[ 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 resources of this province if the government of Canada would socialize 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 days out of the year. The average requests per day were 3.16. That might not sound like a lot, but it is when one realizes the amount of research that's required. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that as a Member of the Legislative Assembly you realize that sometimes if somebody comes to you with a problem about the guaranteed income supplement as it affects Mincome, for

[ Page 1551 ]

instance, 15 hours of phoning back and forth to various people and various things may be gone towards dealing with some sort of an anomaly. These types of complaints, if you're going to take action with them, can each mean hours of research.

The unresolved cases still on their files were 43. They opened a file on 316 and they handled immediately 413 cases.

If one looks at it one sees 98 debt-and-credit problems and 41 landlord-tenant problems — because we do not have an office of the rentalsman right in Nelson, and it is important that we have some recourse.

Of course, a lot of these people come to my office and a lot of people go to the government agent, but people do go to the Consumer Action League. No one agency could handle all of them.

There were 39 specific complaints about mobile homes, which are a very common form of residence in my area and subject of a lot of consumer complaints. When you're talking about 39 complaints, that represents a lot of dollars. They were the subject of a great deal of complaint made to the Audain Commission, and there were specific recommendations from the Audain Commission to the Department of Consumer Services in terms of mobile homes.

There were 213 sale-of-goods complaints — some things which maybe shouldn't have gone there but did; unemployment insurance, 11; Workers' Compensation Board, 4; welfare, 21; car sales, 40; car repairs, 68. These are some of the very important services that have been provided. If one breaks them down into other categories, you can look at them in different ways. It served not only Nelson — there were 450 inquiries arising in Nelson — but 146 from Trail, 59 from Castlegar, 30 from Salmo and 66 from Slocan, so it served a bit of an area.

It is my understanding that funding for this agency has been discontinued and not renewed. It's rather surprising to me when one looks at some recent news releases. April 8, 1976:

"The Hon. K. Rafe Mair, Minister of Consumer Services, and the Hon. William Vander Zalm, Minister of Human Resources and MLA for Surrey, announced jointly today the department had awarded a grant of $15,864 to the Surrey Intercession Society, a non-profit organization providing consumer assistance, debt-counselling and referral services. The grant is a renewal of the initial grant made last year and covers the 1976-77 fiscal year."

They go on to praise this organization begun in 1972 as a crisis centre and evolved into a consumer agency in Surrey.

There is a regional office in Vancouver; at least it is my understanding that there is, Mr. Chairman. Now I don't say that this isn't needed, but I would like the minister to inform me whether there is a storefront office. From the way he's jotting down vigorously, he's perhaps going to make some semantic point about whether or not it was regional or not.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: No, okay. But, you know, it would seem to me that people can commute, Mr. Chairman, from Surrey to Vancouver a lot more easily than they can get from Nelson or Trail over to Kamloops or some other regional office.

In another press release of April 9: "The Hon. K. Rafe Mair, Minister of Consumer Services, and Mr. Sam Bawlf, MLA for Victoria, announced jointly today that the department has awarded a grant of $9,264 to the Victoria Community Action group." I understand that consumer-related activities will be aided by legal services provided by the organization, et cetera. It has maintained a useful public service for the Victoria community. Said Mr. Bawlf: "I am pleased to see that they will be able to continue this important local work." So something which was started earlier is allowed to continue in Victoria. Underneath the Department of Housing at the storefront level there is a storefront office of the Department of Consumer services. I'm not saying that this other group doesn't serve a purpose and that it shouldn't be funded, but, again, for people in Victoria, they have a choice of places to go. I suppose if they have consumer problems they can go to the department's office or they can go to the Victoria community action group which, I assume, is in Victoria. Now it's jointly with Mr. Bawlf, as it says in there.

Another announcement of April 9, 1976:

"The Hon. K. Rafe Mair, Minister of Consumer Services, and Mr. Harvey Schroeder, MLA for Chilliwack, announced jointly today that Matsqui-Sumas-Abbotsford Community Services Association will receive a grant of $17,400 to continue its community work in consumer matters. The grant extends from April, 1976, to March, 1977. The Department granted $12,000 to MSA Community Services in 1975."

There's an increase, Mr. Chairman, of $5,400 to this group which I am sure is providing a much-needed service. You know, that isn't a great deal of money for the type of service I am sure they are providing there in Chilliwack and, of course, announced jointly by the minister and by the member for Chilliwack.

On April 14, the minister announced that he had presented a cheque for $37,000 to the B.C. branch of the Consumers' Association of Canada. Well, their interest is certainly different. That in no way reinforces services already existing in a certain area. I assume that is the organization sort of headed by

[ Page 1552 ]

Ruth Lotzkar. They do a good job, and I don't argue with that. I don't argue with any of these grants, except that I see a pattern developing, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pattern which, unless I'm given some very good reasons to the contrary, would indicate pork-barrelling in the Department of Consumer Services. Because it has been a department above politics. I think it's been a department in which the incoming...well, legislation was pretty well unanimously supported, but now we see that it seems like Social Credit-held ridings get renewal of grants. They get increases in grants. They get increases in grants in areas which you can communicate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're not impugning any wrongdoing on the part of any member or minister in this House?

MR. NICOLSON: I don't know that politics is wrongdoing — you know, if blatant politics is wrongdoing.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You're supposed to know the rules. If you don't know them, learn.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes. The hon. Minister of Health certainly is the man who runs in and makes wild accusations about.... I'm pleased to take instructions from him. In fact, when I make statements like that I'm almost learning at his knee, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's all right, son.

MR. NICOLSON: It does make one wonder if blatant politics isn't involved for the first time in this Department of Consumer Services. You know, all jocular comments aside, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the minister reconsider the decision not to fund this group. I'll go a step further. If the minister's considering expanding service to a Cranbrook office, or if he's thinking of opening up even a government office in the Social Credit-held riding of Kootenay, I would suggest that we still need this type of an operation. Anything short of opening up a government office in Nelson or Trail would fall short of a replacement for the work being done here.

I've talked to so many people. I've talked to people, Mr. Chairman — not just naive people of mean educational background, or something like that — who were trusting, that still figure that others should be as honest as they are themselves, people that are fairly sophisticated, and who actually went to some pretty cautious lengths before entering into a business transaction, but were hoodwinked.

Through the actions of Mr. Culpepper and the Consumer Action League office in Nelson we've been able to get this kind of assistance. We have the work of Mr. Culpepper — I believe his wife also does a great deal of work, Pat Bredl, you know. How much can you get for a few thousand dollars? You couldn't hire one person probably to take on, as titular head, the regional manager, to do this kind of work in an area where we're getting about three people and untold volunteer efforts through this kind of funding.

So with this seed money, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it's money well spent, and it's been suggested to me that it's a pork barrel. Now far be it for me to say that it is, but that's the rumour that's out there in the community. That's what people are thinking. I wouldn't want to spread rumours, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I want to squelch rumours. So I would like the minister to squelch this rumour by announcing that he's reconsidered, that there will be a presence of his department right in Nelson or in Trail, or in Castlegar, or in Crestova, but somewhere in the west Kootenay area. I would like to see a branch office of the department or extension of the funding to the Consumer Action League in Nelson.

HON. MR. MAIR: I want to assure the member for Nelson-Creston that there is no pork-barrelling at all in my department. As a matter of fact, I'm too much of a political novice to understand what that's all about, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I don't understand really what the phrase means.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, that's it. I knew it.

I just feel though, it would be worthwhile making one or two observations. First of all, the member for Nelson-Creston has pointed out the number of complaints the CAL handled and so on and so forth. I'd like to point out to him — not that I want to get into a numbers game — that this works out to about $300 per complaint. Now our concern in this department is to see that the whole of British Columbia has the same opportunity to bring their consumer complaints to my department as any other area. We intend to put to the government.... I'm not going to tell you what the policy will be because I can't. You know that, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. But I am telling you that we're very conscious of the problem, very conscious that we're not represented in the member's area. We're not represented properly in a great many other areas, and we want to see, over the next two or three years, that this is rectified.

Now what we must do, therefore, is take the money available to us in a year of restraint and try to make the best possible use of it. This is the sole basis

[ Page 1553 ]

for the decisions that were made with respect to funding.

It may appear to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — I'm sure it doesn't appear to him, but somebody may have mentioned to him — that it was possible that because his riding was from the opposition that was the reason CAL was not funded.

I want to assure the member, in all seriousness, that that had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was that we simply must make a quality decision as to where we're going to spend funding money this year. We are spending it in the areas I have already announced. The fact that that does not go into the member for Nelson-Creston's area is regrettable. I hope very much that the whole of the Kootenays in the very near future will be serviced by our department.

I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston didn't mean to mislead in any way, but he got very concerned about the funding we have done in the Fraser Valley, in Vancouver and in other areas. Let me remind the member that about 1.25 million people live in that area. Now if ever there is an area that is underrepresented by my department, or has a poor chance of getting their complaints heard, it is that area. I appreciate that is where we have our largest number of representatives, Mr. Chairman, but it is also where we have by far the most people. That does not derogate from the fact, however, that the member for Nelson-Creston makes a very valid point: we must indeed increase our representation elsewhere. It is my hope that we will do so.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few specific questions to the minister in relation to some areas of consumerism that have been raised in previous debates in the House, and on which at this point nothing specific has yet been done.

One particular area that caused great concern and encouraged the introduction of a private member's bill, as a matter of fact, was the whole question of the dance studio practice of selling a large amount of instruction and pre-payment of that instruction. Provided the applicant lives to be 100, they might just be lucky enough to get all the lessons.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: It's what's called leading the applicant a merry dance, I guess.

I have no wish to transgress on a case before the courts, so I will talk in very general terms about the question of some travel agents selling certain types of holidays advertised in certain surroundings and under certain circumstances in which, when the purchaser reaches the place for the holiday, they find the situation very different from the advertised type of holiday.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, the problem is that most people, after such a holiday, just regard it as a bad experience. The cost and trouble of trying to get any kind of material recompense probably means that a relatively low percentage of these problems are brought to the minister's attention. That would be my expectation; I could be wrong.

There has been recent publicity, as I say, of one particular instance which.... I would like the minister, first of all, to tell us if it is a problem of any particular amount and, if so, if we can look forward to some action.

Another area, I think, involves a matter of principle. I know I'm not about to win any friends in Vancouver when I talk on this issue but it should be brought up anyway because a point of principle is involved. I am talking about massage parlours, and the fact that something is either legitimate or illegitimate.

The council in the City of Vancouver has tried to impose a $3,000 business licence in its concern to try and stop a practice in the city which it doesn't want. Any council is entitled to hold that point of view. But from a consumer point of view, is the minister not concerned that this has been a rather indirect approach by the City of Vancouver simply to try and make it impossible for a business to be provided by making the business licence so expensive that it would not be economically difficult to conduct that business?

I'm not here, Mr. Chairman, to debate the pros or cons of massage parlours or whether they are more or less than what they advertise themselves to be, but I'm not aware of other business licences in the city of Vancouver coming anywhere close to $3,000 for comparable types of business. If I might just refer to another publication of government, the latest report by CLEU, the Co-ordinated Law Enforcement Unit, stated quite bluntly that the massage parlours are simply a vehicle to provide illicit sex in Vancouver.

Again, I just say that whether that is the function or not the function, I think the council sets a precedent in perhaps trying to make it difficult for any kind of business enterprise to function, simply by trying to make it financially very expensive. I wonder if the minister has any comment he'd care to make, not on the specific type of service — which I think is a whole debate in itself — but on the question of whether the genuine consumer who goes there seeking the service that's offered will ultimately be charged an extremely high rate simply because a high business licence has been imposed in an attempt to prevent the business getting started in the first place.

On another subject, the question of advertising, I'll just make one point before I sit down, Mr. Chairman. We all drive our vehicles in differing manners, and some of us are less careful than others, but I've yet, in

[ Page 1554 ]

20 or more years of driving, to find any tire that will go more than 25,000 miles at the most. Usually if the tires are becoming a little bare and you go through the inspection centre, your car isn't given an all-clear ticketing unless you have tires that meet a certain standard.

I noticed the other day that we now have full-page ads emphasizing not only that they stop shake, shimmy and roll, but that they'll give you at least 40,000 miles if you buy Uniroyal radial belted tires.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): They're good!

MR. WALLACE: The member from the other side says they're good. They're probably good, but I wonder again in practical terms, Mr. Chairman, how the consumer applies at the 30,000 mark when the inspection station tells him to get new tires and the ad says that they'll guarantee at least 40,000 miles.

Putting it another way, how is the word of the consumer to be regarded against the word of the supplier in relation to how many miles the tires have covered? The basic concept that they are guaranteeing 40,000 miles out of these tires when they sell the tires presumably is used to justify the fact that they are quite a bit more expensive than less sophisticated and less elaborately produced tires.

These are some questions that lots of people are asking. I wonder if the minister would comment.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), we have been looking very carefully, since I have taken this portfolio over, at the whole question of prepaid contracts. I want to assure the member, Mr. Chairman, that it forms a very important part of our deliberations. We hope very much to be able to come to the government very soon with some suggestions as to how it might be governed.

I would like, in fairness, to say that quite often the travel agent is the one who gets blamed in these unfortunate incidents where people pay in advance for trips and don't get the trips, where in fact in most of the cases these are some kind of tour operators. It may very well be the travel agent who, in good faith, takes that tour and, in fact as an agent as opposed to principal, sells it. But in most of the cases it is not the travel agent himself who has caused the grief. It is a very tragic thing. We are very concerned with it.

I know that my friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), being a lawyer, will recall very well the very sad case of the dance studio — the lady who had been drawn into a terrible contract by fictitious statements as to her ability and so on. We appreciate that this is a very serious effort and we don't intend to let up in our investigation of it and our efforts to come up with some solution.

Dealing with the member for Oak Bay's concerns with massage parlours, Mr. Chairman, I think I must say that we have had no complaints from the consumers as to the degree of service or quality of service that they have been getting, so at least to that degree we have not been involved.

MR. WALLACE: The price is right, you mean?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): There's the rub.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MAIR: We have not yet received any complaints from the operators concerning the high price of the tax imposed, and until we do we are really in no position to consider whether or not any of the statutes we administer apply. I mean this quite seriously. I would think that the operators would be the ones who would first of all consider themselves aggrieved, although that may not be true — the consumer may very well feel quite aggrieved by the lack of this service — but one would think that they would first of all take the matter up with the municipal authorities and, having received no satisfactory answer, consider whether or not they might take some court action or indeed bring a complaint to us.

MR. WALLACE: Well, one of them has.

HON. MR. MAIR: Brought a complaint to me?

MR. WALLACE: No ...

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, that's the point I'm making.

MR. WALLACE:...taken it to court.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's the point I'm making to the member, Mr. Chairman — they may very well have sought that remedy and taken it to court as being some abuse of the process of the legislative body, the municipal body, and that indeed is what they ought to do. If the matter does get to our attention, of course we will endeavour to investigate it in light of the statutes that we administer.

Insofar as tire standards are concerned, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, there is no question but that if the member does not receive that which is advertised in the paper, then he ought to bring his complaint, or anyone else ought to bring their complaint, to my department, and we will once again check it out against the statutes which we administer, most particularly the Trade Practices Act, and if there is a case, of course, we will take appropriate action.

[ Page 1555 ]

There is, I am instructed, a tire standards Act presently before the federal government, the House of Parliament, which may very well do something to alleviate the situation the hon. member has brought to my attention today, Mr. Chairman. In any event, as I say, if there are transgressions of any of the statues which we administer.... We feel that we have been very vigilant in enforcing against these transgressions when they're brought to our attention, and we will continue to do so.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to speak briefly, through you, to the minister with regard to the ongoing programme of the federal government that is going to result in conversion of package sizes to metric from the ones that we're all so used to now.

My question is: are we going to have an opinion from this government on whether there will be a hard or soft conversion in the sizes? For example, are we going to be faced with a quart of oil that will be 1.14 litres, or are we going to be buying 1-litre containers? In foodstuffs, are we going to buy a pint of cream, which is 0.57 of a litre, or are we going to buy 0.5 of a litre of cream? I believe these are monumental decisions that the federal government is going to put on us, and I believe that our government should have input into the decision before it's made, because people are used to buying items in certain sizes. It's going to be confusing and there's going to be an educational cost. I would ask that the minister do something about formulating an opinion so that this province is represented when that decision is made.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Chairman, I had to get to my feet quickly to assure my friends on the other side of the House that that question was not a setup. I had quite a time finding out the answer.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, to the member, that there is a metric conversion committee, which is under the direction of the Minister of Education in this Legislature, which liaises with the federal government on metric matters. I would suggest, respectfully, that that question be referred to him at the appropriate time.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman — springs in my shoes. I'll be brief, Madam Member.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by saying how glad I was to hear the minister make an opening statement. We've seen several departments go through here with most perfunctory kinds of opening phrases. The minister gave us a little bit of an overview of his department, and I appreciate that very much.

I'd like to echo the remarks that have been made earlier on in the debate about the deputy minister, how pleased we are to see him here and general congratulations on the responsiveness of the department. I've had occasion to write the department several times since we last examined these estimates, and the response has always been quick and, I think, always effective in terms of the investigations they've undertaken.

I have just a few policy submissions I would make to the minister. For a couple of years now I've been suggesting in the House that while credit cards have their advantages and disadvantages, it's very important that the consumer should be educated in their use, because they do have a tendency to make people make purchases that otherwise they would not do, because they don't have the pain of taking the cash out of their pocket at that moment or writing out a cheque.

Now credit cards do have a very great usefulness — for example, for small firms who otherwise could not compete with the large department stores with their charge accounts. They have many merits. I'm not arguing, generally, against credit cards; I'm just saying that there should be an encouragement — and while the government perhaps can't do anything about it directly, the minister, I think, should come out and say this — that consumers should receive a discount for cash. Let's face it, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if we go into a store where most of the business is done by credit card and we take our cash and put it across the counter, we are subsidizing somebody else to the tune of 5 per cent, at least, depending on the type of establishment. They are getting services worth 5 per cent that we are not by paying cash. It seems to me that this should be recognized in the different kinds of establishments around the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: The second question I would ask the minister is a question of genuine puzzlement on my behalf. We saw last summer an extensive survey, and I'll just read the first paragraph of this newspaper article: "For the fourth year in a row, Vancouver has won the dubious distinction of having the highest food prices in a survey of major North American cities," I want to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if that is still approximately the case this year — if it's been that way four years in a row, I presume it's still there — and I'd ask him if his department has been able to identify some of the underlying causes that give us this dubious distinction of having the highest food costs anywhere in North America. There was one exception that was higher than ours, I believe, and that was Honolulu, but I think they have a 4 per cent food sales tax there.

How does this come about, and are any of these factors controlled? As I say, this is a very real question, Mr. Chairman. I don't know the answer to

[ Page 1556 ]

it; I'm hoping that the minister and his department may have made some progress along that line in the past year.

Another question or inquiry: earlier on this year — as a matter of fact in early April, I think — the minister suggested that there will be new legislation introduced this session to regulate car dealers and transfer that legislation from the Motor Vehicles Act to a new Act. I wonder if the minister could confirm this, because my understanding is that the largest single type of complaint his department receives, something like 25 per cent, relates to the purchases in the automobile trade — I presume, more used cars than new cars, but nevertheless a very high percentage of both.

MR. WALLACE: You'll get a lot of advice from the backbenchers on that.

MR. GIBSON: As the hon. member for Oak Bay points out, the minister might be able to get a lot of advice from his backbenchers and colleagues on that subject.

The minister indicated some discomfort earlier on when opposition members agreed with him 100 per cent, so I want to make him feel a little more comfortable and go on and talk a bit about his statements — I think it was at the Vancouver East nominating meeting — about the outrageous increase in prices in British Columbia over the last month. The minister seemed very disturbed about it. He seemed very disturbed about it anyway, Mr. Chairman, if I may put it that way, and talked about doing things like a price freeze and so on.

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's fine. I'm glad he's concerned. He's the Minister of Consumer Services, and so he should be. Then I don't mind him saying, earlier on in this debate, that he supports government decisions, tough as they are, and he goes along with them. But you can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. If you're going to be concerned about the tremendous increase in prices in British Columbia in that particular month, by far higher than anywhere else in Canada — 2.4 per cent it was in a single month — then you should be fair enough to go on and describe where those price increases come from.

The article in The Vancouver Sun of the 23rd of April quotes an analysis of Statistics Canada figures which shows that of that 2.4 per cent increase in the index in Vancouver, transportation accounted for 2.1 per cent — 2.1 points out of 2.4, Mr. Chairman, and that was mostly ICBC. So the minister, if he's really concerned, should be good enough to indicate to the public where these increases come from. That cost-of-living increase was directly caused by the provincial government.

If the minister believes in and supports the programmes, then along with his concern he should be proud enough to stand up and say: "And of course we caused this." Of course you caused it, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. The minister is shaking his head, and we'll hear the imaginative reply in a little bit.

I want to tell them about next month, too. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we in this Legislature have imposed a sales tax increase of 2 percentage points — from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. According to a UBC economics professor, that is going to result in an increase in the cost of living in British Columbia of at least I per cent.

Now the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), I know, said that his study showed that it was going to be less than 1 per cent — 0.7 per cent, if I recall correctly. But, of course, that can't possibly be right because that minister is taking $200 million extra out of the B.C. disposable income of somewhere around $11 billion, so that works out to well over 0.7 per cent, as we can all figure out. Of course, the so-called corporate tax gets passed on; it's just a question of how long it takes to work its way through the system.

So I would just ask the minister: next month when he is again concerned about the rise in the cost of living in British Columbia as compared to the rest of the country, in all of his statements will he make note of the fact that some of that was caused by the 2 per cent sales tax increase? Truth in advertising, Mr. Minister, I think is a good thing for politicians as well as anyone else.

Now I'd like to come to another question, and that is a question which may not seem like a terribly important one, but it is to a lot of people, and that is the existing situation whereby you can't get most of the supermarkets in this province on the telephone. I don't know if you've ever had occasion, Mr. Minister, to have to phone a supermarket for some reason — let's say it's after hours or it's on a Saturday. With most of the supermarkets in this province there's no way you can reach them.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They get less complaints that way.

MR. GIBSON: They get less complaints that way. Perhaps that may be so, Mr. Member, but people often have legitimate reasons for wanting to phone a supermarket.

You know, there was a superb series of columns done on this topic by Nicole Strickland in the Province — the first one January 22, the next one January 29 because the first one evoked so much response, and the final one was on February 12. As a result of these columns, a coupon was published in the Province to see how people felt about this, and people were asked to give some responses. Here's a sampling in the column of February 12. This lady says: "I'm handicapped and alone, no car. I'm paying

[ Page 1557 ]

30 per cent more at a corner store to phone in grocery orders that provides this service. This service — that is, in-store telephone — should be mandatory, at least to the elderly and handicapped." I'll comment on the economics of this a bit later, Mr. Minister, but I just want to tell you now the way people feel.

A senior citizen hit hard by ICBC's rate increase writes: "I need this service, especially now that I won't be able to run my car." This is in a shaky hand. "We cannot walk to the stores; both of us are frail, 83 and 85. No buses within walking distance."

Yet another shaky scribe wrote the solitary word: "Please."

Some complained that the cost of grocery delivery has risen as high as $1.50; others lamented their particular store no longer offered delivery at all.

A few others — four, I believe, out of some hundreds — suggested the whole idea of telephone service was an archaic bit of nonsense that would add to the cost of food. "But think: what other major industries can you name that are as inaccessible to the public as the food industry?"

Mr. Chairman, let's think of some of the reasons that people might want to phone the supermarket. Let's assume that they've gone through the checkout counter and they get home and they can't find their wallet or their cheque book. All of us would want to pick up the phone right away and say: "Have you seen it? Did I leave it there?"

Suppose your child had gone to the supermarket to pick up something, and it was a couple of hours later and no sign of him. You might want to be able to phone there and ask if a little girl or a small boy answering such and such a description was anywhere on the premises.

Suppose you had delivery problems — suppose it was a store that did deliver, or suppose you'd gone through the pick-up line and you got the wrong bag. You might want to phone the store and say: "I've got somebody else's bag; would you just watch out till I get back down there or send out somebody to pick up this bag?" or something like that.

Suppose you're checking around for some particular kind of product. Now I'm a great fan, for instance, of a particular brand of gravy improver, and....

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no! Madam Member, I don't particularly advertise a specific firm, but there is a brand of gravy improver, which I will give you privately, which adds greatly to the taste of gravy. It's hard to get; a lot of stores don't stock it, and it's so good they're often out of stock. When you try and shop around for that kind of thing, there are no telephones you can go to; that's the point I'm trying to make.

HON. MR. MAIR: How come there are blue spots on your tie? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: No, those aren't blue spots. That's a different tie I wear on a different day, Mr. Member, one which I wear when I'm eating gravy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good for gravy, but would you please keep your debate relevant to the vote, and direct it to the Chairman?

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

These are a bunch of reasons why you would want telephones in the supermarkets, and which have nothing to do with delivery service; I want to come back to the delivery service in a moment. These are all either simple or no-cost telephone calls with a proper purpose or else a genuine emergency. It seems to me that for all of these reasons supermarkets should be encouraged to list the phone numbers of their stores in the telephone book.

Now we get on to some of the other comments which show a different kind of need, a need that is much more costly to fulfil, but one that I wish more of the supermarkets would give consideration to. That's some of the responses that came back with respect to the need for delivery services, not to most people who can at least walk around and catch the bus, but to the people who cannot get out. I want to quote a few of these because I made some inquiries and got some of these quotes.

Here is someone who wrote back and said: "I get around with two canes or a walker in the house, and would appreciate telephoning for a delivery."

Another one: "As I am nearly blind and can only obtain groceries if somebody accompanies me...." That reason was given for wanting telephone delivery service from the supermarket.

Here's an interesting argument. This person thinks there should be telephone service, because in the long run, money can be saved by avoiding impulse buying. That might or might not be correct.

Here's another person: "My father and mother-in-law have just moved into a senior citizens' home, as with age and sickness they have no way of getting groceries."

Here's another one: "I am 90 years of age, of very limited sight." Another one: "I am 64 years of age, have a rheumatic hip and cannot walk to the bus stop. I find shopping difficult."

And so on it goes, Mr. Chairman — many of the people in our society whom we don't see in the supermarkets that often because it's hard for them to get there, but they need to shop just like the rest of us. Their requirements may be more modest in terms of weight of food consumed or something like that —

[ Page 1558 ]

the purchases may be smaller — but these are nonetheless human needs, and somehow we have to find a way to provide for them.

I agree, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that it's an extra expense, but maybe in our society that goes some distance towards giving assistance to the aged and the handicapped — and I'm thinking, for example, of the discount on the ferry systems that was announced by the government the other day for the senior citizens, and which I much applaud. Shouldn't we give a look at extending that service into one of these necessities of life and finding some way of getting back, because we used to have it a good deal, to an extensive delivery system in this province, at least for infirm and handicapped people?

I don't have an answer for the minister as to exactly how this could be done; I just wish to impress upon him the need that literally hundreds and hundreds of people felt just in this one newspaper clipping that they sent in. It's a deeply felt need with a lot of people who are shut in or find it difficult to get out. Of course, this delivery service, I'm not suggesting it's the sort of thing that could be provided free. Charges have to be made to cover economics, but if we have more delivery systems back in this province we're going to have more competition in the delivery field, and hopefully those delivery charges could be held down to what people shut into their homes could pay, particularly if they shopped on an infrequent basis in order to consolidate their orders at any given time. So my representation would be to ask the minister to write the supermarket chains and ask them to give serious thought and inquiry to this human problem. I can tell him at this point, according to my understanding, that he would have no need to write to, I believe, Woodward's and Overwaitea because I believe that they, generally speaking, do provide telephones in their stores, though even there a letter with respect to the delivery aspect would be useful. If he could write to the other chains on the two matters, perhaps when he has concluded his inquiries, I would be very happy to know what he found out and to know the response of the supermarkets that I hope would be trying to please the public with their service and might be able to take a favourable look at this, particularly with the minister's encouragement.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I know I have a bit of a problem being seen around here, so I appreciate your recognizing me.

Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to be discussing the salary of this Minister of Consumer Services. Though I realize it's unfair to judge the job that he has done because he's only been in for such a short period of time, we have no options. We have to. On the basis of his record so far, I have great reluctance, quite frankly, in paying him, because I have not been impressed at all with what he has done, and to a large extent I have been very disappointed with the way he has conducted his business so far.

A number of earlier speakers, for example, brought up the issue of dishonest advertising, and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked about Uniroyal tires, and some other member spoke about other ads which were in the newspaper. I think it was the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) who talked about Skippy-dipping and these ads which say they are going to do one thing and, in fact, do not carry through on their promises. I certainly see the Minister of Consumer Services as a protector of the consumer and the defender of the consumer in this province and taking it as his responsibility to see to it that ads do tell the truth and do honestly reflect what the advertiser is saying.

So I want to bring to the minister's attention a couple of ads which ran in the Province some time ago and the fact that these ads have not been honestly lived up to. The first one that I have is an ad put in by the Social Credit Party just prior to the last election. What it said was that a vote for a responsible government, meaning the Social Credit government, would be a vote for a government which would be directed to creating jobs, not to snuffing them out. I am bringing this to the minister's attention in view of the fact that since the Social Credit became the government in this province we have had wholesale layoffs, including 450 people about to be laid off by the ferry system. The unemployment rate has gone up and I have yet to hear the Minister of Consumer Services, on behalf of the consumers of this province, speak about this piece of dishonest advertising because, in fact, it made a promise which it has not lived up to. I certainly want to know what the Minister of Consumer Services is going to do about this. I notice the quizzical look on your face, Mr. Chairman, but in fact it does apply to vote 30, the minister's office. As the Minister of Consumer Services, he is responsible to us.

There is another piece of dishonest advertising. Here it says: "People out of work; to get B.C. moving again, we need a government that would establish industries and create jobs." Again, this Social Credit Party has been the government for nearly six months.... I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am just inviting the member to be as brief as she can in these particular remarks because they are not related to the minister's responsibilities directly.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that as the protector of the consumers of this province, dishonest advertising does come under his jurisdiction in the same way as Uniroyal tires came under his jurisdiction and Skippy-dipping came under his

[ Page 1559 ]

jurisdiction. The promise of a party to create jobs when it became government which then turns around and actively destroys jobs comes under his jurisdiction, too. He owes it to the people of this province to get on with the job of insisting that these ads be honoured, not in the breach or whatever the term is, but certainly be honoured in terms of their policies, which is to create jobs and to create employment in this province and do something about the disgraceful unemployment level.

I also want to bring to the minister's attention a statement, again, in one of these ads that were run. It is a direct quote from a gentleman by the name of a Mr. Bill Bennett, which said: "Once government becomes management, labour loses out." I bring to his attention, in fact, that that was the introduction to Bill 22. We have seen the implications of this actually being implemented, and this is honest advertising. In fact, the gentleman concerned was speaking the truth. This is an instance where the Minister of Consumer Services has no jurisdiction over that. I agree with you because that ad was carried through.

The other thing I want to talk about.... And I hope the minister will answer my question as to what he is going to do about these two dishonest ads which I have brought to his attention. There are others I would be very happy to supply him with if he needs them.

I want to add my statements to that of the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) about the Consumer Action League. The member for Nelson-Creston indicated that he has no other services in his riding so that the Consumer Action League was of vital importance to the riding. In fact, in Vancouver-Burrard, the riding which I represent, we do have a Consumer Services office right in the Kingsgate Mall, and we do have a lot of other community services. But despite that, the Consumer Action League was doing a very important job on behalf of the consumers in the riding. I think the decision to terminate their funding was a very unfortunate one.

If I can give you an example, Mr. Chairman, during the period prior to April 31, when we all had to file our income tax receipts, the storefront office of the Consumer Action League ran a free programme for senior citizens whereby they would do their income tax for them and check it over and file it on their behalf. In view of the fact that the minister sent them a letter in which he insisted that his department would be greatly increasing "its involvement in consumer and community affairs this year," I find the decision to terminate funding to this very worthwhile group a very puzzling one, and would like to join my voice to that of the member for Nelson-Creston in asking that the minister at least take one of the proverbial second looks and reconsider his position on this issue.

What I want to talk about specifically has to do with credit. As you know, Mr. Chairman, again I can't help but voice my disappointment in the fact that the minister has not been speaking out loudly about the increase in interest rates, mortgage rates, the difficulty in people on fixed or low income securing credit, et cetera, because this is a major responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Services. He should be speaking out about the spiralling interest rates on mortgages and certainly on the spiralling interest rates on borrowing — not just with banks but with other private financial institutions — and he is not doing so. If I can quote from an article, "The Illusion of Credit," which was in the October issue of The Urban Reader, which talked about the 500,000 consumers in Canada who are facing some form of financial difficulty, it says that this difficulty is caused not so much by unemployment or by loss of job but, in fact, by the increasing cost of credit. I hope that the minister will indicate that he is going to begin to talk out and to speak out on our behalf as consumers in this very vital area.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) chastised the minister, Mr. Chairman, for not having a strong enough voice within cabinet in terms of fighting on our behalf. To that I would like to add my chastisement on the failure of the minister to speak out publicly on behalf of the consumers.

I did hear the minister's comment, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to ignore it because I am sure that he really did not intend that I should hear this or that I should hear that, as the case may be.

The whole business of credit and its impact on the poor can be brought much more readily to life if we zero in on one group in our community which is traditionally poor. Whenever we talk about poverty, without even thinking we immediately start thinking about women because, in fact, that is where most of us are within this particular group. It is not just a matter of the impact of credit on this particular group but, in fact, the discrimination which still exists, Mr. Chairman, in terms of negotiating credit if one happens to be a woman, whether she be married, single, divorced, widowed or whatever.

There are a couple of examples. I have a letter here from a woman who wrote about the difficulty she had in getting a charge account in her own name from a department store. I know through personal experience that if she were to go to the department store and challenge this the larger department stores would back down, but the fact still remains that there are still a large number of department stores that refuse to issue a credit card to you in your own name if you are a married woman. You turn out to be Mrs. John Brown or Mrs. William Brown or whatever the case may be. When you bring it to their attention that your name is not John, they explain to you that for

[ Page 1560 ]

purposes of credit your name certainly is John. This is the reason why the account is issued in that way.

The other area of credit in which women are discriminated against, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the business of considering a wife's income in terms of getting a loan or negotiating a mortgage. Mortgage companies still refuse to take into account the total earnings of a woman or of a wife in terms of deciding on the granting of home mortgages.

Now there was a time when we thought that this had to do with the age of the wife involved and that, in fact, the mortgage companies were concerned about women in their child-bearing years, that in fact there would be a time when they would withdraw from the labour market in order to have children. So that amount of income would be cut off. But it seems that this is not the case, that it absolutely makes no difference what age you are. What is important is that you are married and you could be many years past your child-bearing age, even as it is laid down in the Bible, and still the mortgage companies will refuse to take into account the total earnings of the wife when they're making decisions as to home mortgages.

The other area again: the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I think it was, brought up the issue of credit cards, American Express and Diners Club and various other credit cards. I'm not very happy about credit cards myself but I recognize that they do serve some kind of purpose. Yet we find that married women cannot get a credit card unless the signature of their husband is affixed to their application. It is so ridiculous that it has nothing to do with whether the husband is working or not. In fact, there is a specific case of a woman whose husband was a student and she was the person who was the only source of income for that family and she had to have the signature of this unemployed husband on her application form before she would be granted a credit card. There is another famous example of a divorced woman who had to get her ex-husband to co-sign for her before the American Express would give her a credit card.

On and on it goes, this business about women in the labour force who are unable to get credit, negotiate mortgages or credit cards or whatever on their own behalf, without getting the co-signature of, say, a husband or a son or an uncle or a father or a good friend or whatever. So I hope that the minister will tell us some of the things that his department plans to do about the whole business of discrimination against women in the area of credit. Okay.

Now the minister previous to this minister, Mr. Chairman, in August of last year issued guidelines dealing with the business of credit discrimination. These guidelines were accepted by the Credit Granters Association of Vancouver but they were not compulsory. They were not forced, as such, to follow the guidelines because, in fact, what they say is that no married woman should be denied credit in her own name if she has the kind of assets and stuff that would make a man eligible for those kinds of credit. No unmarried woman should be denied credit if she has property and assets which would make a man in the same position eligible for that credit, and also that a reporting agency, upon request of a married person, should identify with the agency precisely what it needs the information for. Okay.

Since the time that those guidelines were issued and the Credit Granters Association hailed them as being very marvelous guidelines and did a mailing and suggested to all of its membership that they should, in fact, abide by these guidelines, we have really not noticed any appreciable improvement in the area of discrimination against women in the granting of credit. So what I would like to suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, is that maybe what we need in this country is legislation similar to that brought down in the United States recently — the equal credit opportunity for women legislation.

Now I notice that his very, very able deputy minister is speaking to him and I know that his deputy minister is very familiar with this legislation as well as with the difficulty which it's having getting itself through Congress and whatever.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. Equal credit opportunity for women legislation. What the legislation will do — or what the legislation, in fact, does — is to take the kind of things enshrined in the guidelines brought down by the previous minister and put them into law. In other words, they're no longer voluntary but the Credit Granters Association and all of its membership would have to abide by that kind of legislation. I think the bill, if the member wants to send for it, is HB225, and would be worth looking at anyway, in terms of making some decision in the final analysis about it. But there isn't any question that we do need some legislation, that guidelines are just not enough.

The final statement that I want to make, Mr. Chairman, affects all of us. It's a recommendation which was brought down by the Consumers Association of Canada, which I think is an excellent one. I would like to have the minister's comments on it. This had to do with the compulsory home-warranty programme, which is such a crucial thing these days and...in fact, which is being thrown up and people are purchasing without any kind of guarantees, that it might improve the quality of housing which is being provided by the industry and certainly would give people who are signing mortgages of 20, 25 and 30 years at least some kind of security in feeling that the houses would last at

[ Page 1561 ]

least that long.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, just a few brief words. I just want to ask the minister about the present status of their inquiry into the aspect of the Budget Freezer Food Processors Ltd., formerly of Burnaby, B.C. This is the firm that held out to the people of British Columbia who owned freezers the possibility that they would be able to purchase, through their firm, low-cost meat. I'm not going to suggest for a moment that it was mail fraud...

AN HON. MEMBER: I would.

MR. CHABOT:...because the distribution of...the availability of their product was distributed through the mails. But I do want to suggest to you that they bilked four of my constituents some time ago — four who had willingly come forward and asked me for help. How many have not come forward? How many other people in this province have been defrauded by this company — Budget Food Processors Ltd. of Burnaby, B.C.?

I have four constituents who have been bilked: one of $250, one of $137, one of $111 and another one of $498.55. These were merely deposits made to this firm, on the basis of delivery of meat on a contract. Delivery was expected to be within a period of 30 days. When delivery didn't take place after about 90 days, these four individuals brought the matter to my attention, which I then referred to the minister — that is, not the present minister, but Ms. Young — in December, 1974. To this day I don't know whether my constituents are going to get anything in return for the moneys they have lost to this firm which has deliberately, in my opinion, played games with these four individuals by delaying tactics, by asking for a copy of the contract, or the contract to be returned to their office, hoping for more time. Then later on, after the contract was submitted, they asked these individuals to submit a certified copy of the cheque, which they did; again, more stalling tactics on the part of this firm. Now I don't know how many people really have been defrauded by this firm in British Columbia, but I'm sure there are many. Some are unwilling to come forward.

I raised this issue back in December, 1974. I raised it again in April, 1975, in the Legislature, and outlined the matter in detail at that time. I'm not going to go through that speech this afternoon, but it appears that every time I ask a question the minister hides behind the Trade Practices Act, as was stated to me on April 8, 1975. The minister in response to my questions, said:

We're aware of that situation. We're on top of it.

Our department people have met with the principals. I would refer you to section 12 of the Trade Practices Act. I am not at liberty to discuss the matter further as action has been taken under other sections of the Act.

That's the only information I'm given when I attempt to get some information for my constituents. All I ever hear from anyone I approach in the Department of Consumer Services is: "We are unable, under section 12 of the Trade Practices Act, to divulge any of the negotiations or any of the matters that are presently being pursued."

All my constituents want to know is what the Department of Consumer Services is doing regarding their money. They know they've been had, but they want to make sure as well, in the event they're not able to get any of their money back from funds that might have been locked in by your department through legal action in your department, that never again are British Columbians defrauded by con games such as have taken place here. I hope that we will, in the not-too-distant future, see some legislative measures instituted to make sure that not only do we stop these kinds of frauds but we make sure that the principals involved in this fraud never again have the right to do business in this province.

I hope to see the legislation with fairly substantial bond measures to make sure that in the event people are defrauded by smooth and quick schemes, such as the Budget Freezer Food Processors, they'll have some recourse in recovering at least a substantial portion of the money. I wonder if the minister will tell me just where the situation presently stands vis-a-vis Budget Freezer Food Processors Ltd. of Burnaby, B.C.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, first of all, dealing with the matters in inverse order — dealing with the last one first — I'm advised that we have now gone to court in that matter and recovered a judgment of $12,000 in default. We're now proceeding with the other creditors to see how much, if anything, on the dollar will be paid out to the various individuals involved. I might say also that I am advised that the progress of this action has been reported on a regular basis in our enforcement reports.

I very much share the concern of the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). This is indeed a disgraceful situation. However, civilizations since the beginning of time have tried to prevent crime by passing laws to prevent it, and no matter what laws we pass there seem to be people who come along and find some way to violate those laws.

MR. LEA: You should be a lawyer in Burnaby.

HON. MR. MAIR: In any event, we will be pleased to give you and this House any further information you may require, but that's the information I have to

[ Page 1562 ]

date.

In answer to the several questions of the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), I'll try to deal with them going backwards, because it is easier from my notes. I hope she doesn't mind, Mr. Chairman, through you.

The compulsory home warranty situation is something that has been under study not only in this administration but in the past administration. I'm hopeful that we will be able to come to the government with some suggestions fairly soon on that, but I think I should also point out that HUDAC — which is the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada — will, by this time next month, have already put in place their own scheme which, of course, is a start in the right direction.

I might say also, Mr. Chairman, to the member that we are working with other provinces in Canada on this. I'm sure the member knows it is not one of those things that you can simply write, out and put into place. There are a lot of considerations, but we are working on it.

I would like also to make the point, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), that I, too, am very concerned about discrimination in the marketplace against people on the grounds of sex, or on any other ground that is totally irrelevant to the granting of credit or whatever the consumer transaction is. I agree with her that there has been discrimination in the past, and that it no doubt continues to this date. I am very gratified to know that the guidelines that were put down by this department have been accepted by credit granters, and I would urge that member and all members of the House, through you, Mr. Chairman, to bring examples of transgressions of these guidelines to the attention of our department. While we may not have the legislative authority to do so, we can bring pressure to bear on these groups. We have found in the past, Mr. Chairman, that these groups have responded very favourably to pressure that we have brought in this regard.

As I say, I appreciate the member's concern very much, and if she would be good enough to bring these matters to my attention or the attention of my department, we will certainly do what we can to see that these problems are taken care of.

I might say also, Mr. Chairman, to the member, in dealing with her opening remarks, that I was grateful she wasn't complimentary. It would certainly have been out of character, and it would have made me feel uncomfortable — and I much prefer to feel comfortable — but she perhaps ought to consider that my wife has sent a poor country boy like me down to the big city, and now already I'm involved in Skippy-dipping and massage parlours, and she wants me to get into even worse transactions, and that's not fair.

I'd like to deal for a few moments, if I may, with the questions raised by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). Dealing first of all, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, with the discount-for-cash situation, I understand that it is now the law, federally, that it is unlawful for a credit card company to forbid a discount for cash. I think that that probably settles the problem insofar as we are concerned. It does seem to be a preserve, whether we like it or not, that the federals have got themselves into, and may make it difficult for us to enter into that field.

However, if you want me to say that I, personally, encourage a discount for cash, I certainly do. I think that that is a very admirable thing. I might also say that investigations in our department have not revealed a great and significant saving that one could mathematically give on a discount-for-cash basis. However, presumably there is some, and far from discouraging such a practice I would encourage it.

On the question of food prices being the highest in Canada, all citizens of British Columbia must share the member's concern about this. I must point out that while I'm perhaps in a position to be the messenger, it's not customary in these days to shoot the messenger because of bad news, but to go back to the source of the bad news.

These causes, of course, are well outside the province of my department. I know that the member unquestionably has greater knowledge than I do on matters of this sort, but it reminds me of the statements the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was making the other day when he said it ill behooves us — or words to this effect — to complain about high prices of foodstuffs in our stores from Canadian farmers, and yet at the same time not expect them to demand a greater share of the economic benefits of the province.

So it is a great problem, Mr. Member, and I'll leave it to wiser men than me to tell you how it can be solved. But we will certainly continue our monitoring of the situation so that at least that part of government will be accurate, and you will know what the situation is. I'll leave it to wiser heads to tell us what we can do about it, specifically.

On the motor-vehicle dealers situation that you brought up, Mr. Member, we already, as you know, license motor-vehicle dealers and have done so through the Motor-vehicle Act since 1957. The only suggestion that I have made to the government is that that, since it is now transferred to our department, be the subject of a separate statute. I think that it being the question of ongoing policy at this time, I will leave the matter at that.

On the question of phones in supermarkets, I share the member's concern about that. I also share the concern of the public when they can't get hold of lawyers, doctors, chartered accountants, and all sorts

[ Page 1563 ]

of other people. I don't mean that facetiously. I've always considered it to be the height of rudeness when people either receive telephone calls and won't answer them or won't receive them in the first place.

What, however, we as a department can do to force them to put telephones in or to receive calls, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I really don't know. We will, of course, try to encourage them to do so and if the people who are concerned about this feel that they are not being properly served would let us know, we will certainly make those complaints known to the supermarkets. We have good contact and good rapport with them, I think, and we will be very pleased to use those good offices to bring those complaints to them, as indeed we do from time to time. Now I might also add to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that I understand that a number of supermarkets have indeed taken into consideration this problem of delivery, particularly as it relates to the elderly and the infirm. I understand that Kelly Douglas Supervalu is now instituting such a programme. It may very well be that others are doing the same thing. So, quite clearly, this problem is coming to the attention of the supermarkets and, once again, I should think that what the member is trying to tell me is that we should use our good offices from time to time to bring these distressing situations to the marketplace and to the suppliers of the marketplace. I am pleased to say that we will always do our best to bring these complaints and situations to the people with whom we have excellent relations, and I am speaking particularly of the supermarkets.

MR. NICOLSON: Earlier today I expressed my concern about the closing down of the Consumer Action League in Nelson, and I think maybe the minister is confused with the grant given to the Consumer Action League for the whole province or something. He mentioned that it was costing about $300 per complaint or per client or something. So that sort of took me aback. I thought I had been misinformed. I thought perhaps the Consumer Action League had asked for a $200,000 budget, and I wouldn't support a $200,000 budget for that operation. But I would support a budget in keeping with the types of budgets you are okaying for Surrey, Victoria and Chilliwack.... Well, actually it's Sumas, Matsqui, Abbotsford consumer groups. I am very serious about this.

Now it works out, I think, more like about $21 per complaint. Just as an example, Mr. Minister, I was discussing with a young schoolteacher how he and his wife had been counselled by that office in how to go about defending themselves in a small debts court, and it was a matter of, I think, over $500. I guess they've raised the maximum for small debts up to $1,000. I believe we did that when we were government. I think it was a $900 matter.

So here we have this little bit of seed money and think of the amount of good that has done in terms of helping people who told me and who confided in me that they would never have dared to go into small debts court and defend themselves. They couldn't afford to hire a lawyer and throw good money after bad. But they were successful in winning this case in the small debts court, and I think the matter was an amount of some $900. So I submit that your mensuration is lacking, Mr. Minister. It's considerably less, and I would like you to stand up and say that you are going to reconsider and that you are optimistic and maybe you'll be able to find something in the mattress.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'll be pleased to say this much: one of the reasons, obviously, that I took to politics instead of law is that my mathematics is no good. I am prepared to concede to the member for Nelson-Creston that my mathematics were out. But the point that I was trying to make was, of course, not that it cost X number of dollars to do this, that or the other thing, but that you must in this portfolio or any other portfolio make a value judgment as to where you are going to spend money. I also agree with the member that his area requires service as does the rest of the Kootenays. I think I have made that point, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think I have any more to add to it. We do not consider the money as well spent for the Consumer Action League in that area as it can be in other areas.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. P L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in response to requests from the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and other opposition members, I said I would table the report from Capilano College as soon as I received it. It arrived in the mail today and I now table it.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.