST 5, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3695 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Application for North Delta neighbourhood pub. Mr. Levi –– 3695

Mr. Barrett –– 3696

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 3697

Mr. Levi

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Mussallem

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hyndman

Votes 44 to 53 inclusive approved –– 3717

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On vote 170: minister's office –– 3717

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lea

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services annual report, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 3721

Appendix –– 3722

TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the gallery today are a group of 31 Japanese university students.

They are here on a cultural exchange program, visiting the great

constituency of Delta at Tsawwassen. They are being hosted by families

lessons daily, given by qualified teachers. I know the House will be

very pleased to welcome each and every one of them, and also the

co-ordinator of the program, Phoebe Hamilton.

MR. KING:

In the gallery today are a couple from the fair city of Cranbrook, Mr.

and Mrs. Harry Mathias, who have been long-time New Democratic Party

workers in that area. Undoubtedly they are here to watch the

performance of the House and to report on the conduct of the little

people in this institution. I wish the House would welcome them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a young man from Nanoose Bay visiting today, Mr. Michael Orrick.

MR, BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to our Japanese guests, in extending the opposition's welcome too, may I say watakushi wa honto ni arigato desu.

Interjection.

MR, BARRETT: It tells them how to vote.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sorry that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) is not in his seat today, because it is a very important day

in his life. He and his wife Kay are today celebrating their thirtieth

wedding anniversary, and the member almost had that long a gap between

his first election and his return to this House. Mrs. Mitchell, we all

know, was at one time an attendant in the House as well. We wish them

the very best for today and their future. They've had a very happy

marriage to this point. I hope that nothing they experience in this

chamber will alter that experience.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, visiting the gallery today is the Hon. Don Johnston, the

president of the federal Treasury Board. I gather that Mr. Johnston and

his wife and children are enjoying some lovely British Columbia

sunshine, and I'd like to extend to him a very warm western greeting on

behalf of all of the members.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming today

Mayor Gus Boersma from Fernie, Alderman Frank Lento and city clerk and

administrator Ian Turner. I would also like to welcome Mr. and Mrs.

Mathias to the precinct this afternoon.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, also in your gallery today is Mr. Lloyd Manuel who many of

you know as the executive vice-president of the B.C. Hotels'

Association, and I'd ask you all to welcome him. I'm sure he's here on

a lot of business, and some of it's probably a bit frothy.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very appropriate that as Minister of Health I

should ask the House to join me in welcoming back to the chamber the

member for Coquitlam-Moody, who has been, as you know, ill. We're very

pleased to see that he is back and that he's well, and I'm delighted to

be relieved of the obligation of giving his leader legal advice. He was

getting along very well with it, but now he can go back to your bad

legal advice. Welcome back, Stuart. We all missed you.

MR. LEGGATT:

I only wish to add to that my thanks to the many members who sent me

cards and to say that reports of my death have been grossly exaggerated.

Oral Questions

APPLICATION FOR NORTH

DELTA NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of

Health, it's memory time. Can the minister tell the House whether it is

a fact that on or about May 3, 1978, he wrote to Mr. Pridie rejecting

an appeal for a neighbourhood pub licence in the following terms: "For

the past year our policy has been strongly opposed to neighbourhood

public houses in shopping centres. While some exceptions to this rule

remain in the form of previously licensed establishments, we intend to

stay firmly by this policy guideline in the future." Does the minister

recall sending this letter?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr.

Speaker, I'd have to ask your guidance as to whether or not I must

answer questions of previous responsibility. Because I do happen to be

able to answer this one very simply, I will, but I'll ask your guidance

thereafter. My simple answer to you now is that I simply can't

remember, but somewhere in the files of the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs I assume that some letter exists.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Beauchesne's 5th edition states, and I quote for the edification of all

members: "A question must be within the administrative competence of

the government. The minister to whom the question is directed is

responsible to the House for his present ministry, and not for any

decision taken in a previous portfolio."

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a selective memory. Last week he

remembered a memo that was sent in 1976 regarding Mr. Ellsay, Doesn't

he remember this one?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. LEVI:

A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is it a

fact that you approved a liquor licence for a neighbourhood pub in a

shopping centre on 88th Avenue and 120th Street in North Delta, and was

the applicant a Mr. Gerry Olma, a key Social Credit organizer in Delta?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure what that question means. Perhaps it is

a matter of where the punctuation goes. Is the member asking me if Mr.

Olma is a key Social Credit organizer in Delta?

MR. LEVI: We'll try it again.

[ Page 3696 ]

MR. BARRETT: What is your name?

MR. LEVI: Are you the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? Why are you the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

We'll

try again, slowly. Is it a fact that the minister approved a liquor

licence for a neighbourhood pub in a shopping centre at 88th Avenue and

120th Street in North Delta? That's one question. Do you want to try

that one first?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, pre-clearance was granted.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister tell the House whether the applicant, Mr. Gerry Olma, is a key Social Credit organizer in Delta?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI:

The member doesn't know. Can the minister tell us this? Did he meet

with the hon. member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and Mr. Olma — who had

worked on the campaign of the member for Delta — to discuss an

application for a licence?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of such a meeting.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister saying, Mr. Speaker, that he did not meet with the member for Delta and Mr. Olma? I'd like to get that clear.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of any such meeting. The only time,

I think, that the principals, the member and myself were perhaps

together was at the appeal.

MR. LEVI: Can the

minister tell the House if he received a request for an application

from a Mr. Jerry Pridie in respect to a neighbourhood pub licence in

substantially the same area as the one that Mr. Olma paid for? Did the

minister receive such an application?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I have no record of receiving such an application.

Applications are made to the branch rather than to the minister; the

minister only becomes involved when there is an appeal of a rejection.

It's possible that this gentleman made an application to the general

manager.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister tell the House

whether he had any representations by a Social Credit MLA on behalf of

Mr. Pridie in respect to his application? Does he recall that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I do not recall that.

MR. BARRETT:

When he granted the appeal to the successful applicant, was the

minister aware that a Mr. Pridie had previously applied to the

department for substantially the same location for a pub and had been

turned down? Was he aware that there had been an application by someone

else prior to his granting the appeal to the subsequent successful

applicant?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't recall that

being introduced as evidence during the appeal; we'd have to check the

recording of that appeal. The appeal dealt with three issues, none of

which was to do with previous applications in the area. I don't recall

that being brought forward as a major part of the appeal.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister tell us who from the liquor control board was present at the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, I'm afraid I don't have the people's names with me. It would be a

matter of record. I believe, from my memory of the appeal, that the

inspector for the area was there, and either the general manager or the

deputy general manager.

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister

state whether or not at any time, during the appeal, after the appeal

or before the appeal, he was notified that a certain Mr. Pridie had

made a similar application, which had already been denied, for a pub in

that location — by anyone before, during or after the appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Not so that I recall this as being an item that was brought up. It's

possible it could have been mentioned, but it's not a point that has

stayed with me as being important to that appeal.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the minister stated it's possible that point was made to

him. Would it not occur to the minister, if the point was made to him,

that a cabinet colleague, who previously held that position, had

granted...?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, did it not occur to the minister, if he had learned about it. to

check why the original application by Mr. Pridie was turned down?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of appeals which take place under this

particular act, and there have been applications denied previously in

certain locations where someone at least has been successful in an

appeal; and there have been occasions where part of the application. by

way of information to the person hearing the appeal, is that previous

applications have been turned down. Notwithstanding that information,

some appeals have been successful.

I might point out, Mr.

Speaker, that the appeal, which is heard by either myself or my deputy

minister, bases itself on the specific application, Sometimes there are

many circumstances as to why a person may or may not be successful in

his or her application, some of which may be previous rejections in the

area; but it is not always that way.

MR. BARRETT: I'd

like to ask the minister if he knows of any other appeal successfully

pursued through the appeal process that was initiated by a brand-new

applicant for the

[ Page 3697 ]

same

project, when the original applicant for the same project was turned

down — both in the original application and the appeal. Is there any

other case where someone else has taken up the same project and been

successful where a previous attempt by another person was turned down

on appeal?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to

check the records to find out if such a precise situation has occurred.

However, I understand that in this particular instance we're not

looking at the same proposal. My understanding is that the application,

which was successful by way of pre-clearance, was for a separate

building — not necessarily the same building, although the location may

have been close. I also understand that the previous application by Mr.

Pridie was turned down twice by Delta council, so I don't think the

circumstances are identical.

MR. LEA: I thought you didn't know anything about that one.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to ask the minister how long it takes for him to continue to

recall. Earlier he didn't recall having had this brought to his

attention; now he's admitted that he knows that the council turned it

down twice. Did your memory just recount that now?

I have another question as well. Maybe you can pull yourself together and be a little more sober on this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Sober thoughts, Mr. Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister: when did he change the previous

minister's policy that no pubs were to be located in an area such as

this, where the applicant was successful on the second application — a

shopping centre?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to the

member's questions, I do not have information before me as to whether I

have been advised of Mr. Pridie's application. I referred to his

inability to be successful twice because that material was provided to

me. For the member's information I'll read the balance of the

information with respect to Mr. Pridie, which was provided to me just

prior to entering the House today. I am advised that Mr. Pridie is a

former vice-president of the North Delta ratepayers' and also a former

vice-president of Delta NDP constituency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Is that a factor? Oh!

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I am advised that Mr. Pridie was before council in 1976-77, wanted to

rezone property next to the catholic church to put up a pub, and was

twice unanimously turned down by the council, because his proposal was

a kind of ramshackle affair. The reason council considered Olma's

application favourably was that the entire shopping centre was

completely rebuilt and it was a different situation. The location where

Mr. Pridie wanted to have his pub is apparently an old rundown building

which was also the NDP campaign office. [Laughter.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LEVI:

I really appreciate the minister's sense of recall. We started out

asking and he didn't have any answers. Now he puts in all sorts of

stuff we don't want to know about! [Laughter.] But what we have from

the minister now is a policy of "NDPers need not apply." I think that's

what he's saying.

Is it still the minister's policy that neighbourhood pub licences will not be granted in shopping centre areas?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The general rule is that we will not consider applications for

neighbourhood pubs as a tenant in a shopping centre. Notwithstanding

that, there are applications whereby it may be for a separate building

near a shopping centre area, but not part of the shopping centre. The

general rule is that they will not be considered, but each application

must be considered on its own merits.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled an answer to question 72 on the order paper.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I want to introduce a colleague of mine, Joan Stephens, who is in your

gallery. She is an alderwoman in the district of Campbell River.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 44: minister's office, $140,092.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, before I make a few introductory remarks I would like

members of the House to recognize two of my staff who are to assist me

today, deputy minister Peter Bazowski and legal counsel Mr. David Edgar.

Last

year I had the pleasure to address the members of the assembly with

respect to the ministry. During that time we spoke about initiatives

which we were proposing to improve the administrative services offered

by the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Most of these

initiatives have been implemented, although not all have been

completed. Indeed, we are very pleased with the progress so far.

Our

ministry is primarily one of administration and regulation. We have

quite successfully reorganized our financial, personnel and

administrative functions into one unit reporting through our executive

management services directly to the deputy. We have also reorganized

our policy, legislation and programming planning functions into a

single branch. Computerized information systems were introduced into

the companies branch; brokers, real estate and insurance office; liquor

control and licensing branch; debtor assistance branch; office of the

rentalsman: and the Rent Review Commission.

In the field of consumer services we have had reasonable success in pursuing certain matters on behalf of the consum-

[ Page 3698 ]

ing

public. We were able to reach an agreement with General Motors on

substitute-engines compensation to 300 B.C. consumers. We continue to

test-shop television and automotive repair services and prosecute

dishonest suppliers. We have noted a marked improvement in the number

of cases requiring investigation, particularly in the television repair

field. We're somewhat optimistic about achieving a similar improvement

in the automotive repair field with the formation of the CAR-WARE

automotive repair watchdog that was created in late 1979. By far the

greatest number of complaints in our consumer storefront offices are to

do with the automobile.

We completed 19 enforcement

proceedings in 1979; we are carrying 14 in 1980. We have adopted a new

enforcement policy to give us greater flexibility. Our new policy is

not a drastic departure from the previous approach. The revised policy

encourages a more varied use of the civil remedies provided in the

Trade Practice Act, and is therefore much easier to administer.

The

greatest emphasis this past year in our consumer affairs program had to

do with education. We are attempting to direct our efforts towards

younger consumers. To this end the ministry was able to obtain two

grants from the committee for the Year of the Child and Family. With

these grants we prepared an audio-visual presentation to assist younger

consumers: "IOU — Responsible Use of Credit," for high school students;

and a game for elementary school children on how to budget and manage

money. Both were very well received. In the hopes of educating

consumers on some of their more common problems, we have developed a

regular "Consumer Action" column which appears in many papers

throughout the province.

I think it would be of general

interest to members to know that one of the most serious problems we

have in the province, relative to the consumer, is debt and what we

refer to as debt abuse. Statistics reveal that every man and woman in

British Columbia owes between $1,500 and $2,000 in consumer debt.

We're

pleased to report that as a result of initiatives undertaken by the

ministry, credit granters have agreed to address the problem by

participating in the development of free debt-counselling services

throughout the province. Our rationale is that those who are

responsible for granting consumer credit should have some

responsibility in assisting those who find themselves in difficulties

because of that debt. Banks, credit unions, finance companies,

department stores and other creditors in the province have begun to

help provide free assistance to over committed debtors. We're operating

pilot counselling programs in Trail and Dawson Creek and we expect to

expand very soon to other areas of the province.

On another

consumer topic, we've persuaded one bank and one major credit union to

revise their consumer loan forms, in terms of language — to use plain

forward to expanding that.

Another step forward was taken

with the proclamation of

section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act,

giving consumers increased protection when they sign food plan

contracts. Recognizing the importance of providing consumer services in

areas of the province not serviced by a consumer centre, our grants

last year totalled $160,000. Our government consumer offices provide

extensive consumer services to the public of British Columbia,

including mediation for consumers unable to resolve the problems they

have. Last year our consumer officers and aides handled more than 7,300

cases. It helped consumers receive nearly $640,000 in rebates.

Mr. Chairman, studies were carried out last year by the University of

Victoria school of public administration on the complaint-handling services

of our consumer centres. One of the most heartening aspects of these studies

was the high level of satisfaction expressed by consumers who had used the services

of the storefronts.

Another

consumer satisfaction study was carried out earlier this year with a

larger sample, and very positive results resulted from the study,

showing that increases in all levels of satisfaction occurred, ranging

from satisfaction with the knowledge of the staff to satisfaction with

the time taken to resolve a complaint. Thirty-nine percent of those

consumers had an income of less than $15,000 a year, while 43 percent

had incomes between $15,000 and $25,000 a year.

Mr.

Chairman, consumer affairs legislation priority for the future will be

the completion of a new consumer code, which will combine nine existing

acts and incorporate amendments yet to be determined. Such

consolidation will be a great convenience to the business and legal

community and will assist consumers in knowing their rights and

obligations.

The other part of our ministry is the corporate

side. Our main objective last year was to introduce the corporate side

to the electronic age for record-keeping and dispersal of information.

After detailed development, planning and design an extensive

computerized system was implemented in the companies office to manage

its labour-intensive functions. Accordingly, electronic retrieval

systems are now in place with the corporation registry, name

reservation and name search activities. We hope that some of these

electronic gadgets will very soon catch up to the pace at which we've

been retrieving information manually for so many years. It's a matter

of ironing out some of the bugs. On March 1 the new system was fully

operational, although it will take two full years before all files have

been converted.

The rapid growth of business activity

continued last year at the rate of 15 percent per annum. As a result

there are an estimated 18 million document entries in the companies

office and two million in the central registry. To handle the workload

more efficiently we're currently exploring the feasibility of

introducing a microfilm system. There are approximately 170,000 active

and 100,000 inactive files.

In the area of securities we

distributed a discussion paper to the public on a proposal for a new

Securities Act featuring a two-tiered system. The reason for adopting a

two-tiered system is that Vancouver has many more junior resource

companies than other jurisdictions and these companies require a

different set of rules and more surveillance than do industrial

companies. At the same time we recognize the need to conform to the

uniform Securities Act being adopted by other provinces, and our

proposal has received very positive reaction from the Ontario

Securities Commission and others.

On administrative

improvements, we've introduced smoother and quicker licensing

procedures to make it easier for real estate agents, salesmen, mortgage

brokers, investment dealers and insurance agents to deal with us.

Another benefit of the system is that it protects the public interest by

[ Page 3699 ]

providing the superintendent of brokers with more detailed information about such applicants.

Mr.

Chairman, another major important responsibility of the ministry is the

credit union movement in the province. With assets exceeding $4

billion, it's perhaps the most vibrant in Canada and includes the

world's largest credit union. The government demonstrated its

confidence in the movement by providing $200 million worth of mortgage

money for distribution through this channel — through credit unions. Of

course, the movement took

part in the distribution of BCRIC shares last

year. But because of its commitment to consumer lending, the movement,

like all others, is vulnerable to today's rapidly inflating interest

rates. Accordingly, we will be initiating changes to help credit unions

build their statutory reserve base over a period of time.

the office of the rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission, Mr.

Chairman, we have further amended the Residential Tenancy Act, which

will extend rent review procedures. We believe that rent review, as

opposed to rent control, is a preferred method to address the serious

rental situation in the province today.

Mr. Chairman, no

matter which route we take, or what the pressures may be which we

apply, one of our major concerns is that the bargaining power of

landlords and tenants be equalized. From the tenant's point of view, we

have raised the ceiling on rents that may be appealed and extended

protection to permanent residents in boarding houses, hotels and

motels. From the landlord's point of view, we are anxious to move away

from bureaucracy and ensure that there are no financial losses due to

technical errors in the rentalsman's office. We have made amendments to

simplify the security deposit system, traditionally a source of

headaches to the industry, and reduced the number of forms that

landlords must handle. These latter changes are not aimed at taking

away any tenant rights, but rather at making it easier for landlords to

work with the rentalsman and function in accordance with the act.

our responsibilities in the area of liquor control and distribution, we

are examining changes in regulations to support the development of

cottage wineries and provide for expanded private merchandising of

beverage alcohol products. There are two cottage wineries in operation

in the province, and both seem to be very successful.

The

liquor control and licensing branch was reorganized last year to help

us focus our energies more directly on the problems of liquor

administration. Computer support systems are in the developmental

stages, which will improve administrative efficiency and streamline

licensing procedures. In liquor distribution, we now have agency stores

in most outlying communities that meet branch guidelines; but I favour

extending these agency stores to even more communities. Needless to

say, these stores provide a service that would not otherwise be

available in the more remote areas of the province.

support the province's grape and wine industries, we have granted

marketing advantages to local products. Our wine policy is not a

subsidy, but rather the application of new approaches to marketing.

Some of the advantages accorded B.C. products include giving local

producers 25 percent of all available shelf space in government liquor

stores, allowing the introduction of new B.C. products in more than one

size and a specified permitted number of listings for our wineries.

Mr. Chairman, my ministry continues to act in the best interests of consumers,

the renters, the investors and borrowers. We look to greater activity in the

perfection of more efficient procedures as we progress this year.

MR. LEVI:

It was my intention to start off by talking about scanners, but I guess

we'd better go back to some of the substance of the question period so

that I can get one or two things clarified now and we can have a little

give and take in the debate.

The minister, presumably, was

reading from a document. During question period I think he did quote

from a document. Perhaps he could tell me what document he was reading

from. Would he be good enough to tell me that? He quoted from a

document about Mr. Pridie and his political affiliation. What was he

reading from?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A yellow piece of paper.

MR. LEVI:

It was a yellow piece of paper. Would you like to table it so that we

can see what is on this yellow piece of paper? You were not quoting

from the file? You just made some quick notes? You didn't make any

quick notes. Slow notes? It's very difficult to get answers out of this

minister. We've only just started and he's already denying me the right

to know.

I want to pursue. first of all, the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Another longhand amendment?

MR. LEVI:

Well, I can oblige. We put your legislators to the test the other day.

My gosh, they earned their money. It was only three words.

I'd

like to discuss with the minister the question of the electronic

scanners. I want not to go over the debate we had during one of the

bills, but specifically to be critical of the minister in respect of

the things he did not do in the interests of the consumer which

interestingly enough were done in the province of Ontario by his

colleague the minister down there.

I'd like to draw the

minister's attention to a statement made in the Ontario Legislature on

June 19, 1980, by Hon. Frank Drea, Minister of Consumer and Commercial

Relations, when he released a study he had done: "Interim Report on

Computerized Checkout Systems in Food Markets in Ontario, June 1980."

In winding up his comments, the minister said that the ministry

continues to keep before it the interests of debtors and consumers. I

continue to be very critical of the minister in respect to what we have

to refer to as a scanner scam. In other debate we have heard the

minister make reference to the right of supermarkets to bring in the

scanner, which is a kind of computerized checking operation. I have no

disagreement with the right of supermarkets to do this if it's an aid

to their business. That's fine, and they're perfectly within their

right to do it. What I do object to and will continue to object to,

particularly in view of the minister's statements of last week, is the

whole question of whether the prices should be on the goods and not

just on the shelves.

In Mr. Drea's statement to the Ontario Legislature he said:

"Today I would like to table the interim report on the computerized

checkout system in food supermarkets in Ontario. The members will recall that

in my statement on computerized checkouts last December, I said we would review

very carefully the use of the computerized checkouts in Ontario, and report

on our research before this session ends."

[ Page 3700 ]

Just

as a digression, Mr. Chairman, we have had no such report from the

minister in British Columbia. He told us that they've looked at it, but

no such report was done. It's an issue here as it is in Ontario. Mr.

Drea goes on to say:

"I also indicated in that

statement that the ultimate decision on the operation of computerized

checkouts lies with the consumer, not with the industry or with the

government. The interim report on computerized checkout systems in

Ontario is the result of a survey in London, Ottawa and Stoney Creek

and input from consumer organizations, labour and industry."

think this demonstrates, at least in Ontario, where they have the same

questions being raised in respect to scanners, that they decided to do

a study, which was subsequently made public.

Mr. Drea goes on:

"I think a little

background explanation is in order here. The use of computerized

checkout systems in some Ontario supermarkets has made it technically

possible to eliminate marking prices on individual food items. Instead,

the price can be determined at the checkout counter by using electronic

scanning equipment — the Universal Product Code markings on food

products and the store's computer price file. " That is a description

of the operation. Under this arrangement, shoppers have to rely on shop

prices — I and basically that is the issue we are dealing with here. As

I've said before, you don't spend 15 years educating the shopper to do

comparison shopping and make note of the price on the goods and then

suddenly have to retrain the shopper to go back to the shelf price.

Mr. Drea goes on:

"Under this arrangement,

shoppers have to rely on shelf price markers in the store and on

itemized tape receipts for price information. The result has been some

concern regarding the possible abuses of the computerized prices-off

system, such as more frequent changes in food prices and price

increases on all stock to match prices on new shipments. The food

industry, on the other hand, is convinced of the benefits of larger

shelf labels and expanded tape receipts. They maintain that these will

compensate for the lack of item price marking."

He continues

to make a number of observations, but I want to go to the end of his

statement where he talks about the study itself:

"Mr.

Speaker, my ministry endeavours to ensure that consumers have access to

full, accurate and up-to-date information essential to making informed

purchasing decisions."

This is the key question: informed consumer decisions in respect to purchases.

"As

a result of the technological developments, many interested groups have

come out strongly against the removal of prices from individual food

items. The Consumers Association of Canada's position is that consumers

want and need item prices to compare and to detect errors in the store

and at home. They feel that the item price is a consumer right, and

they favour legislative solution.

"To

determine how consumers actually feel about item pricing, we surveyed

900 consumers. The major results of this survey are as follows."

will digress for a moment. The ministry initiated the survey. In this

province, the survey was initiated by the Consumers Association of

Canada. There was a further attempt at a survey through the Vancouver Sun ,

in which a coupon was printed in the paper and people were asked to

reply. There were about 4,000 responses. However, the ministry felt

that the question was a strong enough one from the public — albeit

initially from some of the consumer advocates, but later on from people

who were concerned about it — that they initiated a study, which I

think is very much a function of a department of Consumer Affairs.

they want to be able to argue the point for or against.... Bear in

mind, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has argued for not interfering

with the corporate right about prices; that's the position he has

taken. The prices can stay off; he has no intention of making them put

them on. Mr. Drea goes on to say:

"Consumers

have a strong preference for keeping item prices on, although

computerized checkouts and the elimination of item-price markings are

not significant factors in consumers' overall evaluation of the test

stores. Almost 90 percent — 87.9 percent — of respondents, when asked

the question directly, said that it is important to keep prices on.

Only 6 percent of the respondents favoured a computerized prices-off

system, and the remainder were about equally divided between the

computerized and manual system so long as the prices remained on the

items.

"Although respondents recognized the

benefits of the new technology — greater efficiency, more accurate

pricing and expanded information on the tape receipts — they questioned

whether this increased efficiency would translate into lower food

prices. "

Mr. Chairman, that is also a fundamental question

in the introduction of this. We've been told by the stores that to

introduce these machines costs around $350,000. Presumably, from the

point of view of the supermarket, it adds to their efficiency; there

are many, many advantages to it, and nobody will deny them the

advantages. After all, it assists them in inventory control; they say

it's faster in terms of the checkout. The question is: why is it that

they want to enter into a dispute with the consumer about removing the

prices from the goods? The argument is that it's another cost factor;

if you introduce the scanners and have to keep the prices on the goods,

it's more expensive. We have not been told by the supermarkets just

what savings they have or what additional profit they can make from the

introduction of the scanners — and I want to go into that in a moment,

as soon as I finish Mr. Drea's remarks.

I want to go back to Mr. Drea's statement:

"Most

respondents found that comparative shopping and price verification are

more difficult in those stores which do not have item pricing. In other

words, what consumers have told us is they are not now in favour of

removing the prices from individual items. Before everyone begins

asking me what I intend to do about electronic checkouts, let me ask

the real question: what is the supermarket industry going to do about

it? And I want to know what they're going to do about it by August 1."

Now,

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether you're familiar with Mr. Drea, but

he has a penchant for, sometimes, hyperbole. He's a very interesting

man. He has had about

[ Page 3701 ]

four

portfolios, I think, in the present government in Ontario, and in each

one of them he rattles chains and upsets people. He's a kind of an

interesting man. However, where he differs from the present minister is

that he's taken the trouble to initiate the study to find out how

consumers feel about this.

Now I want to talk about the

scanners from another point of view. Previously I have argued and

debated, from the point of view of the consumer, the necessity of why

the prices should remain on. But what I want to look at now is the

other side of the question. What are the advantages to the

supermarkets? Presumably they don't go into this very heavy investment

unless there are some advantages, and I'd like to quote from an

article

that appeared in the Canadian Grocer , May 1980. As you know, the Canadian Grocer

is the journal for the smaller independent stores. This is not the

supermarket news; this is the smaller people who are trying to stay

alive. The

article is entitled: "Suppliers Can Reap Scanning Benefits

Too." We should look at what some of the benefits are. The speaker is a

Dr. Edward M. Tauber, senior vice president, Dancer, Fitzgerald, Sample

Inc. He was addressing the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada:

"Expressing

his belief that most retailers would not use scanner-generated data

against manufacturers...is confirmed by the fact that several U.S.

retail chains using scanners are already selling their data directly to

manufacturers or to market-research houses. Tauber offered some insight

as to how manufacturers could best make use of the data."

Let me give you an example of what the stores can do, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, hon. members. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has the

floor, and there seems to be considerable background noise. I wonder if

members would accord to him the usual courtesies of debate.

MR. LEVI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One

of the cases that Mr. Tauber gave was this: "The plan was to determine

what products would best be served by cross-couponing." Now let me

explain what they were doing. The scanner data, which goes into the

machine after they do the checkout.... What they were able to do in one

survey was to take 120,000 shopping baskets that were analyzed from the

checkout tapes — it's all in the computer; you press a few buttons and

you can find out an enormous amount of information.... It goes on to

say:

"Scanner data on 120,000 shopping baskets

was analyzed to determine what products tended to be purchased most

with each other. It was shown that someone buying diet margarine often

bought low-cal dressing. The indication therefore was that there was

the likelihood of some success in cross-couponing promotion using the

two products."

Put a coupon on one, because when it's low-fat margarine people will get some of the low-cal kind of thing.

What the supermarkets have done.... They now have at hand, as a

result of these scanners, data and equipment, access to an enormous

amount of information which can only help them in their marketing

practices, and presumably increase their volume and profits. We have no

discussion whatsoever, no information from the industry, as to what's

coming back to the consumer. It's my presumption that nothing is coming

back to the consumer, that the introduction of the scanners is simply

an efficiency method for them. They're entitled to do that; they're

entitled to use it for whatever research they want. They have access to

an enormous amount of information. They can program their equipment in

such a way that they can understand exactly what the basic purchases of

100,000 people are, or whatever number go through that store. It helps

them continually in the whole issue of marketing, and in their profit

picture.

I don't understand why it is that the minister

takes the position that he does in respect to not requiring that the

prices be on the goods. I do not agree with either his argument or the

supermarket argument that somehow a cost factor is involved. They

haven't said exactly what it is, but we know from the responses of one

survey done in British Columbia that most consumers would be prepared

to pay half a cent more on each item simply to keep the prices on the

goods.

There is no way the minister can escape from facing

the issue by simply saying that he's not about to regulate or have a

whole army of bureaucrats running around. That's not what we're talking

about here. We're talking about his adequately examining what's taking

place in the marketplace with these scanners. We accept that this is

something — in terms of the installation of the scanners — that is

entirely up to the supermarket. But there is the question which he is

responsible for in terms of what happens to the consumer. That's what

he's there for. When he finished his remarks he said that they continue

to have before them the interests of the consumer. I suggest to you

that he does not have the interests of the consumer before him when he

is not prepared to take a position in respect to these scanners and the

prices. That's the fundamental issue. He has not made available to this

House the information on which he bases his opinions. He has not taken

the trouble to do what they did in Ontario, which was to do a survey

and to make some inquiries. I don't know what Mr. Drea is going to do.

It's past August 1; we'll have to phone down and find out. But at least

you have to make the information available. He has not done that. I

don't think he really gave the Consumers Association of Canada, when he

met them in Vancouver, the courtesy of reviewing the information that

they made available to him.

We're dealing here with an

industry that in this province has sales of more than $2 billion. It's

a continuing growth industry. There's always the argument about how

much profit the food industry does make. They keep telling us they make

a cent or less on the dollar. But then there's the other argument: what

are they looking at? Do you look at the profit in terms of the

investment, or do you look at the profit in terms of volume? It's a

growth industry.

We can't throw away almost 20 years. It is

almost 20 years since the late Senator Hart first started to do some

real advocacy work down in the United States, which worked itself up

over the border. Consumer education and the idea of consumer

departments is not a new question. This didn't simply sneak up on us

over the past two or three years. This was an issue on which the

warning signals were going up in 1974 and 1975, when the first Minister

of Consumer Affairs, the former member of this House for

Vancouver–Little Mountain, Phyllis Young, first raised some of the

questions about it. If these machines are going to be introduced and

it's somehow going to affect the marking, of prices, then we're going

to see a setback in the industry.

I do not understand the

minister's position at all. It's almost as if he's protecting the

supermarkets. They don't need any protection; they're big enough. Some

of them have

[ Page 3702 ]

multinational

power, But he's not protecting the interests of the consumer. It's

interesting that many of the small stores, and also the people who

provide for the publishing of Canadian Grocer ,

have gone to a lot of trouble to understand the phenomena of scanners,

which they've started to analyze. We have not yet got from the

supermarkets the advantages that accrue to them. We're not talking

about a faster checkout; we're talking about the introduction of a

highly sophisticated vehicle which can only add to their efficiency and

profit picture. But they haven't said any of that. The only thing they

keep harping on is that we have better inventory control.

But

we don't know, for instance, about the change of prices that can take

place sometimes on an hour-to-hour basis. We don't know whether that

happens or not. That was raised during Mr. Drea's survey. We don't want

to get into the food business in terms of all sorts of regulations; we

regulate certain aspects of the food business. It's very simple for the

minister to make a decision. He doesn't have to have a whole army of

bureaucrats; he simply has to sit down in the quiet of his office and

balance the advantages of the supermarkets against what is considered

to be a distinct disadvantage in terms of the consumer. That's all it

is. It's an attempt for him to subscribe to the protection of the

consumer and he doesn't want to do that.

I'd like to ask the

minister — if we can engage in some debate about this — why he feels

compelled to stay out of this picture. It's not good enough. The name

of the game is not to look at your mail every day to see whether in

fact you're getting a series of complaints. We know lots of people that

never write who complain. We know there are some values to the use of

surveys and poll-taking. Most political parties live and breathe on the

basis of poll-taking. Well, it's a useful vehicle. With respect to this

issue, poll-taking is very important.

Later on down the road

it could very well happen that if the minister persists with the

position that he's not going to interfere and say that the prices have

to stay on, then he may have to reconsider his position. At the moment

we only have 16 of them in the province, but at the rate they're

increasing, both in the United States and Canada, we could have all of

the stores having them in a matter of two or three years. All consumers

will be subject to this operation and then the complaints will

increase, because you're covering a much larger group of people.

I would ask the minister what has led him to the position that he's in

now, that he's not prepared to interfere. Given the fact that he's got

Mr. Drea's study — I'm sure he has it, and if he hasn't, I'll send him

my copy as long as he sends it back to me — why is he not prepared to

change his mind on this situation? It's no good looking at your mail.

That's not the be-all and end-all of everything that's going on in the

community. This decision has to be made on the basis of the facts, on

the basis of what's taken place over the last 15 years and what is for

the general good.

In this case, because he's the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we're dealing with one side of his

portfolio. We always have difficulty, because they lump the corporate

and the consumer side in, which can obviously create problems for a

minister wearing two hats, because he has to sit down and, as the

Minister of Consumer Affairs, has to ask himself, as the Minister of

Corporate Affairs: "Is there an equity here?" No, there isn't an

equity. There is not an equity if he persists in his decision that he

is not prepared to say to the supermarket: "Keep the prices on."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

they continue to do this, at some later date, if they can demonstrate

that they've brought it in, I'd like them to be able to tell us one day

just how much more money they've made as a result of this, because they

are going to make more money; their volumes are going to increase,

because their marketing techniques are going to improve. Later on it

may be that the consumers will be prepared to forgo having the price

on, but generally speaking, to the people I talk to — and I speak to as

many people as possible when I go into supermarkets — there is a

problem. When you go around and shop, look at something you've bought

and have gone to the third aisle and you can't remember what you paid

for it, what do you do? Do you have to go all the way back to look at

the shelf to see what you paid for it? People do shop that way. What

he's doing by his failure to interfere is changing people's shopping

habits again. After all, we spent a long time educating people in this.

Can

the minister tell us how he's arrived at the decision that he is not

going to interfere in this, and on what does he base this?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to our scanner debate and the controversy

surrounding it, I think the member is being somewhat general when he

says all the minister has to do is say: "We want the prices to stay

on." Granted a minister can say that, but it means very, very little

unless the companies, corporations and stores follow that suggestion.

For the minister to have really anything to say about it would require

legislation. It would require statutory powers and the regulatory

powers that stem from that.

Any Ministry of Consumer Affairs

in Canada that takes the step to legislate requirements for individual

pricing will be faced with the bill which they must produce and the

regulations that will go with it. Any ministry must then decide who

will be exempted from the regulations or the statute. They will then

have to decide which items will be exempted from the regulation or

statute, whether to determine that only certain corporations must

comply, or whether anyone offering goods for sale to the public must

comply, whether it should apply only to food, whether it should apply

only to processed food, not bulk food, whether it should apply to all

items in supermarkets including the non-food items. Then they must

determine whether it should only be supermarkets, and they must define

what is a supermarket.

They have to decide whether corner

stores should be brought in. They have to decide whether service

stations, lumber merchants, home repair service centres and anyone else

who is offering goods to the public should be brought in. Someone must

decide at some time how broad the application may be. There are

literally dozens of food items offered for sale which have never been

individually priced by custom. There are many stores which do not

individually price their goods, nor have they ever done so.

You

must bring in legislation that requires people to perform and you're

going to have to have a list of exemptions as long as your arm. Then we

must look at enforcement. If we require that each merchant itemize each

individual product offered for sale, and upon investigating we look at

100 cans of beans and find two not priced, presumably we then charge

him with two offences under the

Summary Convictions Act, I suppose — up

to $2,000 for each can not marked.

[ Page 3703 ]

The

problem is that no province in Canada has put together legislation and

proclaimed it. Quebec has produced a statute, but they have not

proclaimed it. No other province has attempted this. One state in the

United States has —Michigan. The others have not.

Mr.

Chairman, it is not a matter of taking sides on the issue vis-a>-vis

the consumers versus companies. There are certain obligations the

government has with respect to consumers and their purchasing, and the

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs takes it very seriously. We

try to create statutes and regulations that would protect consumers

from any abuse, fraud or misrepresentation. Our various statutes

provide avenues for consumers to follow should they feel they are being

abused, defrauded or subject to misrepresentation.

How far

the consumer ministry wishes to go in assisting consumers to shop is an

entirely different question. We were made aware of information provided

to us by the Consumers Association of Canada, B.C. branch. We were made

aware of the questions which had been asked, and they were made aware,

Mr. Chairman, of my attitude toward individual pricing. I've made it

very clear that I personally would prefer to see the individual pricing

on these articles, but not from a statutory point of view, because I

can visualize the headaches which would come to the ministry in

attempting to enforce it, even in drafting the regulation with this

long list of exemptions.

There are a number of merchants who

specialize in low prices on food, and part of their merchandising

scheme is no prices marked on individual products. They tear off the

top of the carton and offer it for sale with the price associated with

it. They have advised me, and I believe them to be quite correct, that

they would not intend to stay in business were they required to engage

people to put individual prices on. In fact, that was the reason they

got into the market, because they knew how they could cut costs. Their

customers seem to be very satisfied. I can come up with a survey; I can

come up with a poll, as did this gentleman from his eight stores. He

had 8,000 signatures or something saying: "Don't force him to do it."

He wrote a question that was so loaded that if anyone said yes to it,

it endorsed what he was doing completely. I could write a question, as

others have, that says: "Do you think there is an advantage to you as a

consumer or customer to have the individual price of a product marked

on it?" I think the answer to that was 100 percent yes, of course. Who

would say no? Of course there is an advantage. Who would say no? But

that's not the question that's before us.

Mr. Member,

through you, Mr. Chairman, it isn't a question that can be resolved

simply by saying: "We want you to do this." We must, in law, require

them to do it and we must be prepared to enforce it. We must be

prepared to examine that whole marketing area to determine what

products and what type and class of merchants should be exempted. I

think that's an intrusion at this time, not justified or warranted.

The

member correctly mentioned that we're in the infancy, to some degree,

of this scanner system. Everyone I've spoken to agrees the scanner

system is probably most beneficial to the food industry. The one point

they argue — some of them — is that they feel that individual price is

of some value to them, and they wouldn't want to see it go. We spoke

with representatives from the major supermarkets, and we asked them if

they would consider it. We asked, if they insisted on going into the

scanner system, that they follow some guidelines from our ministry, and

they agreed to that. Among the points they all agreed to were: shelf

tags would be clearly readable prices for every item — the

non-removable type; they would increase prices only when the stores

were closed, as they do now; they would provide items at the lower

price if there were any discrepancy between the shelf price and the

scanner price; they would provide very detailed tape receipts and deal

promptly with any consumer complaints generated by the scanner system.

They've all agreed to do that. I pointed out to them that I personally

favoured the individual pricing. But that is a personal opinion of

mine; it is not backed up by the force of law. They recognize that, as

do others.

It's interesting that some of these so-called

surveys or polls have been taken at stores which are serviced by

scanners. The people who purchase their goods in a store which employs

a scanner system are apparently signing a petition or survey saying

there shouldn't be scanner stores, or that they're opposed to them. Yet

they're frequenting those stores, and purchasing their goods at those

stores. As I pointed out, the question as written was such that I'm

sure everyone would reply in the affirmative.

It's not an

important point, but I don't think we as government, or as members of

an assembly, have any requirement to train people how to shop. I think

that's something the individual person must take on as his or her own

obligation. I think there is a group of people within our society who

need assistance with shopping, particularly the old-age pensioners.

Price tags on or off items is of some assistance to some; but

individual, personalized attention is what many of them require, and

that service is offered in many stores.

The consumer

arguments war will, I suppose, continue on for sonic time. We're quite

prepared, as I've said before, to consider legislation some time in the

future if necessary. It's no use attempting gentle persuasion if you're

not prepared to back it up with the law, with all the headaches that

would be associated with it. If we were faced with facts — not opinion,

but facts — about abuse to the consumer, or fraud, or misrepresentation

on a large scale we would not hesitate to move. But we would move

legislatively; we would move with legislation, and presumably

regulations, to stop any abuse, fraud or misrepresentation. We cannot

do shopping on behalf of the consumer, nor do we intend to.

Individual

pricing on goods was not originally done for the benefit of the

consumer. It was done for the benefit of the store, to assist their

checkout people in knowing what the price of the item was. Now the

scanner does that for them so they feel the individual pricing is

redundant. I would suggest that no matter what any store or merchant

may do to change the method of selling there would be somebody fighting

or protesting against it. The scanner system is very innovative.

Because it's electronic it's suspect. I believe that most people who

understand the system agree that the shopper is going to have a much

more accurate tape receipt through the scanner system than he now has

through the manual system, even though it may be minimal.

MR. LEVI:

I have just a couple of remarks on this topic. First of all, while it

may be that the initial stage of putting prices on goods was to the

assistance of store owners, the minister should be reminded that many

long battles have

[ Page 3704 ]

taken

place, both in Canada and the United States, in respect to proper

packaging, pricing and weighing. This is not something that was simply

designed for the advantage of the supermarket.

I agree with

the minister that the last thing we want to do in this Legislature is

to produce more legislation. Good lord, we know that, as a result of

consumer protection, since the present government has been in power a

large amount of legislation has been brought in — not all of it

enforceable, not all of it working. But one of the things that appears

to have gone out of the window in respect to the issues we deal with —

particularly this one — is the question of whether we can really exact

from corporations some kind of corporate social responsibility in terms

of the way they operate in the community. It does mean something when a

minister sits down with a group of directors or representatives of a

corporation and after a reasonable amount of discussion says that

surely this is a social responsibility or corporate responsibility, in

terms of the community, to go this way. Sure, those are the warning

signals, and if we can't get you to do it, eventually we have to

legislate.

There was an attempt in Ontario where they drew

up a code of behaviour in respect to the scanners, but the people who

drew it up decided not to follow it. That's an answer in part to the

business of bringing in more legislation — that we start appealing to

these corporations in terms of what they think their function is in

terms of social responsibility. If they want to make money, that's

fine. But they have some obligations to make available to consumers

certain information and they must continue that information that they

always expected to get. There are not enough substantial arguments that

have been put forward by the corporations as to why they take off the

price on the goods other than the fact that it's costly. They don't

talk about the amount of money they're going to make putting in the

scanners and all the benefits of that.

Those are the kinds

of discussions that can take place; after all, those are the kinds of

ministerial discussions that should be taking place all the time with

all sorts of people. It's not always on the basis that we're going to

introduce some legislation and would like to consult you. After all, we

know that if we remind people that they should keep their own house in

order, we don't have to bring in legislation, but those kinds of

discussions don't seem to take place. They don't seem to be part of the

initiative that is taken by the minister. People who have been in the

position that the minister is in in terms of ministerial responsibility

know that you do exercise some clout if you're prepared to enter into

some discussions about it, but you have to start with some fundamental

understanding. The minister, when he says that the prices marked on

goods originally were only for the benefit of the store somehow, and

that's where it's at, so it's not so terribly important.... It's gone a

long, long way from that now; it's gone into a very sophisticated

operation.

We're not talking about legislation now; we're

talking about making some effort by some kind of persuasion. Those

kinds of discussions can be entered into, and there is nothing wrong

with that. The minister started to describe one of the most horrifying

legislative processes when he talked in the beginning about all of the

exemptions and all of the inclusions and who would do the enforcing.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, if that guy can't pay attention, why don't

you throw the bum out? My god, he's kept up a constant line of chatter all

afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the point is very well taken. However, I will have to ask you to withdraw the word. It's unparliamentary.

MR. LEVI: All right, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you very much indeed. The Chair would remind the hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam has the floor at this point and all other

members should be attentive to the debate that's going on.

MR. LEVI:

In order to accommodate the minister who is so noisy, Mr. Chairman, if

we were to start discussing the price of bulbs, I'm sure we could get

him on his feet and he'd talk to us and tell us of all the difficulties

he has with pinning prices on tulips.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI:

But he's not going to do it. So if he's not going to do it, he's got to

keep quiet. Isn't that right, Mr. Chairman? Yes, he's got to keep

quiet. You know, since he hasn't been interfering in other people's

ministries, he tends to talk to himself. That's very unhealthy and I'm

very worried about that.

I appreciate what the minister is

saying in respect to not bringing in legislation. That's the great

difficulty, because it's not just writing the stuff. My gosh, his

ministry has not always been that successful in writing legislation —

and I know it's complicated. We tend to write legislation, pass it in

here and then we never get it proclaimed because we get all sorts of

problems. But there is the other kind of process — not legislation, but

negotiation and persuasion and pointing out to people, particularly the

large supermarkets and even the smaller ones, that they have an

obligation and there is some sense of social responsibility that they

should have. Sure, it may be naive to start talking this way, but

sooner or later we're going to have to do that; sooner or later we have

to talk to people as we do about pollution and the question of the

environment and the question of the environment in the supermarkets. In

some cases we get large corporations that listen; in many cases they

don't, and then that results in legislation, which is not always drawn

up in the best way and does not always achieve the goal that it

attempted to achieve in the beginning. So that's a mechanism.

don't accept the minister's arguments that we're dealing with something

that's so complicated. We're talking now about the introduction of

scanners. There are only 16 stores in the province that have got them.

We're not talking about somebody who sells cut-rate food. I was talking

about the onset of equipment, which in itself is good but which can

lead to problems if they remove the prices. That's the basic issue here.

Has

the minister had discussions with the supermarket people about this? He

has said publicly, somewhat sotto voce, that he would prefer to see the

prices on. Is this based on discussions with supermarkets? Have they

actually said to him: "No, we can't put the prices on because it is too

expensive; we are involved in a capital expenditure in terms of these

scanners and we can't afford it"? There are other great advantages that

they don't talk about in terms of the

[ Page 3705 ]

scanners

that will make them a great deal of money, and that is not being passed

on to the consumer. That is something that we have to have some concern

about.

What was the context of the discussions with the

stores, if he had any? I think that is worthwhile in our trying to

understand the minister's position in respect to this; not that he met

with the Retail Council of Canada, but has he spoken to people who

operate large stores using these scanners? In respect to his own

personal preference, we are not dealing so much with personal

preference here. We are trying to get a sense of what is really right.

What has become something of the order of things can only create

problems for consumers, because they are going to remove the prices.

That's basically what we are talking about. We are not looking for a

large amount of legislation or enforcement of the legislation. God

forbid we have that kind of thing.

Has the minister had any

discussions with any of the stores that have introduced these? Have

they used the position that it is too costly to keep the prices on? Is

that what they've said to the minister? Perhaps he would tell us that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, I think the question of the scanners can be argued

endlessly from a technical point of view. Of course the stores have

argued that to maintain the individual pricing would to a large degree

invalidate the expenditure for their scanner system. There are so many

advantages to the scanner system. I mentioned before that not too many

people argue about it. If used to proper advantage it is a great tool

for inventory control and many other things.

Yes, there is a

price tag attached to individual pricing. I appreciate what the member

is saying. It can be a very positive thing for certain organizations

who work on behalf of consumers, in the interest of consumers or in the

area of consumer education. That's what they would like to see happen.

am not persuaded that it is government's role to ensure that marketing

occur in a certain rigid way simply because someone believes that it is

preferable. I think that the marketplace to a very large degree must

regulate itself. The greatest weapon in the hands of the consumers, of

course, is the boycott. In fact, if we were to convert all of our

merchants to scanner systems and no prices appeared on individual

items, I am sure that some entrepreneur would introduce individual item

pricing as a merchandising scheme and probably would attract customers

to that, just as they have introduced other schemes over the years to

attract customers — merchandising proposals and programs.

suppose it is an argument that could go on endlessly. To restate the

case of the ministry at this time, it is not the ministry's

recommendation that we consider legislation — not at all. Based on a

great deal of discussion with people across the country and others, we

feel that government has an obligation to protect consumers in the

marketplace against fraud, misrepresentation or abuse, but not

necessarily to assist an individual to the point of shopping on his

behalf. We think that we provide adequate service to the people on

those counts I mentioned. Should we have reason to suspect or believe

that abuse, misrepresentation or fraud is taking place, then we

wouldn't hesitate to move in that area.

We are not convinced at this time that the introduction of the scanners is

going to cause the problems many envisage. Perhaps we're in error. The information

has not been provided to us. We have not developed that information through

our efforts and research. Until such time as it is presented to us, I don't

believe we will be pursuing it from a legislative point of view. Yes, we have

talked to the representatives from the biggest companies; we have talked to

representatives from smaller companies. They all insist that the scanner system

will ultimately be of benefit to the consumer by some form of cost modification.

Whether it is reduced costs or maintaining a lower increase in costs, we don't

know. They have all insisted that it would be to their disadvantage if they

had to continue the present system while bearing the cost of the scanning system,

and I think that our officials were generally able to understand that argument.

is an area that requires a tremendous amount of consideration. As I

mentioned, no government in Canada has come to grips with it, because

it's one of those areas that is really terribly difficult to

adjudicate. At the present time it is not our intention to require

merchants to individually price their products offered for sale. We do

believe that the power of the marketplace itself will be felt, should

it become the problem that some suggest it is. I suggest that it is not

that problem at this time.

MR. LEGGATT: I heard the

minister indicate — and I think I'm quoting accurately — that we don't

need to teach people how to shop. I wasn't sure whether that was a

general principle or whether it only applied with respect to the

scanners. I suspect that that's a general principle.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: "Train" was the word used.

MR. LEGGATT: Fine, I'll accept "train."

That

obviously is the principle under which this minister operates his

ministry. I would suggest that's an abdication of the normal

responsibility of a Minister of Consumer Affairs. The reason I suggest

it's an abdication is that to say that the free market has sufficient

information for those who are shopping to do any kind of comparison

shopping — and I refer particularly to grocery shopping — is simply not

a correct assessment. It's impossible for the individual shopper to

know which grocery store is carrying the lowest prices.

want to make a suggestion to the minister, and I hope he'll consider it

seriously, because it's a very useful suggestion from the point of view

of people shopping in supermarkets. That is, the ministry should

provide a weekly shopping basket, a comparison of prices in the major

supermarkets, particularly in the two urban areas, Vancouver and

Victoria, and do a comparison list of a fixed amount of meat, bread and

staples, so that there can be some help to the consumer. I defy any

consumer to tell me that Super-Valu is selling higher or lower than

Safeway. There's no way you can determine that, because what they do is

drop the price on one product and advertise it, and then quickly put a

couple of cents on another product to make up the difference. Only the

ministry could have the objectivity and the personnel to provide this

kind of assistance to grocery shoppers in the province. This isn't a

unique idea. Many cities in Canada have this facility available. It's

simply a case of having a person specifically shop for the same product

in the various supermarkets, and having those prices published as a

guide to those who are shopping on the weekend.

I'll tell you one thing it'll do, Mr. Chairman. It will reduce the price of groceries, because those grocery stores

[ Page 3706 ]

then

start competing with each other — really competing — to see if they can

get the best prices on that weekly shopping basket list that the

minister would publish in the local papers.

I've never seen

this proposal fail to improve the general capacity of the public to do

decent comparison-shopping. You can't expect a housewife to comparison

shop at every supermarket. She's going to pick one supermarket and

she's going to do her shopping there. She may go to that market because

it's convenient; she may go because of their advertised prices. Their

advertised prices may mean absolutely nothing. Those products appear to

have lower prices but you won't know until you do a complete shopping

basket in that area to determine whether the total price is lower. I

suspect the difference in total price is very little. So I put this

forward as a proposal to the minister. I'd ask him to study other

cities in Canada, including the city of Ottawa, which I see his

assistant would be familiar with.

I would suggest that you

don't have to train the shopper how to shop; what you have to do is

give the shopper objective information so that he or she can make a

rational decision. It's impossible to make a rational decision around

your market basket until you comparison-shop in the major supermarket

outlets. I'd appreciate the minister's response as to whether he sees

any merit in this proposal.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I see

some merit in it, although I don't like to take away from the capacity

of the shopper or the consumer. The member would be very familiar, I'm

sure, with the shopping habits of people. Oddly enough, unless the

price fluctuations are major it is not always price that attracts

someone to a store. The number one factor is location and convenience

to the shopper. Physical attractiveness of the store is very often

number two — then the attitude of the staff, selection of goods and

then usually price, provided there's not too much difference. I suppose

the ministry, through the government, could do a little test shopping

and publish its findings week by week, although many of the shoppers do

this on their own. There's a certain type of telegram system that works

among the consumers, and they know where prices are.

suppose we're talking about food prices, and food is probably the major

concern of most consumers. If the member's suggestion had merit, you

could expand it, I suppose, into other merchandise — clothing,

particularly children's clothing; building materials; and many, many

others. You know, we have an obligation, as I said, in assisting

consumers, particularly in attempting to protect their rights under

law. But it gets into a different area where you are, in effect,

shopping on their behalf. Yes, we could certainly do that type of

survey. It would be of interest to us; it would be of interest to the

consumer. Perhaps it might bring about some competition, although I

don't know whether it would. It would be interesting if we did find

there were great fluctuations or differences in prices. We would be

then faced with the problem of what to do about it, other than make it

available to people. I don't know how they would respond. The areas

where you could perhaps apply such a procedure would be the

metropolitan areas. You could in the lower mainland, in Victoria, and

in some of the larger centres too — Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna

and others. Whether that's what our people should be doing on the

consumer side, I don't know. We could do it. I really question whether

it's a prudent use of our staff.

I want to just make one comment, Mr. Chairman. I really don't think that

we should in any way take away the capability of shoppers to shop and of consumers

to know how to shop properly. I think most of them do this in their everyday

lives. I think most of them know what they are doing and they know when they're

being ripped off. I am constantly amazed at the capability of some shoppers

in being able to rattle off the appropriate costs of goods and items, just as

a person well trained on the stock market will be able to bang off quotes and

bids and asks.

I'm sure the member's suggestion has some merit. I don't know how practical it could be, but it has some merit.

MR. LEGGATT:

I just wanted to briefly comment, Mr. Chairman. The idea of the

comparison shopping basket for other products may not be as appropriate

as it is for groceries. The reason is that there are standard brands in

all of those grocery stores and there's no way the shopper has of

comparing what is the price on Libby's tomato juice, for example,

between the various stores. If you try to expand this principle into

clothing, it's much more difficult because there are not so many

standard brands.

First of all, I would ask the minister to

study the jurisdictions where this has occurred. I think it would be

useful if he would consult with his counterparts across the country,

particularly the federal minister, as to what effect this shopping

basket approach has in regard to the price. I'm somewhat convinced that

it has a downward pressure on price. What usually happens, by the way,

is that the major supermarkets change position in the comparison table.

You may find Loblaw's is lowest one week; suddenly you find Super-Valu

lower the next. That's fine, well and good. It really is what the

minister loves to promote, the concept of free enterprise. This is

really free enterprise. This is really giving the shoppers the

information that they must have to try to make a rational decision

around price. If they don't want to make a decision around price, of

course, they are free not to do so. But many of them do make a decision

around price and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that they are entitled to the

help of this ministry to do some price comparison shopping,

particularly in the metropolitan area.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I'm impressed with the knowledge of the

minister and his

preamble on his estimates. In a portfolio that covers

practically everyone personally.... Practically everything in the

government touches everyone, but this is one where the individual is

touched and every businessman is touched. It is a very difficult

portfolio and I admire the minister's attitude toward it.

must say that I feel a feeling in British Columbia and you see it as

you go around. The businessmen have a comfortable feeling that they're

not suddenly going to be confronted with a new issue or new problems or

new legislation that's going to be detrimental. The consumers feel that

the department is eminently fair and looks after their interests where

it can. I must compliment the ministry on this new aspect that has

taken place in the last few years.

It is difficult to say,

but I was interested in listening to my friend from Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) and his remarks about shoppers and shopping baskets and

the price of baskets. You know, Mr. Chairman, it's difficult. There is

no way we can ever legislate from here what people buy or how they buy

it. I would think that if a person used the same effort in the buying

of groceries as he does in the buying of automobiles, he would be well

trained indeed. The fact is that an automobile is a large purchase and

they're all experts —

[ Page 3707 ]

sometimes

much more expert than the salesman. But in the case of the shopping

basket, they're in there for certain goods, and although the prices may

be cheaper in another store.... Can you fight it? After all, when

prosperity is as it is in British Columbia, people have money in their

pockets, and one thing for sure is that they're going to spend it. That

keeps the economy going.

Although I don't say it's for

reckless purchasing of anything, I think we can compliment the ministry

on its attitude towards the consumer. They have to have the latitude.

They mustn't be directed. I don't think they should be barraged with

advertisements saying they should be careful with what they buy when

they buy. People are intelligent, and they're intelligent enough to

know when they're right and when they're wrong. The last thing

government should ever do is dramatically interfere with the lives of

the people in this province. I think they're able to purchase well, and

they are purchasing well. If they want to pay more for an article, let

them pay it. That's their privilege.

I'm telling you, not

one person walks into a store and walks out.... They know what they've

got. They may criticize and complain about the high price, but they do

it with a smile — that's the strange thing. When I walk into a

supermarket and see a lady walk out with a hundred dollars worth of

groceries, Mr. Chairman, I'm completely mystified as to where those

hundreds come from. But they get them.

We're not going to

teach the people, because they've already been taught. The best we can

do is to continue to give the customer — as we're doing today in that

ministry — and the businessman a feeling of security that all is well,

and that unless they do something wrong they're not going to get into

any trouble. That's the new attitude of the ministry, and I admire it

very much.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great concern about liquor

stores. As far as liquor stores are concerned, if they closed them all

up, I'd be happy. But it's a thing you can't do. We know it's an evil

in our society. Government controls it; government sells the liquor,

and they should. But I think that the liquor control branch, although

they do an excellent job — and I have to compliment them on their

judgment in almost every case.... It is difficult for them, where they

are dealing in millions of dollars, to understand the problems of the

small municipality and the need for facilities there. After all, Mr.

Chairman, the ministry should be concerned not only with profits — and

they do make profits in every store; how can they fail? — but it should

also be concerned with convenience to the purchaser. That convenience

is lacking, especially in the smaller centres.

A decision

has been made — I'm almost certain I read it in the press — not to put

a store in Pitt Meadows, not to put a store in west Maple Ridge. Now I

think that both those decisions are wrong, Mr. Chairman, and I would

like to appeal to the minister to reconsider those decisions, because

they are incorrect.

The liquor store, the only one at the

time, was at one time located in the centre of the town of Maple Ridge

— in what they call the town centre, the nearest you can get to the

town centre. That was well located. But I think the branch showed

judgment when they moved it to the west end, because the traffic was

congested, the store was in a poor place and it was too small. They had

to move to the west end of the municipality.

When they did

that, it created a new problem. There was too much distance, it being a

long, narrow municipality, from one side to the other. So we need,

essentially, another store — and I wish the minister would take special

note of this — in west Maple Ridge. It's essential for the convenience

of the people.

I know that the department makes what they

call consumer studies in the metropolitan areas, and they study what is

necessary for an area. They do that very well, but they are definitely

based on the models of the large metropolitan areas. They do that very

well, but when they get to the country area, the towns, they have

difficulty. Certainly we see a great injustice done to the convenience

of the consumers.

Pitt Meadows in particular needs a store.

Now that's a nice, small municipality. It's not big, but it's a very

lovely place. There's a certain amount of civic pride there. They want

a store. The least the department can do is make sure they get one, and

I appeal to the minister.

It's just as essential, if not

more so, in west Maple Ridge. I appeal to him to give consideration to

these two points and to reverse the decision of the liquor control

branch.

It's axiomatic that an MLA should keep out of the

liquor business completely and say nothing about it. I follow exactly

that, but when I have something to say, I say it here in this open

forum publicly. I appeal to the minister. If justice were done for the

convenience of the consumers, we would have a store in west Maple Ridge

and Pitt Meadows. It's long past due and it's necessary now. I appeal

to him to give it consideration.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the member bringing this problem to my

attention, because he is quite right. The liquor distribution branch

generally does a very good job in developing efficiencies in its

operation. When we get into a large metropolitan area, there is no

question that there is a tendency to divide the area into certain

quadrants, and work out a number of stores to serve each section, and

base the number of stores required in each

section on population,

consumer demand and profitability. I agree with the member that

sometimes in this process the personality of an area may not be

considered — the personality, tradition, shopping patterns and other

details which might be unique to the area. Pitt Meadows could be a very

good example of that. Pitt Meadows is a relatively small community

surrounded by a very populated area. There are probably other areas in

the metropolitan districts of our province where this could occur. I

wouldn't be in a position to reverse the findings and determinations of

the liquor distribution branch, in that in this particular area they

were looking for a large store to serve a large area.

You

have suggested, Mr. Member, that perhaps they should look at smaller

stores to serve smaller areas — as we have in many parts of the

province. It has not generally been the habit of the liquor

distribution branch to encourage the establishment of small stores. It

has been a process of growth where larger stores have occurred to take

care of a larger area. I will certainly speak to the general manager

about that peculiar problem of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to see if

they have rejected the concept of a large store to be located in one of

the two areas. Perhaps the concept of smaller stores to serve smaller

areas could be considered. I thank you for bringing that to my

attention.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I want to

return to the item that was raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) relative to the cost of food. While I concur with the

suggestions he has made, I would like to go a little further

[ Page 3708 ]

into the problems that are facing consumers in British Columbia relative to the cost of food.

the minister is aware, there was a fairly extensive study undertaken by

his predecessor, jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, to review

the whole cost-of-food position. The minister may know too that I have

some differences of opinion with some of the results or lack of results

that came out of that study. The point that I would like to raise for

the minister's consideration is the direction that is taken by the food

industry. As I am sure the minister is aware, and certainly as the

report I have just referred to and other reports have indicated, the

control of our retail and processing industry in the area of food is

concentrated in the main in the hands of a very few large monopolies.

Unfortunately,

our whole approach to providing food, as dictated by those monopolies

whose prime concern — and rightly so — is making profits, has been

directed towards advertising and selling the product that is most

profitable. If in fact there is 100 percent profit to be made on

selling a package of some kind of Uncle Somebody's Sugar Crisps, then

that is the product that gets the front billing in the advertisements,

shelf space and all the other gimmicks that go into the whole

advertising business. I object to our food being subject to those kinds

of decisions based solely on the profit that can be made from selling

any given food product.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Certainly

what that minister should be concerned about relative to the sale of

food is the nutritive value of the food that is being offered rather

than any brand name or content gimmicks. I often think that I would

like to open a box of cereal some day and not have a plastic car of

something akin fall out in my cereal dish.

MR. HOWARD: Try going for a bottle of Scotch.

MRS. WALLACE: The latter ingredient might be the more nutritive of the two, actually.

am concerned about that aspect. I am concerned when we are leaving the

decisions as to what kind of foods will be pushed through the

advertising campaigns solely in the hands of the people who are

involved with the profit-and-loss picture. That's where it is, and

there are no guidelines or controls set up, except for the pure food

laws of the federal government, relative to what can or cannot be sold.

There

has been a lot said by various people in this House, including the

minister and the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), relative to the

ability of the consumer to think for herself in making these purchases.

I agree that the consumer certainly has that ability. But when that

consumer is constantly subject to, advertising pressure and to name

brands... I know I do it myself when I'm looking for something and the

brand I usually use isn't there. I automatically pick up the one that

I've seen advertised. I don't know whether it's good, better or best,

and I don't know how it compares pricewise, but certainly advertising

has a great impact on the consumer's choice. When that advertising, as

I say, is based solely on the amount of dollars that can be made from

selling that product, then I have some concerns about where we're going

as far as providing nutritive food. I think that is part of this

minister's responsibility as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs.

It's interesting to note that over the last few

years — and this table goes from 1949 to 1973 — the percent farm value

of the total cost of food as represented in the total product.... For

example, in 1949 the farm value as a percentage of the total cost of

the food product to the consumer was 60 percent. In 1973, which is the

latest date to which this table goes, the farm value as a percentage of

the total cost to the consumer has fallen to 37 percent, which

indicates to me that we're doing a lot more processing and packaging of

our food. Certainly those costs are influencing to a great extent the

dollar that the consumer is spending in the marketplace. Incidentally,

I'm quoting from a Department of Agriculture table, economic research

branch.

I think when we look at the degree of concentration

in the food industry, we should have some concerns too about who is

really dictating what we eat and how much we pay for it. If we look at

the American situation south of the border, which I think is pretty

parallel to our situation here, you will find that very recently there

was a study done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They came up

with the figure of somewhere between $13 billion and $21 billion that

the U.S. consumer is being overcharged for food as a direct result of

food conglomerates. I think that we can run a parallel case here. It's

estimated that in the United States each household's food bill is about

7 percent higher than it would be if the manufacturing and processing

of food was more competitive. That competitiveness has been removed,

not just from the processing here in British Columbia but also from the

retail end.

Again referring back to the study that was done

— and I think that that perhaps was one of the more reliable figures

that came up out of that study — it was something like 76 percent of

the retail food sales in British Columbia that went to the large major

supermarkets. Now that's a very high degree of concentration, as

concentration goes. When we have that situation, Mr. Chairman, I do

have some concerns. I think this minister has to take some steps to

ensure that there is free competition in the marketplace, and certainly

that there is at least a counter-advertising campaign launched which

will provide information relative to the nutritive value of food as

opposed to the trade names or the gimmicks in the packages and those

kinds of things. People are becoming more and more concerned and they

would like to know. Instead of having some unbiased information, what

is happening — on the television ads particularly — is that the

manufacturers, the processors and the retailers concerned are taking

advantage of the knowledge that people are looking for a more healthful

way of living and a more healthful diet.

They are

advertising their brand names in such a way as to indicate that this

particular brand of oil, that particular brand of cereal, or another

particular brand of something else is more nutritious, without really

giving the whole story, because they can keep within the rules and

regulations and the laws that govern misrepresentation by a very

careful choice of words and very selective use of information. I'm

certainly concerned that that is happening in the food industry here in

British Columbia and I would urge this minister to take some steps to

ensure that consumers are protected from that kind of thing and have

alternate information available to them.

While I'm on my

feet I just have a couple of other quite unrelated things that I want

to raise and I think perhaps I'll do that now. Both are related to real

estate. One has to do with

[ Page 3709 ]

the

issuance of prospectuses. I'm sure that the minister is aware of the

case that I'm talking about, where we had Playfare-Pacific Ventures

advising in their prospectus that there was fire protection on the

particular property that was being sold and in fact there wasn't. I

know it was a misunderstanding. The lines were very clearly drawn, but

neither the developer nor the ministry took the precautions that should

have been taken under the Real Estate Act to ensure that the volunteer

fire department did extend over the entire development area.

small number of homes are affected; I think about six in the first

section of that development were not covered. As a result of the

minister's actions, after I had brought this to his attention, the

prospectus was changed, but unfortunately we have these six people

sitting in there with no fire protection and being faced with much

higher costs for insurance because there is no fire protection. A

directive has also come out of the fire marshal's office — and I know

that's not this minister's responsibility — to say that none of those

volunteer fire departments should extend their boundaries, because

they're already extended too far.

I'm raising that at this

point in time because I would like to make sure that this minister

instructs his staff to ensure that when other applications come in, a

more thorough check is done to ensure that fire protection is available

if it so indicates on the prospectus, because those lines are difficult

to ascertain and unless the developer has taken the pains to really

inquire, he could well find out that he is saying there is fire

protection when there isn't. Then, of course, under the act he can

plead innocent and it would make it very difficult for. a class-action

suit or any other legal suit to be filed against the developer. Also,

the costs involved make it scarcely worthwhile.

There is

just one other minor point that I want to raise. I've checked through

the Real Estate Act and I can't find it, but I understand that there

is, in the purchase of a home, the signing of an agreement for sale, a

very short time limit in which the would-be purchaser can renege. I'm

not even sure whether there's any time limit. I can't find it in the

Real Estate Act; it may be in the regulations. But certainly I think it

is important that there should be a minimum period of time where a

person who makes an offer to buy a home — which is often a very

emotional thing and perhaps one of the largest investments that most

families will ever make — can reconsider, because sometimes when you

walk through a home with a real estate agent and you're making that

decision.... You maybe think it over afterwards, but you're away from

the place, and when you get into it on your own after the agreement is

signed you may find things that had escaped you or you may just decide:

"Look, this isn't really the place for us." I think there needs to be

that lead time where a person who has signed an agreement can have that

nullified — maybe 72 hours, but some kind of lead time so that an

opportunity is there for the person who has signed an agreement to

purchase a home.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Government can go

so far in holding the hand of the citizens, I suppose. I appreciate

what the member said, that purchasing a $100,000 home is sometimes

based on emotion, on the spur of the moment, and that can lead to

second thoughts. A person who acts on his own behalf in purchasing a

piece of property into the hundreds of thousands of dollars without a

professional assisting him is probably very foolish. I believe that

most professionals in assisting a person making such a purchase would

provide enough subjects or conditions on the interim agreement that it

would not cause grievous harm to the intended purchaser, and that's

probably the best protection anyone can have. I don't know what the

effect on the market would be if we had cooling-off periods, if we had

a number of days in which a person could renege on his offer. I don't

know what effect that might have if somebody else came along and

offered a price. If you were selling a home you would probably be very

upset if you thought you had it sold only to have the person come back

and say: "No thanks, but maybe I've got a counter-offer." The thought

is there, but it's very difficult perhaps to introduce into our system.

Any

person who issues a prospectus should be required to be responsible for

the information contained in that prospectus. I appreciate you bringing

that to our attention. The superintendent did look into it and remedied

it. There are literally hundreds of prospectuses which go through the

system, and in some instances certain information provided must be

relied upon.

Individuals within any area do have an

opportunity of grouping together and causing an improvement district to

be formed for the purposes of fire protection. This may be a partial

remedy to the problems in that Playfare-Pacific Ventures thing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder if I might ask leave of the committee to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I appreciate that the minister presently debating his estimates is

busy, sir. Therefore it's with pleasure that I refer to Mayor Gil Blair

of the township of Richmond, who is in the gallery this afternoon.

Would the House make him welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: I

want to second the welcome to the mayor and say hello to him this fine

day — and to the minister, his deputy Mr. Peter Bazowski, our House

Leader and the squash player sitting behind Mr. Bazowski. I think I've

covered most people.

I just have a couple of simple

questions to the minister. Last June 23 he informed the House with

complete assurance, as it seemed to me at the time, that there was

nothing improper about the Grammas pub application. That's what you

said, wasn't it, Mr. Minister? Nothing had been found. I put this to

you, and I want to ask you a question about it. On April 20 you met

with your colleagues and you passed an order-in-counciI allowing a

marine pub. There were four applications out there for a neighbourhood

pub in the same place, at the landing at Gibsons. That's April 20. I

look in my diary and find that's a Friday. I also find out.... This has

to be ascertained with complete certainty, but I don't think the

Lieutenant-Governor was in town that day; he was attending his duties

in Vancouver and could not have signed the order-in-council on the

Friday.

The importance of this little sequence of events is

that the pre-clearance, which was the ball game, was given to R. Dale

Janowsky, the former and future partner of the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Mair), on April 25, 1978, which was a Wednesday. Bear with me,, Mr.

Minister, on my little exploration of the time limits. Friday you pass

the order-incouncil. It's signed, maybe, on the weekend. It reaches the

[ Page 3710 ]

registrar's

office, say, Monday morning, and between Monday and Wednesday somebody

knows enough about it to (

a) make a complicated application for the new

marine pub — that's Grammas — and (

b) have the preclearance granted to

them by the Wednesday.

Now, Mr. Minister, I'm asking you for

your explanation, because you say this is perfectly in order. Was there

a tip? Did somebody know that this had been passed in cabinet, and was

somebody tipped off? That's one thing that the minister in his

investigation should not exclude, bearing in mind these time limits and

the fact that you have honest officials in the liquor administration

branch who, I would think, would carry out the minister's wishes.

The

second thing is how the application led by R. Dale Janowsky, who lives

in Kamloops — not as a lawyer for the Grammas pub, but as a director —

and his brother, who lives, it's true, on theSunshine Coast.... It's kind of funny that he should be involved in a pub licence on the Sunshine Coast, but funny things have happened. Some very funny things have happened in this province of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: The minister says it's all in order.

MR. MACDONALD:

So I'm asking the minister, who said that time upon time this has been

looked into and nothing is improper: did the Grammas pub group submit a

written application by mail, and did they do it on the Monday or the

Tuesday? How could a liquor administration, which in ordinary

circumstances, I may say, Mr. Minister, takes such time...? They had

already rejected the neighbourhood pubs in this area. How could they

possibly grant pre-clearance that quickly? The explanations of your

predecessor in the office don't help at all, because his first

explanation is: "I know nothing about it." The second explanation was

that Grammas pounced first and left the four other applicants, one of

whom was Reid, who complains quite bitterly, Mr. Minister.... I ask you

what you think of this, because Mr. Robert C. Reid was also an

applicant for the neighbourhood pub licence. He says: "It appears these

applications" — and he's talking about the other four — "have been

prejudiced by the quick issuance of the pre-clearance to the

Janowskys." Of course they were. They didn't have a chance from that

time on because the only people the council would listen to at Gibsons

were the people who had the pre-clearance. They were finished. They

were still running the race, but they were on a muddy track. They're

still out there somewhere; they've never come through the finish line.

And they've had no explanation, not even a visit from a liquor

inspector, no answers to their letters.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

That's right, and it's very amusing because we know the unquestionable

integrity of this government. They're all honourable men;

Mr.

Reid goes on to say — and he's being as nice as he can — in June 1978,

two months later: "It is strange to say, in the least, that the

Janowskys' application can be processed with blinding speed, and the

rest of us have had to fight our way up a muddy track." Then he goes

on: "Of course, I'm not suggesting that the mere fact that Mr. Rafe

Mair's name, the man responsible for the passage of the F licence

legislation on the Friday" — I had it on Friday, Hansard

— "appears on the letterhead of the Janowsky law firm has anything to

do with the fact that Janowsky received his pre-clearance within five

days of such legislation passing." Well, even Reid is wrong, because it

hadn't passed on the Friday. It still needed the signature of the

Lieutenant-Governor, and then it had to go to the registrar's office

where the orders-in-council are filed, and then it really should have

been gazetted, and that didn't happen till May 13.

Now, Mr.

Minister, you've said that this thing is in order, yet I've drawn to

your attention that there was an obvious tipoff. Common sense and what

we know about life being as it is, there was an obvious tipoff from

someone in your cabinet to Janowsky: "Hey, there's a new form of

licence that accommodates you, and if you move quickly, the others will

be muddy-tracked." How did Grammas know? Have you investigated that?

Was it a written application?

The final question I ask you,

Mr. Minister, is this: do you not really think those other three

applications for the neighbourhood pub were prejudiced, as they think

they were, in that before they knew the change in the rules, the game

was over? Why weren't they notified before the B.C. Gazette

published the new regulation if somebody else was able to act on it two

weeks before that regulation was even published? Those are my questions

to the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the

subject has been discussed previously. I really don't think any new

information has been brought forward today. I can offer an opinion as

to the prejudicing of the other applications in this one particular

area. I would think that in any relatively small area, particularly

physically, where a licence is granted, yes, indeed, it would prejudice

subsequent licences because of the restrictions imposed for distance of

separation, of licences per population and so on. I would think that

once a licence is granted to a relatively small physical area, yes, it

would make it difficult for others to get licences thereafter.

the best of my memory on this particular issue — and it goes back a

couple of years — there were a number of applicants who had made

application for a neighbourhood pub, and I believe they were all

unsuccessful for the neighbourhood pub area.

MR. MACDONALD: Including Janowsky. You couldn't grant it at that time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

There was change in regulations by way of order-in-council that created

a new category of licensed premise — marine neighbourhood pub, or

whatever it was called.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the F licence.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: And that was, I gather, if your dates are correct, April 20 of some year — '78, was it?

MR. MACDONALD: Friday, April 20, 1978, was the time the cabinet passed it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The order-in-council presumably went through and passed at that time.

The information supplied to me is that Mr. Munkley was visited the next

week by one of the principals of or counsel for Grammas pub, who made

an application at that time to convert their previous application for a

neighbourhood pub to the category of marine neighbourhood pub; and it

was approved by Mr.

[ Page 3711 ]

Munkley

soon thereafter — a day or two, after. That is the sum of my

information: application had been made under the new category; the

information had previously been gathered under a neighbourhood pub

application; it was then converted to an application for the new

category and approved by Mr. Munkley. As I pointed out in our previous

discussions, it was not subject to an appeal; it had been approved by

representatives within the ministry. Mr. Munkley took the application

and apparently approved it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, we elicit a little extra information from the minister. The

new information that I picked up is that counsel for the Janowskys, who

I presume is R. Dale Janowsky from Kamloops, just by happenstance

happened to drop in on Mr. Munkley the next week. His law business in

Kamloops was not that demanding; he just happened to come into town

that time, he saw Mr. Munkley and one day later Mr. Munkley gave him

his licence. That's carrying coincidence beyond belief. There was a

tip-off, Mr. Minister, to the Janowskys. They were told to move

quickly. They knew about the order-in-counciI the moment it came out of

cabinet. How else could you possibly explain granting a complicated

licence of that kind — a whole new category — without the public being

informed, without the other applicants being informed, without it being

gazetted? Quite impossible!

Mr. Minister, you have a scandal

that you are sitting on. You should investigate that thing thoroughly

and come back to this House and explain why politics has crept into the

liquor administration of your portfolio. You're mixing politics and

liquor.

Let me ask another question. Why was the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) present

at an appeal hearing — under that crazy commissar, appeal-to-the-minister-

alone sort of thing that Social Credit has set up? What was the member for Delta

doing in support — was he in support? — of the Olma brothers? Incidentally,

they are not only very prominent Socreds in that neck of the woods. The Olma

who got the neighbourhood pub in the Kennedy Heights shopping centre happens

to be the brother of the Ray Olma who made $53,000 commission, when he didn't

have a licence, out of the city of Langley. That subject is still under investigation.

The Social Credit credentials are as good for the brother in Langley as for

the one in Delta. I want to know why a member of this Legislature is in on this

so-called nonpolitical appeal procedure to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, for liquor applications that are turned down. What is a member of this

Legislature who is a politician doing at that hearing?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the member could explain to me when an elected

representative loses his right as a human being and a citizen. These

hearings are open to the public. Even you, Mr. Member, would be welcome

to attend.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! Is that all it was?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

They are open to the public. A member may attend, should he choose to

attend. Members of the press may attend, and they have attended on some

occasions. You see it wrong, Mr. Member; you have an absolutely

different outlook on life. I see nothing wrong with a representative of

the people assisting people in their dealings with government, at

whatever level it may be. I see nothing wrong with that. I recall, Mr.

Member, when you said you would never ever take a case from a

constituent to ICBC. You said it would be improper. Yet I know other

members in this House who have congratulated some representatives of

ICBC for assisting them so greatly in assisting their constituents. You

might want to do it one way; others might want to do it another way. If

you have this great wisdom of judgment, so be it.

The

hearings are open to the public. The public includes members, should

they choose to attend. If it happens to be in their constituencies,

even more reason, perhaps, for them to be there. Perhaps they are

interested in what is going on within their constituencies. Perhaps you

would prefer something behind closed doors; I don't know. The appeals

are open to the public; they always have been. We've gone over that

before.

Mr. Chairman, maybe that learned member from

Vancouver East knows more about things than others, but my

understanding is that orders-in-council, once passed on Thursday, as

they usually are on cabinet days, are then made public by Friday or

Monday next. If someone were to have an order-in-council prepared and

passed, it is made public and perhaps even reported, as many of them

are. Perhaps someone would respond to that. I don't know. I don't

accept any responsibility for the actions of an individual in this

province who has public access to an official within a ministry. If he

appears in that official's office, that's his right. If someone is

alert, aware....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Or alerted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Or alerted, or whatever the circumstances may be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tipped off.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Tipped off by reading a newspaper, for all I know. Mr. Member, if the

press reports orders passed, presumably someone reads them. The member

says: "They didn't." I have no idea if the press produced the orders

passed at that cabinet meeting in 1978.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could call that strange member to order — the one who's making the sounds in the chamber.

The

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who reads something

nefarious into every action of government because it involves liquor in

some way, can do so as he chooses. The 1978 application was made from

the report I've received from my officials quite properly. The

order-in-council was passed on a certain date. I take it to be April

20, 1978. The information was, I gather, public either the following

day or the Monday thereafter, and a representative of this applicant

appeared in the official's office and asked to have his application

converted. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't see anything more

wrong with a person who happens to be a lawyer and happens to have a

past association with a member than licences which have been produced

for former members of this assembly. So what? Just because a person was

a member of this assembly, does it mean they do not have the right to

make application for a liquor licence?

[ Page 3712 ]

Surely

not. There are former members of this assembly who hold liquor

licences. There are former political organizers for members of this

assembly who hold liquor licences. I say, so what? If people have

associations in some way it no way takes away from their right as a

citizen to make application for a licence.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: Who said it did?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, this is what you're implying.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

You're implying that certain people, because of past associations,

should not know of certain things even though it may be public

information.

MR. MACDONALD: It wasn't public information, and you know it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, orders-in-council, once passed and approved, are not

secret. The press regularly goes through those orders to see what was

passed by cabinet. If you can't see beyond that, Mr. Member, I can't

assist you at all. If you're suggesting that in every application which

may be granted there is scandal, then that's fair enough.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm saying in this one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I guess it's a good talking point and if that's what you wish to do —

to look upon a certain application because of names and past

associations and point your finger at it....

MR. MACDONALD: And circumstances..

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, and circumstances, sure.

Mr.

Member, I can assure you that there, are circumstances involved in

every application, rejection and approval. Some of it's time, some of

it's personality and some could be any circumstance. You're going to

have to come up with a lot better than to suggest that. As I have said

previously, as far as I've been able to understand from information

supplied to me, the application for this particular marine pub was

quite proper. It was granted by the official and as far as I know

without any persuasion from any minister at that time.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman,,, the minister is condoning something, here. The Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says: "This is a perfectly fair and

above-the-board situation." He'll have to be judged by the stand he's

taken. You have four applicants for a pub which is wanted by the people

of Gibsons. The order-in-council is passed and presumably it's known by

some, but it's not in the press or anything like that by the following

Monday or Tuesday. By Wednesday he walks away with the licence and the

others don't even know the game is over. They don't even know that the

game has started. They don't have a chance to say: "We can produce a

better pub."

They don't have a chance; they don't even get a

reply to their letters, and you say that's fair treatment to the other

three applicants. Now really, what kind of notions of justice prevail

on that side of the House? We can only draw one conclusion, because any

court in the land would say that you have denied the other applicants

natural justice, Mr, Minister. You know that. Heck, the game was over

for them. Although they had legitimate applications too, the game was

over for them before the order-in-council was gazetted. Well, okay,

technically, legally, maybe you say that's a proper application;

morally it isn't. Morally it isn't right, when you've got four

applicants, to grant it to one on the side and then write letters. to

the others and say what's happened, or not even reply to the letters.

Come on! There is some other explanation there, Mr. Minister, and the

explanation is not one that should meet the favour of this House.

Now

in terms of the member for Delta, I'm quite aware that if somebody

knows about an appeal taking place, they can drop in on that appeal

procedure, which is to the minister and is non-political — so the

minister assures us — but I ask in what capacity the member of this

Legislature for Delta was there. Did he just happen to drop in, the way

that R. Dale Janowsky happened to drop in after this order-in-council

without having — presumably through osmosis or telepathy — heard about

it? What was the capacity in which Mr. Davidson...? Did he just sit

down as a member of the public or did he appear to be with the

applicants? What's the answer to that question?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not wishing to disappoint you, Mr. Member.

The member for Delta attended that appeal. I can't recall who all was at

the appeal. There were the appellants plus representatives from the liquor control

and licensing branch, but, as I recall — and I've spoken to our people from

the LCB that the MLA was in the room when the appeal took place, sitting on

a chair against the wall. That was his function and his role.

MR. LEA: Part of the decor!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: There was no representation made by the member nor did he offer any information or evidence.

would commend members who've taken up interest in their constituency

perhaps to attend some of these appeals. It may come as a great shock

to our sanctified member for Vancouver East that some MLAs have taken

interest in other appeals, not necessarily speaking on behalf of the

appellant. In the interests of