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)

MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 1323 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting. Routine proceedings. Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 6). Amendments.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1323

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services

estimates.

On vote 37.

Hon. Ms. Young — 1323

Mrs. Jordan — 1324

Hon. Ms. Young — 1327

Mrs. Jordan — 1329

Hon. Ms. Young — 1329

Mrs. Jordan — 1329

Hon. Ms. Young — 1330

Mr. Schroeder — 1330

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1331

Mr. Cummings — 1332

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1332

Mrs. Jordan — 1334

Mr. Phillips — 1336

Mr. Chabot — 1342

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 6, intituled Crown

Proceedings Act.

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

that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same

be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

CONSUMER SERVICES

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

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

Chairman...

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Phyllis Buster. (Laughter.)

HON. MS. YOUNG: ...it is with a great deal of pleasure that

I rise to speak to the estimates of the Department of Consumer

Services. I am pleased that this government has officially

recognized the needs of the consumers of this province by

asking this Legislature in the fall session to establish a

full-fledged department devoted to their interests.

The department was officially established by

order-in-council on November 15, 1973. On January 1, 1974, the

consumers affairs officer, Mr. Michael Hanson, and his very

capable staff were transferred from the Attorney-General's

department to the Department of Consumer Services.

On November 20, 1973, the department retained the services

of Professor William A.W. Neilson as Deputy Minister. Professor

Neilson is noted to be one of Canada's outstanding experts on

consumerism and consumer law. That's this gentleman over here,

the Member for Osgoode Hall.

At the outset we determined our goals and our priorities. We believed that

to be effective in protecting the consumer in the marketplace, it was not necessary

to have a large staff but one that would be easily accessible. Emphasis would

be placed on informing consumers of their rights, educating at different levels

and in many forms and resolving complaints by voluntary compliance or conciliation.

In those situations where laws were clearly and knowingly

being violated, it would be necessary to provide legal recourse

for the aggrieved party or parties.

We believe we have achieved all of these goals in our

estimates. The key to the success of our department will lie in

the consumer service centres. These will be street level

storefront offices in highly visible areas where public transit

is good and where there is a maximum of foot traffic. Although

attractive, they will not be plush. We want them to be places

where people can feel free to drop in, pick up literature,

receive answers to questions or file complaints.

At the outset we anticipate establishing four core offices,

phasing each in as we are able to obtain the right location and

retain and train the necessary staff. If a need is demonstrated

later for additional facilities in other areas, we will ask the

Legislature to approve them.

The Victoria office will not only contain our storefront,

but also the department. Other storefronts will be located in

Vancouver, the Interior and in the north. I might add that our

Victoria storefront, which will contain our department, will

also be our training ground for many of the people that will

eventually go into other offices.

Each office will be staffed with a consumer service officer,

an investigator and the necessary clerical staff. In addition,

legal assistance will be seconded to the offices from the

department of the Hon. Attorney-General as required.

In addition, we intend to tap a talented but largely

unexploited pool of expertise in the form of home managers and

handicapped persons who may be able to devote from 10 to 20

hours a week manning telephones and resolving complaints.

We hope to utilize some of these people in our community

programmes branches as well. This will be our public

information and education arm. A well-educated consumer is our

ultimate goal. Hopefully he or she will have no need for our

complaint services.

In our community programmes department we will be working on

curricula for the school systems with the aid of the Department

of Education, school boards who have already expressed a desire

for such programmes, community groups such as the Better

Business Bureau, the Consumers' Association of Canada, and many

others. We will be approaching community information centres to

help us in disseminating information in those areas where we

may not have a field office.

Another key function of the department is the Trade

Practices Branch. The consumer services centre and trade

practice regulations will be administered

[ Page 1324 ]

under this department.

Since the government first indicated their intention of

establishing a Consumer Services department last spring by

appointing me as Minister Without Portfolio, and since the

establishment of the full department in the fall, we have

received an excellent response from various groups within the

business community.

Many responsible business people who have deplored the

questionable tactics of the few in their industry have formed

trade associations and come to us asking for some kind of

regulation of their industry. They realize that those few

unethical business firms are downgrading the entire industry

and making the innocent pay for the sins of the guilty. I might

add that the guilty few are reaping huge profits at the expense

of their more numerous ethical colleagues. It is a truism that

the unethical business practitioner rips off not only the

consumer, but the ethical businessman, too.

To sum up the essence of our department, it is

you.

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

pleased to hear the views of the Hon. Minister of Consumer

Affairs. She mentioned last week — on Friday, I believe — in

defence of the Attorney-General that she and her department

were very much the baby of the Attorney-General's department.

While we welcome the department, we had come to think, Mr.

Chairman, that this was a baby with a physical defect in the

form of muteness, because we hadn't heard anything from this

Minister or anything from her department of any great

significance.

I would like on behalf of our party to welcome Professor

Neilson to the staff of the Government of British Columbia, and

also to British Columbia itself. We hope that he enjoys it

here. We also hope that he's married and his wife sends him

shopping so that he's very much aware of some of the practical

problems that face the consumer in British Columbia in this

time of extraordinary inflation.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, if he can't afford a wife what's wrong

with your salary scale over there, Mr. Minister?

The Minister herself, in speaking of this child of hers, leaves us with some

concern in the matter of the expense of the child. When we examine the figures

required for your office and your vote we find that it's rather high. You mentioned

a very small staff and yet you're asking this House on the basis of what must

be termed as eight months of inactivity to approve a budget of $1,169,428. Madam

Minister, when we examine the estimates in your own office, we find it to be

one of the highest office expenses in the government.

You're higher than Agriculture, the Attorney-General's

office, Industrial Development, Labour, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, Municipal Affairs, the Provincial Secretary, Public

Works, Recreation and Conservation and the Department of Travel

Industry.

Madam Minister, we don't begrudge this money if the value is

there for the taxpayers of this province, but we must seriously

question, through you, Mr. Chairman, this extraordinarily high

Ministerial expense when the Minister herself has just said

that they intend to operate a very small, very efficient and

very personal office. Perhaps the Minister would make a comment

on this, when she's answering our questions, as to how she

justifies this very high expense in her own office.

I am pleased that the Minister states more clearly tonight

than she has on any previous occasion the objectives of her

department, because to date what we have had from this Minister

is an unwarranted and an unfair attack that she withdrew, to

her credit, in this House against a very responsible and

respected corporation in this province. We also had an

unprecedented and, I believe, very irresponsible attack on

British Columbia marketing boards in this province as late as

last week. I intend to go into that a little later on.

Mr. Chairman, the success of this office and this new

department depends not on a Minister who is prone to harbour

unfounded criticisms and grudges against various aspects of

society, including business and marketing boards, but its

success will depend upon the Minister's and the staff's ability

to warrant and earn the confidence of the consumer of this

province, because the role of a consumer affairs Minister is

extremely difficult.

We're surrounded daily when we read the papers, listen to

the news or listen to people or business talk by a barrage of

rather groundless, useless and senseless clashes, each accusing

the other of false representation or improper pricing or

improper business practices. We say that the responsibility of

this Minister, Mr. Chairman, is to allay some of these false

charges and to deal herself, with her department, in fact —

well-founded fact. We hope that she will utilize research and

research moneys, the universities, consumer groups and

commodity groups in this province, as well as business itself,

to garner many of these facts.

I think for too long in the whole area of consumer affairs

in North America, and probably many parts of the world, we've

been evolving in an area of theory without in fact getting down

to the actual costs involved in operating a business, and

really evolving, in co-operation with business, what the

[ Page 1325 ]

responsibilities of large businesses and small businesses

are. What too, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are

the responsibilities and the rights of a consumer? Certainly

along with every area of rights there also comes some elements

of responsibility. I'm sure there are times when all of us can

recite factual incidents where, in fact, a consumer has proved

irresponsible in his action.

We hope, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister will move in this

direction. With this thought in mind, I would ask the Minister

how many meetings she has initiated with business people in

British Columbia in terms of finding out what are the problems

of business — large business and small business — and what in

fact their costs of operation are in relation to their profit

picture, and what they are prepared to do on a responsible

basis to meet their obligation to the consumer and a fair

marketplace.

Conversely, I would ask her what meetings she has had with

the cross-section of the province, speaking of consumers —

consumers from the north and the more remote areas, as well as

consumers in the metropolitan areas, from all parts of this

province — as to what they genuinely think are some of the less

talked about but very real concerns on the part of the consumer

about business transactions and pricing in the Province of

British Columbia. If she hasn't initiated any of these

meetings, then I urge her tonight to initiate meetings with

small business people, with larger businesses to establish some

ground rules through which they are all going to operate in

their own and the consumer's best interest and to initiate

these meetings with consumers from all across the province and

hopefully to have a joint meeting between small businesses and

large businesses in representation and consumers to discuss

what are their mutual problems and concerns and how much common

ground they have in solving some of these sometimes complex and

sometimes less complex but very frustrating problems. I would

invite the Minister's comments on that. I'd ask if she's

willing to do this on a province-wide basis.

I would suggest to the Minister, in speaking of small business, that there

is a problem for the small businessman in terms of keeping abreast of more modern

business practices and in part his responsibility to the consumers. I would

suggest, in the educational programme that the Minister hopefully will be initiating,

that there be consideration given to have an opportunity for small business

people to meet on common ground, to learn without a great deal of cost how their

business practices might be streamlined, how they might incorporate more modern

methods of bookkeeping on such a simple matter as whether it is beneficial to

them in terms of cost and convenience to plug into a computer service to utilize

computerized billing — things that they might not be aware of or might not have

time to study because of the necessity of them keeping their nose to the grindstone

in trying to keep their businesses operational. There are many business factors

which we could discuss which they could learn about or be brought up to date

about which would maximize their time, would maximize their own profits and

in turn could well lead to a holding of the price line for the consumer.

In speaking in terms of big business, small business and the

consumer, if the Minister's role is to ensure an open,

competitive and fair marketplace and to protect the consumer

from improper business practices or unfair practices in the

marketplace, then surely, Mr. Chairman, it is this Minister's

responsibility to deal in the same manner with big government.

I say that the Minister of Consumer Services has a very strong

responsibility to apply the same standards to big government as

she is willing to and hopefully will be prepared to apply to

all aspects of the business community as well as to the

consumer.

We must ask you, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman:

where has your voice been in the matter of taxation in this

province, which is an utter fiasco and is resulting in

increased, unwarranted and unprecedented taxation for the small

businessman in this province? He has no alternative but to pass

this increase on directly to the consumer. He's squeezed in a

programme of inflation which is extremely difficult right

across Canada, but is even more severe in British Columbia. The

Minister herself is part and parcel, through her affiliation

with this government, of some of those inflationary practices

which have been initiated by her government and are reflecting

themselves in direct consumer prices.

We must ask you, Madam Minister, where is your voice in this

matter? Where was your voice? How many meetings did you have

with the Minister of Finance regarding the increased assessment

and its effect on not only the individual homeowner, if you

wish to leave that to the Minister of Housing, but in fact to

the small business person and the consumer?

Surely, Mr. Chairman, this Minister must be well aware that

there are many small businesses in many parts of this province

that have a very limited market potential. They must have a

certain volume of business and a certain element of profit in

order to survive and in order to pay their wages and in order

to serve the people that they're in business to serve. I would

cite places like Chase, places like Lumby, places like Pouce

Coupe. There are just a limited number of consumers in that

area and any direct increase on their cost of business is

directly reflected in the cost to the consumer.

Madam Minister, you are part and parcel of an increase of 2

per cent in the corporate tax in this province since taking

office. That in itself is reflected directly in the cost to the

consumer. What efforts

[ Page 1326 ]

have you made to have this matter investigated on how much

of this has been passed on to the consumer? How many meetings

have you had with the Minister of Finance on this matter? This

would also include in those questions the 0.5 per cent on

retained capital.

Madam Minister, you can't stand up with your department, no

matter how hard they work and no matter how sincere all your

intentions, and attack business, and attack the so-called

rip-off artists without, in fact, attacking your own government

when it indulges in programmes which result in direct increase

of costs to the consumer.

I would ask the Minister where her voice was and where it is

now in relation to the actions of ICBC. Would this Minister,

Mr. Chairman, stand aside and watch a reputable store advertise

prices as firm, encourage people to buy ahead of time, announce

shortly after that they had overcharged them, announce that

they would make no effort to secure refunds for those who had

been overcharged, and, on top of that, would refuse to pay any

interest on those overcharges?

There is just no question, Mr. Chairman. There is no way, on

the basis of the experience we've had with this Minister in

this House, that she would stand for this type of nonsense on

the part of any legitimate business. And there is no way that

the public of British Columbia will stand for a Consumer

Services Minister who will not rise to their defence in this

same practice just because it's practised by her colleagues and

big government.

Madam Minister, you have a very strong obligation to protect

the consumer as a whole, and there are many people and many

consumers in this province who have been adversely affected by

the actions of ICBC. I challenge you to rise to your

responsibilities and come to their defence and bring ICBC to

heel, and bring it into the position where it will be a good

corporate citizen in British Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It is now.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, it shows you why he's a chicken

farmer.

Is the Minister prepared to stand by and see more and more

monopoly in private industry and private business develop in

British Columbia as she stood by and watched ICBC become a

monopoly industry in this province? It is her comments on this

matter that we invite. Are you, Madam Minister, prepared to see

other industries develop a monopoly position such as ICBC has

in British Columbia?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister says,"like B.C. Tel." I would say to

that Minister that he has a good deal of control over B.C. Tel, if he wants

to exercise it, and perhaps with the Premier of this province....

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

no control over B.C. Tel. It's all federal.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps the Minister of Finance, through the

Minister of Consumer Services, Mr. Chairman, would like to

announce tonight that ICBC rates will, in future, go before a

public board upon which there are consumers sitting in this

province to help soften its monopoly position.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to point out

some very serious matters of concern to this Minister, but her

little pal who keeps quacking may prompt me to tell you, Mr.

Chairman, that we don't want the Consumer Services department

Minister under the thumb of another Minister who has already

displayed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is speaking out of his seat and is

in jeopardy of giving the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) a bad name in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to ask him to refrain from doing

that. (Laughter.)

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A point of order, Mr.

Chairman. I've always recognized that from the Malahat we had

one member who is recognized as Shovelmouth. Now, from the

Nelson area, we have Shovelmouth No. 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Would the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan continue, please?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Obviously everyone has been sampling B.C.

products for dinner tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order — the Minister of Transport

and Communications.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Shovelmouth was a name given to Mr.

Skillings from the time he went to school right on through all

his life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid that's not a point of

[ Page 1327 ]

order either. Hon. Member, would you continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, are these Hon. Members

advertising Singer sewing machines with their automatic

shuttles?

I am glad that the Minister of Housing is awake tonight,

because certainly he is going to be a Minister who is going to

have to answer to the Minister of Consumer Services for some of

his actions.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services what

relationship exists now between her department and the federal

department of Consumer Affairs, and also what her relationship

is with the federal Minister of Consumer Affairs. Is it the

intention of the department to establish its own computer

service and do its own research, or is the department intending

to lease computer service from the federal government and lease

research service from the federal government?

I'd like to ask the Minister when she last had a dialogue

with the Hon. Mr. Gray, who is the Minister of Consumer Affairs

at the federal level? We would like to know the substance of

these discussions. Have they related in any way to specific

consumer problems in British Columbia as they have been

revealed by the federal department? Was the Minister discussing

with the federal Minister the problem of the chocolate

situation which arose just a short time ago? And on that

subject, why didn't we hear from the Minister of Consumer

Services? What was your position? Were you, as Minister,

concerned that people in British Columbia were buying unsafe

chocolate?

I would also like to ask the Minister of Consumer Services

to define, within the area of more common concern, who assumes

the responsibility for consumer or retail violations in British

Columbia as they relate to the federal law and, by their

indirect effect, apply to problems in British Columbia.

I would like to ask the Minister to what extent the

department is legalistic in terms of its actions, and how far

she intends it to go. To what extent is it really going to be

storefront window-dressing? Is the Minister prepared to

initiate, on behalf of consumers, court action? I would ask

her, to date, how many actions she has initiated against any

major or minor companies in relation to their offending

consumer law — and whether she would give us the names of these

initiations and actions and to what subject they related.

Is the Minister going to outline for consumers a legalistic

framework emphasizing where her responsibilities lie and

advising the consumers themselves as to what they can expect

from this department?

The Minister of Consumer Services and her new Deputy have been discussing the

tax rebate problem. The Deputy Minister, on his flight home from the east, had

an inspiration as he crossed the Rockies and announced a warning to the public,

and we commend him for this. But the Minister herself has spoken out against

these people. When she was questioned in the House the other day, I was quite

surprised to hear her say that she had only had one complaint in relation to

tax rebates in British Columbia.

I would ask the Minister, on the basis of that one

complaint, the concerns of her Deputy and her own statement,

what action she has taken. Are these people bonded? If not, has

the Minister a complete file of these companies that are in

business in British Columbia today, and the complete list of

the shareholders?

Has the Minister called these people into her office and

made it clear to them what the position of the government is

and is going to be in relation to any debunking on their

part?

In other words, Madam Minister, after the statements of your

Deputy and yourself, and the complaint, have you taken action?

Are you in a position to suggest now that anyone who goes to a

tax rebate company and only secures part of that rebate and the

company goes defunct...that in fact if they were bonded, that

individual would be protected?

Mr. Chairman, I have two or three matters that I want to

bring to the Minister's attention in the way of specific cases,

but perhaps she would like to answer some of these questions

now, and then we can deal with these others as we go along.

HON. MS. YOUNG: In regard to the expense that the Hon.

Member mentioned, I assume that she does not appreciate that

this was the start-up effort which required leasing premises,

buying furniture, getting telephones put in, buying office

equipment — filing cabinets, stationery — hiring staff; the

whole thing to start up alone is quite an expensive item, I

admit.

The Member mentioned what is the responsibility of the

consumer. This concerns us too. This is one of the points we

wish to emphasize with consumers that when they have a

complaint, they try to settle the complaint themselves before

they come to us. I think you'll find that other groups advise

the same thing.

Nearly all people who contact us have sought to solve their

problem with the company or the dealer or the supplier, and

only when they have exhausted all remedies, they then contact

us and they're very good about this. I must say that easily 95

per cent of the letters we receive have full documentation

dating back to day one — photocopies of contracts and sales

slips, et cetera. They really outline their cases very, very

thoroughly before they bring them to our attention.

From all of the correspondence we receive, the cases we

receive, 80 per cent are valid complaints.

[ Page 1328 ]

People are basically very responsible in this area. We have

very few people who perhaps get a bee in their bonnet about

some little thing.

In regard to the education for small businesses, I would

assume that this should be directed more to the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. I would feel that

this would be their area of concern. The areas that we seem to

have the largest problems are definitely not at the small

businessman level.

We find that the small businessmen, in almost 100 per cent

of the cases, are extremely responsible people, mainly because

they live in a community and they know they must exist in that

community, and they don't take advantage of their customers

because their customers are their neighbours and their friends.

This is not where the problems lie.

The problems lie with the large businesses: financial

institutions, credit, autos, appliances. The large items are

where we get the bulk of the complaints. I have been accused of

attacking business and I've been accused of naming names. Yet

I'm quite shocked to find that I am being asked to name the

name of every single firm that has been complained against

since November 15 — to name the name of every firm that has

been complained against, the nature of the complaint and the

name of the complainant.

Now I think, in view of those remarks, that's a rather

irresponsible thing to do because many of these firms, the vast

majority of them, have resolved the problem. Sometimes it was a

case of lack of communication. In one case, I recall, it

happened that a credit note got lost behind a filing cabinet

and that created a great deal of friction between two parties

until the credit note was found and the complaint was

resolved.

As far as meeting the Hon. Herb Gray, I met him in February.

We had about an hour-and-a-quarter chat. We talked about a

great many things. We talked about the provincial-federal

relationships, what areas that we felt the province could work

best in and what areas the federal people could do the most in.

We talked about, in very great generalities, what we would like

to see — what kind of legislation — at the federal level, and

we talked about where we could have co-operation.

We have established very good liaison with the federal

people in Vancouver and we keep in touch with them, I'd say, on

a weekly basis. There are many areas of concern that are

federal in nature that come to our attention. We immediately

draw the federal people's attention to the matter and they take

it from there.

As a case in point: the case of the chocolate. This is a federal matter. It

comes under the Food and Drugs Act and this way it's their responsibility because,

of course, chocolate goes country-wide, and thus we avoid costly duplication.

I might say that the federal authorities do an extremely thorough job and I

think the chocolate manufacturer did a very good job too in co-operating with

the federal people — in giving their sources of where they supplied the chocolate.

The cases we have taken: we have resolved a great many

complaints, mostly by bringing parties together and by asking

for suggested resolutions from them. They have generally

resolved it. But there are a great many cases we couldn't take

for the simple reason that legislation on the books at the

present time is extremely weak.

The Consumer Protection Act is very limited in what

it can do for the consumer. We inherited this weak legislation

and we will be bringing forward to the attention of the Hon.

Members proposed legislation that we hope will remedy this,

that will give us some strength whereby we can take action if

need be.

In the matter of the tax rebate situation, this is a

perennial problem. Around the end of the tax season, the end of

April, these complaints begin rolling in. The Vancouver Action

Line people will testify to this. We have been in contact with

them. They have been very co-operative. That has been their

experience too.

To counteract this the federal Minister of the Treasury, Mr.

Stanbury, had promised some 10 months ago, closer to a year

ago, that he would bring in amendments to the Income Tax

Act to preclude tax rebates — to prohibit them, the tax

rebate problem as it stands today. Unfortunately this

legislation has not been brought in so the problem is with us

still.

As a result, what we could do has been very limited, but we

have done something; one of the things we have done is to run

counter ads in the press in the same section.

"Need cash? Be selfish and sharp. Keep your tax rebates. If

you need cash now, borrow after you've compared the cost in

dollars and annual percentage terms. This is a counter ad,

inserted by B.C. Consumer Services, Victoria."

These ads run every weekend.

MRS. JORDAN: Are they bonded?

HON. MS. YOUNG: The tax people?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the rebate people.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Some are; some are not. Most, I believe, are

not. Just a few are bonded, or at least they advertise that

they're bonded.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, why haven't you insisted that they be

bonded so that there's protection? If

[ Page 1329 ]

they want to go defunct, you don't have to waste your money

on ads; you can just pay the people their money.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Well, there is some doubt as to whether they

can be licensed and bonded, because under the Debt

Collection Act they are not debt collectors. So there is a

question as to the legality of it.

Another thing that we have done is to contact the financial

institutions — the credit unions, the banks and other financial

institutions. The credit unions, I may say, have come forth and

urged their members to contact them with their tax rebate forms

before they go to the tax discounters we see advertised in the

paper. The B.C. Central Credit Union has been most co-operative

in this effort and we've urged people to do this.

I believe that's pretty much up to date.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a supplementary. You say that you don't

know whether they're eligible for bonding or not. May I remind

you that you have legal expertise at your right; you're

surrounded by it from the Attorney-General's department. You

should at least be able to give us an answer as to whether they

are eligible. If not, you are the government; you bring in Acts

holus-bolus in here. All you had to do under this emergency

situation — and I'm sure you would have had the support of all

Members in this House — was to bring in

an Act the first day of

this House in which you demand that these people be bonded or

demand that they put up a deposit with the government in order

to meet their commitments to these people. You could have done

it in a matter of one day — certainly at the most in four days.

If there is a question now, I suggest you bring in this

legislation tomorrow. Let's see that they are bonded and that

there is protection for the people.

I appreciate your efforts in running ads. That's all very

nice, but it really isn't solving the problem, is it? If people

take advantage of this type of business and this business goes

defunct, then you're derelict as Minister of Consumer Services

when you know about the situation and don't bring in some

protective legislation which would be fair to everybody. If

they can't afford or their reputation is such that they can't

be eligible for some type of financial backing, then I submit

to you that they shouldn't be in business. On that basis, you

can clear out the foul ones. If there are fair ones, then they

can comply with proper business regulations and proper

protection for the consumer. Then you've met your commitments

and everybody's happy. If there is a legitimate place for them

in business, don't drum them out of business, providing they

conduct their business on a proper basis.

HON. MS. YOUNG: The Debt Collection Act is under the

supervision of the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: He already passed the buck to you.

HON. MS. YOUNG: No. Hopefully we will be assuming that

responsibility eventually. As I say, we are a child of the

Attorney-General's department and we're absorbing those

consumer-oriented pieces of legislation as we are able to cope

with them and able to retain the necessary staff and handle

them.

Actually, this whole problem can be solved at the federal

level simply by the federal people amending the Income Tax

Act to prevent this. It only takes three weeks to get an

income tax rebate back.

MRS. JORDAN: But, Madam Minister, you are asking $80,000 for

your office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister has the floor. I

recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a Big Daddy,

the Attorney-General. If you are his child, you had better

phone Daddy right away and tell him you have a problem. With

all due respect, he has a bill before the House reacting to

what he considers an emergency situation on rent controls which

he is going to rush through. Surely, if there are a few cases

of gouging in the rent business, and this will have to be

discussed — I don't wish to transgress — the situation you

describe and the publicity around it is serious enough that you

yourself could bring in this interim, emergency legislation now

to protect people.

I know the Liberals are slow to catch on to these things.

We'll help you wake them up and put them on the hotline to

their Big Daddy in Ottawa. But you can't ask us for this type

of budget and tell us, when we talk to you on matters of

perhaps helping small business, that you shunt that off to the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk), and when you have a serious situation and a specific

example on your hands you try and shunt that off to the

Attorney-General.

I feel, with all due respect, that you have to initiate some

action. You can't just run around as a storefront princess;

you've got to deal with some of these legislative problems.

This is an acute one and it's one, as I say, that I feel sure

all Members of this House would support you in. It would appear

there are people practising very poor business practices who

should not be in business in this province. You can withdraw

the legislation when the feds move. Would you be willing to do

this, Madam Minister?

[ Page 1330 ]

HON. MS. YOUNG: In our view, they shouldn't be in business

at all. The way to get them out of business is at the federal

level. By bonding them and licensing them, you're just

legitimizing them. I think that is not precisely what we

want.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): We welcome the existence of

this new department; we welcome the new Minister to the

portfolio. I will join the rest of the Members on this side of

the House in welcoming the new Deputy, Osgoode Hall

representative (Mr. Neilson). I trust the $39,000 salary which

has been designated for him will serve as some kind of catalyst

to get the boy moving. Being a new department and being a new

Minister, I would suggest that this lady is going to need all

the help she can get. I trust you will rely heavily on the

advice of the Deputy next to you.

I hope you have not construed the department to be only interested in things

like price-fixing and legal abuse. I trust you are setting your sights on making

sure that the residents of British Columbia are getting value for their dollar.

I hope you haven't conceived of Consumer Services to be

somewhat of a super-duper-snooper. I hope it is not going to

end up in the development of blacklists and whitelists and that

there is not going to be discrimination against producers,

manufacturers, distributors and financiers. I hope it is not

going to become somewhat like an Eaton's catalogue of places at

which you do your business and places where you do not do your

business. I hope you will get beyond this, and right soon. I

hope you will be interested in other things than just credit

references and proper business ethics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, sir. I'm talking to you; I'm only

looking at the lady. I find it easier. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: The "you" sounded feminine. (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: If we were speaking in Latin or in French I

imagine you could tell the "you" was feminine, wouldn't you?

Let me suggest an area to the Minister. I wanted to say Mr.

Minister, but that wouldn't be right; she doesn't have a beard

like the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Madam Minister, I

would like to suggest an area of protection in which your

department needs to become involved, through you, Mr. Chairman.

This area is the protection of the consumer from himself.

I'll cite an example and I think you'll understand what I

mean. I have had representation from the grocer. It's not a

chain store; this is a small independent grower who has a

grocery store in my constituency. If I named it you wouldn't

even recognize it as a town. It's Greendale. It's a little

store. He has one outlet there; he has another outlet in the

constituency of Langley in Clearbrook. Both of these little

towns are supposedly the homes of the most law-abiding and most

peace-loving citizens in all of British Columbia, according to

the Chamber of Commerce from each of those areas. The truth is

that the owner and operator of this grocery outlet tells me

that he receives on an average three bogus cheques a week. He

accepts cheques not because they have no other way of payment;

he accepts cheques because they are becoming more and more the

acceptable form of exchange. As a result, it's as acceptable to

take cheques as it is to take cash.

In the grocery business, as you know, there is no way to

recover the goods if you learn that the cheque is bad and it is

returned to you 10 days later. There is no way you can go back

and recover the goods.

Therefore I would ask your department to come up with some

kind of a plan whereby there would be an insurance against the

use of bogus cheques. This man tells me that over one year he

has suffered losses from NSF cheques and break-ins in excess of — now, don't miss this, Madam Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a good boy. (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: ...$30,000 in the two outlets in one year.

So I said to him: "How do you recoup?" He said: "There's only

one way — the people who buy the groceries, who pay for them,

have to pay a little extra so that at the end of the year

there's enough cash left over so that I can draw my salary." So

you see what I'm saying — it's time that your department

considers at least protecting the consumer from himself.

Another area that I would wish that you would do some

research in and come up with some answers is the area of...

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'm being interrupted, Mr. Chairman, and I'll

try to sort it out here.

...interest on deposits as opposed to interest on

mortgages. You know that if you have money on deposit, you gain

an interest on that money. The amount of interest that you gain

has to be reported on income tax as income, and it's taxable.

However, if you have a mortgage payment, the interest which you

pay on that mortgage payment — and, by the way, it's the

greatest percentage of the mortgage

[ Page 1331 ]

payment — is not tax-deductible.

I would like you to take this matter, which is a federal

matter, under your wing and to come up for all of Canada with

an answer which has been used in the United States for years,

that would apply some pressure upon the federals to be

fair.

I think this is unfair to consumers. If interest is gained,

he pays taxes on it; if interest is paid, it is not

tax-deductible. It's an area that needs some scrutiny. Put your

super-duper-snoopers to work in this area and gain a fair value

for a fair dollar price for all consumers in British

Columbia.

I heard you say: "We want to educate the consumer." I trust

that your education of the consumer will also involve the

management of funds — the handling of budgets, even if they're

only family budgets. I trust that you will be more involved in

the education of how to handle your money than you're going to

be in where to spend your money. I think that we should allow

the consumer at least the choice to be able to spend his money

where he wishes, as he wishes, without interference from big

government. However, if we could educate him how to handle his

funds, we could make out of him, I believe, a better

citizen.

I would like you to answer how you are going to separate or

coordinate the businesses of credit information and credit

coordination and credit reference and credit bureau — all of

the bureaucracy that's involved in the operation of these

through the A-G's department and your department. I'd like to

hear how you're going to coordinate these and make them work

smoothly so that the people will know which department to

approach when they have problems in these areas.

I'd like to hear some answers to the questions that I have

posed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'm interested

in the Minister's comments about tax rebate lending. I'm

curious, however, and I don't think this question has been

properly cleared up because it's just not good enough, in the

light of previous statements, to blame the federal authorities

for their failure to act in this area.

The Minister was quoted in The Province of January 22

of this year:

"'B.C. has become the last happy hunting ground for the

companies,' Ms. Young said, 'because other provinces have

passed laws controlling the practice.' She said she does not

know the details of these laws."

Now, if other provinces have passed laws controlling this practice and if B.C.

is the last happy hunting ground, clearly the onus should be in the province's

lap to do something about it. I'm quite willing to agree it might be possible

to deal with it in some other way, but if all the other provinces have done

a better job than we have — in fact, apparently, we've done nothing at all —

if they're capable of doing things and we're not, well then surely the answer

must be somewhere in the administrative competence of the new department.

The next point I'd like to comment upon is the promise on

February 20 of a new consumer bill which was described as being

extensive:

"Consumer Affairs Minister Phyllis Young said her now

consumer protection bill, to be introduced in the Legislature

within two weeks, will be an omnibus bill covering 'just about

every deceptive business practice that comes to mind.'"

I would have thought that it would be helpful to us to have

had that at the present time. After all, presumably the

estimates that we're discussing tonight, Mr. Chairman, are

estimates of a department to implement an extensive new bill.

It's pretty difficult to discuss the estimates and the need for

over a million dollars worth of money when we really don't know

what the legislation is they're going to be enforcing.

So I wonder whether the Minister would perhaps comment on

this. Why has it been delayed? Has it been delayed simply that

we could pass the estimates in the dark, as we're essentially

being asked to do? We just don't know what extensive new

legislation is coming in and how it will be handled.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister made much of storefront consumer

offices, and I think it's a good thing. But she also made some

comments this evening, which again I think are perfectly

correct, to the effect that the jurisdiction in consumer

affairs is totally split — part of it's federal, part of it's

provincial and where the dividing line is certainly most

consumers don't know and I imagine a good number of people in

her own department have to check the books from time to time on

various cases as they come up.

Well, the former Minister of Consumer Affairs, Mr. Andres,

talked about the division of responsibility. In the Consumer

Action League Society Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 11 of August '73,

he was quoted:

"Given the diversity of responsibility under our

constitution, neither the federal government nor the provinces

acting alone have the necessary powers to enact a comprehensive

set of consumer protection laws. Success could only come

through a co-operative process involving both levels of

government."

What I would like to suggest to the Minister, and perhaps

she might be able to tell me whether this suggestion has been

already implemented, is that she indeed check with the new

Minister of Consumer Affairs, who is no longer Mr.

Andras, and find out what opportunities there are

to have the storefront itself jointly run. Unless it's jointly

run, the consumer

[ Page 1332 ]

coming in will have to find in at least 50 per cent of the

cases that he's got the wrong office. If the whole purpose of

having storefront offices is to have the convenience to the

consumer, it's clearly absurd to run it at 50 per cent

efficiency, which would be the case were it run either by the

federal Department of Consumer Affairs or the provincial

Department of Consumer Services.

The programme that I envisage would be a completely joint

one. I don't know how you're going to share financing or

staffing but I'm sure that those problems are in no way

difficult to come to a decision on. The interest of Herb Gray

and his predecessor is certainly clear from this newsletter

sent out by the Action League. I trust that the Minister will

be commenting on how far she has gone in arranging for a joint

office because clearly, from what she's said herself and what

the federal Minister has said, it could only be 50 per cent

effective if it dealt with only one branch or the other. I

don't know whether there's a federal storefront office in B.C.

but clearly if there isn't, there should be. For the Minister

to set up one provincially without their co-operation would be

pretty silly.

I was distressed to find that she's in contact with them

only about once a week, because that indicates that either

we're not getting many complaints, not much is happening or

that co-operation simply isn't at the level that it should

be.

Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on these three

points.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver – Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman,

I'm very pleased to join this debate because I have the honour

of sharing Little Mountain with my Phyllis, if you'll forgive

me — my Phyllis.

Interjection.

MR. CUMMINGS: I would like to tell those yahoos — is that

parliamentary? — that she is going to be the best Minister of

Consumer Services that there ever has been. (Laughter.)

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if my Minister has the

power to investigate the fly-by-night shysters — you know, the

old-time lawyers who still exist in this province. It has been

about 700 years since they were banned from parliament by an

enforced.

Good businessmen have nothing to fear because a good

customer comes back. Phyllis knows it and I know it. That's how

good businessmen exist.

Actually, the Hon. Member from the flood plains (Mr. Schroeder) mentioned this

merchant who was broken into and had to take NSF cheques. My dad was a small-town

merchant. One of the reasons he used to take a lot of NSF cheques was for the

simple reason the banks did a very, very bad thing; they closed on the best

day of the year — Saturday. My dad and the other merchants had to cash all the

cheques because the workers from all over would come in and every merchant had

to cash their cheques because that's how it worked.

I would suggest that maybe banks should be forced to be open

so they service the public at all hours. Thank you.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver – Howe Sound): I'd like to

pose a few questions to the Minister of Consumer Services.

Before doing so, however, I would like to congratulate her on

the selection of her Deputy Minister (Mr. Neilson). He comes to

this province with a sound background in matters dealing with

consumer affairs and consumer services. I think the Minister

will be better able to fulfill her role because of the

selection of her Deputy Minister. I only hope he is given the

fullest opportunity to fulfill the promise he brings to the

Province of British Columbia.

I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to indicate

how many of the 42 positions in her department have been

filled. I notice there are 42 staff members and, if there are

any positions which are vacant, perhaps she could indicate to

the committee where those positions might lie.

I would also appreciate it if the Minister could indicate to

what extent she expects the staff of 42 will be able to

discharge the responsibilities she has today set for her

department. An examination of the staff would indicate that,

aside from herself and her executive assistant, the Deputy

Minister and various administrative officers and research

officers, there are only four consumer-service officers, five

trade-practices investigators, and two trade-rules officers.

That's a total of 11 personnel who would appear to be directly

involved on a person-to-person basis with the assessment of

consumer practices in the Province of British Columbia and the

redress of any of those practices which are found by the

Minister to be unsatisfactory.

I would also like to know if the Minister would indicate

what is included in the category of temporary assistants. It's

significant that of some $600,000 available for staff salaries

in her department, 25 per cent of that amount is allocated for

temporary assistants without any indication of either the

calibre of person who will be sought for those temporary roles,

the number of people who will be involved, and the specific

tasks that will be assigned to them. If the Minister hasn't

noticed it, it's at the bottom of page N-39 in the estimate

book. Twenty-five per cent of your total salary bill is for

unclassified temporary assistants.

I note with interest that some $225,000 is being expended

for consumer education and information. I

[ Page 1333 ]

would most anxiously await hearing from the Minister as to

the specific programmes being undertaken with the expenditure

of nearly a quarter of a million dollars, to which segment of

consumer population the educational programmes will be

directed, and if she could somehow or another account for the

expenditure of $175,000 for office furniture and equipment.

Those are some technical matters the Minister might care to

comment on with the assistance of her Deputy.

I should like now to turn to a matter which might perhaps be

of more interest to the people of the Province of British

Columbia. Could the Minister indicate to the committee the

policies she intends to follow and the programmes she intends

to undertake which will result in some relief to the consumers

of the Province of British Columbia from the growing increase

in prices which those consumers must pay in order to have the

things that are necessary to sustain life: food, shelter and

clothing?

I trust the Minister has some specific programme or policy

in this regard and that we won't hear from her that this is the

responsibility of the federal government alone. There's no

question that the federal government has a responsibility, just

as in the same respect there's no question that the federal

government is scarcely fulfilling the role that it has taken on

to itself. But we can't in the Province of British Columbia

leave these things all to the senior government. With this new

Department of Consumer Services I think the people of British

Columbia are entitled to know what your policy is in this

regard. Do you think you can help the consumers? If so, what

programmes will you undertake which will have some meaningful

result for consumers?

One area that has been discussed in this House recently —

and I'm not going to deal with any particular product — but the

Minister had some very strong words to say concerning the

operation of marketing boards in the Province of British

Columbia. We also had from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) an indication that he and his department are in

support of the marketing board concept. I would like to know

precisely what the Minister of Consumer Services has to say

about their role and their functions in the Province of British

Columbia.

There are those who would suggest that the existence of marketing boards is

designed specifically to reduce supply and increase the costs the consumer must

pay. On the other hand there are those who say that without the controls that

marketing boards can provide, the producer segment in our economy would be left

to the whims of the market and suffer the consequences of those whims without

being of any long-lasting benefit to the consumers in the Province of British

Columbia. I think it's time we addressed ourselves without heat or emotion to

the solution of this problem.

I have long believed that the term "marketing board" was

wrong. They are not marketing boards at all; they're producers'

boards. They have, regardless of what may have been their role

at the time of their initiation, become boards concerned only

with the problems of the producer. They have not over much

given concern what the consumer's position is in the thing. I

would like to know from the Minister of Consumer Services the

direction she believes these marketing boards should go.

There's no question that orderly marketing, whatever that

may mean, and it means different things to consumers than it

does to producers, must be an all-encompassing responsibility.

It must take into account not only the producer segment but

also those who are involved in the distribution and true

marketing of the product, and the consumer. Orderly marketing

which is contrary to the best interests of the consumer is of

no consequence to us. By the same token, orderly marketing

which is of no consequence to the producer is no real answer

for us.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), if I

understood him correctly, several days ago indicated that he

believed marketing boards should be supported and that it was

his responsibility and that of the Minister of Consumer

Services to educate the people of British Columbia into the

true and proper use of marketing boards and how they were

necessary in order to protect both the producer and the

consumer.

Surely we are not in 1974 coming down to this: that

education is to be the sole weapon that must be employed when

we are faced with rising prices at the consumer level, and at a

time when serious questions are raised as to how much the

producer is getting out of the consumer dollar.

In these days, Mr. Chairman, of apparently inexhaustible

government revenues, it must come as a concern to the Members

in this House and to the consuming public generally that

governments seem to have no difficulty in providing millions

upon millions of dollars to subsidize the producers while at

the same time the consumers, whose tax dollars have contributed

to the money required for subsidization, are still paying

ever-increasing prices for the products that they must buy.

Have we come to this in Canada, that our national government

announces a few days ago a subsidy for beef producers of some

$2.75 million a week, while at the same time, with

ever-dropping prices for beef cattle, the prices in the stores

remain high? Is the taxpayer to subsidize the producer while

leaving consumer costs high? Does this only mean that the

subsidy is to protect the producer against cheap imports? Is

this our technique?

Is the same thing to apply in the subsidization which is to

be carried out by our provincial

[ Page 1334 ]

government? Are we subsidizing the producer while at the

same time maintaining high consumer prices?

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to be illogical that we should

come to this result; yet unless some action is taken by

government and some input into that action by the Minister of

Consumer Services, this is the direction we will go.

We seem to have had a very strong agricultural lobby with

proper results so far as the agricultural community is

concerned. Are we to understand that the consumer lobby is any

less strong? Are all the people who are the consumers of goods

and services to be ignored, save for their right to pay taxes,

to subsidize the producer, while at the same time keeping

consumer costs high?

I think that there are serious questions to be asked in this

respect. In this fledgling department I think that the Minister

of Consumer Services, as the first Minister, must surely have

given some attention to a subject so important as this, and to

be in a position to indicate the policy direction which she

sees for her department, and for the programmes which we may

expect to see introduced in the next 12 months, which will make

some concerted attack upon the problem as it affects the

consuming public.

I know that the Minister has been very actively taking notes

during my remarks, and that she will stand now and give us the

answers.

No answers.

MRS. JORDAN: No answers, Mr. Member, and this is very

disappointing, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. I

have asked the Minister a number of questions in relation to

consumers in this province, specifically her role between

government and the consumer, and specifically ICBC and what

she's intending to do to protect the consumer in this area. Has

she had any meetings with the Minister of Finance?

So I hope, Madam Minister, you will come back to those

questions and answer them along with the answers requested by

the Member for West Vancouver – Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

which concern all of us. I would suggest, Madam Minister, that

there's no way we can be encouraged to pass a vote as large as

this unless we do get some answers.

I would like to return to one or two comments that the Minister made herself

in the area of education. My colleague from the north will be commenting on

one aspect. I think the whole problem of education in the inflationary world

that we have today, for those on limited incomes and for any consumer for that

matter, revolves to a large degree around dietary requirements. I would like

to know if the Minister is planning, or is prepared to plan, to have dietary

consultants — not necessarily full-time — available in many communities, rural

communities and particularly the smaller communities.

We ran a programme two or three years ago in which we had a

series on the television which went through how to buy

selectively, food values and marketing suggestions. This was

coordinated with a group in the home with one consultant with

them who worked with them as the programme went on and was

there to help answer questions for a discussion period

following the programme.

This was very useful, and I would suggest to the Minister

that there's a great need at this time for more education on

the basis of budgeting and in relation to dietary needs. I

don't think you have to go out and hire a full-time staff. You

have people within your department now. There are people in the

agricultural department, and you could certainly hire one or

two people to coordinate it.

There are many home economics teachers in the schools. There

are many retired home economics teachers or dietitians in the

Province of British Columbia who could be brought into a

programme like this on a part-time basis, and this would help

them in terms of supplementing family income, and it would be a

very practical and useful service to people throughout the

province.

I would think this is not limited solely to limited-income

people. I'm sure there are many of us, perhaps the Minister

herself.... Maybe she's shopping more than I am right now. The

prices are changing, the foods are changing, so quickly that

it's very difficult to keep up with these things. I would

suspect there would be a very strong public reaction.

Bachelors, single parent fathers, who are having to cope with

the extremely high prices of food today could well benefit from

tips on how to do selective and nutritional buying and make

their money go further.

I would like to bring a couple of matters to the Minister's

attention for comment. I was going to, in light of the levity

brought forth by the Member for Vancouver – Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings)...and I see he's gone, so I'll save it.

There is a practice in British Columbia at the moment which

I think tends, if not to be misleading advertising, to be a

nuisance to people and should come under a code of full

disclosure in advertising practices.

It involves a company which is sending out little cards in

the mail — and I can submit one to the Minister if she wants

it. These come in various colours, white for one month, green

for the next month, yellow for the next month, and it says:

"Congratulations! You have been selected to receive one of

the following fantastic gifts:

(1) TV set or stereo system;

(2) surprise bonus gift; (3) $5 in cash; (4) quilted blanket; (5) a

stuffed poodle dog. To find out which gift you will receive

call between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Phone

[ Page 1335 ]

direct or collect. No purchase necessary."

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

This is all it says on the card; so someone gets this card

in the mail and they think they've won a fantastic gift. They

phone the number and, lo and behold, when they phone the number

they ask "Who is it?" They say: "Yes, you have certainly won a

gift. However, you must subject yourself to a half-hour

demonstration by a salesman in your home."

I think this gets to the point and is one particular

instance where this is a matter that should be brought under

full disclosure. People who are congratulated on winning a

fantastic gift should not have to have anyone in their home,

and they should not have to be subjected to this type of

pressure.

It's a double-edged sword because they have another gimmick.

The next card they use says the same thing: "Congratulations!

You've won a fantastic gift." But when you phone on this card

they say "Oh, yes, now we have a matching key, and we would

like to come by your home and see if the key matches."

That's real Jim-dandy because they get out to your home;

you're unsuspecting; they come in. The demonstration goes on

and it's quite a simple matter: if you buy, the key matches and

you get your gift. If you don't buy, lo and behold, the key

just doesn't happen to match.

This is going on in Vancouver as late as last week. I would

like to give credit to the crusaders who first drew this to my

attention. From that time I've followed it up, and I was

meeting with some of the ladies who were coming over to meet

with you on the ferry the other day, and we discussed this. Two

of them had had cards in the last few weeks.

I find that they're still turning up all over Vancouver and

I haven't been able to trace them into the Interior yet. I

think this sort of thing preys on lonely people, older people

and I'm sure it has a kick-back once in a while when somebody

invites them down just to have the demonstration and doesn't

buy and figures they're getting their own back, and if they use

the key-matching programme, they don't get their gift

either.

I think also it's a dangerous precedent. We were talking in

this House earlier of the problems of offences against women,

violence in the home. At this time it's probably not a very

good practice for older people or women alone to have casual

salesmen in their homes.

Of course, this is an individual choice, but it has been

used before as a means of entering into a home, casing a home

for future burglaries and at least if it was clearly outlined

on the card that you must have a demonstration before you got

the gift, then the individual has the right of choice if they

want to run this risk or if they want the demonstration.

I really don't advocate banning it, because I think properly

done with full disclosure I suppose it's a legitimate form of

contact. I would ask the Minister if he is prepared to see that

full disclosure is required and in so doing make it very clear

that we welcome legitimate business practices, legitimate

door-to-door business practices in British Columbia, but

British Columbia isn't the lotus land for fast-buck artists

such as in this area.

I'd like to bring another matter to the Minister's

attention. This involves a company, and frankly I don't mind

naming the basis of the information that I have because it

appears to me that they've certainly skirted the line of

responsible business practices. It's Cigas Propane Company,

headquartered in Calgary.

For the interest of the House, I would advise them that this

company is in the distribution of propane. They rent out

storage tanks and they have a contract which you sign when you

make your commitment to this company. It's valid for one year

and initially the contract was on a rental basis for one year

of $36 that year and thereafter. In their own contract, they

outline, and I'd read it for the record, in

section 8:

"That the terms of this agreement which is a $36 a year

rental for one year and thereafter unless otherwise notified,

the terms of this agreement shall unless terminated as herein

provided be for 12 consecutive months commencing on the first

day of the month immediately following the date of this

agreement, and unless sooner terminated as herein provided,

this agreement shall continue in effect from year thereafter

until terminated by written notice from either party, which

notice of termination to be effective shall be given at least

90 days before the anniversary date of this agreement."

Now there is a family in this province who brought this to

the attention of a number of people who signed this agreement

and in the mid-term of the agreement received a notice that

their rent had gone up another $12 for that year, and that the

reason for this was the increased costs of labour and

distribution and trucking and servicing, et cetera.

This was in essence, in a number of people's view, including

mine, the breaking of a contract in mid-term. Now this was

looked into by a number of people including the Crusaders and

they phoned the management of this company in British Columbia

and the sales manager in Calgary and were told that yes, they

agreed that this was in fact the breaking of a contract in

mid-term and the company was in error and the man would no

longer be charged his $12, and he would receive his proper

notification 90 days prior to the end of their agreement for

any increase.

So this was conveyed back to the family who felt that they

were all right and went ahead. But in fact this didn't happen

and they were billed again for their

[ Page 1336 ]

$12 for this rent that was breaking the mid-term agreement

to all intents and purposes.

Now when the president of the company, a Mr. Hefner, was

phoned in Calgary — and this is where I think there is a matter

of extreme concern — and asked about this he said, yes, it was

and he implied that he had received the green light from the

Consumer Affairs department, he thought, in Ottawa, to actually

involve themselves in the breaking of this contract in

mid-term.

Contact was made with the department, the federal Department

of Consumer Affairs, to the Hon. Herb Gray, and he wrote back

and said that to his knowledge, no one in his department,

including himself, had given this company the green light to

break their contract in mid-term.

But he implied in that letter that in fact Mr. Hanson from

the provincial Consumer Services department might well have

given this green light. When the manager was contacted again,

he thought this might be what had happened, that it was the

provincial consumer affairs department.

Now I don't feel for one moment, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.

Hanson or the department would involve themselves in this type

of underhanded play. This is why I had no hesitation in

mentioning the company's name or the man's name, because they

did in essence use or infer that the federal Consumer Affairs

department and then the provincial consumer affairs department

had given them the green light to break their contract in

mid-term.

What's more interesting, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure will

interest the Minister and she may well know about this, and I

think perhaps she does, is that when the manager of this

company, Cigas, was confronted with the fact that they were

breaking their contract in mid-term, and then advised that they

should give this rebate to the family, they said well no, that

would be discriminatory, in fact over 2,000 customers in

British Columbia had acceded to their request to increase the

charges in the middle of the contract.

So in essence it would appear that there are over 2,000

people in British Columbia who didn't complain, but in fact

have been the victims of a broken contract by a company and

need not have paid this money.

It's not, Madam Minister, the amount of money involved. But it is in fact the

principle involved that we should have operating in this province — if my facts

are correct, and I believe they are, and they have been used on the air by the

Crusaders, and they have been investigated further by myself — if in fact we

have a company operating in British Columbia that would dare to make reference

to our own consumer affairs department improperly or if in fact they are going

to indulge in breaking contracts in mid-term, then I feel that this matter should

be stopped immediately.

The disappointing point in this, Madam Minister, in relation

to your department is that when this matter was referred to

you, to the best of my knowledge, and I checked this two or

three days ago, you indicated there was nothing you could do

and in fact that you'd referred the matter to the Energy

Commission.

I question this very seriously, and I think that your

department must assume more responsibility than this if this is

the case. In the meantime the family are still under the

impression — the specific family that complained — are still

under the impression that they owe this money and that they in

fact have broken their commitment, and this is worrying

them.

The only satisfaction we're getting at the moment is that

this has been referred to the Energy Commission. I'd like to

ask you, Madam Minister, as well as commenting on this, did you

at any time have any word from the Hon. Herb Gray himself, or

his officials in relation to this case? In other words, this is

a specific instance of very questionable action taking place in

British Columbia referred to the federal Minister of Consumer

Affairs and yet should have been referred to the provincial

Minister of Consumer Services.

I'd like to know if you heard from him or his officials,

because I think this is indicative of the type of relationship

that should be developed, and in fact well may not be and if so

then I think that Mr. Gray should be taken to task for

this.

Then I'd like to ask if in fact their action was illegal why

did not the Minister initiate any action through her department

instead of referring it to the Energy Commission? I well

appreciate there might be other factors that this company is

involving itself in that warrant an overview by the Energy

Commission, but in the case of this specific instance, I feel

that the Minister should have taken action.

I'd like to know also what she intends to do about the other

2,000 customers who have overpaid, and if she will insist that

the company initiate notification to these people and that they

get their refunds.

I hope that the Minister will comment on these two cases and

will outline answers to the questions I asked her about what

she feels her role is going to be in relation to protecting the

consumer from big business, big government, specifically big

government, and what she is doing about the problems with ICBC

in relation to protecting the consumer.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it's a

very interesting department.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver – Point Grey): Were you ever in the

battle of the Nile? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: I went home, Mr. Chairman, to

[ Page 1337 ]

make dinner for myself in my apartment tonight and I was out

in the kitchen cooking up some meat and I had a phone call. So

I went to the phone, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister

of Consumer Services, and there was a lovely young lady on the

phone.

MR. GARDOM: Probably a wrong number. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no! And I was quite amazed that a young

lady would be phoning me during my brief dinner hour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): So are we!

MR. PHILLIPS: So I asked her what I could do for her. Half

an hour later she informed me, Mr. Chairman, that I had just

won a Chatelaine Cook Book . (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: Well, you've got to be good at something.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm interested in the culinary arts. I

like to putter around the kitchen and make bread once in a

while, cook the odd steak, and so I said, "this is very

interesting. When are you going to come up to my apartment and

demonstrate this cookbook?"

"Well," she said, "I really don't demonstrate it. I

want to tell you about it over the phone."

So we went on in conversation for a little while and finally

I said: "If I won it, why don't you just send it to me?" And

she said, "Well, really you haven't won it. It's worth $14.95,

if you buy a subscription to Maclean's Magazine for several years

we'll send it to you for $1.14."

Now I've been in business for a while and I told the young

lady, I said, "Thank you, yes, but no. Because I take

Maclean's Magazine at home and I'm only in the capital

city several months out of the year so my wife has provided me

with several recipes, particular ones that I like and that I'm

able to make, and so I don't really need a cookbook."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Did you end up selling her a

car?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, no, that's later. (Laughter.)

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Consumer Services,

I found nothing wrong with this conversation. Here was a young lady who was

trying to project herself into the business world. She had probably been tutored

by somebody back in Toronto, and there is nothing wrong with selling what she

thought probably was a single man a cookbook, so they could learn to look after

themselves. With things the way they are today, why....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know how she got my phone

number. Now that's the question I want to ask the Minister of

Consumer Services. Maybe she just went through the phone book

until a number came into her mind. I don't know. But anyway I

see nothing wrong with that, and I think that if I had the

opportunity to say no to this young lady and she didn't pursue

the situation.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's a good thing I said no.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): It's a good thing

you did.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, in Consumer Services we find many

different situations. And supposing that instead of receiving a

phone call from this young lady I had looked at The Victoria

Express dated February 21, 1974. I would have seen an ad in

there, a full page ad, which said, "If you have any problems

with Autoplan — call 665-2800. We will be happy to answer your

questions." Which, had I had a problem, I would have done.

But it goes on to say, which this young lady didn't say to

me — she didn't try and mislead me in any way — this ad goes to

say: "We'll be happy to answer your questions because you are

the boss." Now am I led to believe that I'm the boss in my own

home? Am I the boss in my business? Am I the boss in this

Legislature? Am I the boss in my caucus? Or am I the boss when

I'm home alone in my apartment?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): All noes so far.

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Unless the Legislature would advise me

differently, I would suggest that this ad would lead me to

believe that I am the boss of the sponsor of this particular

ad, Mr. Chairman, you'd never guess who sponsored and paid for

this ad.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're right, Mr. Chairman. It was Autoplan.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Your insurance

company.

[ Page 1338 ]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Yours too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 1.2

million purchasers of Autoplan in British Columbia. I've been

in business for a while and I find it difficult with one boss

in business and two or three sort of department heads, well I

can hardly imagine running a business where there were over a

million bosses. I would find it, I would think, to be a very

unwieldy business, very difficult to run. What would you think,

Mr. Chairman? Do you think you could run a business where there

were over a million bosses?

So I would think, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister

of Consumer Services, that this ad could be misleading

advertising. Because I've had some of these ads come back to me

and say, well, if I'm the boss, tell them to sell the business.

Well, there you are. It says "you're the boss." Okay, if this

guy is the boss he wants the business sold.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll give you the business.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know you've been trying to for years,

but, you know.... As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the

Premier's been giving the people of this province the business

ever since he came to power.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life — they deserve the

business. We don't give it to Wenner-Gren.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you want me to talk about Wenner-Gren do

you? Oh.

I'm really concerned about this type of advertising by a

corporation belonging to the Government of British Columbia,

particularly when we are asked this evening to vote $1 million

plus to the Department of Consumer Services, to protect the

individual.

I think that this particular ad, I don't know what it would

cost in The Victoria Express , but in the Province

or the Sun I am sure it would be $1,500 plus to place

the ad. Would I be unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, if I called

this ad a farce? Would I, Mr. Chairman, be unparliamentary if I

called this ad a sham?

What I would like to know is what action our Minister of

Consumer Services is going to take against the company that

placed this ad, which is, in my estimation, completely

misleading, because there is no way, in Heaven's name, that

everybody who buys insurance from ICBC....

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Honest Don!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what they call me — satisfaction

guaranteed or money gladly refunded.

There's no way that even the Premier could run a business

with 1,200 or over 1 million bosses. He had trouble doing it

with 17.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've been married for 19 years, partner. I

know how to take orders.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, Mr. Premier, you may know how

to take orders, but you sure as the devil haven't learned how

to obey them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'd better check with my wife.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, you're not like the Egg Marketing

Board. They know how to obey orders, but you haven't learned

like they have. But really, I'm sincere about this. What is the

Minister of Consumer Services going to do on behalf of those

persons who have had accidents since ICBC came into operation?

They have had to pay a surcharge at body shops.

Mr. Chairman, is this a rip-off on behalf of the body shops

who are supposed to have joined the plan? Has the Minister of

Consumer Services received any letters from people?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not one. Well, maybe the Minister of Consumer

Services isn't effective in her job. Maybe the people of

British Columbia have no faith in her.

Oh, but they have complaints. You want to hear them when

they have to pay $250 to ICBC.

Mr. Chairman, this type of misleading advertising must

cease. If this were an individual company — one of those

rip-off automobile companies or insurance companies or mining

companies that David Lewis is always talking about — it would

hit the fan!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Watch your language!

MR. PHILLIPS: It's time the people of British Columbia

realized how their dollars are being spent on misleading

advertising by a Crown corporation.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, the

Minister must be impartial.

[ Page 1339 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Or appear to be.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or appear to be. Justice must be done, or

appear to be done.

You know, in view of some of the statements that the

Minister has made since becoming Minister of Consumer Services,

it is going to be difficult for her to be impartial. On several

occasions during a recent debate she has taken her place in

this chamber to protect Ministers of the cabinet. I heard her

protect the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: She was trying to protect — she doesn't know

the difference between cutting out the legs and protecting. She

rose to protect the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not sure whether she rose to protect the

Premier when he was under fire or not, but I'm sure she would

have, had she been given the opportunity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: If she is going to be effective, Mr. Chairman,

she must be impartial, because basically she is sort of like a

semi-ombudsman.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, she's got to be, Mr. Chairman, because

the government is going into business. Mr. Chairman, the

government's in the lumber business.

Suppose one of these lumber magnates that the government

owns and operates rips off somebody in the retail business

selling them lumber. If they go to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) with a complaint that they feel they

have been ripped off by this Crown corporation selling

two-by-fours, is the Minister of Consumer Services going to be

completely independent? I have my doubts, Mr. Chairman — I have

my doubts.

If somebody has a complaint with ICBC and they go to the

Minister of Consumer Services, is she going to be completely

independent? That's the question we have to ask ourselves, Mr.

Chairman, when we're discussing a $1 million-plus budget for

the Minister of Consumer Services.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the total budget is $1 million-plus. That's a lot

of money. Suppose that somebody feels that they have not been properly done

by the British Columbia Railway. The freight rates haven't been properly done....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you remind everybody in the chamber

that I'm in order, Mr. Premier. Certainly I'm in order.

Suppose that some lumber company feels that their freight

rates are not properly done by British Columbia Railway and

they go to the Minister of Consumer Services. Is she going to

be completely and totally independent?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come on out — I'll explain it to you in

the hall.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I said before she's got to be

an ombudslady.

Suppose that somebody feels they're being ripped off or they

have a complaint against B.C. Hydro, Mr. Chairman, and they go

to the Minister of Consumer Services with their complaint.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Or the Ford Motor Company.

MR. PHILLIPS: Or the Ford Motor Company — that's right — or

Chrysler Corporation. Is the Minister of Consumer Services

going to be completely and totally independent? Is she going to

be independent of the cabinet? Is she going to be independent

of the Premier, who is the president of the British Columbia

Railway? Is she going to be totally and completely independent

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), who is

a director of B.C. Hydro? Is she going to be totally and

completely independent of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), who is in charge of energy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: She'll be totally independent of the

opposition.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly she's going to be totally and

completely independent of the opposition — absolutely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're all mixed up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's possibly true. However, these are

the questions that the people of British Columbia are going to

ask me as a legislator when I go back into the great beyond

away from this fantasy land of the Legislature. They are going

to ask me these questions. I want to know the answers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And you be fair with your

[ Page 1340 ]

answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly I'll be fair with my answers. But

here we have the Attorney-General in charge of energy, and he's

going to increase the rates for natural gas in the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that these rates are going to

increase for natural gas in the Interior by some 30 per

cent.

Mr. Chairman, is this a rip-off? Are consumers going to get

fair treatment from that lady Minister of Consumer Services?

She stood in the Legislature the other day and said what a

great man the Attorney-General was and he's in charge of

energy.

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Consumer Services

is wrapped up in the cabinet. She's wrapped up in the cabinet

and she won't be independent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've been in the wrong boat all the

time.

MR. PHILLIPS: How can she be independent? Her Deputy says

that consumer protectors have lost their zing. That is the

attitude of her Deputy Minister. If her Deputy considers that

consumer affairs branches have lost their zing, well, is he

going to put some zing back into the Minister of Consumer

Services? What bothers me is — and I've said this before in

this Legislature — that we must not have any built-in biases in

the Minister or in the department. They must be completely,

totally, absolutely independent of everybody in the cabinet and

they must have no built-in biases against any particular

product, any particular company, any particular branch of

retail trade or wholesale trade, or those in the finance

business. They must look at things without any bias —

automotive dealers, you name it, yes sir. "Buy from us and your

money gladly refunded if not completely and totally

satisfied."

Well, it's too bad that the Minister of ICBC wasn't in here

when I was talking about the ad that he placed that said I was

the boss.

I don't want to read this entire article, Mr. Chairman, but

it's from the Victoria Colonist , dated March 25, 1973. It's

datelined Toronto, Canadian Press, and it says:

"'Canadian consumers are not adequately served

or protected by government agencies, and have no real power or

budgets,' a specialist in consumer affairs and in consumer law,

William Neilson, Toronto law professor said. 'Consumer

protection departments have never been encouraged or allowed to

challenge big business interests that are so frequently behind

unfair market practices.'"

Mr. Chairman, does this man have a built-in bias? He goes on

to say,

"Neilson specifically mentioned magazine subscription rackets."

Was that what I was confronted with tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order. Point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not attacking the Deputy. No, no, Mr.

Chairman. Far from attacking the Deputy.... Oh, Mr. Chairman,

I'm trying to make a point, and the point is, and I've said it

in this Legislature before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Take your hat off and make a point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've given the cabinet advice in

the past; some of it they've taken, some they haven't. I hope

tonight they will take my advice, because it's there that

Neilson specifically mentioned magazine subscription rackets.

Car dealers....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to continue.

It says "...car dealers with fine print contracts that are

unfair to the consumer."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to mention just for a moment something

about the automobile industry. And I want to say that I feel

quite strongly about this because a few years ago, several

years ago, I feel that the manufacturers of North American

automobiles were not doing justice by the consumer, and there

were complaints. The warranties weren't up to what they should

be, and I voiced this very strongly in Oakville when I was a

member of the dealer council.

But the independent industry recognized their problems. They

didn't need any prodding from consumer affairs branches, either

in Ottawa or Washington. So what did they do?

One company in particular — and I don't want to mention any

names, because I might be considered to have a little bias —

were on television, and they said, "If you have a problem or

are unsatisfied, write us a letter," and they got

thousands of letters. Yes, they did.

Mr. Chairman, they paid attention to those letters because

they weren't the government. They were an independent business

organization that relied on the consumer in North America for

all of their business.

Interjection.

[ Page 1341 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: They had no protection...no, I'll talk to

you about Ralph Nader. I can talk to you for half an hour on

Ralph Nader, Mr. Chairman. Yes, you'd better believe it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Go outside and tell them.

MR. PHILLIPS: These were what Mr. Lewis calls "one of the

rip-off artists in North America." They, through their own

consumer branches, answered those letters, listened to the

people of North America and, indeed, paid attention to the

recommendations that were given to them. Today, without

government interference...

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Mr. Chairman, without government regulations...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Firenza. Let's be Firenza.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...they've brought into North America new

automobiles that are better built with more value for their

money to the consumer. They didn't need....

AN HON. MEMBER: Firenza. Firenza.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's nothing wrong with the Firenza,

I'm telling you. And now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier's brought

up the Firenza. I could tell you a story about the Firenza.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, do it please.

MR. PHILLIPS: It was the inability of General Motors to

recognize a problem when it came up on the horizon, to solve

that problem, because the Firenza is a good car.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But the wheels wouldn't go around.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's nothing wrong with the Firenza. The

fact is that where the Firenza was built there were labourers

in that particular factory who were bound and determined to

sabotage that car. I'm telling you today, you could buy a

Firenza and if you've got one that's had these kinks taken out

of it.... Don't tell me! I'll tell you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've made your point; get on with

it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll go on to the next one then. Mr. Chairman, the

question I'm asking is: how far do we have to go with government regulations

into the retail business, into the manufacturing business? Here we get a company

that is owned by the government which, so far as I am concerned, has been misleading

the people of this province.

If this ad or an ad similar to this had been put in the

paper by one of the car manufacturers or one of the food

distributors, there would have been an uproar in this

government. But a government institution puts this misleading

advertising in the papers. That's why I'm asking the Minister

of Consumer Affairs: is she going to be totally and completely

independent?

MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, so far as I am concerned, the

taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia are consumers,

and the taxpayers of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, when they

pay their taxes to this government, are paying them to receive

certain services.

Mr. Chairman, the taxes in British Columbia are increasing

this year, regardless of whether the Premier tries to tell us

that they are or not. The taxes in the Province of British

Columbia are going to increase on the provincial level, they

are going to increase on the municipal level, and they are

going to increase on the federal level.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Gloom and doom.

MR. PHILLIPS: When the people in Canada or in this province

or in the municipalities pay their taxes, they are actually

purchasing from this government a service. My question to the

Minister of Consumer Services is: if they are dissatisfied with

the service they purchase from the provincial government, and

they go to the Minister of Consumer Services, are they going to

indeed receive justice?

Are they going to receive justice, or is this million-plus

dollars that we are asked as legislators to vote to her

department going to do them a million-plus dollars worth of

good? What protection, what service, are they going to receive

for this amount of money?

I'd like to ask the Minister, except she's left the House.... I can see that she has to leave the House once in a while,

but I have some specific questions. Maybe her Deputy could make

a note of them.

How many complaints has the Minister of Consumer Services

received since assuming her Minister Without Portfolio position

approximately 10 months ago? How many complaints has she

received from consumers in the Province of British

Columbia?

What positive steps has this Minister of Consumer Services

taken to improve the position of the consumer in British

Columbia? Has she gone to any

[ Page 1342 ]

specific company, any specific manufacturer, any specific

retailer? Has she gone to them and improved the service in

companies — and how many? What positive steps has this lady

Minister taken? How many of the complaints, Mr. Chairman, that

this lady Minister has received have resulted in positive

convictions or rectifications of the complaints?

How many convictions to consumers — or as she mentioned,

unorthodox businessmen in this province — how many of them have

resulted in convictions in the province? In other words, what

I'm really trying to determine, Mr. Chairman, is what really

this Minister has accomplished since becoming a Minister.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are in British Columbia many items for

which we do not have marketing boards. Does she intend to set

up marketing boards for the remainder of agricultural products

in the province?

We have marketing boards for milk. We have marketing boards

for eggs. We have marketing boards for fruit. But the rest of

the agricultural products in British Columbia that do not have

marketing boards to represent them — does she intend to bring

in such marketing boards?

Has the Minister of Consumer Services indeed made

representation to cabinet to have the 5 per cent sales tax

taken off building materials? We are in British Columbia today

facing a tremendous housing crisis. We are facing a tremendous

shortage of rental accommodation. Much of which is brought

about by several factors, one of which is the high cost plus

the 5 per cent sales tax on building materials. Has the

Minister of Consumer Services made representation to the

Minister of Finance? Has, indeed, the new Minister of Consumer

Services made representation to Ottawa and to their Minister of

Finance to have the sales tax removed from building

materials?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why don't you talk to your Whip?

MR. PHILLIPS: My Whip? What has my Whip got to do with the

sales tax on building materials?

AN HON. MEMBER: He has a message for you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, he's going to tell me that, indeed,

the Minister of Consumer Services has made representation.

Because I don't know whether she'll answer it before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: When she makes a representation, she'll

pick the right person.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you gone to Ottawa? Now you have in your vote travelling

expenses of $7,000. Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Minister: if she has not

used any portion of that $7,000 to go to Ottawa, I would suggest that the Minister

of Consumer Services go to Ottawa. Make a trip tomorrow; the crisis is here

and now.

We have a bill on the books, which we're going to talk

about, that outlines the crisis we have in rental accommodation

in British Columbia. It's a crisis.

Will the Minister go to Ottawa? Will she go to the cabinet?

Will she have these punitive taxes removed from building

materials so that the Province of British Columbia and the

people in it can go on and build their own houses, build their

own rental accommodation — get us out of the problems we're

having?

Mr. Chairman, I have posed a few questions to the Minister

of Consumer Services, and I know that being the conscientious

Minister that she is, she has listened intently to the

questions I have posed. I know when I take my place in this

Legislature, fighting for the taxpayers of British Columbia, I

know that being the conscientious lady she is, she's going to

stand up in her place as a Minister of the Crown and she's

going to give me some positive replies to the questions I posed

here this evening on behalf of all the people of British

Columbia.

I know that because, indeed, this lady Minister is

conscientious. I know she wants to do a good job, and I know

she has good health. I know she will do a good job, providing

she listens to the Member for South Peace River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there aren't too many minutes left

until the House has reached the hour in which we customarily

adjourn, but in the short time I left I do want to ask a few

questions of the Minister of consumer affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's services.

MR. CHABOT: That's right, she prefers Consumer Services.

In November, shortly after she became a Minister, she was

interviewed and did quite a job in public relations in

portraying herself as of the simple world, one who eats simple

foods as well, because it said that her lifestyle was simple,

she eats bacon and beans and that she does on very rare

occasions splurge for a luxury like a tin of crabs or shrimps.

Well, I don't know, I've come to the conclusion myself that

bacon is high in calories, and so are beans. So, I refrain from

eating those foods because they're not really the type of

nutrition that a Minister of Consumer Services should be

eating.

There are a few points that I want to make to the Minister

of Consumer Services. One that keeps

[ Page 1343 ]

haunting me is the statement made by a man who has been a

Member of this House for 20 years and has been a Minister of

the Crown for 18 months, ineffective as he has been.

As a Minister of the Crown he stood in this House and

suggested that the lumber operators of this province, because

of the fact they were charging on the domestic level the same

prices for lumber as have been charged on the international

level, they were criminally irresponsible.

I want to ask you, Madam Minister, tonight to stand up in

your place and say whether you support that Minister or not. We

have the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and

condominiums (Hon. R.A. Williams) over there who has seen fit

not only to wheel and deal in condominiums, but to get involved

in the purchase of sawmills within British Columbia.

He has an opportunity.... Well, there's the Premier and he

says, "I have a phone call from Senator Lawson."

Now, I want to say this about that remark, Mr. Chairman: I

stood in court on my integrity. At no time has my integrity, my

honesty, ever been challenged in any court of this land. At no

time! Certainly I have been found guilty of slander in the

court, but my integrity has never been challenged such as has

been this Minister of the Crown, and the Speaker of this House,

because the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British

Columbia stated that the Speaker of this House believes in

smears and innuendoes, and the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, Mr. Chairman, just one moment...that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

simply does not tell the truth. In other words, he's a

dishonest man. That's what they say about him. At no time have

I ever been accused of that in any court of this land, I'll

tell you that right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is a Member making a point of

order.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman,

no Minister of this House has been found guilty of anything

before the courts as to what's been said in this House. The

Member must withdraw. He must withdraw that statement.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Certainly it is. He cannot make a charge; he's just

a wildman shooting off at the lip. A typical blabbermouth.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better withdraw that.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You withdraw. Last year he was making wild

statements about the Glenshiel and he's not getting away with

this. He's going to withdraw or he'll sit down.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, will you stop that foggy,

irresponsible Minister from making those vague and

insignificant accusations?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Withdraw!

MR. CHABOT: I wouldn't withdraw anything from that two-bit

Minister, I'll tell you that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm going to ask the Member for

Columbia River to withdraw the last statement he made.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, prior to withdrawing that

statement, I want to tell you to have that Minister withdraw

what he's had to say about me. I want to tell you that right

now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: You better be fair to both sides, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you better be fair to both

sides.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want you both to take your seats.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! First of all, the Member who was on his

feet made some criticism of the Chair, that the Chair was not

being fair to both sides. I want that statement withdrawn first

of all.

MR. CHABOT: MR. Chairman, I'll gladly withdraw the statement

if you'll have the Minister withdraw the statements he's made

about me. Because, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! If you want to

[ Page 1344 ]

raise a point of order on some statement the Minister made....

MR. CHABOT: A point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've got one other one I want to deal with in

your case, and I don't think that one is dependent on the

other.

MR. CHABOT: On your point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to

relate to you the sequence of events here tonight. The sequence

of events are: you suggested that I withdraw a statement....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You made one statement about "a two-bit

Minister" which I think you should withdraw. If you want to

make a point of order about something someone else said, then

you do that, but....

MR. CHABOT: You've asked me to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've asked you to withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: You were listening previously to my statement

about the Minister being a two-bit Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you withdraw that statement?

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind you that it is not your place

to argue....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw it, providing the

Minister withdraws his statements he made about me. You make

that Minister withdraw and I'll withdraw my statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've withdrawn your statement and I

will ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to

withdraw the statements that he made as well. There are no

conditions attached to either one. I'm asking the Minister of

Public Works also to withdraw his statements.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would be pleased to withdraw, but my

friend hasn't withdrawn unconditionally.

MR. GARDOM: Point of order. I draw your attention to

standing order 3.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to

the clock. 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 11:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada