1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 10, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1527 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Gulf Island ferry rates. Mr. Wallace — 1527

Mines department advertising campaign. Mr. Lea — 1527

Oil pricing policy. Mr. Gibson — 1528

CPR ferry rate increase. Mr. Lockstead — 1529

Employment of N. Sharpe. Mr. Lauk — 1529

Free-enterprise takeover of ferry dining rooms. Mr. Wallace — 1530

Statement

Oil pricing policy. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1531

Mr. Stupich — 1534

Mr. Gibson — 1535

Mr. Wallace — 1536

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 4.

Mr. Stupich — 1537

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1537

Mrs. Wallace — 1538

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1538

Mr. Stupich — 1538

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1538

On vote 5.

Mr. Stupich — 1538

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1538

On vote 6.

Ms. Sanford — 1539

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1539

Mrs. Wallace — 1540

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1540

Mr. Stupich — 1540

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1540

On vote 7.

Mr. Levi — 1541

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1541

Mrs. Wallace — 1541

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1542

Mr. Levi — 1542

On vote 8.

Mr. Nicolson — 1542

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1542

Mrs. Wallace — 1543

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1543

Mr. Stupich — 1543

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1543

Mrs. Wallace — 1544

Mr. Stupich — 1544

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1544

On vote 9.

Mr. Stupich — 1544

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1544

Department of Consumer Services estimates.

On vote 30.

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1544

Ms. Sanford — 1545

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1549

Mr. Nicolson — 1550

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1552

Mr. Wallace — 1553

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1554

Mr. Strongman — 1555

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1555

Mr. Gibson — 1555

Ms. Brown — 1558

Mr. Chabot — 1561

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1561

Mr. Nicolson — 1563

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1563

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

the gallery today are 24 Girl Guides from North Vancouver, accompanied

by their supervisor, Mrs. Louie, and I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

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

the gallery this afternoon are two very good friends of mine, Mr. and

Mrs. Cliff Lea. Mr. Lea is a past president of the Burnaby-Willingdon

Constituency Association and is presently our membership chairman. I'd

like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today are students from the Wells-Barkerville

School in the great riding of Cariboo, accompanied by their escorts. I

would like the House to welcome them here today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Phillips presents the 30th report of the Milk Board for the year ending December 31, 1975.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if before

we start the oral question period the House might hear a statement from

the Premier on the recent First Ministers Conference. We are

particularly concerned about his support of a dramatic increase in the

price of oil and the effect this will have on our citizens, and we

would welcome a statement from the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If we are to take a statement from the Premier

prior to the start of question period, I would ask leave of the House

that a statement be made by the Premier if he so desires to make one.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I'll give you one after the question period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier has indicated the statement will come after question period.

Oral questions.

GULF ISLAND FERRY RATES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Transport and Communications. In view of his statement that decisions on

the ferry fares are not subject to review, in view of the fact that area MLAs

are receiving requests from residents of the Gulf Islands, pointing out the

very essential uses which these residents have to make of the ferry system with

such matters as visits to specialists, hospitals and dentists and for other

vital supplies and services, including education for some students, has the

minister made any decision regarding preferred rates for the residents of the

Gulf Islands?

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

Speaker, we are always prepared to listen to well-founded submissions.

I might add that consultations are going on right now with the Highways

department concerning the allocation of routes.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental question. Mr. Speaker, since the

minister's change in fare structure was brought about to reduce the

operating deficit, could the minister tell the House if there is any

continuing study going on regarding the costs of management in order to

consider the possibility of reducing the number of staff employed at

the management level?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer Mr. Speaker, is yes, studies to

that effect are proceeding. I might add, however, that the number of

people involved at the management level with regard to B.C. Ferries has

not increased appreciably in recent years.

MINES DEPARTMENT

ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Mines. It's in regard to the $1,000 grant that was given to

the company represented by his executive assistant's son. Was the

minister prepared to grant $1,000 to all PR firms in B.C. so that they

might be on an equal competitive basis to bid for the $1 million

contract to improve the mining association's image.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, questions which are couched in language such that they become facetious are really...

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please!

...a little out of order. I'd suggest that if you have a question to

ask which sticks strictly to a question on that specific matter, you

rephrase your language slightly and ask the question.

[ Page 1528 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Mines:

was the advertising campaign, which was initiated by the Minister of

Mines to improve the mining companies' image, in any way related to the

minister's announcement that the government will be eliminating mining

royalties?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): No.

MR. LEA: Supplemental question to the Minister of Mines: if

the mining industry fails to accept the $1 million campaign proposed by

the minister and sought by the minister's executive assistant's son,

Mr. Fothergill, will he reconsider his promise to eliminate mining

royalties?

MR. SPEAKER: It's a hypothetical question, Hon. Member, but the hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there's no such thing as any

$1 million advertising campaign proposed, and I believe the member's

well aware of that.

MR. LEA: In that case then, I would like to go back to

question No. 1, on a supplemental, and repeat it: was the minister

prepared to grant $1,000 to all PR firms in B.C. so that they might be

on an equal competitive basis to bid for the $1 million contract to

improve the mining association's image?

OIL PRICING POLICY

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. I'm sorry

we don't have the benefit of his statement yet, but I want to make sure

that this question is answered.

In view of the Premier's support for higher oil prices, could he

tell us what steps he proposes to ensure that these extra funds will be

channelled into exploration, which is fundamental to all of this?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the whole point of the

provincial government's position against the federal government taking

control of provincial resources — and you may disagree on this — is

that the provinces themselves will be able to allocate that amount that

goes to the provincial treasury and that which may be allowed for

development — that is, price at the wellhead. That's always a matter of

government policy, and we would do it in conjunction with advice from

the B.C. Energy Commission.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, what I'm

concerned with is this additional revenue that will accrue from $1,

$1.50 or whatever it is per barrel. How does the Premier intend to make

sure that there is a strong incentive for the additional money that is

left in the hands of the oil companies, after the federal government

and the provincial government have taken their share, to be actually

spent on exploration?

HON. MR ' BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano, the government of the day at such a time would make sure,

on advice from the energy board, that safeguards were there to maintain exploration

not only in Canada but in British Columbia, if it is for British Columbia oil.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says

when the time arises the government will take counsel from the B.C.

Energy Commission. Could he tell us, then, if he supported this price

increase without having this kind of advice?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it might be better if I waited

until I made my statement. Judging from the comments from some of the

members of the opposition over the weekend, it's obvious that none of

them have read the new federal "An Energy Strategy for Canada," and

none of them have much of an understanding of the whole question of

energy and the reason for the two-price system, comparing Canada's

pricing compared to that of Europe which has adjusted its consumption,

and the price of consumption, to deal with the world market within a

matter of two years. I'll be pleased to deal with this in my statement.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Premier, Mr.

Speaker: will this decision on the part of the Premier to support the

increase in the price of energy result in an increase in the price of

gas for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I was going to cover it in my

statement, but quite clearly we said that when the federal government

intervened, for the first time in Canada's history, with a price of a

resource of one, two or three provinces, and that was in the price of

petroleum products.... It's the first time they've ever taken advantage

of intervening in provincial jurisdiction, and when they did this they

had two ways to try to equalize the price for central and eastern

Canada: one was with an export levy; the other was by imposing a

10-cent-a-gallon surcharge at the pump. We have said that with any

price increase the federal government must reduce its intervention by

taking off the 10-cent-a-gallon surcharge at the pump. I know the

member knows that simple mathematics would show that any proposed

increase

[ Page 1529 ]

at this time, working towards world price, would be offset by removing the 10 cents at the pump.

CPR FERRY-RATE INCREASE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Consumer Services: according to reports I received last

Friday the CPR indicated it will jack up its barely year-old ferry

rates on the Vancouver Island-mainland service on June 1, not because

it needs the boost but in order to remain competitive with the proposed

B.C. ferry rates. This would appear to confirm that B.C. Ferries' new

rates are set so high they will return a profit. The question is: is

that why the minister announced over the weekend that the exorbitant

rates announced by the government last week will be reviewed by cabinet?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

first of all, I did not make the statements attributed to me by the

hon. member. Secondly, I have prepared a statement which I will file

with the House, with leave of the Speaker, and which will clarify any

remarks that were made last Friday. Thirdly, insofar as any increase of

the CPR is concerned, they have not come to my attention, but I'll take

that question as notice and will answer it in due course.

EMPLOYMENT OF MR. N. SHARPE

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question to the hon.

Premier with respect to a man by the name of Norman Sharpe. We were

told he was relieved publicly as the Premier's chauffeur and

transferred to the employment of the Department of Public Works. Is Mr.

Sharpe still acting as the Premier's chauffeur?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd be very pleased to deal with my estimates when my estimates come up. But I would say this: when....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier has the floor.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): You promised an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In regard to the gentleman you mentioned,

on assuming office early in the year I decided that we would continue

the practice of the former Premier who had a driver named Harvey Beech.

However, I soon found out that I didn't need a driver; I walk to work.

So at that time the gentleman in question was transferred to Public

Works where he would be part of the security until at such time as I

went on official functions, which is the tradition in most Houses, and

his services would be available.

MR. LAUK ; Did the hon. Premier, when Mr. Sharpe was transferred to Public

Works, indicate that he would be used as his chauffeur publicly, or was this

an afterthought?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a chauffeur; I

don't have a chauffeur. From time to time when government

functions...or because the car assigned to the Premier's office, which

is the same gold Chevrolet which was there when Dave Barrett had it

bought for the office, is used rarely by me — only to meet connections

or plane connections. When I flew to Ottawa, because I didn't want to

tie up anyone else, we used this vehicle. At those times this gentleman

is called upon to take the Premier to plane connections.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Man, that's a long explanation.

MR. LAUK: Could the Premier indicate...?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier indicate

what Mr. Sharpe's duties are and clarify the answers given to the press

by the head of security that Mr. Sharpe serves the Premier exclusively

and that most of his duties are comprised as those of chauffeur?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing how

he works within Public Works. I know that from time to time his

services are requested, and only very occasionally, by the Premier. As

I said, I don't need to be picked up and driven to work every day as

Dave Barrett was; I walk to work.

MR. LEA: To the Premier. It is my understanding, from having staff talk with security...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

[ Page 1530 ]

MR. LEA: ...that Mr. Sharpe works in the Premier's suite. It

would seem to me that he would have some indication as to what his

duties are when he works in the Premier's suite. You don't know whether

he works in your suite?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Did you have a whole caucus meeting on this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Well, I'd like to ask the Premier then: is he aware that Mr. Sharpe works in the Premier's suite? Is he aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a facetious question, Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: That's the second time you've said it was facetiousness and it's in your opinion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. LEA: These are good questions, and the people of this

province have a right to know. If the Premier doesn't know who's

working in his suite and what his duties are, then there's something

wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

The hon. Premier, in reply to his questions, has already said that

the man in question is employed by the Department of Public Works. He's

already indicated what his duties were on occasions other than when

employed by the Department of Public Works.

I suggest to you that the question that you did pose was facetious and that's why I said it was.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): You're not supposed to argue with hon. members.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll deal with that when the question period is finished, Hon. Member.

FREE ENTERPRISE TAKEOVER

OF FERRY DINING ROOMS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a further

question to the Minister of Transport and Communications regarding the

ferries and the distress of staff in the dining rooms at becoming

unemployed or demoted.

In answering one of my earlier questions the minister had stated

that the government might look at extending a franchise to a free

enterprise company to operate the dining rooms. Could the minister tell

us if this is still an option that the government might implement in

order to maintain employment of many of the stewards who, I believe,

cannot be found work elsewhere in the system?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Oak

Bay: as he knows, but as I should remind him, two of the large new

ferries which are being brought into service do not have dining rooms

whatsoever, and they do replace other vessels which have dining rooms.

We're looking at various possibilities, but we also have to take into

account the existing contracts between management and the unions in

B.C. Ferries.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, I would like to

suggest to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) who made a

flip remark from his seat — not after he was recognized but without

being recognized — which came to the ear of the Speaker, that the

remark does not necessarily in any way concern me personally as Speaker

of the House, but any remark by any member which reflects upon the

dignity of this House and the members of this House is something that

if I hear it I'll take recognition of. That is why I suggest to you

that the type of remark does offend against the dignity of the House.

One further moment. With respect to question period, it is the duty

of the Speaker to act in a capacity as an intermediary in questions

that are directed by members of one side of the House to members of the

other. It is also the duty of the Speaker, in accepting the questions,

to consider whether they're in order, out of order, irregular or a

proper question to be put on the floor of the House. Since we do not

have a provision that requires the members to file a notice of question

on the Speaker's table or at the Clerks' desk before asking the

question, therefore I must make those decisions instantaneously.

It is the duty of the Speaker to make those decisions and I assume

that duty. I respect the problems that it involves, but I intend to

enforce that duty in this House.

MR. NICOLSON: On the point of order which you have just

raised, Mr. Speaker, you know, as you pointed out, it's wrong...on many

occasions you have pointed out that it is wrong for any member of this

House to impute an improper motive to any member of this House. I would

suggest, with respect, that the use of the word "facetious" would mean

that it was done mischievously, intemperately, and I think that you are

imputing the wrong motive to an

[ Page 1531 ]

hon. member of this House. I would, with respect,

ask you to withdraw the use of such a word as I think that you have

imputed a wrong motive to a member who is trying to carry on the work

of the people and the interests of the people. The people have the

right to know whether or not this Mr. Sharpe is employed in the

Premier's suite or not employed in the Premier's suite. I'm sure that

this hon. member would not have asked it facetiously, Mr. Speaker, with

respect.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, in replying to your point of order, I would refer you to Beauchesne ,

4th edition, 1958, in which it says: "A question, oral or written, must

not be ironical, rhetorical, offensive or contain epitaphs, innuendo,

satire or ridicule." If you wish me to say that the question is

irregular, I'll use that phrase, but it doesn't mean that the question

is anything else but irregular and falls within the category of many of

these things that have been ruled out by many previous Speakers.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Not on the same point of order. I've dealt with that point of order.

MR. LEA: On a matter of clarification, twice today you have

said you considered the questions that I asked during question period

to be facetious. I think there may be some misunderstanding between

yourself and myself as to the meaning of "facetious." Just so that I

have a clear understanding of what you mean so that I can act under

your direction, I wonder if you would clearly define for me the meaning

of "facetious."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, any time you wish clarification on

a matter like this you certainly have access to the office of the

Speaker. Come in and meet with me and we'll discuss it as we should,

without taking up the time of the House.

MR. LEA: Because you ruled in that way I thought that every

Member of the House would indeed like to know what you consider the

word "facetious" to mean.

MR. SPEAKER: When occasion demands me to say so, I will do so on the floor of the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I ask leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

OIL PRICING POLICY

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the

opportunity of attending, with the other nine provincial Premiers, a

meeting called by the Prime Minister of Canada concerning pricing of

oil and gas in Canada. As you know, British Columbia has an interest in

this regard because of the hydrocarbon energies that are present in our

province. We have some oil, we have natural gas and certainly we have

great resources of coal which will be of great economic impact to our

province in the future.

As you know, because of federal legislation and intervention into

the resources, which primarily are the responsibility of the province,

the pricing of oil and gas has been taken away from the provinces and

has been given to the sole discretion of the federal government, in

consultation with the producing provinces. The other provinces invited

were merely there to express their opinions because it involves their

provinces as consumers, but it involves the far larger problem of

provincial rights: the rights of provinces to control their resource

development and receive the benefits from that resource development. It

was clearly on this basis that our province, with many others, entered

Confederation to make what is now known as this country of Canada.

A few years ago, when the OPEC countries arbitrarily put up the

price of oil and affected the price of fuel and energy in the world,

Canada was unwilling to absorb the total increase and decided on a

two-price system. This involved the federal government intervening in

provincial rights. It involved the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan

and, to a much lesser degree, the province of British Columbia, dealing

with those resources. I might say that because of that policy Canada

today has the lowest oil prices of any of the western industrial

nations. Provinces that heretofore had received the full value from

their resources now were having a part of it siphoned off by the

federal government, particularly those western provinces that had that

money siphoned off that belonged to them to be used to lower prices in

central and eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has a large stake in the field of

hydrocarbon energy, and we jealously guard our provincial rights. We

agree with the new federal position and re-evaluation of their

two-price system, which they have now produced in a booklet entitled

"An Energy Strategy for Canada." We agree that we should be working

towards the world price, for several reasons.

MR. STUPICH: To whose benefit?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the benefit of the people of Canada and

in order to come to grips with the provision of alternate forms of

energy because of the depletion of oil resources not only in Canada but

in the rest of the world, and because of the fact that the prices today

have not encouraged, and do not

[ Page 1532 ]

encourage, the additional search for this form of energy.

We say that British Columbia has put a position before the federal

government and the other provinces for years, calling for a national

power grid. If the other provinces and the federal government, indeed,

had accepted that proposal, some of the provinces now who are crying

for our dollars to equalize their rates wouldn't be producing

electricity from oil, because that's just what they've done. We can't

inter-tie our electrical energy between the provinces, because this was

never acted upon, and so these provinces who developed their electrical

source from oil and gas and coal are crying out for a further subsidy

from the western provinces who produce oil.

We've seen this work to the detriment of the west, of which our

province is a part, and we've seen it work to the detriment of the

energy policy for Canada because governments, in order to buy favour

with the consumers today, have not come to grips with the major problem

of developing alternative energy sources, energy sources that may be of

a continuing nature and not dependent on oil, and we've all talked

about oil being a depleting resource.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's quite evident that it works against the

national energy policy, it works to the detriment of the west, it works

to the detriment of British Columbia, it works to the detriment of

areas represented by many political parties, whether it is the NDP in

Saskatchewan or the Conservatives in Alberta or our party here in

British Columbia. We're united on provincial rights; we're united that

provinces should get the benefit of their resource dollar.

But in saying that we supported working towards the world price, we

suggested to the federal government that when it intervened, creating

this two-price policy, and when they put 10 cents a gallon on the pump,

we suggested that they take this 10 cents a gallon off and in this year

there would be no increase at the pump to the consumers of British

Columbia or, indeed, the rest of Canada — no increase if the federal

government did this.

This isn't as if it was any province taking off their gasoline tax.

This 10 cents was put on solely as part of the two-price policy or the

subsidy policy for central and eastern Canada that was brought about

when the price of oil jumped on the world market. Mr. Speaker, we're

not out to see higher prices, but we are out to see justice for the

provinces, particularly when provincial rights over resources are very

important in this regard. I mentioned that we have coming on stream

major coal developments that would come equally under the federal

legislation that controls oil prices and gas prices — come equally. In

any coming confrontation, if the producing provinces did not accept the

federal price guidelines, their only option would be to leave their oil

and gas in the ground. As such, if the federal government wished to

pursue the matter they could, through legislation, take over the oil

wells in any of the provinces. I say right now, Mr. Speaker, that this

government in British Columbia opposes any such action by the federal

government.

I agree our policy is in contrast with that of the former Premier

(Mr. Barrett) and Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) who went back to

Ottawa at the energy conference in 1974 and 1975, because I was there

as an observer. At that time they offered to turn over the natural

and nationalize those resources. We will not participate or make any

offer of the sell-out of the resources of British Columbia. It will be

interesting to see, in any coming confrontation, if those members over

there support their leader's position that the federal government can

nationalize the resources of the provinces and take them away and take

control, because we, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This government will not allow the federal government to take over the resources of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we won't allow them to take them over just like that party which is committed to national socialism.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're committed to the rights of the provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: You gave in.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In regard to British Columbia's gas, Mr.

Speaker, we have a submission before the National Energy Board to move

the price up from $1.65 to $2 an mcf. This $2 is on the basis of the

recommendation of Dr. Andrew Thompson of the energy board in British

Columbia, who has done a review of the pricing and markets we serve and

what would be the best value at this time. This is the same energy

board that gave advice to the previous government — advice that wasn't

always taken, Mr. Speaker, because remember the tragic results we had

of no exploration in this province in the northeast for gas because of

their foolish policies. Finally, in the summer of 1975, Dr. Thompson ...

[ Page 1533 ]

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...brought out a report that told them we must give more....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I believe someone is on their feet on a point of order. The first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, when the House is to be adjourned for

a matter of urgency to the public and debate follows, that is one

matter. When a minister asks leave to make a statement, that's another

situation entirely. If the Premier expects he can stand up under the

guise of a ministerial statement and start defending his sell-out to

the federal government ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: ...his betrayal of this province ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: ...he should have another think coming. It is totally inappropriate for him to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Before the Premier resumes....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises. ]

MR. SPEAKER: May I say to all members of the House that I

pointed out to the hon. members before that it is not necessary for a

minister of the Crown to ask leave, first of all, to make a statement.

But in courtesy to the House the Premier did just that today and asked

leave to make a statement, which was granted him. Now I hope that the

Premier will stay within the confines of making a statement which does

not become a full-scale debate.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. BROWN: Facetious remarks.

MR. LAUK: Abusive.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you accusing the Speaker of making a facetious remark, hon. member?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Please! It would never occur to me to accuse the

Speaker of anything. I am saying that the Premier's remarks are

facetious — facetious remarks trying to justify his sell-out of the

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor on a statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm giving this statement in

response to a request from the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). It

deals with British Columbia's policy towards the price of energy, it

deals with the present government's policy on provincial rights and it

concerns the present government's policy on the exploration of gas.

I was contrasting what is happening now with the number of rigs

searching for gas in the great northeast, a search that was thwarted by

policies of the former government who believed their own rhetoric.

Indeed, on a report by Dr. Andrew Thompson of the B.C. energy board,

that policy was reversed. It is this same Dr. Thompson who is giving

advice to the present government, through the energy board, on what is

best for British Columbia, and I have the highest confidence in him; I

believe he gives good advice. Where governments go wrong is when they

don't accept the advice of the people who surround them and who have

expertise and something to offer.

I said that British Columbia has not repeated the position of the last government in selling out our resources to Canada....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. Premier refrain

from a full-scale debate on the matter? It's a matter of making a

statement hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I might say that we supported

that great province of Saskatchewan and Premier Blakeney, who is

looking for his full rights for his province because his province

controls the resources of that province. We support Premier Blakeney in

his bid to see that the provinces are dealt with fairly and to help to

bring about a proper energy policy in this country, a policy that can

never be developed until we have realistic proposals for alternative

energy sources that do not call upon us subsidizing resources of the

west and, at the same time, saying that we won't pay

[ Page 1534 ]

Saskatchewan $8 a barrel, $10 a barrel, we won't

pay Alberta, we won't pay B.C., but we'll pay the OPEC countries $13 a

barrel. That's the kind of problem we're against, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Boy, did they see you coming!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So, Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to fight

for provincial rights. I believe more will be said in coming days on

the proposals that the last government made, proposals to turn over the

resources of the province to the federal government if they would

socialize them. We think it would be very relevant to what happens in

the matter of pricing in coming weeks.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should start by thanking the Premier for his statement explaining B.C.'s position.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Would you like a copy of it?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I would like a copy of it, Mr. Premier.

I cannot help making the observation, though, that rather than a

ministerial statement, it sounded more like a campaign speech. If

nothing else, it would be more appropriate during estimates than as a

ministerial statement at this particular time in orders of the day.

However, he certainly does encourage the opposition to comment on

his speech. At least, it is going to be difficult not to comment in the

same vein. I think it's going to be very difficult for others in the

opposition, other than the party leaders, to want to make comments at

this particular point in time. I am not sure how you are going to deal

with that when the time comes.

However, I now have my opportunity to make just a few observations

on B.C.'s current position and the Premier's contrasting that with

B.C.'s position under the NDP administration. He made reference to the

fact that the previous government of British Columbia offered to turn

over to the federal government control of our resources. Mr. Speaker,

I'm sure the Premier knows that that is not, in fact, what happened at

all.

I am sure that the Premier knows that what was, indeed, offered by

the province of British Columbia was to turn over to the federal

government control of our petroleum and natural gas resources. We look

on energy as something different from other resources, Mr. Speaker, and

that is the thing the Premier fails to recognize.

I think even the Premier must know that the current recession, from

which we are still suffering and from which the whole western world is

suffering today, started some three years ago with the dramatic

increases imposed upon the world of the cost of energy — when the OPEC

nations dramatically, suddenly increased the price of oil. That started

the whole western world on a downslide that is still hurting the

province of British Columbia, along with most of the western world

today — the sudden and dramatic increases in the cost of energy,

because energy is so important in all our lives and goes far beyond

provincial boundaries.

It is because of that and because we looked on the cost of energy as

something affecting our whole nation that in the interests of Canada as

a whole — of a developing Canada and in the interests of citizens all

over Canada — we offered to turn over to the federal government control

of our natural gas and petroleum resources in this province if there

were certain commitments on the part of the federal government to look

after the citizens of our whole country, commitments that the cost of

energy would be kept down in Canada, and commitments that the people

making profits from increases in the cost of energy would not be the

international oil companies, Mr. Speaker, but that the people

benefiting from these increases in the costs of these depleting

resources would be the people of the country and not the international

oil cartels.

It was in line with that policy that we urged the federal

government, and got their agreement, to increase the price of natural

gas leaving our province from what was formerly a figure of 32 cents

per 1,000 cubic feet up to $1.65, and promised to try to get it up to a

price that was competitive.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: But only after that started, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: We did argue then, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of

our very slim reserves of natural gas going out of this country should

be competitive with other forms of energy that were going out to

foreign countries. But, as I say, it was the citizens of our province,

the citizens of our country, that were going to be protected by B.C.'s

position, which would protect our citizens rather than produce huge

profits for people in other countries or for international oil

companies.

Mr. Speaker, the province has resources, the province has rights over those resources, but the

[ Page 1535 ]

province also has responsibilities. When it comes

to be one of the 10 citizens, one of the 10 provincial citizens of

Canada, we have a responsibility to work with the other nine provincial

citizens in this country and with the federal government to develop a

policy for energy that would protect the whole of Canada against....

There's the one area in our whole community, Mr. Speaker, that

benefited from what everyone else has suffered from in the last three

years and that is the international oil cartels. They are the ones that

have continued to make larger profits than ever before because of that

policy. That's the kind of problem that we had in mind, Mr. Speaker,

when, as a government, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, we

offered to turn over control of our natural gas and our petroleum

resources if the rest of the country would do the same and if the

federal government would embark upon a policy that would provide for

development of these resources, that would provide energy for the

people of Canada but that would also protect the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in providing, or in agreeing on behalf of the people of

British Columbia, that the price of oil will go up, and in recognizing

that the federal government is going to give up the 10 cents a gallon

that it is getting but in not saying that it's going to control the

price of gasoline at the pumps, in saying that the profits may go to

international oil companies....

There are no safeguards in his statement at all that it is the

people of British Columbia who are going to continue to benefit from

the development of our resources, nothing like that — simply a further

sell-out to the oil companies that have admitted publicly that they

made contributions to the Social Credit Party during the election

campaign.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the statement I would have made at this

time in debate, but you'll have to admit that the Premier, by the

nature of his statement, has invited the kind of response that he's

getting today and that he's going to continue to get from all the

speakers in this debate. We're concerned that the present Premier of

British Columbia has led the province of British Columbia, along with

other provinces, in a sell-out against the interests of the people of

Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor on a reply to the hon. Premier's statement.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier did very little

to pour oil on troubled waters today in his statement, the way he

started out — even a bit of gaslight to illuminate this complex topic.

He said more would be said. That's a good thing, because very little

has been said yet. All we had was some talk about apparently coming

federal-provincial wars — the coming confrontation was the phrase that

was used several times — and the interesting doctrine, if I understood

him rightly, that he is against a national government taking measures

when they have to be taken in the interests of the whole country. Or

would the Premier disagree that the world oil crisis, as caused by OPEC

nations, did require a certain amount of national adjustment and time

to take to readjust the Canadian economy? Would he disagree with that?

MR. LAUK: Yes, he would because he doesn't know any better.

MR. GIBSON: I'm afraid maybe he would. The government of the

day, Mr. Speaker, supported that policy. Perhaps they were somewhat

wrong in their support, and I certainly disagree with the idea of

giving British Columbia's oil to the national government. But where was

the Leader of the Opposition, when the Premier was Leader of the

Opposition before the election, standing up and asking for higher

gasoline prices? I didn't hear him say that very often.

Mr. Speaker, of course we have to, in this nation, and in this

province in particular, work toward the world price as quickly as we

can get there. There's no question about that whatsoever. But let me

say something about it. That has to be done in terms of supply for

Canada because our supply sources are getting to be very high cost,

whether you take the oil sands — which were supposed to be our

salvation and they're not going to be at any low cost — or whether you

take the frontier oil. It's all very expensive. So that money has to be

put into the exploration channel, and it has to be guaranteed that it

goes into the exploration channel, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker, because if it's not, a lot of it is just windfall profits that

were caused by the Arabs. That profit has to be earned in terms of

exploration.

Let me say the other reason for working toward the world price as

quickly as we can, and that is conservation. These liquid and gaseous

hydrocarbons are a very valuable and disappearing resource in this

world, and the price just has to reflect their scarcity. So how can the

Premier square that with his recommendation of removing the excise tax?

How can he square that, Mr. Speaker? How can he square that

conservation idea with the idea of removing the excise tax? It's just a

way of trying to avoid any political responsibility for increasing the

price of oil. Take that political responsibility, Mr. Premier. You said

yourself so often during the election that governments have no money of

their own. Here you are suggesting that another

[ Page 1536 ]

government should throw away a tax revenue with no suggestion of where to replace it.

But the wrong thing in that statement, the worst thing of all, Mr.

Speaker: not one word about drilling incentives; not one word about how

these new funds, after the federal government takes its cut, after the

provincial government takes its cut, will be encouraged, as far as the

provincial government is concerned, to go into drilling, into putting

holes in the ground and looking for more oil and gas. If the provincial

government does not come up with that kind of programme, then I say

that that is a complete abandonment of duty.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the issue is unquestionably

complex. I think there are few subjects on which the public are more

confused when we think back to the literal panic that occurred soon

after the OPEC action and people were lining up at the gas pumps at 5

o'clock in the morning on the pretext that there would be a great,

sudden shortage of supply. They are also confused that within two or

three years the so-called experts in Canada can turn around.... In one

voice they were telling us that there were enough reserves till the

year 2010, and now we're going to be out of them in 1980.

1 could go on and on reciting the recorded facts and figures which

are causing the public to be confused, but I must say this: the

Premier's statement today does nothing to clarify some of the

contradictions which are certainly existing in the minds of the

citizens of this province and in the minds of many of the people who

have to write the legislation.

The Liberal leader seems completely and totally convinced that the

two-price system is bad. I can't agree with that entirely, and we'll

get into that debate later. But the kind of contradiction I'm talking

about, Mr. Speaker, is that this Premier took office with a great

commitment that he was a true Canadian, that he believed in

Confederation and a total commitment to the national unity of this

country. Now all I've heard today in his statement is a pre-eminent and

overriding concern of a selfish desire by his government that above all

other things you want the last nickel you can get from the resources of

British Columbia. That's what your statement amounts to.

Now I don't deny — and I would support, too — the concept that there are provincial rights.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: There are provincial rights!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was getting a little difficult there for a moment.

Yes, we do have provincial rights, and it is the responsibility of

each provincial Premier to protect these rights, but not at all costs

to the rest of the Canadians. The way in which the statement dismissed

the 10-cent gasoline tax at the pump as though it was a mere

nothing...it's the source of money to subsidize our fellow Canadians in

the east who were the ones to suffer quickest and most severely when

the whole increase in oil prices took place.

Now is the Premier's statement to suggest that we don't have a

distinct responsibility as a very fortunate province to look after our

brethren in the east? Is the main goal, if not the only goal, of

British Columbia to get the highest possible price for our resources,

and if this penalizes the people in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island

and Newfoundland, so what? B.C.'s doing all right.

That's the theme that comes out of your statement today. What you

are saying is that the reason we're not doing all right is that we're

not getting even enough, that we should get even more.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Watch your blood pressure!

MR. WALLACE: And what is going to get subsidized more and

more? The citizens of this great country that you believe is a united

country...when you're telling us on the one hand that you believe in

that spirit, but on the other hand you come in here and give us a

statement and say that you want to wring every nickel you can out of

our resources.

Even in a more immediate sense, Mr. Speaker, we've had the most

blatant contradiction about this government's commitment to dealing

with inflation. What does it mean when you put up the price of a barrel

of oil? It just simply rockets in a further direction, the same way as

we've had with income tax, sales tax, ferry prices — you name it.

How can the people of this province have any confidence in the

arguments being presented when in one voice you're saying that we must

control inflation and in the next voice you want to put up the price of

oil? With one voice you respect the Canadian context of a federated

government, and in the next voice you're interfering at the federal

level to make your point that the federal government may be trying to

exert authority which it doesn't have. Contradictions all down the

line, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's totally confused.

MR. WALLACE: There's great confusion in the public mind, and

this kind of statement today certainly leads us, and me on this side of

the House, to feel that there's a great deal of confusion in the

[ Page 1537 ]

government thinking.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll send your speech to Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, if the discussion we're having

wants to come down to that level, you're very welcome. I hope the

Premier's listening; you're very welcome to send my speech to Mr.

Lougheed because in many respects I don't think that Mr. Lougheed has

shown a sense of national identity and unity that he might have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: That's right; and Mr. Blakeney too. We just

don't want this doubletalk, Mr. Speaker, this repeated lip service that

governments do respect the national fabric....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Continue, Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is not the best

way in which to enter into debate when we're supposed to be responding

to factual statements. I regret and apologize if we've gone beyond the

bounds of what this discussion was meant to cover.

I think the last point I would make, and try to keep the politics

out of it, is that we are all agreed on one essential point: that there

must be every logical and reasonable effort made to find new sources of

energy. That should surely be the one central theme on which we are all

agreed. But the minister's statement leaves me concerned that we're

going about it the wrong way.

I think the facts and the figures leave it very much in doubt that

by simply allowing the oil companies to derive greater revenue, and to

assume that increased profits will automatically lead to increased

exploration, is something that the figures in the last few years do not

confirm.

The last point regarding inflation, which I was trying to talk about

a moment ago, was that I thought this government repeatedly...in fact

the record shows that the Premier and many of the responsible ministers

have talked about the importance of our country remaining competitive

in export markets and in diversifying our economy to become more of a

producer and manufacturing nation than simply relying on wood and

mines. I can't understand the supposed logic of the argument that we

have to remain competitive if we are simply planning to put up the

price of energy, which surely must make it more expensive for us to

produce and manufacture. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

For all these various reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can have

a debate at a future date if today shows the inadequacy of our rules.

I'm sure if we'd try to call for this debate under

article 35 of our

standing orders, we would never have made it. But by having a

provocative statement from the Premier we have, in fact, indulged in

debate which was not the intent of the process of having a ministerial

statement.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from the

hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), I indicated that I would be

seeking leave to file a copy of a letter. I wonder if I might now have

that leave.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 4: deputy minister's office, $1,178, 926 — continued.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, three questions: at

the beginning we talked about a 15 per cent reduction in staff. I

wonder how many of the 13 people provided for in last year's estimates

are currently employed in the department, which will give us some

indication as to what will happen this year.

With respect to the field demonstration and testing of new

technology, the DATE programme, the amount is the same as last year. I

am wondering whether the minister could tell us anything about any new

projects that are going to be included in this year's work under that

programme.

I note the expenses of food counsellors are at the same figure as

last year. I'm wondering: is the food council meeting regularly, and

has it met recently? Are there any plans to reactivate it if, indeed,

it hasn't been active recently? Mr. Chairman, I think he needs a bit of

time on some of these items.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

in response to the member for Nanaimo's questions, there are now 12

persons employed in the deputy minister's office. I'll have the rest of

the information for you in a moment.

[ Page 1538 ]

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat):

Mr. Chairman, while the minister is getting the answers to the

questions for the member for Nanaimo.... Mine is a rather small point

under this particular vote, but it's one that I feel compelled to raise

inasmuch as I am a long-time member of women's institutes. For as long

as I have belonged to the Women's Institute the grant from the

Department of Agriculture has never been increased. It is a flat

$10-a-year grant. In this day of inflation I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that that is a very low grant. I would like to ask the

minister whether or not he is considering increasing that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, Mr.

Chairman, as I pointed out to her, there are many things we would loved

to have done this year in the department if we had more money, but due

to the restrictions on the budget we just ain't able to do them this

year.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, perhaps what the minister needs is

someone on Treasury Board who would be supporting the Department of

Agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, you told me once he is on Treasury.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, in answer to my first question the

minister said there are currently 12 people employed in the deputy

minister's office. From my knowledge of the deputy minister's office

and the work that goes on there I would suspect that it would be

extremely difficult to make any further cut there. I would think that

we would be living with that figure of 12 and the 15 per cent reduction

will have to take place in other votes. I expect that to be the case

now. I'll be asking as we come to later votes.

There was the question about the DATE programme and the activity or inactivity of the food council.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, 12 of the 18 DATE projects are new projects.

MR. STUPICH: The food council?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The food council has not been disbanded;

it's still there. I can't tell the member when they last met but it has

not been disbanded.

Vote 4 approved.

On vote 5: general administration, $1,012,963.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I note that there were 49 people

provided for in estimates last year. I wonder how many people are

currently employed and whether this is one of the votes where it is

intended that there will be something in excess of a 15 per cent cut.

I notice the item for motor-vehicle insurance has doubled. I wonder

whether this is simply a reflection of the rate increase or whether

they are intended to have more vehicles. Has the government suffered

the same 100 per cent increase in car insurance rates, or a little less

than the average citizen has? Has it been a straight 100 percent?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there are about four or five

people. There has been a 15 per cent general reduction right across the

board. We could count them up for you, but it is about four or five

people less.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to automobiles in the Agriculture

department, I would be quite happy to sell off that big, expensive

Buick that was turned over to me by the former Minister of Agriculture.

We could have maybe three small cars for the price of that one car. We

haven't done that yet because I understand from checking with my

department officials, Mr. Chairman, that the depreciation would have

been too great on such a large automobile. I just have to think that

the Premier was riding around in this little gold Chevrolet standard,

three-speed, six-cylinder sort of standard transmission type of deal —

the real nuts-and-bolts Chevrolet — while the previous Minister of

Agriculture was riding around in this great big luxurious Buick with

air conditioning, power steering, power seats, power windows, tilt

steering wheels, stereo and everything. As I say, Mr. Chairman, we

certainly haven't bought any new cars for the minister. We could have

had three cars for the price of the car that the ex-minister was

driving. I was going to trade it off but it just would have cost too

much in depreciation.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's

humour. I would just like to remind him that the previous Minister of

Agriculture knew when the food council met the last time and knew when

it was going to meet again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: He knew what was happening in the department

here and around the province as well, so he used that car. I would like

to suggest to him also, Mr. Chairman, that the previous Minister of

Agriculture after he left office offered to purchase that car if the

minister was interested in selling it. He said no. He said he decided

to keep it for himself because his wife was going to drive his own car.

So he must be driving it, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1539 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha!

MR. STUPICH: When he said that there are no more cars in this vote, then I can see that the rate of car insurance....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt this but do I still have the floor?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister suggests that the

time will come for the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk); and I suggest it will, too, after the next election, when he

once again will be answering questions as a minister.

However, I do want to note that the minister did say, in effect, that the cost

of insurance for the government, in spite of its fleet, and in spite of its

accident-free — relatively free — record, the cost of insurance for the government

has doubled even though the cost to ICBC of covering government cars I would

think must be something much less than doubling. So in addition to subsidizing

ICBC by giving them a grant of $181.5 million, we are further subsidizing them

by paying more for government car insurance than it is costing ICBC to cover

government cars.

The minister, in talking about the number of staff members that they

will be able to get along with in vote 5, said four or five, which is

just under a 10 per cent reduction. There's no reduction in the

previous vote so as we go along it will mean that we'll have to get a

20 or 25 or even a 30 per cent reduction. Somewhere or other we're

going to have to catch up with that figure of 15 per cent reduction, so

I will keep asking this question, Mr. Chairman, to find out what vote

is going to be hit hardest by a staff cut-back.

Vote 5 approved.

On vote 6: production and marketing, $4,156,337.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise

with the minister a question that applies particularly to Cortes

Island. Mr. Ken Hanson of Cortes Island has been a farmer on the island

for over 25 years. He has been involved in mixed farming and has been

able to make his living on Cortes in in that way. Not too long ago

there was an anonymous complaint made to the Department of Health with

respect to the sale of raw milk on Cortes Island, namely milk sold by

Mr. Ken Hanson. As I pointed out, Mr. Ken Hanson has been selling raw

milk on the island for 25 years. He has never gone out to solicit

customers — people have come to him and asked if they could please

purchase milk from his dairy. Because Cortes Island is not in a raw

milk area but is in a pasteurized milk area, the Department of

Agriculture or the Department of Health, or both, have closed down Mr.

Ken Hanson's dairy. He is no longer able to sell milk to the over 50

families on Cortes Island who have been relying on him for their source

of milk. This is some two months ago; in fact, it's more than two

months ago.

Mr. Ken Hanson was assured, as was Mr. John Sprungman, who is the

secretary of the ratepayers' association over there, that a public

hearing would be held in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture

and in conjunction with the Department of Health. I think that the

request made by Mr. Ken Hanson that this public hearing be held

immediately is a good one. He is at the moment paying nearly $500 a

month in order to feed his herd and is unable to sell any of the milk.

What the people of Cortes Island would like to see happen is that

Mr. Ken Hanson's farm become an approved raw-milk dairy farm under the

Milk Industry Act,

section 6(1)(b), I think it is, of the Act. They

are making the request that the government: (

a) fulfil their stated

obligation that they would hold a public hearing very, very soon, and

(

b) that they would consider this request to have Mr. Ken Hanson's

dairy become an approved raw-milk producer within the pasteurized milk

area.

The people on Cortes are very disturbed by the actions taken by the

Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture in closing down

this dairy overnight and have signed petitions. I have lists of people

who have signed a petition asking that the government consider, just as

soon as possible, putting the farm of Mr. Ken Hanson into an approved

raw-milk producer status under the Milk Industry Act. I wonder if the

minister would comment on that this afternoon.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in response to the member's

concern, it is certainly not the intention and never will be the

intention of the department to put Mr. Hanson out of business. We're

continuing to monitor the situation. He may have to make a few changes,

but we're working with him on it and we realize the problem. Certainly,

as I say, it's not the intention to put him out of business, but we do

have to protect, according to the Act, the residents of that area. So

we're taking a look at the situation and I think there'll be some

progress made between the department and this particular farmer in the

very near future.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the only thing he's saying is that

the department doesn't want to put this man out of business, but he's

out of business right

[ Page 1540 ]

now. This is why I'm appealing, on the floor of this Legislature,

that they fulfil their commitment, which was to hold a public hearing

there. Can you advise me when that public hearing is going to be held?

Secondly, what kind of monitoring is taking place? I know that the

dairy has been very well inspected; the herds have been inspected every

year and the farmers have put new equipment into the dairy itself. I'm

just wondering: (

a) when will the public hearing be held, and (

b) how

soon can cabinet make a decision on this, because he is out of business

at the moment?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's really not a

public hearing as such. It's a meeting of the people in the area — the

agricultural people, the health people, and so forth. The date of the

meeting hasn't been set, but it will have to be in the very near future.

MRS. WALLACE: I notice that the personnel for the field crops

activity in this vote have apparently been reduced by five. I'm

wondering whether this is, in fact, a reduction or whether it is a

present short-staffing. If it is a reduction, I wonder if the minister

could explain just how and where and why. Is the minister looking for

the answer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's just a shift of

people to the soils branch. It's a shift within the department; it's

not really a cut-down at all.

MRS. WALLACE: So this is a shift to a different vote then?

One other question. I notice that for the Domestic Animal Protection

Act, which was funded to the sum of $50,000 in the preceding year,

there's nothing included in this vote for that particular Act. I am

wondering where it has gone or how it is being funded.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That Act was a new Act that was brought in. It's funded by the sale of licences and now it's self-sustaining.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask my usual question:

how many staff members are currently working in the department under

this vote?

There's an item — I think it would come under this vote, or possibly

vote 7, if the minister would rather deal with it there — but there has

been an outbreak of blue-tongue disease in the province, and I just....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is that a political malady?

MR. STUPICH: Well, if it affects the Social Credit, it is a political malady, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on vote 6.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I don't expect the minister knows either, Mr.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). That's why I wanted to make sure

the deputy's listening.

In any case, there has been an outbreak, Mr. Chairman, of

blue-tongue disease in the province. It has certainly affected the

cattle industry in the province, the market for breeding stock, and I

find it very hard to believe — almost inconceivable — that the same

thing is not there in other provinces. I wonder whether the minister

has raised with the federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan)

the advisability of looking a bit more closely at the cattle industry

in the rest of the country to see whether, indeed, B.C. has been

singled out for this visitation or whether it, indeed, exists in other

provinces. I was just wondering if the minister has raised this.

I know this has been talked about previously, but I would like him

to comment a little further on his attitude towards marketing boards. I

have a newspaper report here to some observations he is quoted as

making. This is dated April 9,1976. Outside the House, he — and it's

speaking of the Minister of Agriculture — said the government is going to

take a long, hard look at marketing boards. We're certainly pleased

that the money to fund the provincial marketing board is still here and

it's in this vote, but I wonder whether he has anything further to tell

us about the long, hard look that the government is going to take at

marketing boards. I wonder further.... He's quoted in this newspaper

story as saying: "B.C. farmers have the highest costs in North America

and yet produce every staple food needed for good nutrition." He said:

"In Washington State, farmland is 43 per cent cheaper, labour 25 per

cent less, and equipment between 10 and 20 per cent lower than B.C."

I'm wondering, as he talks about the cost of B.C. farm produce,

whether he associates it with the fact that we have higher costs here

or whether he relates the fact that we have marketing boards in B.C. to

the fact that our produce sells at a higher price. Does be feel that

the marketing boards are to blame for this situation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe I could answer once and for all the

member's concern about staff in the Department of Agriculture and tell

him that the normal complement of 570, which would bring it up to 100

per cent, is not in effect today. The number of persons employed in the

department is as he set it when he was Minister of Agriculture. It's

running about 480 to 485 persons in the total department — the same

today as it was when he was Minister of Agriculture — and he set the

limits due to restrictions on funds while he was Minister of

Agriculture.

[ Page 1541 ]

With regard to the blue-tongue disease, yes, testing is going on in

other provinces. We have discussed it with the federal government, and

anywhere that cattle are exported testing is going on.

With regard to marketing boards, and although most of those

statements the member was quoting me on were made in the House, yes, I

realize, and I don't want to go through it again — what I said is in

Hansard — that the costs of producing food in British Columbia are

higher than elsewhere. But that has no bearing on the fact that I've

said we'll take a look at marketing board legislation to see if it's

functioning for the benefit of the producers, for the benefit of the

marketing board, for the benefit of the consumers and for the benefit

of everybody concerned. All legislation every now and again has to have

a good hard look at it.

MR. STUPICH: I guess what I was hoping for was some

indication from the Minister of Agriculture either than he personally,

while he is in favour of having this kind of an investigation, believes

that farmers need some kind of an organization such as marketing boards

— that the Minister of Agriculture would give us his opinion on it.

Okay, so he doesn't want to prejudge it, but it seems to me that he

is acting more as a minister of another department than as a minister

of Agriculture in taking the rather standoffish attitude that he has so

far to this question of marketing boards. Perhaps they have outlived

their usefulness. Perhaps there should be some other type of

organization, but I think that as Minister of Agriculture he has some

responsibility to indicate to us either that he thinks they have

outlived their usefulness and there should be some new type of

organization that would work for the farmers, or that he does believe

that marketing boards are fulfilling that role in the best way of any

organization that he knows of so far.

With respect to my questions about staff, Mr. Chairman, we are not

really dealing with last year right now. Last year, for example, in

vote 6, it shows that we provided 465 people. During the year it was

found necessary to cut back and we did cut back in certain areas. What

I was really hoping the minister could tell us now in saying that we

are going to cut back.... We are not voting for 570 now, because you

say in the beginning you're going to cut it back by 15 per cent. So

what we are voting for is something like 490. I thought you could tell

us how that 490 are going to be distributed among these votes

differently from what is printed in the estimates. Now I appreciate

that it's not that easy if you didn't come prepared. I did warn the

previous minister that I intended to ask that sort of question, and I

was hoping the word would get around. That was in Hansard as well, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: All the member has to do is take approximately 15 per cent off each one of the votes and he'll have the figure.

Vote 6 approved.

On vote 7: special and regulatory services programmes, $4,092, 491.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I would like

to ask the minister if he is aware of what appears to be a continuing

serious problem in respect to meat inspection in the province. He may

be aware that there have been a number of retail outlets that have been

charged for marketing meat which has not been inspected. There appears

to be in the province a very serious problem. I am not now referring to

the lower mainland area where there are adequate inspection procedures.

But there are virtually no inspection procedures in about 35

slaughterhouses in this province. Even the associated boards of health

passed a resolution recently. They are also very concerned about it. I

wonder if the minister would tell us what plans his department has to

cooperate and work with the federal department in respect to this very

serious problem.

Last fall there was some concern. There was a statement made by Mr.

Bernard Hayes, the government field veterinarian, who at that time said

that the situation needed to be looked into because — he reminded us —

we did not want to have in British Columbia a similar situation that

existed in Quebec where there was a great deal of scandal and concern

about meat inspection. So perhaps the minister would tell the House

what plans the department has to provide safeguards for about half of

the people in this province who presently have no safeguards at all in

respect to meat inspection.,

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the member full

well knows, all the meat within meat inspection areas is inspected. We

are working with the federal government to provide a joint programme so

all meat.... But you must realize.... I don't know when all the areas

will have inspectors. There has also been a cutback in the hours of

work. We have some problems in that area and we realize the problems

and we are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the $100,000 figure

that was allowed last year for the biological control banks has been

cut in half this year. I think that was basically aimed at the codling

moth in the Similkameen, and I understood this was to be extended to

the Okanagan this year. I am wondering how this can be done with a

reduction of 50 per cent, cut in half actually. I am also wondering if

there is

[ Page 1542 ]

any relationship to the fact that there is a $50,000 new item for

acquisition of machinery and equipment, whether or not those are

related in any way and what that machinery and equipment is. If it is

not related to the control, would the minister advise us what that is

related to?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's

query with regard to the insect biological control, I think the member

should realize that last year the facilities were built for the codling

moth project. So that was one of the reasons for the higher budget.

This year we don't have to build those facilities. The project is

carrying on — consequently the lesser amount.

With regard to the machinery and equipment, you know, we've agreed

to convert to metric and that amount of money is in there to assist us

in that steady conversion which is taking place.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the youth development programme,

while it still has the same number of people involved in the youth

development, the budget has been cut decidedly, by $30,000 in fact.

I'm concerned about this because I'm very concerned about making the

young people aware of the advantages of farm life and training them up

for future farm life. I'm wondering in just what way this is being

reduced.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As the member should or should not know,

last year the salaries were estimated. There were negotiations taking

place this year. It's a cut-and-dried figure. There's no reduction in

the number of people.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, you know, for the uninitiated one

gets the impression that because the minister's moving his mouth he's

saying something. I asked him a question and he moved his mouth quite a

bit but he didn't say anything. Now are you...?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, you didn't, Don. You got up there and made a little speech and you never said anything.

Well, are you working with the federal people? You know, it's the

federal people that appear to be taking the initiative in this case —

not the department but the federal people. You know, this is a very

serious problem for the consumer. What we don't want are people getting

ill or dying from the fact that they're eating contaminated meat. It's

not something that you feel that you can deal with just in passing.

It's a very serious thing and needs to be addressed almost immediately,

particularly in respect to the health of people.

Vote 7 approved.

On vote 8: general and financial services, $48,236,746.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, during the

minister's vote I indicated that I'd hoped that he might give some

indication about the future of some of the agricultural enterprises in

which the government is involved by way of either an equity position, a

loan guarantee or a direct loan. In particular I would say to the

minister that I don't see any problems that I'm aware of with Creston

Co-operative Packers, although it would be interesting to know what the

minister's opinion is. The Creston Co-op Packers is a fruit-packing

cooperative with which we have a loan guarantee.

However, Kootenay Dehy has run into what is probably a normal type

of start-up problem. The minister would probably have some experience

of what the expectations should be for an alfalfa dehydrating entity as

he has one also in South Peace. I would like to know particularly as a

director of Swan Valley Foods. This is a very specific question here. I

note in the resumé of orders-in-council that it says that a grant of

$500,000 was made to Swan Valley Foods on last April 27. It would

appear probably not to be a grant, but probably in making up the resumé

there was perhaps some slight error. Maybe it's a further loan

guarantee or something. I'd like the minister to answer that.

As I said, because some people were waiting to start work and had

anticipated that they would be able to get jobs with the sort of phase

two of starting the vegetable-processing plant in Creston — and to my

knowledge things haven't started up yet — I'd like to know why the

delay and, you know, whether there are difficulties, et cetera, and, as

the director of the company, what is the minister's general impression

of the operation, which is one of which I think we can be very proud.

I know that a lot of interest has been shown in other countries and

by some of the major corporations in Canada and North America. I'd like

to know a little bit about whether the minister has any comments on the

dehy plant and also, as a director, specifically what the $500,000 is

about. I didn't get a chance to read the order-in-council itself but

just the resumé; and I think it might be misleading to me. What is the

present situation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's

question, No. 1 with regard to Creston Co-op Packers, we have no

requests at the present time from them for any more money. They're

operating. Everything's fine so far as I'm concerned.

With regard to the Kootenay Dehy, we've had no appeal from them. It's not a grant; it's a loan. It's

[ Page 1543 ]

under debenture. We're always ready to take a look at our

operations, always reviewing them to see if they're functioning and so

forth.

MRS. WALLACE: This vote is the one that has the very large

amount of money for the temporary staff. The minister will remember

that I raised this earlier in the debate under his salary. I'm

wondering if he could give us at this point some breakdown on just what

he is proposing in this quite dramatic increase of temporary people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there again it's a shift in

staff. If you look down below you will see where we've taken away and

we've added, and we've added and taken away. It's just a shift in the

vote, that's all.

MRS. WALLACE: It's a shift in the vote. Well, you've got 146 people up here, compared to 147 regular. So that's only one person different.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I said a shift in the vote to the expenses.

MRS. WALLACE: You're having more labour and less something

else? I really don't understand the minister's answer, Mr. Chairman.

Could he clarify it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you look at, for instance, code 04,

it's increased by approximately $160,000. If you look at code 20,

you'll see a decrease by a similar amount. So it's just a shift.

MRS. WALLACE: One further question, Mr. Chairman, on a

different subject — that is, farm income assurance. We have discussed

this in some detail, I know, but I am concerned as to how the minister

hopes to cover the required moneys. He did indicate that if more was

needed he would see that it was made available by means of a

supplement. I would just like a reassurance of this because certainly

the figures that I have, based on what was paid out last year, and with

the new programmes and the problems that are appearing in both the beef

and the apple industry this year, we could well be into a position

where this $27,000 is far from adequate for farm income assurance.

I wonder if I could have the minister's assurance that there will be

moneys available for these, and also if there is any proposal to

continue negotiations and get some of the other programmes covered. I

think there are some which were certainly slated for covering this year

and which have not yet been negotiated.

MR. STUPICH: I don't think the member for Cowichan-Malahat

really feels satisfied, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow up on this

farm income assurance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind you again that

questions can be asked either singly or in groups, but we cannot insist

on an answer.

MR. STUPICH: Under farm income assurance, Mr. Chairman, I

would like to ask a few more questions. There were eight commodity

groups signed up under the programme on December 11. I believe that

since then a contract has been signed by the blueberry growers. I

wonder whether or not the lamb producers...whether or not a contract

has been signed there. I wonder whether there is a common expiry for

all nine or 10 commodity groups, whatever the situation is. I wonder

whether the minister is currently looking at any other programmes, any

other commodity groups.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question: the

sheep-lamb is just about ready to be signed. All the programmes are

still continuing to be five-year programmes.

MR. STUPICH: That's five years from the common date?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, five years from the date of

inception — in other words, it's the date that the programme starts.

It's a five-year date, right? So if a programme comes on stream in, for

instance, 1975, then it will expire in 1980. It's not a common date.

Does that answer your question there?

MR. STUPICH: That'll do.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to new programmes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. We can only have one member; this is the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to new

programmes, we're looking at vegetables, particularly potatoes. I don't

know whether we're going to go into the rest of the root crops or not.

MR. STUPICH: Under the Agricultural Credit Programme, the

interest reimbursement rate last year was 8 per cent for ordinary

loans, or very close to 8, and 8.5 per cent for loans that require

government guarantee. I wonder what the rate is for this year. I

haven't heard it announced.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we haven't got the exact

answer to that, but I would be happy if you'd put in on the order paper

and we'll provide it

[ Page 1544 ]

to you.

MR. STUPICH: Farm Products Improvement Act interest

reimbursement: I notice that it's a blank opposite this item this year.

I wonder whether it has been included in another figure. Is that why

it's not there? I can't imagine that it is intended that there not be

any reimbursement under this programme.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as the member should know, we have a $10 million fund for that.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to go back one more time to farm

income assurance. I have had several farmers coming to me and

complaining about the slowness in their payments.

I notice there are four people allocated to handling farm income

assurance, and it seems to be rather accepted that this is a very heavy

workload for these four people. Now I'm wondering, inasmuch as there's

going to be a reduction rather than an increase in staffing here, if

there's any provision to do some switching around with personnel so

these payments can be processed a little more in line with the time in

which they're due.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister was scratching his head on that one. I think he was going to try to answer it.

I'd like to ask one more question: previously, in the month of

January, we attempted to reach agreement with the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture on the broad parameters of the agreement for the following

year — that is, with respect to rates for labour and any other general

changes in the formula — and I hadn't heard that agreement was reached

in January. I haven't even heard that it's been reached by May. I

wonder whether agreement has indeed been reached, and whether it was by

negotiation, as the federation talked about in their brief, or whether

they were simply handed a figure.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's question, the matter is still under negotiation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whew!

Vote 8 approved.

On vote 9: Milk Board, $158,664.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister suggested earlier,

when I was raising questions about 15 per cent reductions in staff,

that all you had to do was take 15 per cent across the board and it

would work out. Now I do understand that one of the areas where it

would be very difficult to effect any kind of a reduction, and where

they probably need more, is the Milk Board. At least, they're behind in

their work. From what I know of that department, they're not a

department that would be behind in their work if there was any possible

way of keeping up.

I'd like to take this opportunity, if I may, Mr. Chairman, of

telling you just how wonderful they are, I think. They are extremely

hard working, very conscientious, and did their best to serve the

farmers of the province and the agricultural industry of the province.

I think the minister should be more aware of that and should perhaps

take time out occasionally to check with his department and find out

what is going on. He might have a much better view of his own

department and of the agricultural industry if he would take the time

out to visit with his staff and with the agricultural industry itself.

But I do understand that calculations in the Milk Board office are

months behind; that, with respect to the MSQ calculations, for example

— I believe money for that is available by means of a levy on the

producers themselves, and yet the staff are not there to do the job —

the money is available, the money is piling up, and the work is not

being done. At least, that's my understanding of it. I wonder whether

the minister really wants me to believe that they're going to get along

with less people than the figure printed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'd like to tell him that there has been a staff member added of recent date.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another one!

Vote 9 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF CONSUMER SERVICES

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

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman,

I would like, with your leave, to take this opportunity to make one or

two observations about my department which may assist the members

opposite in any questions they may have of me. I make these

observations, Mr. Chairman, because, as you know, the department is a

new one. While it may not be new to the members opposite who were in

the House at its formation, it is new to me, and I know there are one

or two members opposite who might very well be pleased to hear one or

two words on the department.

We were established in November, 1973, Mr. Chairman, with five

offices: two in Vancouver, one in Kamloops, one in Prince George and

one in Victoria. We administer approximately 14 statutes, including

[ Page 1545 ]

the Trade Practices Act, the Consumer Protection Act, the Debtor

Assistance Act, motor dealer licensing provisions of the Motor-vehicle

Act, Personal Information Reporting Act, Pyramid Distributors Act, and

others.

We take approximately, Mr. Chairman, 500 consumers weekly into the

storefront offices with one thing or other on their minds. Over 8,000

files were opened in the last year involving consumer complaints.

Nearly $400,000, Mr. Chairman, was returned to consumers as a result of

our activities in that regard. We also operate — and I might say, Mr.

Chairman, this came as a great surprise to me, the success of this

operation — the debtor assistance programme, which basically provides

counselling services and other services under the Orderly Payment of

Debts Act. Last year it returned approximately $700,000 of consumer

debt which might otherwise not have been paid. I think it's safe to

say, Mr. Chairman, that this year well over $1 million will be returned

as a result of these efforts.

I might say also, Mr. Chairman, that I was very pleased to note that

not only were we providing a service to British Columbians who found

themselves in financial difficulties, but at the same time we

maintained an excellent relationship with consumer and community

organizations, the courts and other credit organizations.

Mr. Chairman, between October 24 last year and February 16 this year

the department monitored the provincial price freeze. We handled during

that time over 4,200 inquiries and investigated approximately 400

formal complaints. I am pleased to say that we maintained close liaison

with the principal retailers and wholesalers, and I might say that also

in our monitoring programme to date, which is continuing, we maintain

those cordial relations. I am happy to say that two members of the

opposition accompanied me last week to our office to look over the

monitoring service, and I think they would be the first to agree that

we are, indeed, doing an adequate job — more than an adequate job,

considering the resources available to us.

We administer in addition the Trade Practices Act, which is really a

pilot statute in Canada concerning the marketplace and protection of

consumers. It sets out for the first time the various no-noes in the

consumer field to guide the vendors in the marketplace and has its

principal — I would hesitate to use the word "weapon" — feature,

perhaps, what is called the ensurance of voluntary compliance, which is

a method by which the vendor can, without admitting his fault and

without admitting he has transgressed any of the sections of the Act,

nevertheless agree that he will not employ those practices in future.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, we also administer the trade liaison division which is

a division of our branch which is, as the words suggest, devoted to

maintaining contact with the business community and letting them know

what we are doing and why we're doing it.

We maintain also, Mr. Chairman, a very unique project called our

"bed squad, " which is the services of four quadriplegic patients who,

for obvious reasons, maintain anonymity and do basic market research

for us by watching television, listening to the radio and things of

that sort. I am happy to say that this is copies in other parts of

Canada and the United States and Australia.

We maintain a certain amount of community group funding. This is

rather modest. Its principal reason is to fulfill a need where we

cannot, as a department, do it ourselves.

We also have a consumer education programme. This is a kit which

goes out to secondary schools. Over 1,700 kits this year have gone out

to various schools.

We have maintained a federal contract, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased

and privileged to attend the ministers' conference in Toronto on

February 16 last along with my deputy and other supportive staff. I say

I am pleased because the problems that we have in the

federal-provincial field relate very closely to our department. We have

a number of problems coming up in the future concerning what we

consider to be invasions of the provincial field. I am happy to say

that our department is very much on top of these problems and I think

we'll be able to represent British Columbia more adequately in that

regard.

Mr. Chairman, this is a brief rundown of the Department of Consumer Services for the help and edification of the members.

MS. SANFORD: I'd like to start today with a compliment to the

minister. Mr. Minister, you have a fine department. I am pleased that

you took the time the other day to show us through the monitoring

services that were available within your department, and I agree that

they are doing a fine job.

I am also pleased that there is such a department. The previous

government recognized the multitude of problems that were facing

consumers in this province and set up the department. At the same time,

the previous minister (Ms. Young) was able to bring in some of the best

consumer protection legislation in North America.

I would also like to compliment the previous minister for doing such

a fine job of obtaining topnotch staff for that department. The deputy

minister (Mr. Neilson) is one of the ablest people in Canada in the

field of consumer affairs and I feel that the former minister, and

hence the people of British Columbia, were fortunate to be able to

engage his services. I compliment you, Mr. Minister, for keeping

[ Page 1546 ]

him on and not giving him the boot, as happened to some of the other

deputy ministers. But the need has been there for a long time and I

think that the statistics that you gave us with respect to the services

that you're providing for the people of British Columbia indicate that

need.

The old Act of 1967, the Consumer Protection Act, was not nearly

adequate to do the job for the consumers of B.C. There was one consumer

affairs officer and a secretary. No attempt was made by the previous

government to publicize the existence of the consumer affairs officer.

He therefore remained somewhat in limbo, and I am sure he felt

frustrated many times because of that.

The consumers throughout the province are finally becoming aware of

their rights, and that there is a department that can give them some

assistance. I think that's thanks to the fact that the department was

established a couple of years ago and also thanks to the publications

which have been made available, as you say, through the schools and to

the general public. Publications such as Personal and Confidential and

this little one on the Trade Practices Act and You have all served to

make the public more aware of their rights as consumers in British

Columbia.

Now it's regrettable that various consumer groups that, as you

pointed out in your opening remarks, have been of great assistance are

not getting the funding that was available to them last year. You are

probably aware that cuts have been made there and that some groups are

not being funded.

But to show the need, you just have to look at the history of what

has been happening here. In 1970 there were only 54 consumer complaints

per month. By 1971 about 62, about a 15 per cent increase. In 1972 the

level was up to 67 complaints per month. But it was in January of 1973

that Phyllis Young, in a free-time political broadcast, revealed the

existence of the consumer affairs officer, and then the dam broke. In

the ensuing nine months complaints averaged 163 per month, a 142 per

cent increase over the 1972 figures. And this year, according to your

annual report, they are up another 109 per cent over last year with

some 661 complaints being handled by your department per month.

Many of my own constituents have benefited from the debtor's

assistance, or in receiving satisfaction from some firms. I'm pleased

that I'm able to refer them to the department and know that they are

going to get service.

I would also like to compliment you on your statement in your

opening remarks just now. I know it's going to be tough, but you made

reference to the fine job that was being done in terms of advising

debtors and the amount of money that people who are in debt have been

able to repay through the debt counselling available through your

department. I hope, Mr. Minister, this means that you have adopted a

different attitude from the one you displayed in the paper on

Wednesday, January 7. I've never heard that you retracted any

statements there, or made any attempt to clarify your statement. I'm

quoting from the particular

article on Wednesday, January 7, at which

time you said: "I think one of the character builders of this world is

to allow people to take the initiative and get kicked in the ass until

they finally learn to take their lumps."

That was in reference to people who get into debt in this province.

I hope that the minister's remarks when he was introducing this

particular subject today indicate that he's had a change of attitude

there.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I was quoting, true.

I would like at this time to emphasize the fact that the department

is an excellent one, that we in British Columbia are fortunate to have

legislation which protects us as well as it does.

An

article in the Montreal Gazette was written way back in June of

last year by a Mr. Nick Hills, and I think it is valuable in terms of

pointing out that we do have a good department in this province:

"British Columbia's Trade Practices Act is the

toughest piece of consumer legislation in the country. It gives the

Barrett government the most wide-ranging powers to deal with abuses in

the marketplace, yet it has won the acceptance of the business

community at which it is directly aimed. If this NDP government has

worked one acceptable revolution almost overnight it is in consumer

affairs.

"Under the old Social Credit government of W.A.C.

Bennett, consumer protection was an administrative afterthought, run

essentially by one civil servant in the Attorney-General's department.

Today it is a separate $2-million-a-year department with powers so

broad they could easily be abused by uncaring bureaucrats. Instead, the

department is building a reputation for using friendly persuasion

rather than the full weight of the law to stop abuses and deceptions in

the marketplace.

"However, when the Director of Trade Practices, Mike

Hanson, has gone to court, he has been remarkably, indeed often

sensationally, successful. The legislation has made the government the

legal agent for every consumer in the province. It can intervene on

behalf of a consumer whenever the department's lawyers feel there is a

case that has to be prosecuted. On the other hand, it can go to court

in defence of a consumer who is being sued by a seller." And so on.

The

article is really very complimentary and, as I

[ Page 1547 ]

say, was written last June with respect to the legislation and the department set up under the previous administration.

So today the consumers have a department; they have some very good

legislation, but more is needed, and I think the minister recognizes

that, There are now storefront offices in four communities — five

offices all told — but more are needed. And yet, Mr. Minister, the

consumers in this province are in deep, deep trouble.

At a recent meeting in Vancouver East you expressed alarm at the

huge increase in the cost of living as measured by Statistics Canada.

Mr. Minister, you, not your department, have failed the consumers of

this province. You have failed them by not raising your voice in

cabinet loud enough to prevent the kind of attack that's taking place

on consumers in this province today.

It is the decisions taken by cabinet, by this government, that are

largely responsible for the jump in the increase in the cost of living

— ICBC, sales tax, medicare premiums, ferry rates, What about the added

costs that are now attached to the patient who must fly out and pay for

the nurse on board? What about the fact that the rent ceiling, instead

of 8 per cent, went up again to 10.6? What about the fact that

commercial rents are not under any kind of controls at all? Mr.

Minister, you are responsible to the consumers of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MS. SANFORD: All right. Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister....

HON. MR. MAIR: I always get nervous when she wants to get at me.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, that minister should be informed

that it is his responsibility, as the minister responsible for

consumers in this province, to stand up in that cabinet and raise such

a ruckus that we don't have these kinds of attacks, one after the

other, taking place against the consumers of this province. What are

you doing in cabinet? Do you speak on behalf of the consumers? Mr.

Chairman, through you, does the minister speak in cabinet on behalf of

the consumers? Do you speak out when they talk about 100 per cent ferry

rate increase?

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): 150 per cent.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, 150 in many cases.

You mentioned in a speech on Friday in Campbell River in my riding —

and I was there on Saturday and spoke to many of the people who were

there — and you also mentioned in your letter which you have prepared

to The Daily Colonist in response to their headline today that your

attention has been directed to commuter fares between Vancouver Island

and the Gulf Islands, and the suggestion was made that increases were

several hundred per cent and thus unjust, and you made the off-the-cuff

remark that yours was a government that would always take a second

look, particularly when an injustice was alleged.

Mr. Chairman, the injustices that have happened to the consumers of this province

since that government was elected are enough to warrant a second, a third and

a fourth look. I expect that that minister will stand in his place in cabinet

and raise his voice to say: "Look, no more attacks on the consumers of

this province."

Then we have the Premier going back to Ottawa and calling for a $2

increase in the price of a barrel of oil. What did he say to that in

cabinet? Was he willing to accept that kind of increase to the

consumers of this province? Mr. Chairman, the only measure to fight

inflation, as taken by this government, is that a $3 bill has now

become a $2 bill.

One thing is that the minister could go to cabinet at this stage,

point out to the Premier, point out to cabinet, that even if the Prime

Minister goes ahead with the recommendations made by this Premier that

the price of a barrel of oil be raised by $2, they can refuse to pass

it on to the customers of B.C. You have that authority under the Energy

Act. I expect you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to stand in

cabinet and say: "The consumers of this province have suffered too much

already, and we have the authority under the Energy Act not to pass on

those increases to the customers of this province, no matter what the

oil companies do, nor what the federal government does." That authority

is there, Mr. Minister, and I hope that you will comment on that when

you get up in response.

The decisions which are made affect everybody in the province, but,

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the people who are hardest hit

are those in the northern parts of the province and those who live on

Vancouver Island, particularly the northern part of Vancouver Island.

I wonder if the minister is aware that a return trip by ferry from

communities like Port Hardy, Port Alice, Port McNeill for car and

driver alone is $70 under the new rates. I don't think the minister was

even aware of that — $70 return trip.

On top of that they are going to be faced with increases in gasoline

prices if the $2 a barrel goes through and if the government does not

act under the Energy Act to prevent that from being passed on.

Mr. Chairman, it's an attack on the consumers of this province. I

think that the Minister of Consumer Services has failed the consumers

of the province by

[ Page 1548 ]

going along with these and not raising enough ruckus in cabinet to

make the changes that are necessary. But I think it is an idea at this

stage to have a second look at the ferry rate increases.

You mention here in your letter to the editor to The Daily Colonist ,

which you tabled in the House today, that the government is always

prepared to do so. I would suggest that on behalf of the consumers that

minister go to cabinet and ask for a review of those ferry rates. When

you realize that residents living up in the Port McNeill-Port Hardy

area pay $70 return, and they pay more than that if they live at

Sointula or at Alert Bay because then they are required to take three

ferries to get to Vancouver....

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty dollars a month for foot passengers from Gibsons now.

MS. SANFORD: It's far too much, and that minister responsible

for Consumer Services should go to the cabinet and call for a review of

those ferry rates. If he is successful there, perhaps on behalf of the

consumers of the province he could make some inquiries about the sales

tax, a 40 per cent increase. Why not reduce it? Perhaps he could go to

them and talk about the medicare premiums or the hospital premiums, the

co-insurance that's charged there. There's a whole list of increases

that this government has brought in, and the Minister of Consumer

Services is the one who should be in cabinet speaking on behalf of the

consumers and saying: "This is an attack which they cannot afford!"

There are many people who are going to be hard hit by this, but to

some of them it's going to be financially crippling. I don't know if

the minister is aware of that, but I can certainly cite instance after

instance where the cumulative effect of the changes is going to be

crippling.

Neale Adams, in an

article in The Vancouver Sun , points out

that to the average family the increases which people in this province

are going to have to pay as a result of increased taxes and decisions

made by that government are going to come to $850 a month just to stay

even. That does not count any increases in food prices or escalating

costs or anything else.

The point is that so many of these are cumulative. When you have a

$2 increase in the price of oil, a barrel of oil, it affects not only

what the people are paying for gasoline in their tanks or the oil that

they put in their barrels at home to heat their homes with. It has a

cumulative effect that goes into almost everything in terms of the cost

of production, cost of manufacturing, and people pay again and again

and again.

Mr. Chairman, one of the Acts for which the minister is responsible

has to do with advertising. He did make mention of a kit which has been

prepared and sent out to the various schools. I would like to

compliment him on this kit. I don't know if this was prepared under

your administration. It doesn't say whether this was done by the

previous minister or by yourself. But I am quite pleased with the

teacher's guide that has been made available on consumer education. I

think that the material which is contained in this will be of

assistance to young people who are soon going to be barraged by

advertising on all sides. And, of course, advertising pays, as they

say, which means that consumers will be spending more and more money as

a result of the barrage of advertising which hits them from all media.

The fact that this particular booklet gives teachers and students

some information about the amount of money that is spent by major

corporations on advertising should give them some idea of what targets

they are as consumers in this province. I think if teachers can get

across the message that is contained in this booklet about advertising

and what it does in this society, I think that the department is doing

a good service.

I would like to quote just a few of the figures that are contained

in this booklet. For instance, the Canada Proctor and Gamble is the

leading advertiser, spending $9.48 million a year in advertising in

Canada. In the United States they are spending $310 million in

advertising. General Foods — $8.94 million in Canada; General Foods

in the United States, $180 million in advertising. If students become

aware of this kind of advertising, of money that is spent trying to

convince people to buy their products, they might become more

discriminating and less influenced by that whole field of advertising.

The same booklet contains one comment, and I think that if students

throughout the province understand this, they may become better

shoppers. This is a comment made by John Uri, director of TV

commercials: "One of the most important things about advertising is

that we're professionals and the consumer is an amateur." Information

like this will help students overcome their amateur status in this

country and will make them somewhat a better match for the advertisers

who use every means at their disposal to convince people to buy their

product.

There is one other comment by John Uri contained in the booklet

which I would like to read into the record. He says: "That's what

advertising is all about. It's called giving to the most number of

people a message that will make them purchase the most amount of

product." If young people going into the world recognize that's what

advertising is all about, then I think they will be less prone to the

whims of the advertising industry.

There is an ad which appeared in several of the newspapers not too

long ago which I would like to draw to your attention. I don't know if

this has been brought to your attention or not. It's Wednesday,

[ Page 1549 ]

April 28, in the Colonist, and it advertises Skippy peanut butter. I

am concerned about this ad. I hope that the minister has had this

particular ad drawn to his attention. It's full-page ad and at the top

in very, very small letters — you almost need a magnifying glass to

read it — it says "advertisement." But nowhere else is there an

indication that this entire page is advertisement. There is a picture

of a group of people carrying placards in front of the parliament

buildings in Ottawa saying: "Skippy-dipping is fun!" Then there is a

comment underneath the picture which indicates as though it is a

regular press story. Mr. Chairman, one of the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you in there Skippy-dipping?

MS. SANFORD: No!

One of the so-called articles, which is really part of this same ad,

refers to the UN. I would like to read just this little

section and

point out to you that I think this is misleading advertising which your

department should look into. The headline says: "UN To Study Possible

Benefits To World Health." The

article says, and it's part of the ad,

of course: "In a meeting of the UN today, usually cautious

representatives from the underprivileged countries praised

Skippy-dipping and called it 'the answer to the problems of a hungry

world.' "

This kind of thing may not fool you and it may not fool me, but it

is written in such a way that I think it could very well be construed

as misleading advertising. I would ask that you look into this. In

fact, if you don't have a copy of the ad, I'd be happy to send it over

so that you can study it and reply to it.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): The trouble is the minister's a Skippy-dipper. (Laughter.)

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I was

disappointed to learn, through the answer to my question which you

tabled in the House, that you are not monitoring food prices anywhere

in the province except in Vancouver and the places where you actually

have your offices. I think it is your responsibility, in view of the

fact that food prices are escalating — and this is one product which

everyone, of course, must have — to undertake to expand your

monitoring. As it is now, you are not aware of the costs to residents

of the northern part of Vancouver Island or Campbell River, or in many

parts of the province. I think generally — in fact, I know generally —

the costs in those areas are higher than they are in the lower mainland.

I think you should also attempt, Mr. Minister, to do as Saskatchewan

has done — that is, to publish the results of the monitoring that they

have undertaken.

The province of Saskatchewan undertook a survey which they did in

six communities. In two of these communities they actually published

the results of their survey and they found that the food prices dropped

in the two communities where they published the results of the surveys

taken in the various supermarkets in the area.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that you should undertake to

initiate the same scheme here in British Columbia. The department in

Saskatchewan undertook this programme for a period of five months or

so. Mr. Chairman, I think I will leave the

section with respect to

monitoring of food prices in Saskatchewan and bring them up at a later

time.

But I would like to review that I think that the Minister of

Consumer Services has been a failure in terms of protecting the

interests of consumers in this province because he, as a member of

cabinet, has not raised his voice loud enough to prevent the kinds of

attacks — and there is a whole list of attacks — that have taken place

against the consumers of this province.

I hope that he will be able to convince the government that they

should not pass on the increase in gasoline and oil prices, as they

have the right to do under the Energy Act, and I hope that the

minister, as he has the jurisdiction over Consumer Services in the

province, will speak on their behalf in cabinet to prevent that from

happening.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I must say that while I liked it

much better when the member opposite was being nice to me, I felt a

great deal more comfortable when she wasn't.

I'd like to deal with one or two of the points she made. I'm sure

that if I don't deal with all of them, she'll raise them again.

On the question of grants, Madam Member....

MR. WALLACE: You're getting the message that you have to answer questions over there!

HON. MR. MAIR: That's easy to say when all you have to do is ask them.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll give you some answers if you just listen.

HON. MR. MAIR: I hope it never gets that bad.

Madam Member, I would like to point out that we are this year

spending more money in grants than last year. It's true that they're

not all going in the same place. However, more money is going out. You

have made a great deal of the department's administering consumer law,

which was necessary for a long time, and I'm very happy to have that

compliment to my department. I think it ought to be pointed out,

however, that most of the statutes that I administer

[ Page 1550 ]

in that regard really do no more, no less, than enshrine rights that

were already at common law. However, I recognize that that's good and

that it's only proper that consumers should have those laws enshrined.

However, it is not as if the laws appeared two or three years ago where

they weren't before.

I think that one of the points you were trying to make in your

questions was the value our department has, not only in just looking

after complaints that come in. After all, they may or may not be

justified. But the even greater role it plays, in my view, is that it

acts as a lightning rod. It takes from the consumer transaction the

heat which otherwise would be generated between vendor and purchaser.

To that extent I think it's performed a very great service indeed.

Now you made mention of a statement I was quoted as having made in

January. I don't intend to go into it except to say that my own

personal attitude is not as reflected in that statement. My own

personal attitude is simply that the consumer does need protection in

the marketplace, deserves protection, and as long as I'm in this

portfolio I will try to see that the consumer gets protection in the

marketplace.

Now Madam Member, you have made a great deal about the inadequacy of

my voice in cabinet. I presume that you're not dealing in that regard

with the loudness of my voice but the quality of the statements that I

make. I want to make this perfectly clear, once and for all. We have

made in cabinet a great number of decisions which have been difficult

decisions, hard decisions, decisions that nobody likes to make. I was

part of all those decisions. I am very proud to have been part of those

decisions and I don't, in any way, deviate from the decisions I made.

I'm quite pleased that I made them and helped make them. I supported

the decisions vocally and I continue to support them.

Dealing specifically with the ferry rates, Madam Member, I'm glad....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Minister, would you address the Chair, please?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, through you to the

member, the question of ferry rates. I'm delighted that the member was

in her constituency after I addressed the meeting on Friday night,

because she will know that I made it perfectly plain to the people at

that meeting that the ferry system now was subsidized to the same

extent as the highway system, to the same extent as the highway that

runs in front of my place in Kamloops...and that I felt that that was

fair.

I must say that the statement was not received with any great

enthusiasm. However, the statement was made and I was given credit for

having said so. I think that that is the correct statement of my

feelings on the matter now.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I'm very pleased that she

has enjoyed the kit on advertising and I'm very happy to advise the

member that a kit on credit is now also being prepared which will

hopefully, if it passes, go through to the schools and advise them on

matters of that sort.

I think that I have answered in general the questions that the

member raised, Mr. Chairman, in her opening remarks, so I will take my

seat.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, during these estimates I would

like to cover a pretty specific topic and a general philosophy that

seems to be emanating from the office of this minister. I would point

out to the minister that as concerned consumers both my wife and I are

endeavouring to carry on our own monitoring of supermarket price

increases. In general one might recognize that there are decreases in

some areas and increases in others and perhaps be complacent about

that. There are some very specific areas in terms of some of the paper

articles and such which are rising, and I hope the minister will be

very vigilant and constantly keeping on top of these things and

questioning them.

The specific concern I have today concerns the denial of funding to

the Consumer Action League office in Nelson. This is a community office

in Nelson, Mr. Chairman, which predates the Department of Consumer

Services. Through the actions of concerned people in Nelson a service

was offered, and then they did receive funding once the department was

established and had funds allocated for that purpose. I suppose in

combing back through my files I might find a few times when the

Consumer Action League, with its objective attitude, was perhaps

critical of some action taken by government when I was a member on the

government side of the House. Nonetheless, they have done a very

important service and a very much needed service in an area from which

one would have to travel, I suppose, about 300 miles to get to another

office.

I was particularly puzzled by the action which did away with the

West Kootenay Consumer Action League. As an example of some of the work

they did, in 1975 they had 734 requests for assistance not to mention

the little things that are just told over the counter. These are things

in which they actually got engaged and opened up files.

They were open 232