1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 1383 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1383

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services

estimates

On vote 37.

Mrs. Jordan — 1383

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1385

Mrs. Webster — 1388

Hon. Ms. Young — 1389

Mrs. Jordan — 1390

Mr. Gardom — 1391

Mr. Wallace — 1395

Mr.Chabot — 1399

Mr. Nunweiler — 1401

Mr. McGeer — 1402

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

REAL PROPERTY TAX DEFERMENT ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Real Property Tax

Deferment Act .

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I was

thinking about this whole situation over the dinner hour and

our concern for the Minister of Consumer Services' (Hon. Ms.

Young) responsibility to the public and the consumer in

relation to the business practices of ICBC. If the Minister

persists in taking an attitude of silence or giving us the

arguments she gave us before dinner, which I will refer to in a

minute, about being the reasons for her reluctance to protect

the consumer from a fair business practice on the part of ICBC,

we have no alternative but to, assume that this Minister, who

we believe to be a very sincere Minister trying to do a proper

job, is in fact in a position of conflict of interest imposed

not by her own will but imposed by the Premier of this

province, and that he has called this enthusiastic and

conscientious young Minister into his office and said,"Look

here, baby. You get on the back of business, you get on the

back of anyone else, but you leave the government alone."

We asked on the basis of the business practices of ICBC in

relation to overpayment of premiums and interest gains on the

part of ICBC on the value of those overpayments, and the

failure on their part to make any effort to find those who have

prepaid and overpaid, and also to refuse to agree to pay

interest on those overpayments.

We would like the Minister to investigate these practices

and to bring a report to the public of British Columbia and, in

turn, to this House.

I feel she would like to and I feel she should. This would not be setting a

precedent. By the Minister's own words before dinner, she told us that she had

had two complaints against B.C. Hydro, which is a Crown corporation, about their

business practices and that she has, as she should, discussed this with Hydro,

investigated it and had brought the matter to a happy conclusion — happy for

the consumer as well as happy for Hydro, I presume. So I say there are precedent

steps in a small issue that would indicate this Minister does very much want

to try and protect the public and that she would be willing to look into the

practices of ICBC.

When we tried to press this issue more, she said, I assume

on the orders of the Premier,"I've only had two complaints

about ICBC from consumers."

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): She had one today, so

that's three.

MRS. JORDAN: I think, Mr. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr.

D.A. Anderson), that she has an obligation to protect your

interests as well as the rest of the public's interests. Maybe

you need a little more help than the rest of the public; you

seem to be in hot water a good deal of the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair

please?

MRS. JORDAN: The Hon. Minister then said, "Well, I've only

had two complaints." We now find it's three complaints. This,

she indicated, wouldn't justify looking into the business

practices of ICBC.

One thinks back and compares this statement to other actions

by this Minister. I would refer specifically to the tax rebate

companies and practices in British Columbia. She took prompt

action in terms of advertising to the public, parallel to the

tax rebate ads in the paper, cautioning people that these

people were indulging in practices that might not be to their

best interest. While she wouldn't bring in a remedial bill that

we asked her to, she did indicate she felt the practice of

these companies was such that a majority of them should not

even be in business in British Columbia. She indicated that her

objective would be to remove them as happy hunters on the

unprepared consumer in British Columbia as quickly as possible.

That was on one complaint.

I suggest that with two or three complaints she has a

precedent upon which she can base an inquiry into the ICBC

business practices in relation to these overpayments of

premiums and this questionable advertising they're using.

I would think the last point the Minister should consider is

the fact that as Minister of Consumer Services I'm sure she

doesn't want to be the tail that follows the dog. She, in fact,

wants to be the head that leads the tail and she wants to

initiate proper business practices in this province. I would

suspect the bill she intends to introduce will reflect this

position.

[ Page 1384 ]

We would be most disappointed and the Minister herself would

be most remiss and would not be meeting her obligations to her

department if she just sat back and waited for problems to come

knocking on the door.

We challenge her now, if this is the case, to initiate

action where she has knowledge of improper business practices

and not wait until she has 150 or 150,000 letters of complaints

on her desk. I would apply this to ICBC. Regardless of the

number of complaints you have, Madam Minister, on your desk, I

would suggest the reason you don't have many more is because,

in fact, people are stunned by the action of this company in

terms of its possible business practices and questionable

business practices. And they're not yet aware that the

Minister's office exists.

So it's with these four points that I ask again on behalf of

the public of British Columbia to have this Minister respond to

her duty, respond to the concerns that have been expressed by

individuals, respond to her own knowledge of the questionable

practices in these premium charges of ICBC, and to respond to

the Members of this Legislature who have asked her, in line

with their duty and in line with their conscience, to assume

her responsibility and to look into these business practices of

ICBC.

I hope the Minister will stand up in this House on the basis

of her own statements and give us the satisfaction of endorsing

her salary with enthusiasm for the job she's going to do.

I would like to correct one point. During her address she

suggested that for a Member of the opposition to question the

business practices of ICBC, if I may quote her correctly, would

indicate "imputation of improper motives of government."

I wouldn't want that statement to stand on the record

because there is no intention on the part of the opposition or

with the public to impute improper motives on the part of the

government in this issue. It is merely a question of examining

the fact and finding a fair amount of indication that this is a

matter which should be investigated.

I'd also like to bring up one or two other matters with the

Minister. One is in relation to her statement that she had been

requested by the Northern Development Council to have an

investigation of food prices at the consumer level in the

northern part of British Columbia.

I would like to ask her if this is the council that is so

diligently working and has had to date, following a year's

establishment, I believe, one meeting, and that in fact this

request was the outcropping of that meeting.

I would also suggest to her, Mr. Chairman, that there has been, as we all know,

inquiry after inquiry after inquiry after inquiry — four official inquiries,

including a royal commission at the federal level — about this matter of whether

or not there are unreasonable profits being taken along the line between the

production of food in Canada and the cost to the consumer. I would suggest if

it is in fact the Minister's intention to have another inquiry into this matter,

that she not confine it to just the northern part of the province.

I have a few figures here that might interest the Minister.

They are not extensive, but I did relate them to the B.C.

products, all of which are involved in marketing boards,

because the Minister made such a very strong attack against

marketing boards in her statement. I'd point out to her, for

example, on the price of eggs last Thursday, which was March

14, 1974, in Prince George Grade A (large) sold for 99 cents in

one store, which is a chain store, and one dozen large sold for

$1 in a private grocery store in Prince George. In Victoria the

Grade A (large) were $1. In another chain store in Victoria

Grade A (large) were 95 cents.

In Nelson, Mr. Chairman, Grade A (large) were $1 a dozen,

and in a chain store 97 cents. In Abbotsford Grade A (large) on

the same day were 97 cents a dozen, and in a local food centre

94 cents a dozen. In Fort St. John on the same day in the chain

store Grade A (large) were 99 cents a dozen, and in Fort St.

John at what I presume to be an independent grocery store $1.05

a dozen.

Now I find that those prices are extremely interesting,

because they indicate that Nelson, in the Kootenays, would have

the highest prices below the central northern reaches of the

province, and that, in fact, there is not a major spread: Fort St. John 99 cents, Prince George 99 cents and Victoria 95

cents.

Then I looked into the price of milk, homogenized milk, and

in Prince George a quart was 52 cents. In the independent

grocery store it was 52 cents. In Victoria it was 44 cents. In

Victoria at another market it was 49 cents a quart. In Nelson

it was 46 cents a quart, and in another store in Nelson 48

cents a quart. In Abbotsford it was 46 cents a quart. In Fort

St. John it was 45 cents a quart.

The other B.C. product that I compared I would question,

because it's from Fort St. John. It is my understanding that it

is mostly Alberta butter sold there. I'll give the figure of 90

cents a pound. In Abbotsford it was 86 cents a pound, in

Victoria 83 cents a pound, in Nelson 84 cents a pound, and in

Prince George 87 cents a pound.

I have quoted these figures, Mr. Chairman, and these

comparisons, not because I think they are startling and are

going to answer any questions, but to point out to the Minister

that I feel it is an exercise in futility to flounder around

with just one area. If you are going to examine the true facts

on the cost of the delivery of food to the consumer from the

producer.

I would urge you, if you are going into this question again,

that you go into it very thoroughly,

[ Page 1385 ]

that you go into it on reasonably representative regions of

the province, and without question that you include the

Kootenays. This was the west Kootenays that I quoted, because I

couldn't reach the store I wanted to in the east Kootenays. I

would suggest, on the basis of these figures, that we may find

food prices in the Kootenays, east and west, are at times

considerably higher, or higher than they are in the north. If

the Minister is going into this, then I think this is one of

the questions that should be answered.

On this subject, Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest to the

Minister.... I don't want to reveal any of the information of

the agricultural committee because it is still sitting, but I

am sure that the Hon. Members wouldn't mind me mentioning that

in our inquiry into the profits and the handling of B.C. fruit

and vegetables by B.C. wholesalers and retailers, the major

ones, we found no particular evidence of excessive markup, and

we found a very strong emphasis on their part to promote B.C.

produce. In fact, even though it cost more at the wholesale

level, they promote B.C. produce over imported produce as long

as B.C. produce is available. I think it is fair to say that

most of the Members were impressed by this.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I certainly got the impression that

while all those appearing before the committee tried to be very

factual in their presentation, there was no question that they

would reveal no more than they had to, with their competition

sitting right beside them. I don't say this to cast any

aspersions on the wholesalers themselves, but I think if I was

in business, and a highly competitive business, I certainly

wouldn't go around giving my competition all my

information.

I would suggest to you, Madam Minister, if you are deeply

concerned, that you meet with these people individually, in

camera, and that you yourself have a committee with you. But

that evidence presented before that committee to you should be

a matter of confidential record, that this evidence could not

be used against these companies in public. Out of that meeting,

if you in your wisdom, and with your committee, felt that in

fact there were practices that should be corrected, this should

be taken up with them, as a trade, on the basis of general

impressions. Then if they did not comply, you would turn the

matter over as a matter of public concern with fresh

inquiries.

I really don't often advocate secret meetings, and I don't mean this to be

a secret meeting, but a confidential meeting. But it is going to be extremely

difficult for anyone at the political level to really find out in fact if the

trade itself does not believe that there could be improvement in the marketing

of produce in British Columbia, in order to bring down the prices to the consumer

and meet their needs as well as meet the business needs. This would be a very

significant step. To my knowledge it hasn't been done in Canada, and I hope

the Minister will consider it.

I also feel that out of that type of inquiry consumers in

British Columbia would have to respect the opinion of the

Minister and her staff in this matter. For too long there have

been accusations and false accusations regarding whether or not

there is an improper or excessive markup through the various

chains of getting our produce to market.

One other point on that, Madam Minister. I think that in

that inquiry there should be a thorough study as to whether or

not B.C. produce is used because of its popularity and the

efforts by the retailers, wholesalers, the producer and the

Government of British Columbia to promote British Columbia

produce, to make it popular, and whether, in fact, this isn't

being used to subsidize imported produce of a different nature

through the cost of the B.C. produce. I think there are certain

areas where you will find that B.C. apples are used to

subsidize bananas, as an example, and this should be weighed as

to whether or not it, in fact, is in the best interests of the

B.C. producer — who, frankly, is my primary concern — and then

the B.C. consumer.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister would like to comment. I

do have some other matters that I would like to bring up with

her, but I hope she will answer regarding the ICBC situation

and also regarding a responsible, in-depth study into the costs

of food in British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I had hoped the

Minister might reply on ICBC. One of the complaints that she

referred to — it must be one of the complaints — is one I sent

her about discriminatory pricing. I sent a copy of this to the

Attorney-General, who was civil enough to reply, also to the

federal Minister of Consumer Affairs, but as far as I can tell

I have received no reply from the Minister. Perhaps she might

reply this evening.

The fact is that discriminatory pricing is taking place.

Very severe discrimination is taking place, and nothing is

being done about it. I will quote a couple of paragraphs of my

letter to make you aware of the problem, Mr. Chairman.

"Dear Minister:

"I have recently become aware of a situation in which a

corporation doing business in British Columbia is involved in

discriminatory pricing practices. I am certain you will agree

with me that it is highly questionable for a firm which is

providing an identical service to its consumers with identical

costs for servicing its product to each member of each group of

consumers to differentiate between individuals with regard to

price.

"This firm has given no logical economic justification for

its acts and is pursuing this

[ Page 1386 ]

discriminatory policy on the basis of the previous commercial

dealings of the customer with other companies. These previous relationships

have no bearing on the present or future relationship between the corporation

in question and its new customers.

"Specifically, I wish to request formally under the

provisions of

section 5(

c) of the Department of Consumer

Services Act that your department investigate the process

by which the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is

promising premium rebates to some insurers and refusing them to

others, despite the fact that it is providing identical service

at identical cost to the customer within each category of

consumers."

This is the type of thing which certainly should be looked

into. We cannot ignore complaints of this nature from Members

of the Legislature about ICBC. Discriminatory pricing is wrong,

and it should be stopped. If ICBC wishes to provide a low rate

to people within a category, let them apply it to everybody in

that category. Let's not distinguish between people on the

basis of what firm they might have dealt with previously.

This, is a point I raised with the Minister back on January

9, 1974, and I'm still waiting for some action on behalf of the

British Columbian consumer to make sure discrimination

ceases.

But that wasn't the main point of rising to my feet this

evening. That's an important one but not the major point I wish

to make this evening. I realize the Minister is new to her

department; perhaps she hasn't had a chance to look at the mail

in January yet.

The main point in rising to my feet was to mention an

industry where we have a virtual monopoly, where we have prices

which are perhaps two to three times that which would prevail

in the case of competition. I'm referring specifically to an

industry which affects many people in this room. It affects two

people there, three people there, your Deputy Minister, four

front benchers: namely eyeglasses and spectacles.

I'm quoting a report from The Globe and Mail from

December 3, 1973, of a Mr. Ross Henderson.

"Most Canadian consumers pay two to three times as much as

they should for eyeglasses because of a lack of competition in

the Canadian optical industry."

He reaches his conclusion based on research done by him in

Ontario, based on research done in Saskatchewan by the

Government of Saskatchewan and by the University of

Saskatchewan.

I have been looking into this matter in British Columbia and

I have discovered that, as far as my research indicates, the

situation is just as bad in British Columbia as it is east of

the Rockies.

The problem of this high cost for these people who wear glasses is the fact

that there is a monopoly situation, a monopoly controlled by one firm, the Imperial

Optical Company Ltd. based in Toronto. This firm, under a variety of names,

has a virtually octopus-like grasp on the entire industry of the preparation

and sale of glasses in Canada and specifically in B.C.

A former accountant for the company has said that Imperial

controls 300 related firms in the industry. This pattern is

repeated in British Columbia where the firm not only controls

about 80 per cent of the optical laboratory business but has a

virtual monopoly at the retail level.

I brought here with a few notes for my speech the Vancouver

telephone directory, and I thought the yellow pages might

interest you. If I look in the telephone directory under

Opticians you might think there was competition because there

are plenty of them advertised. Lots of them. Where are we?

Optical Supplies & Laboratories.

The fact is that virtually all these companies listed are

controlled by a single company. Sure, they operate as

individual firms, but they are forced or they are required to

buy a minimum of 85 per cent of their supplies from their

parent company. This gives the parent company a monopoly upon

the whole industry, a monopoly aided by the fact that, of

course, they own the specific firms in the business.

So under Optical Supplies & Laboratories there are some

15 firms listed. There are only three that are significant:

Imperial Optical Co. Ltd., Bausch & Lamb Optical Co. Ltd.,

and AOCO Ltd., which is the Canadian subsidiary of the American

Optical Company. The two latter are relatively unimportant when

compared with Imperial's share of the business. It is my

understanding that Imperial controls 80 per cent of the

laboratory business in this province.

But an independent retailer who threatens Imperial's share

of the market can, of course, be frozen out, because of the 25

laboratories in British Columbia only four are not under the

direct control of Imperial.

I have got the list of them here. I can go through some of

them, and go through them as quickly as I can. First is AOCO,

American Optical; second is Bausch & Lamb; then you get

into Imperial and it goes on and on and on — Imperial,

Imperial, Imperial.

Under Opticians — Dispensing, the first one, Baker Optical,

is a small independent; Booth Optical Co. Ltd. Is Imperial;

Brentwood Optical is American Optical; and then you get into an

independent, Burnaby United Optical; and then you go back to

all the Imperial Optical.

We have one group of independents of some size in this area,

which is London Drug Optical. But look what happened, Mr.

Chairman, when London Drug Optical started cutting in at all to

the market. Why, nothing else but the Imperial octopus formed

its own

[ Page 1387 ]

London Optical Ltd., and London Optical is part of Imperial.

London Drug Optical, of course, is the independent.

So they are doing everything possible to cut down by making

sure they buy up company after company and own all these

companies. The reason is pretty simple. The natural question

comes: if they are all owned by the same person, Percy Herment,

why is it that he leaves all these 300 companies operating as

essentially independents?

Well, he's quite clear. He says, and I think he may well

have a point here, that people like choice, so he leaves all

these companies in the business even though it doesn't matter

one whit whom the public goes to deal with because they will

all wind up as Imperial in the end. I quote the man as saying,

and I'm again quoting the

article by Ross Henderson: " 'If we

put the Imperial Optical name on every building, two-thirds of

them would go out of business. People like to have a choice,'

said Herment, Imperial's president, in a recent interview."

So you see why they keep this great charade going of

competition. There is none. But people like to think there is,

and they like to choose. Therefore we have a situation in which

the names are maintained even though the entire control is in

the hands of one company.

So there are 60 firms of dispensing opticians. The list

contains Booth Optical Co. Ltd., Prescription Optical with 18

outlets in greater Vancouver, Hale Optical with six outlets in

the Vancouver area, London Optical Ltd. with 10 outlets in the

Vancouver area. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the three

firms I have just mentioned have just one thing in common —

they're all part of Imperial.

Imperial outlets in the greater Vancouver area have a

stranglehold on the industry, and they dominate all three

levels: retail, wholesale and the laboratory level. We've got

the Imperial retailers forced to purchase the bulk of their

supplies from the parent at wholesale outlets. The only

non-Imperial operation of any size in B.C. Is London Drug

Optical. This firm's outlets, plus a number of the small

independent operators, are all that keep Imperial from total

control of the industry.

This problem was brought up in British Columbia when the

Foulkes report was looking into medical services, and it was

raised a number of times. Every time it was turned back —

perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly; I don't know — on the grounds

that it was not something for that particular report. But I

think it is time that the Minister and her department look into

this.

We have a situation where it is claimed, both in

Saskatchewan and in Ontario, that there is a substantial

increase in price to the consumer as a result of a monopoly

situation. I'm sure the same facts may well be true in British

Columbia.

I personally think the people of the province should get the

best they can for their money, and it is doubtful that they are

getting it under the present system with Imperial as the

totally dominant firm, in the whole industry at all three

levels that I mentioned.

One thing I would like to suggest to her, before I go any

further, is that she does not suddenly suggest that if there is

a private monopoly they should substitute a government monopoly

in its place. That won't solve the problem of lack of

competition; it won't solve the problem of choice for

consumers.

Certainly the question of monopoly, whether it be government

or private is something that she should be looking into, and I

think that she should perhaps consult with the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and even the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) or at least of....

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): It comes under the

Combines Investigations Act .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They cannot yell.... Thanks very much.

I'll give you five minutes on that if you wish.

The Attorney-General, with his enthusiasm for sloughing off

the problem on somebody else, has suggested it be sent to the

Combines Investigation Division. Well, somewhere I have a quote

here if I can find the thing — right here. David Kilgour, a

former University of Toronto law professor, probably well known

to the Deputy Minister and now in private practice, had a good

study of this, Mr. Attorney-General. Perhaps you've heard of

the man — Kilgour.

He came to the conclusion that prosecution...he left no

doubt that any prosecution under current law would fail. That's

a quote from him — or from the paper reporting his

conversation: "The Canadian combines legislation requires proof

that there is a monopoly and that it is operated against the

public interest...." et cetera, et cetera.

"Dominant vertical" is the unfortunate term, which perhaps

the Attorney-General knows more about than I do, but that's

what apparently prevents prosecution under the federal combines

legislation. Now I trust that the old standby excuse of no

action will not be present here because Saskatchewan and

Ontario are taking steps, are looking into this, and if those

provinces are doing so, I think there's every reason for us to

do the same thing.

Anyway, where was I? I trust, however, as I mentioned, that

there will not be just the one monopoly substituted for

another.

The next point I'd like to raise is also distressing. It is

the fact that a good number of doctors wind up in debt when

they leave medical school. If they're in the business — the eye

business — frequently the

[ Page 1388 ]

company that loans them money is an Imperial company,

whether it be a front company or directly. Often these people,

when they leave medical school with existing debts, with heavy

expenses for setting up their practice, need money.

At that point they need large amounts of money to equip an

office. We find curiously enough that Imperial Optical and its

subsidiaries are quite willing not only to finance it, but to

do the whole job for them right down to hiring the receptionist

for them. Of course, with a substantial debt hanging over their

heads to the company, and with the knowledge that Imperial

likes business, it's highly unlikely — indeed it's thoroughly

improbable — that the doctors in question go outside and

suggest to their patients that they go elsewhere but to

Imperial's outlets for glasses.

In case of any doubt, Imperial makes doubly sure by

generally putting them into buildings where the only outlet is

an Imperial outlet. So when you have this combination of

Imperial financing the medical training of many of the people

in the industry, and the doctors owing large sums of money to a

single corporation resident and in the same building as

Imperial services down below — the Imperial Optical Service

down below — you have a situation where the market is almost

totally tied up, and I don't think it's proper.

So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Minister get on to this

subject. The other problem is, of course, licensing opticians.

We haven't got the type of controls in this area that other

provinces have. It's something that I have been looking at over

the last 18 months and it's clear that more should be done. But

this, of course, more properly falls outside her department and

in the department of the Minister of Health Services (Hon. Mr.

Cocke). But as far as affecting retail sales and prices is

concerned, there's no question that we face an enormous

monopoly situation, a monopoly situation which would not be

improved by switching it into the government's hands. Indeed,

it would undoubtedly be made a great deal worse.

We face a monopoly situation where steps could easily be

taken at the provincial level as has been done in other

provinces. I'd like to know what the Minister is doing about

it, whether she has done anything, whether she plans anything

and, indeed, whether she will treat this request for an

examination into this monopoly situation with a little more

courtesy than she treated my request about discriminatory

pricing of ICBC, which, I might add — to return to ICBC — had it

been done by a private company, would have put the directors in

jail under the Insurance Act .

So those are two subjects I'd like to raise this evening. I

wonder whether the Minister would like to comment as soon as

possible on them so they're not simply lost in the continuing

debate.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver-South): Mr. Chairman, I'm going

to be very brief, but I would first like to congratulate the

Minister on the organization and the work that she has put into

her department so far. I would like to congratulate her too on

her choice of Deputy Minister. I think she's made a very fine

choice. From what I have heard of him so far, on radio and

television programmes, I've been exceedingly impressed.

I'm glad that the Minister is going to start a debt

counseling service in storefronts so that the poor and the

needy can go and find recourse to justice in one way or

another. We live in an age of a great deal of confusion in the

market, and the marketplace is becoming more confusing all the

time. Also, because of inflated world prices, it's becoming

more and more difficult for people to be able to be consumers

and stay out of debt and to be able to understand fluctuations

of prices and things of that kind.

Interjection.

MRS. WEBSTER: Yes, natural graphs. The world shortages of

various kinds — sugar and coffee are supposed to be in short

supply at present — along with the general inflation of other

prices such as beef and commodities of that type and with the

increase of world population.... We're not the only country

that's having trouble along these lines. The poor countries of

the world are having much more trouble than we're having to be

able to compete and to be able to get even enough to live

on.

One thing that Europe has done over the past 10 years is to

consolidate into a common market so that the various countries

in Europe can help each other; and they have formed the

European community. In so doing, all those countries have

converted to the metric system.

This is now having quite an impact on the whole of the

western world, Mr. Chairman, because we're so closely tied to

Europe. This is like a pebble being dropped on water and the

waves grow wider and wider and wider. It means that very

shortly we too will have to convert to the metric system.

Some of the plans are in the making now. It's not going to

be an easy task. Although the metric system is much simpler

than ours, it's going to cause a great deal more confusion in

the marketplace.

One of the problems in a changeover from our system to the

metric system is in the ability to think in metric terms, in

metric units; to be able to operate on the metric system we

have to know what certain amounts look like automatically. I

think this is going to be a difficult problem. It says here,

for instance,"We must develop ideas for comparison such as

that 20 millimeters is about the width of one finger, and 100

millimeters is about the width of a hand. One can, a 15 ounce

can of food, is about 400 grams."

[ Page 1389 ]

Now to be able to convert our thinking from the inch-pound

type of syndrome into metres and millimetres and grams and

litres is going to create considerable difficulty. Certainly

when you go to the marketplace and you go to your stores and

look on the shelves for various things or try to buy fabrics

and decide how much you want, you have to be re-educated in

your thinking from the inch-pound system to the metric

system.

It should be very simple because the metric system is all in

units of 10. It's really much easier than ours. But we've been

so ingrained with the old inch-pound system that it's difficult

for us to rethink. It will be quite easy for children who are

taught right as beginners in school and brought up on that —

with this exception: because their parents have been taught in

the other system, there could be considerable confusion. So I

went to the library and I looked up the Wide World

Encyclopedia . It says here:

"The metric system is based on the distance between the

north pole and the equator, which is about 6,200 miles. A line

running from the north pole to the equator is 10 million

equal parts. Each

part is a metre, or 39.37 inches."

Now, that's the confusion; it's difficult. So that means

that one metre is approximately 39 1/3 inches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member relate her remarks to

the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Consumer

Services?

MRS. WEBSTER: I am, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to make the

Minister realize the confusion, and I would like to ask her

some questions about it in a minute.

One litre is approximately the equivalent of one quart —

that's not too difficult. One ounce is approximately the same

as 28.35 grams. One kilogram is about 2.2 pounds.

Now, this is what I would like to ask the Minister. Does she

know when the metric system is going to be taken over? Has

anything been done in her department, or is she considering any

educational programme in relation to the change-over from the

inch-pound system to the metric system?

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

to the metric system, yes, I'm aware of the metric system. I

lived in a country that used the metric system. It's very easy

to learn the metric system. It was originated by Napoleon and

it's a very excellent measuring system. It makes far more sense

than feet, inches, pounds, ounces, et cetera.

It is now being incorporated into the educational system. I believe the medical

system is already extensively using it. You'll find in the grocery stores that

the metric count is already being implemented. In fact, if you look on your

toothpaste tubes you'll find that your toothpaste containers are referred to

in grams. You'll find that some of your food products are also in grams as well

as ounces and pounds.

So it is being phased in over a period of time. One of the

members of my department is sitting on the metric committee. So

it's not anything new. It's a phase-in and it's being done

country-wide — in fact, it's being done North America-wide.

Now, the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

refers to a letter that he sent me. I'd like to tell you about

that letter. I received that letter at 9:45 a.m. on January 10,

which was a Tuesday morning, and it was hand-delivered to my

office five minutes prior to my leaving for a cabinet meeting

at 10 o'clock. When I arrived at the cabinet doors I was met by

the press and I was asked what I thought of the Hon. Member's

letter. I told them the truth, that I hadn't had an opportunity

to really look at it because I had only received it a mere five

minutes before. They then informed me, Mr. Chairman, that the

letter had been given to the press the night before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MS. YOUNG: I thought to myself and I said vocally to

the press: "Oh, really?"

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Was he playing politics?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Oh, I don't know, Mr. Premier. I don't know

what he was up to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Liberals don't play politics.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Oh, they don't. Well I'm glad to hear that,

because they had me footed.

The press got the letter a good 14 or 16 hours before I did.

I think that's real courtesy, to give them the letter before I

received it.

In my view it was a spurious policy he was enunciating here.

It was a discriminatory policy, because he obviously hadn't

done his homework. If he had, he would know that the insurance

companies in a Senate investigating committee in the United

States, which stretched over a period of four years, discovered

that the insurance companies in North America had been

extremely discriminatory in their rate structures. They had set

rates that depended on where you lived, what kind of work you

did, if you were black or white, if you were a longshoreman or

a bartender or a waitress that worked at night, and what

district of the city you lived in. If you lived on one side of

the street you paid a different rate than if you lived on

another.

I might add that in my view anything relating to

[ Page 1390 ]

this subject belongs under the estimates of the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and I think it

should rightfully be there, and these questions should be asked

of him.

Now he talks about the optical industry.

Interjections.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Well, I think that if you'd done your

research you would have found out that those insurance

companies in British Columbia are principally owned by American

corporations and you would find that the practices they used in

the United States are essentially the practices they used in

this country. They don't change much when they cross the

border; we've found that out.

Now, in the matter of the optical industry, the Member talks

about Imperial Optical. We're quite aware of Imperial Optical

and their operations. There is at the present time an

investigation going on under the federal Combines

Investigation Act , and the Hon. Herb Gray has announced

this investigation. Therefore I think it would be inappropriate

under the circumstances for me to comment further on this,

because if they are found in violation of the Combines

Investigation Act this is a criminal offence. I would

suggest that if he doesn't believe this he should check with

Mr. Gray with his own party, and he will find out it is

true.

Ontario and Saskatchewan have been making some inquiries but

they have gone no further than just making inquiries.

In reply to the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I

stated prior to the supper hour that I had no reason to look

into the business practices of ICBC. I feel that is rightly

under that Minister's estimates.

I also reiterate, as I have reiterated numerous times, my

position on the matter of marketing boards. They are a good

thing. I believe in them. I sometimes don't feel that they

communicate as well as they should on how they arrive at some

of the things they do, but the principle of marketing boards I

fully support and I will continue to support them.

MRS. JORDAN: I listened with great interest to the Hon.

Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), who is not here, and

her comments on the metric system. I do believe it is going to

be very confusing to people and I would commend to the Minister

a printing in the form of a rotating dial aid for people such

as myself.

HON. MS. YOUNG: They're already published.

MRS. JORDAN: What did intrigue me was that if a can of salmon weighs

440 grams, I can hardly wait till I get on the scales, and then I thought what

a riot it's going to be when the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) gets on

the scale.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order! (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: And if we put the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) and the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) and myself on the scales, we'll have a new

record in British Columbia. Maybe we should do that to hail the

advent of the metric system.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the Minister of Consumer

Services is a spiritualist or not, or believes in omens or

signs, but if I remember correctly, in the French Revolution

the ladies used to knit as the heads rolled. As Victor Hugo

said in Les Miserables — and I'm better at German than

French — "As the heads rolled the ladies laughed and lost not a

stitch." I wish the ladies in the gallery this evening a good

evening's knitting. I hope that you too don't lose a

stitch.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think, Mr. Premier, there is probably a

lesson to be learned. There are some very serious questions

before this Minister and she is not answering them. We feel you

are interfering with her ability to carry out her duties. I

refer to ICBC.

I was most interested in the Minister's comments on the

monopoly situation and that Imperial Optical is being

investigated under the federal Combines Investigation

Act , of which we are all aware. But maybe the Minister

would advise me whether a Crown corporation can be put under

investigation under the federal Combines Investigation

Act .

As the Hon. Liberal Member (Mr. D.A. Anderson) deplored the

fact that Imperial Optical controlled 80 per cent of the

market, I wonder what the Minister has to say about the fact

that ICBC controls 100 per cent of the market.

One cannot help but wonder, in your bland refusal and

blind-eye attitude towards the particular practice of ICBC I

have consistently brought to your attention, if in fact you are

not saying right across Canada, to the Americans and to anyone

else,"never mind what your business practices are; come to

British Columbia. You can establish a monopoly; you can

overcharge; you can make interest profits on overcharging; you

needn't bother refunding; you needn't bother paying interest on

those refunds."

Is the motto of the NDP government in British Columbia going

to be, do as I say, not as I do? Is that going to be the motto

for British Columbia? Why don't you advise your Minister of

Consumer Services that she is free to carry out her duties and

investigate the rates of ICBC and their practices?

Interjection.

[ Page

1391 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Premier, the public of British

Columbia wish they had that money back so they could buy a cup

of coffee.

I would like to ask the Minister her plans for introducing

consumer education into the schools. I recognize this falls

under the Minister of Education. As an individual in the former

government I spent a good deal of time and at times became

frustrated by the roadblocks within the department and at times

within the teaching profession in trying to see that there was

a three-tier consumer-education programme in our schools. I

would hope the Minister of Consumer Services would spur the

Minister of Education to see that we do have a three-tiered

programme in the schools, and that this start in the primary

grades and move up to the secondary and senior secondary

levels. If we do this, there has to be a concentrated effort on

the part of the UBC education programme in training for

teachers, as well as Simon Fraser, to see that teachers are

properly trained in consumer affairs.

The word I hear is that teachers are not immune to the

problems of the ordinary consumer and have their fair share, if

not more than their share, of budgetary problems and consumer

problems.

I don't think you necessarily have to rely on people from

your department to go out. I've discussed in part with you a

training programme. I believe there are many people in the

community who could be used as resource people. It would not

necessarily be an expense. They would be quite happy to go into

the schools and have the students out of the schools into their

place of business, into banks, into credit unions, into all

types of business areas, so that young people could learn at

first hand the mechanics of business.

Also, with these resource people, young people could try and

understand or have people explain to them inflation and the

very grave dangers of becoming a chronic debtor or

over-subscribed in one's credit. If we don't start exposing

young people to this type of sound budgetary programme in the

primary grades, particularly now that money is losing its value

so rapidly, then I would suggest that the problems of the

future will be worse than ever. They not only will have the

debt load that we are creating for them but they are going to

have their own faulty management problems to contend with.

Again I would ask the Hon. Minister: what is your motto

going to be for British Columbia? How can you possibly stand in

this Legislature and talk about monopoly situations and your

opposition to them, and yet blandly turn the other eye and

suggest that ICBC, perhaps one of the cruelest monopolies in

its approach at the time, is in fact not practising proper

business practice? You don't see anything to turn a hair about

on it.

I can do no more than to suggest, as I did before, that I believe the Minister

really would like to look into this aspect of ICBC. She must now make a decision

between her responsibilities as a Minister and her loyalty to the Premier of

this province who in essence is her boss. I say that her responsibility is to

the consumer in this province. At no time in the future can you stand up and

condone monopoly situations in the private business sector, at no time will

you be able to stand up and condone overcharging and lack of interest payments

by private business unless you examine this situation in ICBC.

The same with the advertising. The advertising is all the

worse in ICBC because thousands and thousands of the public's

dollars were spent not to tell them about ICBC and the progress

of the programme but simply to ram down their throats the fact

that this government wanted them to be proud of ICBC and to con

the public of British Columbia with their own money that this

was a benevolent, appropriate company.

I say if the company isn't good enough to stand on its own

two feet, and it could be if it was properly managed, then it

has no business in B.C. If the company can't stand on its own

feet and become part of the pride of British Columbia because

of the service it offers, then it has no right to utilize the

public's money to con them and to ram a concept down their

throats which isn't even factual. "You're the boss." We have

all had letter after letter from people who say,"If I'm the

boss then sell the company."

So, Madam Minister, for your department you must, for the

sake of your effectiveness in the future, look into this

matter.

I also would like to have you answer my questions regarding

consumer education in the school and your use of community

resource people to carry out this programme. I think it would

stimulate a great deal more interest in it than if this

Programme were carried out strictly by people from your

department or those in the teaching profession. The community

resource people bring in a great deal of variety and would

offer stimulation that can't be encouraged by just one or two

people approaching the subject.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, it

seems what we are having here really and truly is nothing more

than powder-puff Naderism. I would like to draw a couple of

topics to the attention of the Hon. lady Minister, but perhaps

first of all bid welcome to those people in the gallery who

left Maynard's auction to come over here, and who are fast

returning back to Maynard's auction.

I would like to draw to the attention of the lady Minister

something of which she is aware and something which she is

apparently proving to be absolutely powerless to do anything

about. I am talking a little bit about price increases,

government

[ Page 1392 ]

direction and government philosophy.

We find the price of bread has increased, the price of milk

has increased, sugar has doubled over the last week or two,

gasoline in all likelihood will be going up about six cents a

gallon, probably on April 1. Insurance, a Member mentions over

here, has increased. The price of cigarettes is going up two to

three cents a pack. Coffee prices are perking right over the

top. Candy bars have become almost out of reach for the kids.

The price of beef is reaching the moon. Mr. Attorney-General, I

tell you that the cattle rustler today has taken over from the

safecracker as the criminal elite, make no mistake of that.

Is there any better selection or any better value or any

better service for the consumer? And the answer is no, no, no

in each case. Struck out on all counts. Even worse, by this

government's example of not fighting but compounding inflation,

this is the most serious thing you have done as a government.

In the headlong run into inflation what have you done but just

go ahead and increase a little bit more? Your programmes are

chock-full of nothing more than government fat.

You have fantastically, fantastically expensive furnishings.

I read in the paper this morning, and I suppose it was an

answer that we finally got from the Minister of Transport (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) who is not in his seat at the moment, that the

furnishings for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

came in at $1.4 million. Since when does an insurance programme

have to be housed like the Taj Mahal really and truly in the

Province of British Columbia?

Your promotions on the whole have been horizontal. We have

had the worst salary rip-offs in the history of the Province of

B.C. Mr. Adams, I think his name is, who was talked about in

the House earlier today, is earning $3,000 a month for another

18 months of no work. What a way to earn a living in B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: Don't do a thing and earn $3,000 a month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: I'm glad you called me to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his

remarks to the direct administrative responsibility of the

Minister of Consumer Services.

MR. GARDOM: I am, because she is to protect the consumers. Who, indeed,

is the consumer, Mr. Chairman? I'm glad you directed my attention to that because

the consumer in the Province of B.C. Is the taxpayer, and it comes right out

of his pocket. This is what he's going to have left in his pocket by the time

he's through with you people — boom all. That's right.

Mr. Bremer — what a deal for him! Marvelous! Two years'

pay for nine months' work, and you won't even table the

contracts in this House to see whether or not these are illegal

or legal settlements. The cabinet and the backbenchers are

Marco Poloing all around the world, and there's a bureaucracy

that's going to choke a horse.

The consumer, as you illustrated to me, Mr. Chairman, is the

B.C. taxpayer and he has been absolutely clobbered by this

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been ripped off!

MR. GARDOM: In the face of all that, when the government had

one thing specifically between its total control, with this

fighting new Minister who is going to fight tooth and nail,

blood and bone for the consumer, what did she do? Whimpered

into a corner. Flew United into a corner. (Laughter.) That's

right. She had the opportunity of holding the line with the,

price of B.C. natural gas.

What was her present to the consuming public in B.C.? A 15

per cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty per cent in the Interior.

MR. GARDOM: And 30 per cent in the Interior. Oh, you've done

a big job, I'll tell you. You've abdicated your responsibility,

and so young in the job. What a meteoric career. I suppose that

if history repeats itself, you might have a meteoric

demise.

I tell you, you have moved very quickly, Madam Minister. You

came from the blue skies of United into the stormy clouds of

the B.C. Federation of Labour, and then into the uncertain

waters of socialistic politics and now to the comfy-cosy

corners of cabinet. That's right. But if history repeats

itself, I think you'll find the same speedy way out that you

found in.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the United way.

MR. GARDOM: You know, that might be unfortunate for you,

because as a lady you're a very charming one. I've got to say

that without making any bones about it. But the natural gas

increase — New Democratic Party, I'd say, my foot. I'd say

that's New Democratic piracy and nothing else.

I want to talk about marketing boards. Probably the comments

that I'm going to say tonight about marketing boards will be

individual comments, and they're going to be fairly strong.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And out of order.

[ Page 1393 ]

MR. GARDOM: No, they're not the slightest bit out of order,

because they're within the portfolio of this dear lady who is

doing her level best to protect the consumers — she says, Mr.

Attorney-General.

First of all, it is a misnomer. Marketing boards they

aren't; if anything, they are producer boards. They have never

ever produced in the Province of British Columbia a market — at

no time. They have never ever produced a better product — at no

time. They have never ever produced a better source of

production — at no time.

What they have produced is this: they have produced

artificial prices and they have produced artificial values.

Their concept initially was obviously one of socialistic

motivation, and their activities and their personnel have all

been bureaucratically oriented, ever since they first came in

in the Province of B.C. And the profit, if any, as in this

government, seems to be primarily for the bunch of pencil

pushers within their own administrative process. If they were

ever needful, Mr. Chairman — and I truly question that fact —

today they are an embarrassing, unwieldy, unworkable

anachronism.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I find that I've got a supporter in Shuswap (Mr.

Lewis). Thank you. The Hon. Member for Shuswap says he's going

to support me. Well, we may be two Members alone, Mr. Member

for Shuswap, but I'm prepared to stand up here on my own two

feet and express my opinion on this point, and I hope you do

the same thing in this debate.

Historically, Mr. Chairman, marketing controls have never

ever worked — maybe to a small degree in a short run, but never

ever in the long run. They've never ever produced one better

potato, or one better apple, or a better glass of milk or rack

of lamb or side of beef. The only thing they have served to do

is produce a series of rigid non-democratic controls, which

have been followed with ritualistic intensity to the extent of

almost bordering on a funny-farm — totally to the detriment of a

free-competing economy, totally to the detriment of qualitative

choice and to the detriment of the consumer and the

producer.

If anything, Mr. Chairman, they have favoured most of the

time an elitist bureaucracy, they have pandered to the

middleman, to the distributor who has enjoyed throughout the

greatest of the spread. The break has not gone to the producer,

the break has not gone to the consumer, where it should go in

each case, but principally it has gone to the distributor.

It's not enough to stand up and criticize. To improve the situation we must

better link the vendor to the purchaser, the producer to the consumer. Let them

each do their own thing, and let the market find its own bench line, which surely

in a democracy is a democratic necessity and a democratic right.

Through you to the lady Minister, if there had been the same

controls on other primary products such as fishing and mining

and forestry as we have found in the agricultural industry in

the Province of British Columbia over the past 25 years or so,

there would have been insurrection in B.C. Mining would not

have permitted it. They'd have been at the doors of this

chamber. Lumbering would not have permitted it. They'd have

been at the doors of this chamber. Make no mistake of that. And

certainly the people in the fishery industry would have been

too.

If the argument before was one to attempt to cure problems

of distribution and supply — I think this was one of the

arguments — it's done a mighty poor job, because modem

technology has belayed that. Distribution today, Mr. Chairman,

is far easier. It is more efficient. It's quicker and we've got

greatly improved technology. So is supply more efficient. We've

got better technology there. We have refrigeration. We have

better storage techniques. They have all been expanded and

they've all been modernized.

But these existing marketing controls are not working; nor

are they desirous in the best interests of our present day

economy in this province. I would say that every possible

attempt to wean off this compulsory.... What a word that is in

a democratic society — "compulsion." I think I'm going to have

a couple more statements about that. But every attempt that we

can have to wean off this compulsory measure should be taken.

Compulsory marketing of farm products — that's what it is.

Well, okay. Let's expand the theory and the concept. If you

are going to have a compulsory marketing of products, why not

all products — lumber, fishing, minerals, and all of their

products and by-products? Similarly, if you advocate a

compulsory marketing — which I don't for one second advocate —

of all products, why not a compulsory marketing of services —

the trades and the professions and all general labour?

I'll tell you why not — because that is locked step,

knee-jerk right into the USSR. That's exactly what it is. I'd

say, Lord help us from the radicals in this group that is now

in power in the Province of British Columbia, who might favour

that as a positive and necessary step.

The whole world today is starting to turn the comer, Mr.

Chairman. They are getting tired of being regulated and

designated from cradle to grave. They have given up freedom for

pseudo-security and they no longer wish to do that. They have

come back to the true value, which is the value of freedom, and

the sooner we get back to that, not only in this province, but

I would say in the whole western world, the better.

[ Page 1394 ]

I'm going again to mention one specific topic before sitting

down. And that's one of the most ripped-off consumers of all in

the Province of B.C., and that is the liquor and the wine

consumer. We're producing $111 million of net profits....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's my department.

MR. GARDOM: No, when it was your estimates you said it was

her estimates. Now that it's her estimates you say it's your

estimates.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's mine.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Humpty Dumpty's back on the wall again,

but when you fell off in your estimates I'm now going to

approach your colleague. Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General, for

your....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is in order, providing he

relates his remarks to the Minister of Consumer Services.

MR. GARDOM: Thanks so much.

If we put $111 million of single dollar bills into this

chamber it would fill the whole place. But still there is no

customer convenience. Madam Minister, this is your bag — now,

write it down: no customer convenience, NCC; no consumer

consensus — NCC again; just bad selection — JBS; poor quality —

PQ; and questionable service — QS. That's what we have. That's

what the consumer has from the Liquor Control Board today.

They're dispensing liquor today in a method that is only

Liquor Control Board–oriented, not customer-oriented. The old

adage that the customer is always right certainly does not

apply and never has applied with this board.

There should be a selection of good wine and that selection

should be selected, Mr. Chairman, by the consumer, not by a

bunch of Liquor Control Board bureaucrats. The consumer is the

one who should have a dominant voice in the purchasing

practice.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Why do you say that's too much? Why do you want

to impose your funny kind of taste on the rest of us? Who likes

cured haggis? (Laughter.) Who indeed likes cured haggis?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You personally select what? You don't buy much. You might

select a little, but you certainly don't buy too much. But customer convenience

is the thing that we want to have. We need wine and spirit counseling, refrigerated

beer — a terrible thing to suggest. Hey, B.C. wake up! There are fridges in

town!

The buyer should also be able to take advantage of bulk or

loss leader sales. And you know, being less expensive does not

necessarily mean inferior quality. But the European suppliers

and the American suppliers are not able to crack this tasteless

liquor monopoly that exists in this province. You're bypassing

all sorts of far, far superior wines and all sorts of less

expensive wines and liquors; you're brushing off quality,

you're brushing off moderate prices and you're brushing off the

consumer at every turn of wheel.

Now it's not been possible under any former administration

and I criticized every former administration without success,

without success, to see if we could have this thing properly,

interestedly functioning from a consumer point of view; and

that's never been possible here.

I don't know whether the impossibility has been to crack the

civil service in it or the Liquor Control Board or the fact

that government has been afraid to make a change.

I really and truly don't know why anyone should have to

support an inferior product. To that extent I concur with the

remarks of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) a few days ago when he described what he considered

B.C. wines to be. He used the word "lousy." I won't be as

strong as that, but some of them I must say are really as close

to dreadful as one could find. There's no reason why we should

not see that the people have what they wish to have; and that

is better selection, better choice and better quality.

Before sitting down, I want to speak about three quick

things. Once again, misleading advertising: are you able to do

anything about it — yes or no? If you aren't.... You say the

answer's no.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Soon.

MR. GARDOM: Soon. Well, okay, and I'd be most interested in

seeing what the measures are. I'm not going to repeat a talk

that I've given before in this House, but misleading

advertising is unfortunate and, mind you, totally unnecessary,

and the sooner we can do something about it....

I commend you upon your bill which I can't talk about — the

debt counselling thing. I think that's a very good thing, but

I'd reiterate a suggestion I have made before and that is that

we should have a public investment bureau for the purposes of

people who wish to receive a little bit of inexpensive, free

advice before they get into the stock market.

There are no end of people in the Province of B.C. today who

continue to invest in the market, who find they look upon it

perhaps a little like Reno; they go for the long shot but then

again they wish total

[ Page 1395 ]

security. They should be better informed of the attendant

risks. Sometimes that information is relayed to them by the

people from whom they purchase these stocks and sometimes it is

not.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I know we look upon this

government as the takeover government but I was really shaken

when I heard they were going to take over the metric system as

well tonight from the Member for Vancouver-South (Mrs.

Webster). There's no limit to what they're going to try and

take over apparently.

I missed the debate last night but I've listened to a lot of

the comment today and I have to agree with the Member who has

just spoken, Mr. Chairman. I think there's a real danger in

this whole field of consumer legislation that apparently the

state has to be responsible for every single little thing that

the individual does in the marketplace. Just where are we going

to draw the line? That's what I would like to know.

For example, with respect to the Member who has just spoken

(Mr. Gardom), he wants counseling about how people invest in

the stock market. I just say that if you want to invest in the

stock market, that's a straight gamble from the word go. I

don't know what we're coming to in this province if we have to

expect the state and the government or the Ministers or cabinet

to look after people who want to play the stock market. I'm

sorry, I just can't buy that, and I can't buy a lot less, I'll

tell you.

This whole business of consumer affairs worries me to no

end, because I can just see Big Brother government being given

all kinds of responsibility to spread his tentacles all over

the marketplace, just because there is a percentage of

correction that needs to be done.

There are unquestionably things that need to be done and

I'll quote a few of them tonight — I won't take long. But on

the other hand, let's not go overboard to have this big,

impersonal, amorphous thing called the state poking its nose

and its grubby fingers into every little thing that an

individual citizen does or doesn't do in the marketplace.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I was certainly distressed, if I got the

general thrust of the Minister's remarks, that the legislation

will not apply to Crown corporations. I think I missed that

part. I would say that if we're going to have rules, then

they've got to apply to everybody and they've certainly got to

apply to the Crown corporations also.

But there's just another aspect of all this that bothers me. It's my understanding

that even when a consumer has a legitimate, demonstrated complaint, the person

who has been taken to the cleaners — if that's a fair expression — has himself

got to take the, matter to court. I would like to know from the government that

where somebody has been the victim of a rip-off situation: does it not seem

reasonable that that person should not be faced with the expense and the loss

of time from work and so on to take the matter to court?

Should not we have some agent or some form of government

department that does the actual taking of the offending person

to court? Not being legally trained, I don't know what format

that might take. But it seems to me — and I have talked it over

with people in the consumer field — that so often, when the

citizen has been the victim of some rip-off and then they learn

that they have to go through the whole business of taking the

seller or retailer to court, they back off. This is a great

reason why many of these people never finish up in court when

they should. I'd like to hear the Minister talk about that.

The other aspect of consumer legislation provincially which

bothers me is the degree to which there seems to be a real

danger that we will duplicate and overlap federal legislation.

Now it's very interesting, Madam Minister; I sat in the public

galleries of the House of Commons yesterday and I was very

fascinated to hear one of the Members of the opposition ask Mr.

Stanbury what he was going to do about these companies who buy

income tax rebates where the net existing interest rates, if

you calculated it out, would be 50 per cent, or some ridiculous

figure.

Well, what do you know, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Stanbury said:

"Yes, this is a serious business and what we need is joint

legislation between the federal and provincial governments."

The Member on the opposition shouted,"When are we going to get

it?" Mr. Stanbury didn't answer. But I thought it was

interesting that on just the one day that I could be there to

listen to the question period this particular question would

come up — when we're on the point of asking the same question

in this House.

I do feel that this kind of behaviour, if it's legal — and I

suppose it is at the present time — is the kind of rip-off

where I think the government should be encouraged to provide

the kind of legislation which just prevents it completely. I

don't see why not ... or at least have some strict

limitation.

I was also very worried to hear a statement this afternoon

about the publishing of lists of offenders. The Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey talked about freedom; here again, with all

the good will in the world, maybe there are some people who

should be publicly embarrassed by having their names published.

But it just reminds me a little bit of the old custom of

putting somebody in the public stocks and having all the public

coming and throwing apples at them, or whatever it was that

they did in those days.

[ Page 1396 ]

I think that while we do have a

section of society that

needs to be disciplined, or needs to realize that they cannot

abuse privileges of being in the market place, on the other

hand let's not go overboard and have a big bureaucratic

structure of civil servants who spend their time pen pushing

and filling forms and researching a whole lot of information,

and then by some power which might easily be abused publicizing

the guilty parties, I think there is a real danger of excessive government

interference in the legitimate interest and affairs of private

citizens and corporations.

In other words what I'm trying to say is that I hope we'll

preserve some sense of balance, that in trying to correct

problems in the marketplace which unquestionably do exist we

will not go overboard and try to take the consumer by the hand

and treat him like some child who has no personal

responsibility himself.

Every single one of us has a responsibility when we go into

the marketplace. I just shudder to see the kind of society

we're building if we let every individual think if he makes a

bad purchase, or if he gets sucked into some deal that anybody

with half a brain would see was stupid to start with, then all

he has to do is run to the consumer affairs department which in

turn year by year will have to double, triple, and quadruple

the staff to keep up with these stupid complaints. I just see

that as one very substantial danger.

Already, I understand, there's certainly a duplication of

approach. We have very excellent Better Business Bureaus in

this city and in other cities and I'm informed by them that

many of the letters which they have received have carbon copies

to half-a dozen other agencies here, and to the Minister

perhaps, and to the Ottawa and to the Consumers' Association of

Canada and so on and so forth. Some of these people are already

submitting their complaints to several agencies.

The Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) also mentioned false

advertising and it was my impression that the federal

government legislation is a reasonably effective measure in

this respect and probably the Minister can respond to that. But

this is the information I've discovered from inquiries.

It would seem that on the same theme on how far we go and how far does the

department function that the most useful way that I think the money could be

spent or a large part of the budget could be spent would be in fact in providing

information in the most up-to-date, most effective publicity methods.

I still

think that if you provide somebody with information and they still go ahead

and make stupid purchases then I don't know that the state, or you o your brother

or sister have any responsibility to protect somebody from their own stupid

action when they've already been warned and told. I've got few examples here

that make you wonder if you could ever help some people.

The whole question of trades licences is something else that

should be looked at by the Minister and I wonder if perhaps

your department would consider setting up some system of

screening and checking out people who are now given trade

licences at the municipal level with a very minimum amount of

research as to the suitability to the selling whatever it is

they're selling.

There might or might not be loss of revenue to the

municipalities, but really as I recall when I served as an

alderman the main thing the municipalities worry about is just

the whole question of zoning — whether somebody's trying to

sell goods from the residential property and this kind of

thing. But whether the person has any kind of bad record of

having been through some nefarious selling practices before

doesn't seem to be entered into. That's always just done after

the bird has flown the coop.

So I think there's a great potential for the provincial

government to look...or the Consumer Services department to

consider becoming the agent to issue the licences after a

satisfactory screening procedure of applicants. This is the

first year we've debated this department but as the time goes

by I hope we'll be fair enough to the business communities, and

contrast the volume of business transactions with the number of

complaints. It is very easy to say that there have been X

complaints or Y complaints, but I think there has to be set

against the context of how many such transactions are taking

place.

It's very easy to quote examples of many complaints in a

certain field, but as I say if it's a transaction for example

of a grocery chain store, their transactions must number in the

millions every year. And if you have a hundred or two

complaints from that kind of background I don't think we should

get too excited, or too concerned about that type of

complaint.

This matter of direct selling. The Minister responded to

that and I gather somebody had brought up the issue of direct

selling. Here is one area where the Consumer Protection

Act has certainly got loop-holes which either should close

provincially or you should deal with Mr. Stanbury or whoever is

dealing with it federally. I won't read the whole letter but

it's very interesting because it brings in the nationalist

theme that the Minister mentioned earlier on this afternoon.

This is from a lady in my riding who said:

"I received a phone call yesterday from a sales

representative from MacLeans, Chatelaine , and

True magazines offering me a free cook book, or

gardening book just because I answered my phone.

"As the conversation progressed I was told I

[ Page

1397 ]

would receive copies of Macleans, Chatelaine and True for 19

months. Having had similar sales pitches from Macleans when I was living in

Edmonton I listened and waited. Sure enough I would only have to pay 60 cents

a month for 90 months. I made a quick estimate but asked the person calling

how much this would be in all.

"She stalled a bit and tried to evade my question but

finally admitted that this would be $54. But she did admit that

90 months was a long time."

There's more to the letter, but basically it's worth

mentioning that the citizens in our society are not all stupid.

I hope I haven't created the impression that I think that all

consumers who get into difficulties are stupid, that's the last

thing I'm trying to say. And this lady obviously isn't. She

says:

"This is a miserable racket for our best-known national magazine. Yet we are urged so often to

support our national magazines. Are these methods of promotion

approved by the editors of Macleans , and if so Peter

Newman, Barbara Frum and others certainly drop in my

estimation."

And there are some other comments that are not quite as

relevant.

But anyway this direct selling situation must be tackled,

Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. And as I say some of

the legislation really has very substantial loop-holes. Forgive

me if I'm repeating something that was said last night, but

this three-day cooling-off period when they can cancel the

contract, they don't have the three-day option if the sale is

for less than $50 for one thing. And the buyer does not have

the option if the contract "was solicited, negotiated, or

concluded by a seller or salesman who occasionally carries on

business outside of his permanent place of business located in

commercial premises in the province."

Who occasionally carries on business outside of his

permanent place of business. Now, who interprets what you mean

by "occasionally"? Do you sell once a week, once a month, or

once a day? So persons can move around the province and have an

office in some one single location and move around and get

through the protection that's supposed to be provided in this

Act. So that the Consumer Protection Act only appears to

do something about direct selling. But perhaps your Deputy has

some ideas from his experiences as to how this can be

corrected. I think we should make it plain that it is a

problem, and I appreciate your comments that you want to try

and do something to stop the sale for 8, 9 and 10 years of

magazines.

The other kind of situation, for example again, and this is the kind of experience

that we have from the Better Business Bureau — somebody gets a service provided,

whether it's cutting down a tree or unplugging a sewer or whatever it might

be. Then when they find that it's $9 an hour they holler and scream to the Better

Business Bureau. And when the Better Business Bureau asks them: "What agreement

did you reach before you started to unplug your sewer?" the consumer says,"Oh,

we didn't ask."

Now once again how far is government and the state supposed

to be responsible for the individual? I just can't understand

anybody, unless they're willing to pay whatever the bill is

without complaint. But if there's any concern on the part of

the consumer about the bill he or she will receive, surely to

goodness it makes the most basic of common sense to ask the

supplier of the service what he's going to charge you — and if

you don't want to pay $9 an hour you don't get the service.

Here again I just worry that it looks as though we're going

to make government responsible for affairs which I happen to

think are the explicit responsibility of the individual himself

or herself. I just hope and pray that this department isn't

going to mushroom into just a great big bureaucracy, as I say,

where half of the responsibility you are asked to shoulder is

not a fair, in my opinion anyway, or a wise function for

society. The individual has to realize his own

responsibilities.

There's one particular area where again I do feel that

something must be done and that's in this area of dance studios

and health spas. Believe me, we've had our fill of this in

Victoria.

We had one dance studio back in December, 1972, which was

based in Arizona. I'm probably not telling the Minister

anything she doesn't know, but I think the people in this

chamber should know the degree to which this goes on and the

kind, of money that's prepaid. Then suddenly the instructors

and the manager and the secretary all leave town and people are

left holding the bag who have paid up thousands and thousands

of dollars for prepaid dancing lessons that would go on till

the year 1990, but round about 1972 the provider of the service

disappears.

There again it brings up the point that a lot of the people

who are taken in by this are too embarrassed to take any action

or to admit that the situation occurred to them. One woman

stated that she wouldn't like her daughter to know how foolish

she had been and that she had been luckier than most. She only

paid between $5,000 and $6,000, prepaid, for dance lessons.

They wouldn't allow a refund of this money before they skipped

town. They wouldn't even allow a refund even on a doctor's

certificate saying that the person really wasn't fit to be

engaged in this.

Just to give the House some idea of the specific nature of

this problem, in the case of this Fiesta Dance Studio, the sums

involved by the individuals ranged from about $800 to $8,000.

You say to me

[ Page 1398 ]

that maybe they shouldn't prepay, but the fact is that the

actual service being provided, as long as it continued, was

perfectly satisfactory. Many of these people enjoy the social

benefits in mixing with people and having a night out and so

on. It has a very useful social function teaching people to

dance. I'm not for a moment suggesting otherwise. But as I say,

you also have the whole question of individual

responsibility.

There's one example here where the dance studio agreed to

cancel two out of three contracts which this individual had

signed and three months later the man had signed another

contract for $900.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: For dancing lessons, but you prepay them.

You'll be dancing till you go to your grave on some of these

contracts.

There's one incredible example, Mr. Chairman, of a

57-year-old lady. Just listen to this — you won't believe it.

She paid $18,000 over a six-month period for dancing lessons,

and then she went on welfare because she had used all her money

prepaying dancing lessons that would take her the next 10

years, even if she had used the dancing lessons. This outfit

left town and I don't know where they are now....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did she come from Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you have to be able to dance when you're a

politician, that's for sure — whether your dancing the right or

the left. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I just wish I hadn't gone to that dance last

night, or I wouldn't be feeling quite so tired today. But this

is a serious matter, and these health spas are not too much

different. Again, let me make it plain that they're not all

doing this. Some of them you pay as you go and I'm not issuing

any blanket condemnation.

I named the Fiesta Dance Studio, but we do have the same

problem with spas. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)

isn't in his seat, but I wonder if the Member for Kamloops

would like to comment on Hilton-Tru-Dimensions.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: No I'm not filibustering anything. I'm just getting the

message across as to some of the things that have to be corrected in this province

in the legitimate area for the Department of Consumer Services. I think a lot

of the area is completely illegitimate and keep your fingers out and don't be

pressured by the public into doing things for them that they should do for themselves.

But there is a legitimate area such as this kind of situation.

In Kamloops there were between 700 and 1,000 people prepaid

at this spa to the total amount of $168,000. They had an

operation in Victoria. It was sold. The one in Nanaimo is

closed down and they've moved their equipment to Edmonton and

set it up there under another name. I suppose when things get

hot in Edmonton they'll move to Manitoba or Saskatchewan or

Ontario. I just think that this has to be an area that requires

immediate consideration.

Incidentally it is interesting to return to the point of the

trade licences, because I understand that the person involved

in this venture in Victoria had a criminal record. He had just

completed parole and he opened up the business in Victoria. I

would suggest that if the trade licence was issued with any

kind of preliminary screening, and the person had previously

been involved in this kind of business adventure, we would have

less chance that the licence would be granted. I understand

that this isn't the first time this has happened, by a long

way. We had the same problem in Vancouver about a year ago.

Again, to relate the federal legislation, I understand that

some of these spas are now assigning the commitment to a

finance company. Under the Bills of Exchange Act of the

federal Legislature the finance company is equally responsible

for seeing that the service which was contracted for is

actually provided. Therefore there does seem to be good reason

to think that with provincial-federal co-operation we will

avoid overlapping and duplication, but at the same time we can

create legislation which is needed, and perhaps you can close

the gaps in the Consumer Protection Act . So I would

suggest that it's very important that provincial and federal

governments co-operate to avoid both the administrative

duplication and duplication of staff who are doing the same

job.

The food freezer plan has been discussed. Here again, I find

it very difficult to understand how stupid some people can be.

This person who got into this food freezer plan had accounts

payable of $24,000. When he decided to sell the business to

another gentleman, who presumably didn't understand what it was

all about, he sold the business for $1. It doesn't take much

insight to realize that the guy who bought it for $1

subsequently had to declare bankruptcy. The consumer gets

ripped off in a situation like this, but the person who

originally established the business and committed himself for

all that amount of money to consumers seems to be able to go

off free of any penalty. Presumably once again the consumer has

to take the person to court. I think that really is so basic

that it has to be point number one in this whole debate — to

what extent can the consumer who has certainly been losing

money by

[ Page 1399 ]

some device such as this I've mentioned...? Should not the

government provide some way or some form of assistance so that

the consumer can have his day in court?

The whole question I presume of warranties has been brought

up. Again, a warranty isn't much good if you have to send your

clock or your radio back to Chicago to get it fixed. There was

the Longines Symphonette Company, as I recall, and my daughter

received a clock radio as a present. But anyway when it went

wrong I forget where on earth she had to send it — to Atlanta,

or Chicago or somewhere — and pack it up and send it off and

wait weeks and weeks. I'll be fair and say that it finally came

back repaired, but these are the kind of details that

warranties should make a great deal more explicit than they

do.

We always joke about the fine print, but the fact is that

that is where the truth of the matter very often lies. Many

purchases would not be made, I am sure, if more people

understood the fine print. Maybe the lawyer says that this is

the chance you take when you buy, but I think there has to be

this sense of balance.

In regard to the dancing studios and the spas, I wonder if

the Minister would consider some bonding process or some

bonding technique whereby first of all the applicant for the

licence should be screened at the provincial level, and then

there should be a bond. It seems to me if bonding of car

salesmen is desirable, as indeed it seems to be, and is the

current practice, why should we not have bonding of this type

of service also?

We also, I think, should touch upon the Trade Schools

Act . There the business schools are bonded and yet even

there, I understand, in Victoria — I can't recall the exact

name of the trade school — people prepaid for one year's

training, and the company folded up. So it may not be the whole

answer just to have bonding, because it would seem that in this

example of the trade school the bonding wasn't too much of a

success.

While I am talking about bureaucracy, I wonder if the

Minister would tell us just exactly how many store front

offices she has in mind. If my original fear is in any way

justified, that more and more people will expect more and more

of government to protect them from actions which they

themselves should be responsible for, how will we resist public

pressure to have a storefront in every town and village and

goodness knows how many in the large cities?

I can see this is a tremendous danger. I understand this has

happened already to a considerable extent in Manitoba. I wonder

if the Minister will give the House a general outline of the

degree to which we are going to have these offices in different

towns and cities.

Another question I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, in these storefront offices,

will there be legal aid readily available? If the government isn't going to

provide the mechanism to take the producer to court, is there going to be some

mechanism at least whereby legal aid is made available to the consumer, so that

the consumer at least is in a financial position to pursue justice in the market

place?

Or maybe the Minister feels that legal aid is under the

Attorney-General. It seems to me it's so intimately involved

with both concerns, of consumers' affairs and the process of

justice, that we should really try and determine to what degree

legal aid will be a very important aspect of the advice given

in the storefront offices.

Just in finishing, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister

will consider another area where I do think government must be

involved. That is in this whole question of charitable

solicitations — this business of some organization coming into

town and putting on some public function or a circus, or some

such public performance, and taking a certain percentage of the

take and part of the money finds its way into a charity.

I am sure that the Minister well knows that so far as the

Lotteries Act is concerned, and the legislation

governing bingo games, there are rules and regulations, and a

certain percentage of the profit must inevitably be recorded as

going to the charity.

This does not apply in other areas where we are dealing with

funds being raised for charity by certain organizations. In

fact I understand there was a case in Vancouver of a travelling

art display to benefit a retarded children's association. The

money was being put into a post office box, and the money was

being taken by somebody else, and there was no payout at all to

this charity in the long run. No records kept, no receipts, and

I suppose to this day the organizer of that particular scheme

is not to be found.

I understand that the Union of B.C. Municipalities is also

very concerned about this charitable solicitation situation,

whereby associations can put on such functions, with no real

accounting of how the money is broken down, and whether in fact

the charity received the money, or whether the organizing body

takes 95 per cent of the money, and the charity gets 5 per

cent. There is no regulation similar to the rules applying to

the Lotteries Act .

It would seem we are frequently talking about Alberta in

this House, whether it is beef cattle or oil or what have you.

But here is one area where Alberta has a charitable

solicitations bill, and it also has provincial licensing, I

might say, so that it seems to work well there. I think that it

is an area that deserves your new department's attention here

in British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Last night I had the opportunity of saying a few

words on this vote 37 which we are presently discussing.

The Minister and I were having a very quiet chat

[ Page 1400 ]

relative to her administration of her new department when we

were rudely interrupted by the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) and it appeared at the time that the Minister was

concerned about some of the dollars that he had spent on the

purchase of the Glenshiel Hotel.

I am not going to ask the Minister really to investigate

whether the Minister of Public Works wasted taxpayers' dollars

in the purchase of the Glenshiel Hotel. I do want to reiterate

and again ask the question. I was very attentive this afternoon

in listening to the Minister give some of the answers to the

Members who had posed certain questions to her. They failed to

ask what I consider the very reasonable question and she failed

to comment on it. That deals with the question of the sale and

price of lumber in the Province of British Columbia. Because it

was very emphatically and well publicized, the statement of one

of the Ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who suggested prior to the

government getting involved in the manufacture of lumber that

the lumber manufacturers in British Columbia who were selling

lumber at the local level on the domestic market at a

comparable price to the international market were criminally

irresponsible.

I want to know whether the Minister really agrees with what

one of her colleagues has to say about the lumber operations in

British Columbia.

Now the government is in the business of manufacturing

lumber in British Columbia. Are they about to establish a

two-price system? A domestic price and an export price? I think

it's a very sincere question. I want to know if there is any

substance to what one of your colleagues has had to say. Or was

it cheap political talk? We want to know. The people of British

Columbia want to know as well as to whether the government is

sincere in what they said, or is it only cheap politics?

Now we see in the new estimates of the Department of

Consumer Services, an estimate in the amount of $1,169,000, a

potential staff initially of 42 people. We haven't been given

any indication whatsoever that there's going to be a better job

done than basically, probably a little bit more, but not

substantially more than what the one man operation of the

Consumer Service Branch of the Department of the

Attorney-General did in the past. We haven't been given any

clear-cut indication at this time.

Is your department going to be basically a super-snooper

department? Are you going to establish a bureaucracy? Is this

what you intend doing with the $1,100,000 which you are asking

for us to vote at this time? What kind of real action are you

going to take to protect the consumers of British Columbia?

There are many people in British Columbia that are asking questions regarding

ICBC. There's been little advertising on the part of Dunsky who has been promoting

ICBC in the eyes of the public, through full-page ads. We want to know what

action your department is going to take to let the people of British Columbia

know, when it is applicable, that they have been. overcharged on their insurance

rates. Are you going to advertise the fact that if the rates this year are in

excess of what they were in the previous year as has been stated by the Premier

of this province that a refund will be available to the people?

We have seen the kind of costly ads put into the newspapers

by Dunsky, who most of us people in this chamber recognize is a

friend of that government's. We want to know whether you are

going to engage Dunsky or some other public relations firm to

let the people of British Columbia know that they have been

gouged by ICBC.

I think you have a responsibility to tell the people that if

their rates are in excess in 1974 over the 1973 rates, they are

entitled to a refund. You have a responsibility to ensure that

ICBC does not gouge the motoring public of this province and I

want to know what you intend doing about this.

The Minister has made a few statements since she has been in

office. On September 7, 1973, she talked about the high price

of sugar. She talked about the gouging by the B.C. Sugar

Refineries. She says their sales are up by 3.6 per cent and

their profits are up by 61.8 per cent. I'm sure, Madam

Minister, you remember those statements. She suggested at the

time that possibly this British Columbia company was taking

advantage of a shortage.

Would you believe, Madam Minister, that from the time you

made that statement in September, 1973, sugar has increased in

price dramatically? At that time a 10-lb. bag of sugar was

retailing at approximately $1.79. Today — and I'm not going to

suggest this is a firm price in every retail store in British

Columbia, but it's an average price — a 10-lb. bag of sugar is

retailing at $3.65. That's a doubling of the figure at which

you stated that the B.C. Sugar Refineries Company was taking

advantage of the consumers in British Columbia. The price has

doubled. What action are you going to take to ensure that the

consumers of British Columbia are not being gouged, as you

suggested they were being in September, when the price was half

of what it is today?

Then on September 18 you made further statements. You talked about the price

of salmon in British Columbia. You were talking about a seven-and-three-quarter

ounce can of Gold Seal sockeye salmon, which is put on the market by the Canadian

Fishing Company. You suggested that in June it was retailing at 81 cents a can

and that you were disturbed that in September it had increased to $1.29. I made

a phone call this afternoon to establish just what that salmon is retailing

for in a retail store. I

[ Page

1401 ]

am not going to name it — I'll leave the naming and the

attacking to you, Madam Minister — but it was one of the large

chain stores in British Columbia. They said it was retailing at

$1.59. What a dramatic increase from September again — a

substantial increase.

Really we want to know, Madam Minister: are you only talking

about action or talking about what you, in your language, might

consider a rip-off, or are you going to take some type of

action to ensure that there is not this kind of rip-off that

you suggest is taking place in the marketplace?

I'm not going to go into the whole spectrum of every type of

product selling on the shelves in the various grocery stores,

but I was told as well in this phone conversation — and this

was free advice given to me — that apple juice, for instance.... I am not going to attack the fruitgrowers of British

Columbia, but you have a balance to maintain in your portfolio

if you are going to justify the kind of dollars you are asking

us to vote for you at this time. Apple juice was selling last

year at three 48-oz. tins for $1. I am told today that it's on

the shelves at 75 cents a tin. Is that kind of return being

reflected in the return to the producer, is it gouging on the

part of the wholesaler, or is it gouging on the part of the

retailer?

Madam Minister, I think we are entitled to some sort of

answers. Do you suspect that the wholesaler, for instance, when

he is passing on these price increases which are being passed

on almost on a daily basis, is waiting for new stock to come on

line, or is he just, because of anticipation or because of the

fact that there has been an indication given to him that a

price increase is going to come on stream, increasing the price

of his existing stock and passing it on to the retail outlets

of British Columbia? Do you suspect that this is taking place?

If you do, Madam Minister, what action do you propose to

take?

We now have this new bureaucracy established in British

Columbia whose responsibility is to protect the consumers. We

want to know, Madam Minister, what you propose to do for the

consumers of British Columbia.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I want to make some

comments about one of the more far-reaching causes of the cost

of living, particularly in the northern Interior of British

Columbia, and that is the disparity in freight rates.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, stop attacking your employer.

MR. NUNWEILER: Our region has an average income, according to statistics,

of $3,900 a year approximately, and that compares to approximately $3,800 a

year in metro Vancouver. It is interesting to note that it is not because of

higher wages in the region, generally speaking, because in the major industry,

the forest products industry, the base rate is lower in our area than it is

on the coast. It is $4.38 an hour in our area, compared to $4.45 on the coast.

There was a considerable study done by a community

committee, representing labour unions and the large

corporations with large payrolls and retail people in our area,

which drew these conclusions from some of the studies that they

had done.

Of course, expenses in our area are considerably higher due

to climatic conditions, higher freight rates, higher cost of

clothing, fuel, automobile expenses, snow removal and so on. It

works out to approximately $200 a year more in living expenses

than in a similar family situation in the metro area on the

lower mainland.

Freight rates are very discriminatory. I'll quote a few

examples. We find that to be so in rates from eastern Canada

for manufactured products, for example stoves and freezers. The

same product to be transported from Montreal and Toronto to

Vancouver costs $7.21 per hundred, The same thing to Prince

George, which is 250 miles closer, costs $8.42 — 16 per cent

higher into our area.

The canned goods freight cost for an 80,000-lb. rail car is

$2.20 per cwt. to Vancouver and $2.84 to Prince George, which

is 30 per cent higher.

Household products, soaps, cleaners and so on cost $2.79 to

Vancouver and $3.46 to Prince George, a difference of 25 per

cent.

A chair, for example, with a wholesale value of $38 costs

$16.55 to transport by rail from Ontario to Prince George. That

is 44 per cent of the cost of that item for freight alone.

We have some other examples. We can use Edmonton also for an

illustration. A chair from Ontario to Edmonton will cost

$11.50; same thing to Prince George, which is only 400 miles

further, costs $16.50 — a difference of 45 per cent.

A dresser will cost $3.62 to Edmonton, and to Prince George

$6.75 — a difference of 81 per cent.

A chesterfield from Ontario to Vancouver will cost $9.15,

and to Prince George $13.23 — a difference of about 45 per

cent.

We hear from time to time that eastern Canada would like to

have the west subsidize their gas rates. If we calculate the

petroleum subsidy, which I understand is about 15 cents a

gallon, on the basis of 10 gallons of gas per week per family

in the east, and 1,000 gallons of oil per year, it works out

that the family east of the Ottawa Valley is being subsidized

by $200 to $250 per family per year on the cost of gas and

heating oil by the west.

I would submit that if we could subsidize eastern Canada with fuel, then certainly

we should be entitled to equalization of freight rates and take that disparity

out of the cost of our commodities that we have to purchase from them.

[ Page

1402 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. NUNWEILER: Also, the impact of freight rates has a very

serious effect on the health of our secondary industries, as

well as our cost of living. To give you a further example,

under the existing freight structure the preferential treatment

that is given to certain cities and not to others in effect is

discriminatory. Do you know that it is cheaper to ship from

Ontario to Vancouver and from there to Prince George than it is

to ship from Ontario to Prince George direct. It is 650 miles

further to go from Ontario to Vancouver to Prince George than

direct from Ontario to Prince George, and it is cheaper to ship

the long way around.

It is just ridiculous to think of traffic going into

Vancouver, through the bottleneck, through the warehousing, the

transferring, and the changes through the terminal and all the

way back to Prince George. That it should be cheaper to ship

the long way around just doesn't make sense.

Now we have the iron and steel from eastern Canada. Angle

bars, to give you an idea of the difference in cost, from

Toronto to Vancouver cost $1.64 per hundredweight. From Toronto

to Prince George they cost $2.24 — a difference of 35 per cent.

Rates to Prince George are 25 to 35 per cent higher than to

Vancouver.

We also have information that shows that steel shipments

from Hamilton to Prince George cost $3,136, while from Hamilton

to Vancouver is $2,296 — a 33-1/3 per cent difference.

We have evidence that shows shipping of commodities from

Prince George to Terrace. Compare that to the same commodities

from Montreal to another place at the same distance, and that

will show the difference. The Montreal rate is $488 per car,

and for Prince George to Terrace for the same thing is

$1,016.

It is no wonder that we have such a higher cost of living

with discriminatory freight rates. I would hope that we will

get some support from all sides of this House to put pressure

on Ottawa to give us equalization.

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

think the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) shouldn't have

been hurried in his presentation. I certainly would like to see

Xerox copies of all of the details he presented.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He wanted to get it in before Friday

afternoon.

MR. McGEER: Well, he could have taken, as far as I'm concerned, all

of Friday afternoon, Friday evening, Saturday, and he could have presented it

while you're playing rugby in Japan, because that kind of thing is important.

I don't think the House should be hurried when we are getting this kind of definite

information on discriminatory practices.

I don't know whether the Premier shares the sentiment, but I

would like to see, Mr. Member, all the details of what you

have. I will certainly pick it up and be prepared to make many

speeches of the same kind. It's this kind of detail that we

have been needing for some time in this House, and I think it's

a matter of regret that the Premier was continually heckling

one of his own Members. Let is never be said that we would

heckle the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler).

I welcome the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to enter this

debate. I haven't so far had much to say about the highly

important portfolio that we have been discussing — namely

Consumer Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Consumer Services.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I always make that blunder on this side. My

apologies — we wouldn't want to suggest that that Minister has

any affairs at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you should withdraw that remark.

MR. McGEER: I didn't make that about the Member for North

Okanagan, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member continue,

please?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to welcome the new Deputy

Minister. I hope that he has a successful and productive time

here in British Columbia. We understand that he left a very

distinguished post in the east to come out here to the wild

west. We know that he didn't do that for the purpose of getting

us into the typical consumer legislation to protect individuals

against dance studios, encyclopedia sales, vacuum cleaner

promotions or even the shoddy merchandise presented by Eaton's

department store. The new Deputy who came all the way from

Osgoode Hall has bigger things in mind.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, the test of the Consumer Services

is not whether you tackle the niggling little things like dance

studios and encyclopedia sales and all the kinds of things that

take up time in debate.

We want to know whether the Minister and her Deputy are

going to be prepared to take on the big fellows in British

Columbia — the things that really make a difference to all the

consumers. That's what we want to know.

The Minister hasn't had very much to say so far, at least

while I've been in here, but I want to suggest....

[ Page 1403 ]

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: We hear you over the loudspeaker, Madam

Minister.

I want to suggest, Mr. Chairman, if I may — I don't know

that I can do this in the two-and-a-half minutes that are left

to me, but it's been hard to get the floor in this debate — who

some of these big fellows are.

I'd like to commence with one by reading a letter from the

constituency that I represent. I know that the Minister will

want to hear what this particular citizen of British Columbia

thinks about one of the big fellows in this province. He has

this to say:

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

voice to the many already bemoaning Autogouge. This scheme may

be beneficial to the majority of drivers, but I personally feel

as if I have been shaken down by a legalized extortionist.

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

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

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

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

PD rate for the 1966 model.

"This is a joke. Though it is listed in the gold book at a

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

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

nearly five times as much as mine.

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

my driver's licence. Autogouge euphemistically calls this one a

'driver's insurance policy.' "

Now, get this, Mr. Chairman — listen closely, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Autogouge?

MR. McGEER: Just bear with me while I finish this letter,

It's a very important letter.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I'll be happy to read the letter tomorrow or

Friday or whenever we meet again.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Suits me. If you'll be here, I'll be here.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the

clock. Are the filibusters over?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada