[ Page 1565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Emergency employment programmes. Mr. King — 1565

Jubilee Hospital strike negotiations. Mr. Wallace — 1566

Move of PWA head office. Mr. Gibson — 1566

Deterioration of patient care at VGH. Mr. Cocke — 1567

Gas price increase by Imperial oil, Mr. Lauk — 1567

Capilano College Principal dismissal. Mr. Wallace — 1567

Olympic Lottery continuation. Mr. Davidson — 1567

CUPE/employers meeting. Mr. Stupich — 1568

Motion

Adjournment on matter of urgent public importance. Mr. King — 1568

Mr. Speaker rules — 1568

Mr. Gibson — 1570

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply:
Department of Consumer Services estimates.

On vote 30.

Mr. Hewitt — 1571

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1573

Mr. Levi — 1573

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1576

Ms. Sanford — 1577

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1579

Mrs. Wallace — 1580

Mr. Lauk — 1581

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1585

Ms. Sanford — 1585

On vote 34.

Mrs. Wallace — 1587

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1587

On vote 35.

Ms. Brown — 1587

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1587

Mrs. Wallace — 1588

Hon. Mr. Mair — 1588

Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mrs. Dailly — 1588

Mr. Gibson — 1593

Mr. Wallace — 1598

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's always a great pleasure to welcome colleagues from the federal House, and today seated on the floor of the House is the Progressive Conservative member for Surrey–White Rock. I would like the House to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Benno Friesen.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome a large delegation from Coquitlam, and representing the Parent-Teachers Association, B.C. Home and School, SHARE representatives and the school trustees, all from School District 43. This group is here under the very able leadership of Mrs. Ona May Roy, president of the district council of the Parent-Teachers Association.

This is a three-part introduction. I'd also like to introduce and welcome Mrs. Katherine Schoer of the Surrey Home and School Federation, a friend of the hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). She's played a major role in parent-school programmes and is a past president.

Last, but most certainly not least, also in the gallery are three ladies from the mainland, two of whom are from my riding, Coquitlam: Mrs. Nichols and Mrs. Audley, and Mrs. Stenberg from Vancouver. These ladies are in Victoria for the day, and this is their first visit to the buildings and to the session. Would you join me in making them welcome?

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Mrs. Pamela Hall. Mrs. Hall is the co-ordinator of the Marpole-Oakridge seniors programme. I would ask that the House make this very dedicated woman welcome.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a group of women representing the Burnaby Parent-Teachers Association. I would like this House to make them welcome.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to welcome Mr. Dave Wall and a contingent of senior secondary students from Sentinel school in West Vancouver.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to extend a warm welcome to some students from St. Andrew's Elementary School who will be visiting the buildings this afternoon and taking a look in on our sitting here.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from Alpha Secondary School in Burnaby.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): It's very seldom that we have guests who visit with us from my particular area, but today we have the mayor of the district of Abbotsford, Mr. Ferguson, and also the mayor of Matsqui, Mr. Harry De Jong. Please make them welcome.

Oral questions.

POSSIBILITY OF EMERGENCY
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the hon. Premier. In light of the unprecedented unemployment rate, as released just yesterday, I believe, by Statistics Canada, which indicates that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 110,000 British Columbia workers unemployed, could the Premier tell the House whether the government has plans to initiate any emergency employment programmes to assuage and ease the hardship on the citizens of British Columbia?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, government is concerned, as I'm sure the opposition is now, and as they were as government, about the high rate of unemployment.

He's right that unemployment has been around 100,000 since the end of 1974 and reached its peak at 110,000 last September. Today it's measured at 108,000 on the seasonally adjusted rate for April as produced by the federal government, who prefers to use the seasonally adjusted rate.

Yes, we're concerned; we're concerned in two or three ways. We have a plan for producing employment which involves using our resources and taking advantage of their low price at source in British Columbia, and that means energy. That's why I tried to speak in favour of this province maintaining control of its natural resources and energy yesterday in this House. It also involves a railway that runs continuously, and that's why the government hopes that the BCR will not have the labour trouble that it has had for the last three years in this province that has not allowed it to run consistently.

So, yes, but I have found out, and this government's found out, that it's not possible to turn the province around in four months from the position of high unemployment that it has maintained since the end of 1974.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that political

[ Page 1566 ]

rhetoric is going to do anything to ease the impact on the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Member, you asked a question...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: ...and the hon. leader answered the question.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed I asked a question, to which I received no answer. Rather I got an assurance that the government is concerned. The question I asked was whether or not the government has plans to initiate some emergency programme of employment creation to offset what is the highest rate of unemployment in this province in recent years, if not in the history of this province — 110,000 people.

When the Premier gets up in a pious way and talks about concern...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: ...may I say, Mr. Speaker, that concern can best be demonstrated by positive action, not political rhetoric.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I presume that you meant to ask a supplemental question. I didn't really hear what the supplemental question was, but...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: ...this is not to become a debate between two sides of the House. For that reason, I'll pass to the next question.

STATUS OF JUBILEE
HOSPITAL STRIKE NEGOTIATIONS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour: in view of the serious concern being expressed by residents of the greater Victoria area over the strike at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, can the minister tell the House the outcome of his meeting with Mr. Hooper and other officials of the Health Labour Relations Association?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a lengthy and worthwhile meeting was held this morning with the representatives of the Health Labour Relations Association. As a result of that meeting, I have this afternoon extended an invitation to the president of the union to visit with me in Victoria tomorrow. I hope, as a result of those two meetings, that I will be able to make some statement later.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the understandable concern of the community, and in light of the union representative's announcement to escalate the strike situation by calling strikes in various additional hospitals, and in view of the union's statement that they wish to stick strictly to the industrial inquiry commission report, has the minister taken any decision regarding the invoking of subsection 7(a) of section 73 of the Labour Code, namely to prescribe a cooling-off period of 21 days?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The simple answer is no.

MOVE OF PWA HEAD OFFICE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications in the matter of the planned move of the head office of Pacific Western Airlines from Vancouver to Calgary. At the request of the air transport committee of the Canadian Transportation Commission, British Columbia was to file by May 3 counter-arguments to Alberta's filing of April 23. I wonder if the minister could, first of all, confirm that such a filing was made and, secondly, table a copy of it in this House.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, we will be pleased to file that contribution in the House.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that details of the move have already been announced by the company, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether a hearing or a decision is expected soon on this matter or, if not, what other moves might be instituted by the Government of the Province of British Columbia in order that there be a cease-and-desist order until this is finally resolved by the Supreme Court.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this matter is also before the courts in Canada, namely the question as to whether or not the Canadian Transport Commission has jurisdiction over the province of Alberta. There are really two arenas in which this play is taking place: one is before the courts, and the other is before the Canadian Transport Commission. The issue really has to be resolved in the courts before the transport commission has the necessary authority and we have the real opportunity to make our case.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on a further

[ Page 1567 ]

supplementary: if I understand the minister correctly, inasmuch as the CTC doesn't plan to move on this until the Supreme Court judgment, and inasmuch as there's a danger that theSupreme Court might not hear the case until some time in the fall, which is to say after the move has been effected, are there any steps the government proposes to take to maintain the status quo of office personnel in the meantime? I think that's very important.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the only avenue really open to us is that of discussions directly with the responsible authorities in Alberta.

DETERIORATION OF PATIENT CARE AT VGH

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. I would ask the Minister of Health: is there any evidence of deterioration in patient care in the Vancouver General Hospital as a result of labour relations?

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for New Westminster, our assessment committee is in constant touch with us. They tell us that the maintenance of care is at as high level as possible. We had the administrators of the hospital in and we've been talking with them constantly, and we're satisfied that they're doing as good a job as possible in a very difficult situation.

GAS PRICE INCREASE
REQUEST BY IMPERIAL OIL

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Imperial Oil Co., which had admitted they had contributed to the Social Credit Party campaign funds, issued a public request yesterday....

Interjections.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Read it again, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Imperial Oil Co., which had admitted they contributed to the Social Credit Party campaign funds, issued a public request yesterday that all provincial governments allow them to increase the price of gasoline immediately the oil barrel price increases, as advocated by the Premier when he was visiting back east. Does the Premier intend to comply with this request from Imperial Oil?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the member may or may not know, but as most people know, this province has a freeze at the refinery level. When they unfroze prices it was only at the retail level, where true competition takes place. That freeze has not been lifted for Imperial Oil or any other oil firm, nor at the present time is it contemplated lifting that freeze.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary. In other words, is the Premier saying that he does intend to comply with this request from Imperial Oil? I didn't understand his answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll say it again because I understand the hon. member was a lawyer before he became a member, and perhaps we should put it in language he understands. Right now the price is frozen in British Columbia. Two provinces in Canada have it frozen at the refinery level — that is, at the producer level. That freeze is not being contemplated as being lifted right now and is not being contemplated being lifted in the future.

CAPILANO COLLEGE PRINCIPAL DISMISSAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Education a question with regard to the report tabled in the House and dealing with the dismissal of the principal at Capilano College who received severance pay of $41,700 after serving as principal for 18 months. Has the minister accepted the report as submitted to him, or does he intend to take further action on the issue?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): To the member, through you, Mr. Speaker: I did indicate to the member that as soon as I received a report from Capilano College I would table it in the House. That was done yesterday. The department is studying it at the present time, and we'll make an announcement if further action is to be taken.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: since the minister has appealed constantly for restraint and responsible financing of education, does he have any plans to meet with representatives of college councils to explore this matter of salaries, sabbaticals and severance arrangements for senior administrative officials in our college system?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

OLYMPIC LOTTERY CONTINUATION

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary: in view of the fact that the federal government has introduced plans to continue the Olympic Lottery to finance the billion-dollar loss

[ Page 1568 ]

of the Drapeau stadium in Montreal, can the minister announce any plans or commitments to British Columbians to offset the resulting loss to the Western Canada Lottery and the plans that were made for that money for amateur sport?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the hon. member the knowledge that our government has gone on record yesterday, on hearing of the federal government's national lottery called Loto Scheme, that we were very much opposed to the federal government taking over the proceeds that would come to the provinces. If you will, I will, to explain our stand, read you a telegram that is going to Ottawa.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Provincial Secretary has the floor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The telegram explains the province's stand and answers the question. It would be a lot quicker for me to read it and share it. I'd be pleased to table it, but I would like to assure the member and the House that the provincial government in British Columbia is opposed to the sharing, or for the distribution, of the funds of a national lottery going to the Olympics in Montreal and...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...and taking from all of the provinces across Canada moneys that would go into sports, recreation and culture across this country and to each individual province.

The western Canadian ministers will be meeting tomorrow, and that stand will be taken very strongly by our province.

CUPE/EMPLOYERS MEETING

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, I understand, was meeting with representatives of the Mid-Island Employers Association and of CUPE this morning, relative to the situation in Nanaimo and other areas. I wonder if he has any comment at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment, except to say that the meetings are continuing at 3 o'clock.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

The matter is the emergency revealed today by the Statistics Canada figures showing that unemployment has again increased in B.C., to the extent of 9.7 per cent of the work force. This means that no less than 110,000 persons are unemployed at a time when government taxation policies are creating untold hardships on all members of society and particularly on those who are unemployed. The figures call for immediate emergency measures to alleviate the hardships being caused by government policies. I provide a copy of the motion, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to present the House with my reasons supporting the emergent nature of the circumstances at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, Hon. Leader of the Opposition. You've presented me with the motion paper, and you've stated the matter about which you would like this debate to take place, in a short statement.

Now at this particular time I must determine whether the motion is in order under standing order 35 of the standing orders of our House. It would seem to me that your request for a motion to adjourn the House to discuss this matter of urgent public importance is based upon not only unemployment in British Columbia but really on the revelation today by Statistics Canada of figures showing that the rate of unemployment has increased in B.C.

I would suggest this, and recall to your memory, as well as to the memory of all of the members of this House, that similar motions on exactly the same matter of unemployment being presented from time to time to the House have been refused, basically on the grounds that they fail to meet the need under standing order 35 for an emergency debate, since unemployment is an ongoing thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! While the increase in the percentage rate of unemployment is higher now than it perhaps was at other times, it is not a matter of urgent public importance at this time.

I would also refer you to the same point which was ruled on. It was ruled out of order to debate unemployment as a matter of urgency. While it may be argued that the percentage rate is greater today than at other times, that in itself does not qualify the matter for a debate under standing order 35. Therefore I must rule that the matter you have put before the House in the form of a motion is not in order in that it fails to meet the tests as outlined in standing order 35.

[ Page 1569 ]

If you would also refer to the 16th edition of May on page 370, you will see that the same matter was dealt with on a number of occasions and the same page of May has been quoted in the decision by previous Speakers.

MR. KING: On a point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: I must say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition before he raises the point of order that it is not a matter of debate now. I have ruled that it is not a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your guidance, but I would respectfully suggest that my point of order should not be anticipated. I respect the Chair, and I do not intend to abuse the ruling that has been made by the Chair. However, I just wanted to make this point and elicit from the Chair some additional clarification.

In terms of making a judgment as to when a matter becomes an emergency, surely it's a subjective matter to some extent. In the case of a natural disaster such as a flood or a fire or an earthquake or something of that nature, surely the enormity of it, the number of people involved, the cost factors and all these things must add to the subjective matter on which the Chair must make its decision as to whether or not a real emergency does exist.

I just want to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this situation....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! What the hon. Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do now is in an indirect manner debate the motion that he put before the House.

MR. KING: Not at all, Mr. Speaker! I am attempting....

MR. SPEAKER: The matter has been ruled upon by the Speaker. If you do not agree with the ruling of the Speaker, you have the opportunity to challenge it. But you cannot at this time enter into a debate upon the matter.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you would please let me continue, I have not raised the unemployment issue, so I fail to see how you can accuse me of debating that point. What I rose on the point of order for, as I clearly indicated to you, was to elicit from you whether or not under standing order 35 it is possible under any circumstances to raise an emergent matter that is in order in this House. Simply cutting off my opportunity to elicit some clear guidelines from you...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: ...is hardly consistent with free debate in this House and the rules, in my view. Surely I am entitled to some clarification — that's what I'm seeking.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Watch your temper!

MR. KING: Yes, I'm angry. You don't care about those 110,000 unemployed....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. members please come to order — all of the hon. members?

A matter of urgent public debate under standing order 35 has at times qualified and has been allowed by Speakers of the House. It's a matter of decision at the time the proposition is put to the Chair as to whether it is in order and whether it qualifies or not. I have looked at your motion; I have looked at your summary in support of the motion; I have ruled that it does not qualify as a matter of urgent public importance for debate. That ends the debate on the matter, Hon. Member.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: A point of order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I have....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! I recognize the Premier, who....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I'll follow it up if you have a point of order, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I ask leave to table documents showing the high rate of unemployment since January, 1975, which show a peak of...

[ Page 1570 ]

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...people unemployed of about 108,000 in September of 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing order?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just asked to table documents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Shall leave be granted to table documents?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I requested from you some clarification of circumstances under which matters of emergency can be raised under standing order 35 — and I appreciate the fact that my motion has been ruled out of order. But it seems to me that the House is entitled to some indication of what the parameters are which would qualify a matter as being an emergent issue — an emergent social and economic issue in this province — that would be recognized as an emergency by the Chair. That's what I am trying to elicit from you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, in order not to take up the time of the House, I would suggest to you that the matter is fully dealt with by a previous Speaker of the House in 1974, page 285 in our Journals, and I would suggest that if after perusing that decision handed down by the then Speaker of this assembly you have any further questions, you should meet with me and we will discuss them.

MR. KING: I would ask leave of the House, then, by unanimous leave to debate this important matter. I know the Premier has expressed his concern. I believe the government must be concerned. I think it's a primary issue and should be dealt with now. Therefore I ask that the government extend to the opposition the same courtesy and consideration that the opposition just extended to the Premier...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: ...in granting leave to present his statement to the House. I ask the unanimous leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? I hear a "no."

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no division, as the hon. member knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: I would ask that whoever said "no" stand in his place.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a rule of this House, Hon. Member, as you know.

AN HON. MEMBER: A division according to May.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the millionaires don't care.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you know better, Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, you can call a division if unanimous leave is disputed.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no recorded vote when leave is requested.

HON. MR. McGEER: Everybody said no.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a different point of order for the future but relating to the same standing order: there are, I imagine, two ways we could proceed on this question of a definite....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, are you now dealing with the same matter that was just ruled out of order?

MR. GIBSON: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with a standing order....

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, I would suggest that if you wish to deal with a standing order which has nothing to do with the matter which I just ruled out of order you bring it to my attention outside of the hours that we have for debate on the floor of the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that it has to do with some of the difficulties we've been having with this standing order. I just want to make a very brief suggestion to you, Sir, and if you will be good enough to hear me....

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the fact that you said it will be brief, I'll listen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 1571 ]

MR. GIBSON: I would submit that even if it were lengthy, it's the merit that should qualify it, not the length.

I would suggest to you, Sir, that it might expedite these proceedings considerably to have a short statement of the matter of definite and urgent public importance, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition introduced today, and then allow brief argument as to urgency. Because it seems to me that urgency is not always a transparent or an apparent question. A brief discussion of this might be helpful from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member knows that it may fail on several grounds, not only on the matter of urgency.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)

On vote 30: minister's office, $88,756 — continued.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments regarding consumer credit and mortgage financing as it relates, I think, to the Department of Consumer Services. I have been involved in consumer credit and mortgage financing for a number of years and I had the pleasure of being involved with the former Social Credit government in explaining some of the facts about the proposed consumer legislation at that time.

I would like to compliment, as other members have done today, the consumer brochures that were put out by the Department of Consumer Services, the ones that are available to the public and the ones that are available in the schools for our students. Mr. Chairman, I believe the main thing that is needed in the field of consumer credit is education, and I feel very strongly that the education is needed mainly by our children who are about to graduate from school. What they are faced with today is a raft of advertising which leads them to believe that it is very simple to buy today and pay for it tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.

I can tell you that the age of the charge card is something that is very beneficial to those who handle it right, but it can be a load on those consumers who do not recognize that they are paying for something with tomorrow's dollars and there is a cost. The cost of the Chargex card, if it is allowed to carry on over a period of time, is 18 per cent. Department store credit cards are 21 per cent. In most instances, what you buy through the department store are non-durable goods and, in the end, when those goods or services are used up, you are still paying for them. As a result, the debt load is carried on to future paycheques, so when you have to replace it you haven't paid for the one you've already consumed.

Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest things that I've found in consumer credit, and serving the public in that field, was the young high school student who graduated and got his first job. After two or three weeks on the job, he was led to believe that the simple way of enjoying life was to finance a car. He would finance a car — not just a car to get him to and from work, but a car probably to impress his girl friend — and it would end up that he would go into debt to the tune of $5,000. That debt load may have a charge on it — the cost of that financing may be anywhere from 12 to 24 per cent — and he doesn't recognize what he has to do to keep that car operational. Of course, if there is a layoff in the job that he's doing, he is faced with trying to carry a car — car payments and maintenance of that car — on unemployment insurance. It is very difficult.

One of the other things that I think I've come across more than anything in the matter of financial counselling is that it relates to marriage counselling, because one of the things that really creates a problem in the household today is the fact that money is required to cover the debt service of the family. Those who are caught are the ones who can least afford it. I would only say to the Department of Consumer Services, to the minister, that education is the one thing that can save, in many instances, problems in the household if all members of that household know how to handle consumer credit. As long as we can instil that in the high schools, in the grade 12s, grade 11s, so that when they come out of school they have some idea that there is a cost to buying things on time....

The effect on the family, through the loss of dollars because of paying for debt service, is becoming very tragic. Heavier and heavier the burden gets, and it even affects, I think, our working force to such an extent that today, in many instances, strikes are not brought about because you cannot put food on the table; labour forces are sometimes influenced and go on strike for higher pay because members of the working force have to pay for the Skidoo, the camper in the driveway and the two cars in the garage. Mr. Chairman, if we can do one thing, it's to make sure that we make every effort to educate the young and the old in the use of consumer credit.

One of the things that came to my attention last night in the paper was that in New Zealand they have now looked at curtailing consumer credit. All credit purchases on cars and light trucks have been banned, and the deposit requirement on some household equipment has been increased by as much as 50 per

[ Page 1572 ]

cent. If I recall, back in the late 1940s in this country you had to have 25 per cent down before you could purchase an automobile.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): How old were you then?

MR. HEWITT: Very young at that time. I wasn't in the class where I could buy an automobile, but that was the law at that time. I, for one, feel that if that law had been instilled throughout the last 20 years, we probably wouldn't have the problems of today in regard to consumer credit. If we did have such regulations, we would lower the cost to the consumer — his carrying charge — and he would be able to cope a little more with his day-to-day living. I would ask the minister to consider it. I must say that I'm not aware whether that would be provincial or federal legislation, but I think it is a point we could consider in regard to keeping the inflation down and keeping the people from running into situations where they have to apply for debtor's assistance through the legislation and through the services of the Consumer Services department.

One of the biggest problems that I have found in the field of finance is that the house purchase is the largest consumer purchase any family will make. I feel very strongly that government should look at protection of that consumer at the time the contract is made, at the time the sale is completed, at the time the mortgage or agreement for sale is signed. I'm not talking about all mortgage companies or money lenders — there are good money lenders, good mortgage companies — I'm talking about the exceptions to the rule. I would like to cover three things mainly: one is the interest rate when you relate it to a discount on a mortgage or to a bonused mortgage or to the famous balloon payment at the end of a term on a mortgage.

In last night's paper there was a headline that stated: "Eighty-five Per Cent Third Mortgage Interest, and It's Perfectly Legal." If I could read for a moment regarding one particular case, there was a first mortgage on a particular piece of property at 18 per cent on which this party still owed $14,300. In addition, they owed $4,800 on a second mortgage at 24 per cent. Then the third mortgage came along and this document was for $3,000 at 24 per cent interest, but they didn't get the $3,000. The company only gave them $1,600, keeping the $1,400 for expenses, if you can imagine $1,400 expenses to draw a $3,000 third mortgage! These people signed a contract, signed a legal mortgage, initialed the pages, probably, but didn't really understand what they were doing. They were desperate. As a result, they would undoubtedly in the end lose their house.

Mr. Chairman, one of the other problems — that's a very severe case I just quoted — that I have seen many times is the balloon payment at the end of a five-year contract where a person who's purchasing a home signs up to a mortgage that may be for $20,000. It has a five-year term but it's amortized over 25 years. At the end of the five-year term, they get a letter which states: "You may now pay this mortgage out or you have the choice of re-financing it." That person, of course, can't pay it out, so they go to refinance it, but they find that in order to refinance it they have to pay a bonus of $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000. All of sudden they're back to where they started or they're in a worse position than when they originally started to pay on the mortgage that they took out.

Mr. Chairman, again I quote that it is not the respectable mortgage companies that do this, but it is the ones that walk in the shadows that take advantage of the people who can least afford it. I would ask the minister that he review that, that his department look at the problem and see whether or not we can give assistance to those people who really don't have, possibly, the education to understand the severity of the problem when they sign that document.

Mr. Chairman, another instance of a problem is where a person decides to sell their home. They list it, they get a purchaser, but they must take back a second mortgage. They have a second mortgage drawn up, usually with the assistance possibly of the real estate agent, and the conditions of that second mortgage are very liberal to the purchaser but very severe to the vendor of the property. The vendor is led to believe that there is no problem because they can automatically, after the sale is completed, sell that second mortgage and get their cash. And they can, but they can only sell it at a discount. They may be an elderly couple who want to move into a retirement centre. They sell their property, they think they are going to get possibly $10,000 out of a second mortgage that they're going to sell, and they find out, because of the terms of that second mortgage, that when they go to sell it it's only worth $5,000, because it may have had a 30-year term or the interest rate may have been below the market rate, and they are forced to sell at such a discount that it severely penalizes them. They were led to believe that they could sell it for the full value of the mortgage.

To the minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, I would suggest, if possible, that his department look at the regulation to limit the rate of interest to be charged with relationship to a discount on a mortgage. The interest may well be the current market rate plus cost of drawing that mortgage or transferring the mortgage to the new owner.

Mr. Chairman, the interest penalty on a lump-sum payout or a lump-sum payment on a mortgage is also a problem, where a person who wants to make a lump-sum payment on their mortgage finds that they pay three months' or six months' interest penalty or,

[ Page 1573 ]

if they wish to pay the mortgage out, they have to pay the penalty on the outstanding balance. Sometimes it's difficult to understand when the lender receives the money back and can use that money and reinvest it on the market again, and yet the person who is paying it out is penalized for paying off a charge on their property. I think the Department of Consumer Services might well look at that to see whether or not there could be some safeguards put in so that people are protected against this type of use of mortgage documents.

Mr. Minister, if your department would study the matter of a minimum down payment required on consumer purchases, I think it might do well to help curb inflation in this province. I think it might do well to soften the debt load that consumers are carrying if the department can look at the regulation and control in the abuse of the mortgage field, not by the many, many mortgage companies that are reputable firms but by those companies that walk in the shadows and take advantage of the people who can least afford it.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): I'll try very briefly to answer the member for Boundary-SimiIkameen's questions. Unfortunately, most of the questions he raised in the latter part of his speech relate to things over which my department has no control and which, quite frankly, ought to be directed to the Attorney-General — particularly those things which relate to mortgages and things of that nature.

A number of other things that he raised, I'm afraid, are questions for the federal government — enforcement of their statutes such as the Interest Act and things of that nature.

Getting back to the original part of his question, Mr. Chairman, to the member through you, I would like the House to know that the whole area of consumer credit is under study and has been under study for some time, dating well back into the previous administration. I must also say that the constitutional legislation battle is probably being fought on this field more than any other field.

The whole question of consumer credit, of course, as I'm sure the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) knows, has come under consideration of the borrowers and depositors protection Act, a proposed federal statute which has caused us a great deal of grief in my department and within the government because it proposes, in our view, to take over a great deal of legislation that British Columbia has now and has had for a great length of time, and also would curtail what we consider to be our legitimate area of interest.

I would like also to point out to the member for Boundary-Similkameen that we have had under study, along with the federal government, the question of electronic payments, the whole question of credit cards and, as a matter of fact, the whole question of consumer credit.

Insofar as house-buying is concerned, I think, as I indicated to the House yesterday, we are looking very seriously at that problem. HUDAC has already got the plan which will come into force in a month's time, and that too is under study.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in the remarks of the member for Boundary-Similkameen. He reminded me a little bit of the former member for North Vancouver-Capilano. But he's the only member on that side, to my knowledge, who's actually come out and showed any concern about inflation. We haven't heard anything from anybody other than that member. But then I remember that he's probably somewhat misplaced in that party; I understand he was a Liberal before he became a Socred.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): No, he fits right in.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he fits right in. I'm sorry, yes, he fits right in. That's right. My colleague tells me that they all fit together.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: I've always been what I've always been. I don't have any problems about that. I don't wake up in the middle of the night and wonder which hat I've got to put on.

I was hoping that we would hear something from the.... Oh, the Premier's back. That's really good because I would think that under this vote he would be getting up and telling us what he's going to do for the consumer, particularly those 110,000 consumers that are presently unable to consume too much because they are not employed.

I would hope that the minister will have something to say about that. After all, the fact that we have 110,000 consumers in this province unemployed has a significant impact on our economy. Yes, the Premier agrees. He was the one who predicted way back in October, that we would have 130,000 in this province by April. Well, I think he's about to achieve one of the only promises he ever made and that he's likely to keep — that we're likely to have 130,000 unemployed in this province by next month.

We've yet to hear from that government about what they're going to do. We know what the minister of shovels is going to do; he's got 75 people, and he's going to put some of those consumers to work. But we've heard nothing from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) about what he's going to do for consumers. We don't even know what

[ Page 1574 ]

he's going to do for the farmers.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): We know what you are going to do.

MR. LEVI: Aha, here we go. There's that man again. He's moving his mouth, and he's not saying anything.

But what I'd like to talk about now, Mr....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The million-dollar man.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I'd like to talk about two concerns that I have in relation to private pension plans and the RRSP. I'm talking about these matters from the point of view of workers who are consumers. Although it's not a matter that has previously been brought to the attention, in a broad way, even to his predecessor, I think it is in the interests of the consumer, and certainly should become a concern of the minister in respect to the problems that exist in private pension plans and the RRSP.

Now as you know, the time has long since passed when workers have to rely on their personal savings to take care of their future security. It was this party, along with the trade union movement, that set out to establish and demonstrate the need for pension plans, but there was a great deal of trouble and there were some very strong and difficult struggles in order to get those pension plans.

In Canada today we have about 20,000 private pension plans. They cover about 40 per cent of the work force, and that is approximately what kind of coverage we have in this province. Ninety-eight percent of the people in the pension plans in Canada are civil servants.

The best kind of administered plans are the public ones, in the terms of the public service, but there's a continuing debate in respect to private pension plans regarding two major concerns. One of them is inflation and its effect on private pension plans, and the other one, as characterized by people in the field who know, is the abysmal investment performance of some of the people who have been managing pension plans.

Now with respect to inflation, if there is a 10 per cent inflation in effect, as we have now — or almost 11 — a pension that presently is $5,000 a year will be worth about $2,900 in five years.

Mr. Gibson, who was the former executive vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, said that pension plans are not built to absorb more than about 3 per cent in terms of inflation. At the time he said this, about a year ago, the question of indexing in order for pensions to keep up was going to be an extremely costly matter.

But in respect to pensions from the investment point of view, pension funds, both private and public — but I want to deal with the private ones — play an ever-increasing role in the national investment policy. It's always interesting to me that the workers who work on the line, who are the contributors to these pensions, who are the consumers, never really see themselves as having a major role in the investment policy of this country. Yet they do have, because they contribute half of the money that goes toward the Canada Pension Plan and about 35 per cent of all the money that goes into private pension plans. At the moment we have about a $30 billion investment in private pension plans, and the worker is contributing somewhere between $12 and $15 billion of this.

It's again interesting that these workers, as consumers, have great difficulty in getting mortgages. Yet they are making available to that investment community some $12 to $15 billion. Yet, as the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) said...he talks about the high costs of obtaining mortgages.

Now having regard to all this, I do want to raise the question and the need in this province for pension benefit legislation. At the moment there are five provinces that have it, but we don't. It is a question of looking at what the best kind of legislation is that we need. Again, because we are dealing with consumers, I think it's important that the minister talk with his colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I guess he, at the moment, seems to be involved in insurance matters. At the present time there is no legislation, and certainly there is a need that there should be. I want to discuss in terms of that future legislation three possible areas that should be covered: one is the improved portability arrangements, the second one is the survivor and disability benefits, and the third one relates to pension fund management.

The improved portability arrangement is one of the major factors in pensions. You know, as I said, there are five provinces that have it. Now the average Canadian worker is moving once every five years. He's going to another job, not necessarily to another town. Because he doesn't have a portability situation, unless he happens to be in one of the few major industries that has done this portability, he has to start all over again. So much so that the Canadian Labour Congress in its report states that only between 4 and 10 per cent of all people who contribute to private pension plans actually receive a full pension. Now I'm not saying that the other people don't receive pensions. They may receive partial pensions, but only that 4 per cent to 10 per cent actually receive a full pension.

Now there is great concern across Canada — and there must be in our province — that the performance in terms of the private pension plans must be improved. There was a recent recommendation from

[ Page 1575 ]

the Canadian Association of Pension Supervising Authorities that met last June for the first time — the province had two people present — that there be some specific issues discussed and then recommended in respect to investing and the time period. At the present time the age is usually 45, and the time period is 10 years, and the recommendation there is that it go down to 40 and it be five years.

Now these technicalities are something that, in terms of drawing up legislation, are the kinds of things that have to be discussed. I would hope that we will have an opportunity in the future to discuss such a bill.

Now on the survivors and the disability benefits, this is really one of the poorest aspects of private pension plans. You know, at present it's a virtual law of nature, unfortunately, that is condemning thousands of women who become widows to an even further reduction in their standard of living. In British Columbia under the previous government we had the Mincome programme for people over the age of 60, and the handicapped as well were assured....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): It went broke!

MR. LEVI: Who said that?

MR. KAHL: You did!

MR. LEVI: Ah! There's the member for Esquimalt, who is against Mincome. Now we've got it. That's the man! Went broke, my foot!

Now the important thing is that we have in place a basic pension fund, particularly to take care of widows, because at the present time in pension plans widows have no guarantee whatsoever that they can.... They can't take over the husband's pension, that's for sure. They get a reduced pension, and in some plans they don't get any pension. We have to look at that as a major concern. That's a major concern in terms of future costs for income assurance for people who are going into retirement.

There is the possibility, in looking at a British proposal that was made in 1969 — in terms of equity it was a good one — that the widow would simply inherit the husband's pension entitlement. But, of course, as we know actually, because the men are living fewer years than the widows, what is involved there is an enormous amount of money.

There has been discussion of the pension as an issue in terms of it being property. It was something discussed in the marriage property paper that was put out by the Berger commission, and, again, we have to pay some attrition to this. Also, there is the question of the disabled.

Now these are important questions in terms of the consumers in this province who are participating in pension plans. Particularly, we must see and be sure that both the private and the public one.... The public one, I must say, is a well-administered programme. But the minister must convince his leader, who sits in front of him, that as a result of an alteration in the Mincome programme, thousands of people are going to suffer because they are not going to receive the same kind of income that they have expectations to receive.

I'm talking particularly about the 60-64 who are now frozen at a particular level. I'm talking about the handicapped who are not going to be able to get the cost-of-living increase — something which that Premier promised when he was campaigning, that they would not only give Mincome but would add to it. Well, they've done exactly the opposite.

Now I want to deal with pension-fund management — and that's a pretty sore point across the country. Given the persistent inflation, it turns the investment process into a kind of roulette game — one might say it's even a Russian roulette. There must be, as a matter of law — and this is one of the things that I'm directing to the minister — a joint employer-management direction of funds. Pensions are deferred wages, and workers have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. We're not dealing with the matter of expertise in terms of management, because you can purchase that. What I'm dealing with, the basic issue, is a question of equity between the workers and the management.

It is interesting that following the June conference I referred to, the Ottawa Journal reported a statement that one trust company actually, over a period of 10 years, achieved an interest level of one-half of 1 per cent. Yet the average interest level is about 4 to 5 per cent, but it's less now because of inflation. One can wonder, I think, when in this day and age, where workers are setting aside money for their future security, the most they can expect to get from that is 4 to 5 per cent, when you can get Canada Savings Bonds at 9 per cent, and you can get some five-year term deposits at 10.2 or 10.3 per cent. So obviously there's got to be much better provision for that kind of joint management and the whole question of how to deal with the investment portfolio.

I just want to deal now with the RRSPs, the registered retirement savings plans. I think that this is an area, Mr. Minister, for consumer education. At the present time the RRSPs are sold something like new cars. There are at least 16 models you can purchase; seven are handled by banks, nine are handled by trust companies. Some of the jargon that is used is perhaps familiar to some of the car dealers over there. Mr. Derek Smith, manager of the special deposits for the Royal Bank, has said: "....and the reputation of the institution and the kind of service you get have to be worth something." He's talking about the particular programme that is issued. There's a whole language

[ Page 1576 ]

for the consumer to learn. It's not like filling out a lottery ticket. When you're after a registered retirement savings plan, it's very complicated, and it does have some of the elements of chance in it.

Now the consumer has to sort out what the 16 competitors are offering; he has to select the best investment vehicle. Canada Permanent Trust has got three: they've got one called Guaranteed Fund; they've got Fixed Income Fund; and they've got Equity Fund. The Royal Bank has three: they've got Royal Bank Retirement Deposits, Royal Fund Income Trust, and Royal Fund Limited. Then you have to understand the type of investment: is it bank deposits, common stock, mortgages, savings accounts, U.S. dollar deposits account, variable rates, government incorporation bonds...and a host of other types of investments? So it's tough. You might say: "Pity the poor consumer."

Then you have the acquisition charge, better known as the front-end load — you know: what is it going to cost you to get into the game? Then there's the rate of interest.

Of the 16 organizations, none of them seem to have the same kind of interest rates. Then you have an administration fee, or a trust fee, and for that decision you're going to need a calculator.

Then there's a management fee. Some people have difficulty in distinguishing between the trust fee and the management fee. Some charge both a management fee and an administration fee.

Then there are the transfer privileges — about one-third of the programmes charge for that privilege.

Then there's the minimum contribution to get into the plan, and that can be anywhere from $50 to $1,000 — but generally the plans are between $100 and $500. Finally, there's the termination or part-withdrawal fee.

I would, at this time, like to pay tribute to a member of the press, a business writer, Mr. Mike Grenby of The Vancouver Sun, who wrote a very interesting series of articles dealing with the RRSP. I would recommend to the minister that taking up this particular problem in terms of the consumer.... I presume he may have seen the article, because they are good. They take quite a bit of studying, and I think it would be very much in the interest of the consumers of the province if the minister's department would undertake to look at the RRSP.

Now I realize that we have some time between now and next year, because the big rush comes.... You know, there's always the big advertising rush that comes 60 days before the income tax documents have to be in,

But there is a very genuine need, because people are looking to their future security. At the same time as the minister is looking, I would hope that we can look forward to some legislation in this province in respect to private pension funds.

In closing about the RRSP, I've spent some time studying it, and I find that it's really virtually a minefield, and a lot of the consumers tend to go ploughing into it. What's really needed is the minister's office, the minister's department, who can go in there and develop an education programme very much in the same way they were able to do with the Trade Practices Act and debtors' counselling, both very excellent programmes which are being continued. Certainly there is a need in this particular area.

I would be interested in hearing the minister's remarks in respect to the legislation aspect of private pensions and the kind of education programme that we do need in respect to the registered retirement savings plans.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, as the member has pointed out, Mr. Grenby wrote a six-part article. I have before me here a veritable sheaf of newspaper articles and information relating to this particular subject. I agree with the member that it's complicated, but one must remember that it is a tax-saving device brought about principally by federal legislation.

When you're looking at tax-saving devices, I suggest to the member, through you, Mr. Chairman, it is often necessary to get counsel. There is a great deal of counsel available. There will always be good investments, bad investments and mediocre investments. I conceive it to be the duty of my department, the obligation of my department, to see that there is fair play in the marketplace, but not to lead people by the hand down to what I consider to be the right investment — or, even worse, leave it to some others at a future date to do the same thing.

The member, through you, Mr. Chairman, made some interesting observations about pensions. I was interested to note that, so far as my department is concerned, nothing was done in this regard prior to the change in government. It seems to have been a very good idea that the member has brought forward. I rather wonder why it wasn't brought up before, because I can certainly think of a number of programmes that were brought in that we could easily have sacrificed to make way for this type of a study.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): You're doing really well, but don't spoil it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go back to the other government, Rafe.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members opposite....

MS. BROWN: He was doing really well, and then he blew it.

[ Page 1577 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Ah, Rosemary!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. MAIR: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I think that the idea has merit for study. I will certainly take it up with my colleagues and see whether or not they agree with me that a study ought to be brought forth.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no influence with them at all.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to point out also, Mr. Chairman, that not all private plans, by any means, are the same. I can think of two, for example, which are excellent to the point of almost being extravagantly generous. I'm referring — and I don't mind naming the companies — to Simpsons-Sears as one and Woodward's Stores as another. You know, it's very easy to stand up in this House and categorize private pensions as if they were all bad. But that's far from the truth; there are lots that are very, very good indeed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. MAIR: B.C. Hydro — I was just going to mention that. Thank you, Mr. Premier, I was going to mention that we have some pension plans....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: We have some pension plans in the province that after two or three years of service pay $10,000 a year out to the end of the wife's life. It's not all private pension plans or public ones that are the same.

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's have orderly debate!

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did just want to make one further point. I am indeed grateful to the member for bringing this to our attention.

I will, indeed, look at the question of private pension plans. I must, though, if I may, just raise one thing as a minor point of order, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the member. I think all of us on this side of the House get a little tired of the members opposite referring to Mincome as if they had invented it instead of just the name. I would point out to the member opposite that we give you credit for inventing the name but not the programme.

SOME H ON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Do you feel better having said that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I sure do. You betcha!

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking under these estimates and brought up the question of ferry rates. I commented on the statements which had appeared in The Daily Colonist with respect to a speech that the minister had made in Campbell River. As a result of all of this, I am really quite confused. As I understand it, the Colonist reported that the minister had stated that ferry rates would be under review. On Sunday, according to radio reports, the minister said that he was referring only to the ferries in the Campbell River area. Then yesterday we received in the House a copy of a letter which is going to the editor of the Colonist with respect to his position. In that letter, he says that he did not say that there would be any review but that they would always be prepared to take a second look.

Now this really doesn't jibe with what the members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Vancouver Island section, heard at the meeting that night. I'm very confused by it all, but I am just appealing again to the minister to take this up with the cabinet — to take it up and ask that those ferry rates be reviewed.

I was just talking this morning to some people who are living on the southern Gulf Islands. I am concerned that the high unemployment that we were hearing about today is going to increase even more, because there are people from those islands who commute every day to work and are not going to be able to afford the rates. They're going to have to go on unemployment insurance; either that, or sell their homes and move onto Vancouver Island in order to retain their employment. I feel that on behalf of the consumers, and in view of the statements that he did make in Campbell River — although, as I say, I am somewhat confused on those statements at this stage — he should take up in cabinet the matter of a reduction in ferry rates.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I hope you will reply. I am not through yet, Mr. Minister, so just sit tight. I also sent over yesterday a copy of an ad which appeared in one of the local papers. I ask today whether or not he has had an opportunity to study that or to have comments from his department on that ad, as it relates to misleading advertising.

One other point that I raised yesterday was a request to the minister that the increase in gasoline

[ Page 1578 ]

prices and home-heating fuel prices not be passed on to the consumer in this province. I pointed out that under the Energy Act it is quite possible to hold those prices and not pass them on, in spite of whatever the federal government might do or whatever the oil companies might do.

The Premier today indicated that there is a price freeze at the refinery level and that those prices, therefore, will not be passed on to the consumers. I am quite pleased to hear that. I am wondering if you had the ear of the Premier this morning as a result of the comments made in the House yesterday with respect to the Energy Act. It is my understanding that the Premier has said that these freezes will not be lifted at this time or at any time in the future. I am delighted to hear that.

I would like to raise a question that relates to the tax refund buyers. This is an insidious system in our province where people can set up shop here, there and everywhere and offer to purchase the income tax forms from people and pay them a given sum for it. As you know, the people who go to these firms are the ones who can least afford to be bilked, and they are being bilked. I am sure that you are aware of it; certainly the deputy minister is aware of what is happening. He has promised, as a matter of fact, in The Vancouver Sun, January 21.... Some time ago the deputy minister promised to "shout from the rooftops" about the unscrupulous companies offering so-called loans against their income tax rebates.

The deputy minister also is quoted as saying that in most cases the cash received is "a small fraction" of what is returned in the rebate. He says: "If we had a usury law, these people would be in prison." I'm sure that he is.... Yes, the deputy minister is quoted as saying that, and I'm sure that he means it.

In January of this year — January 23 in The Vancouver Sun — you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, are quoted as saying that you will take action. Now I am still not aware of what action you are planning to take, and I would like to hear a report on that. Because this system must be stopped in this province. It's an incredible ripoff, usury.

MR. LAUK: He's still looking at the situation. Or are you dissociating yourself from your deputy's remarks?

HON. MR. MAIR: What deputy?

MS. SANFORD: Oh, after all those kind comments about the deputy minister yesterday, I am sure that the minister wishes to retract that statement.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think any discussion on Consumer Services, in view of the publicity this particular issue has had in the last two or three years, would be complete without some reference to canning lids. I would like to know if the minister can assure the people of the province that this summer there will be an ample supply of canning lids available and also that these canning lids will be of top quality. You may recall, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Safeway had to refund to customers in the province because the canning lids they had sold were no good. Unfortunately, the food which had been canned by the people who had bought those canning lids was wasted, and there was no refund to them for the loss of food.

The next item that I would like to deal with briefly, Mr. Chairman, relates to a situation that is now occurring back east. This is as a result of hearings which are being held by the CRTC on plans which Bell Telephone planned to introduce into Ontario and Quebec later this year. The company is planning to modify the telephone receiver in such a way that people who must wear hearing aids will not be able to use telephones. Now this is regrettable. You are obviously not familiar with this situation, and I would be quite happy to send you the information about it.

But what is happening is that there is a new type of telephone receiver which is being installed in Ontario and Quebec. Appealing to the CRTC is a coalition of hearing aid users who are requesting that the CRTC make some ruling with respect to the introduction of these telephones back east. Now it seems to me that it would be tragic, indeed, if people who are required to wear hearing aids would be denied access to the telephone. I don't know what's going to be required here, whether they would have to have adapters on their own phones in order to make the hearing aid work or whether they are going to have to have new hearing aids to fit the telephone. But one way or the other, those people who now wear hearing aids, I know, are going to suffer as a result of this particular move. I would ask that you look into that. Because if the move is being made back in Ontario and Quebec, it's likely to be made here. If we can make some move in advance of that, I think we may be able to alleviate the problems created for those who must wear hearing aids.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is that the federal government or the provincial government?

MS. SANFORD: Well, it's the CRTC. The federal government is holding the hearings. But I think that you, as minister, may be able to make some moves here before the actual changes are made. I would be happy to send that particular clipping over to the minister if he would take it.

The next point that I would like to raise fairly briefly relates to eye care. There was an article in The Vancouver Sun in February of this year which had a headline saying: "Market Control Charged as Adding

[ Page 1579 ]

to High Cost of Eye Care in B.C." This again, Mr. Minister, is the federal Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which was holding hearings at that time. But allegations were made there by one of the optical companies that the two major companies involved in the manufacture of eyeglasses are, in fact, charging far too much. What they are requesting is that the federal government bring in some regulations which would prohibit the expansion of those two particular companies for a period of 10 years.

What I am wondering is whether or not this department made any representations to the trade practices commission when it was holding public hearings and, secondly, whether or not you have, in fact, followed up as a result of the information which appeared in the press at that time with respect to market control in the area of eye care.

I think, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like to answer some of these points I will take my seat at this time.

HON. MR. MAIR: Dealing with the last point first, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member for Comox, I am instructed that the B.C. Department of Health did make representations to that commission. It was not done through my department.

MS. SANFORD: Is there any follow-up? Do you know what's happening? Has there been any follow-up on that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am instructed that proceedings are still continuing, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member. I certainly don't want to dwell on this question of Campbell River and the speech I gave up there last Friday, except to say two things. First of all, the letter which I filed in this House is a true explanation of what did, in fact, happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Legally.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it's the truth, Gary — sorry — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the noisy member across.

Secondly, the radio reports that I think you've heard, Madam Member, ought to be taken in this light. I didn't hear them, first of all, myself. The speech was made on Friday night; the publication was on Sunday morning — a full day intervened. I was not contacted by anybody Saturday at all. The first contact I had from anybody in the media was from CJVI, which, I understand, is a local Victoria radio station. That contact was approximately 9:30 Sunday night. I gave a voice clip, and that's the only contact I had with anybody other than the Vancouver Province, which chose not to run it as any kind of a story.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Any kind of a real story. They had a little story on the back of the front section, which didn't really amount to a great deal.

MR. LAUK: Attacking the press.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, they had a little better sense of proportion, I think, under all of the circumstances, but suffice it to say also that I looked at the comments this morning in the Colonist, which I'm sure were direct quotes from the people who were there. However, I know who those people were, and I know what their mental attitude was at the time. They were extremely agitated, and quite frankly, I think they were prepared to hear what they wanted to hear. I stand by what I said in the letter which I filed in this House.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying they lied?

HON. MR. MAIR: At the moment that's enough of that.

Dealing with the tax refund buyers, to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I am extremely agitated about this problem and have been since I took office. It is not a question that we're constantly studying, as the noisy member across would have us believe. It's something we have been discussing actively with the federal government, and I have said this, and I'll say it again in this House: if the federal government does not live up to what its obvious responsibility is — because it clearly comes within their constitutional obligations and constitutional rights — I will recommend to our government that we do something. Of course, you understand, Madam Member, that what I recommend may or may not be taken up by the government. I rather hope that this would. In all events, I am hopeful that the federal government will install legislation to take care of the situation.

We're concerned, and one of the reasons that we are concerned about getting into this, quite frankly, is our constitutional right to do so. Normally, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Comox, I'm the last person to be concerned about provincial rights to legislate. I would rather take them first and ask questions later, but it seems to me, not only as a lawyer myself, but on the advice of my staff, that this is something that quite clearly comes within the federal preserve, and were we to legislate on it at this point probably it would be attacked on a constitutional basis by the people that we're trying to control. I would not want to come in with legislation only to have it challenged by the tax buyers in the courts at tax time next year, have the matter sub judice, and have them able to carry on and do it again for one year through the dodge of testing its

[ Page 1580 ]

constitutionality. At least I would not want to have that responsibility on the provincial government, so we will continue to urge the federal government to legislate in this field, and if they don't, you have this undertaking: I will take it to the government I have the honour of representing, and I will ask them to seek the legislation from this House to cure the problem.

So far as canning lids are concerned, Madam Member, this is, of course, as you know and my predecessor knew, a very difficult question indeed. It's very hard to get a full grasp of how many canning lids are required and how many are available. Moreover, we've discovered a new dimension this year — not entirely new, but certainly new in its magnitude — and that's the quality of the canning lids that have been supplied. There has been such a problem raised with the supply of them that a number of new suppliers have come into the market. It's impossible for us, with our facilities, to know whether or not these supplies are of good quality. We are now asking for sufficient funds to put in a type of testing. It's not going to be a very fancy, very sophisticated type of testing, but we would like to enter into that field at least to a degree so that we can eliminate the ones that are obviously bad. I'm not going to give this as an undertaking, but I'm fairly confident that this year the problem is under control so far as canning lids are concerned. I certainly hope so. We've certainly done our best and worked very hard at it.

There's the question of the ad that the member sent over to me yesterday. I have given that ad — as I'm sure you would have wanted me to do — to the department and asked them to investigate it.

This is probably a very useful time, Mr. Chairman, through you to the House, to say that if all these individual cases which cause concern to the members — I know that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) yesterday was concerned about one or two things — are brought to my department, I'm not going to assure the House that they'll be taken care of in the sense that the result you desire will be achieved, but they will be looked at and investigated in the same way that all complaints are investigated by my department — thoroughly and properly.

MS. SANFORD: There is one other matter that I would like to bring to the minister's attention and to ask him a question about.

One of the things that is happening back east is that supermarkets are going into the computer business in a big way. Companies are now applying a code system to all of the products. This code system consists of a series of bars that appears on.... I've got some examples here. On almost every item that you buy now, you find a series of bars which indicates the code which can then be fed into the computer.

Now this is rather an insidious system. I don't like this approach, Mr. Chairman, to the marketing of food products, and I'm concerned about it. One thing apparently that can happen is that the master computer, which simply marks up the price of whatever product it is that you're buying, can put on a price which is different from the one that you read on the shelves, because by the time you carry it from the shelf to the scanner which feeds the information to the computer, the price can change.

Now that kind of thing can happen, but in addition to that, it is my understanding that back east, where some of these have come into effect, the supermarkets are no longer marking each item on the shelves with its individual price. All they're doing is putting up a label along the shelf which supposedly applies to a given section of goods that appear on those shelves. These labels, from my own experience in supermarkets, are very often moved — they can be slid back and forth; very often one of the numbers falls out onto the floor — so it is my suggestion to you, Mr. Minister, that if this system is initiated in British Columbia, as I'm sure it will be, the Consumer Services department ensure that each item on the supermarket shelves continues to have a price on it. I'm wondering if you would comment on that.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd be pleased to comment on that. We have now funded the Consumers' Association of Canada, I believe in the amount of $3,000, to study the situation and report back to us.

We're aware of the problems, and we've been in touch with the industry. Two or three weeks ago we met with a number of them on this problem, and I think I can say it's in hand.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Just two or three short points to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, on the staffing of his department, I took through with great interest and see that there are some additions to a couple of the votes: nine to the trade practices branch and five to the community programmes. Anyway, there is a total addition of 13 people in areas in the field where it seems it would be a very good place to have these people.

However, this particular department, like the other departments of government, is going to be subject to a 15 per cent staff reduction. It's interesting to me to note that if you take the total number of staff and reduce it by 15 per cent, it's reduced by exactly the number of people you're proposing to add. I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if in fact these new people you're proposing to add are the ones that are going to be cut or are you proposing to make some cuts of existing staff in other areas?

[ Page 1581 ]

Secondly, and this has been touched on to some degree, but I'm sure all the members saw this headline in the Victoria Times the other night: "Eighty-Five Per Cent Third Mortgage Interest Rate." You know, that is just shocking. Then it goes on to say, "It's Perfectly Legal," and it is perfectly legal in the very narrow sense of the term, but there is no moral legality about that kind of an interest rate, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the method by which it is arrived at is that this particular couple borrowed, I think it was, $3,600 at 24 per cent, but when the expenses were taken off by the loan broker the actual cash that they received was only $1,400, which reduced the amount of cash and increased the actual, factual interest rate to 85 per cent.

Now I know there are all kinds of jurisdictional problems and other kinds of problems, but I would urge that the minister have a good close look at these kinds of tactics in the loan field. It's just disgraceful that consumers can be put into a position of paying 85 per cent interest.

Just very briefly, I want to touch on one thing that has concerned me for a long time. It really relates to what I consider to be false advertising, and that is in connection with B.C.-grown produce or non-B.C.-grown produce. It is apparently perfectly legal in this province to display a large sign reading "Canada grade No. 1" or "B.C. grade No. 1" and then, in very small letters underneath that, "grown in California." I would ask the minister to have a good look at this practice and see if he cannot move to protect our agricultural industry to some greater degree than by allowing that kind of practice to continue.

I don't know if in this debate we have actually discussed anything about spreads and markups, but I want to deal with just a couple of agricultural products where I feel there is evidence of some very specific areas where an investigation would be well advised on the part of the minister.

I mentioned chicken during the agricultural estimates, and I would refer this to the Minister of Consumer Services: the producers' price, eviscerated equivalent, is something less than 48 cents. The processors, who are also the wholesalers, indicate that their costs range between 14 and 15 per cent. So we are talking about 62, 63 cents to put that product in the hands of the retailers. And we all know that price bears no relation to the kind of price we pay. If you go out and price chicken on the retail shelves, or if you buy chicken, there's a tremendous markup in that area. I would urge the Minister of Consumer Services to investigate that.

Regarding beef: now my figures are not absolutely up to date, but even though the prices might be different, the amount of spread has not changed. You would note that a producer who sells an animal live weight that might weigh 800 pounds would receive, say, between 40 and 48 cents a pound, or an average of 44 cents, which would be $352. He sells that to the feeder; the feeder is obliged to buy grain, which has become quite high — feed grains have been suffering inflationary costs in the last few years too. He fattens that animal till it gains 300 pounds in weight and equals 1,100 pounds. At that point he sells it at less than he paid for it per pound. So if it weighs 1,100 pounds, he is selling it between 42 and 43 cents, for an average of, say, $467. In return for all the feed and all the time, he has gained something just in excess of $100.

He sells it to the packer, who, of course, dresses the animal. When he finishes he only has 616 pounds to sell. He sells that at 75 cents a pound which, in effect, returns him less than he paid; it only returns him $462. I would suggest that the only thing keeping the packer in business is the fact that he can sell the byproducts like hides and other products for fertilizer and so on from that animal. But it doesn't look like he's making very much. In fact, one packer says here that the packing houses...it's a wonder how they're even staying alive. This is one of the the packers that's making this statement.

Then it goes to the butcher who sells 432 pounds of meat, and that meat will average from in excess of $1 to nearly $4 a pound, but if you take the average price it would be $2.54. He is selling that animal for in excess of $1,000, so once again it's that spread between the wholesale and the retail; that's where we're finding the great spread in these kinds of products. I would urge upon the Minister of Consumer Services to investigate those areas as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, at long last I'm able to enter into the debate and question the minister about consumer services.

There's a situation developing in this province that is quite serious, and which I fear may not be handled by this minister for a number of reasons.

Just to recapitulate what has been discussed from time to time during this first session of this 31st parliament, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of promises made by the Social Credit Party during the election campaign in November of last year: they promised that they would freeze taxes; they promised to keep rent control as it was. We even had the Premier sign an ad to that effect in the local newspapers — he promised that he would keep rent control as it was. Well, they kept rent control, but they raised it to 10.6 per cent from the indicated 8.7 or 8.4 per cent, in the reports that we had available to us.

They promised, generally, to fight inflation. What did they really do, Mr. Chairman? As this Minister of Consumer Services sat swinging back and forth in his

[ Page 1582 ]

chair in the House — and figuratively during the last five months — underemployed, ineffectual in cabinet, the government raised ferry rates, tampered with rent control, raised income taxes, sales taxes and automobile insurance rates.

Another promise, Mr. Chairman, of the Premier — and I'm sorry he's not in his chair; perhaps he should be for this....

I was going to point this out, Mr. Chairman, during the estimates of the various ministers here. In the last two administrations in this province, the Premiers of the various provinces were available more often in this House for committee work and for the work of the House than the present Premier. He's seldom in his chair, Mr. Chairman, seldom in his chair to receive the legitimate criticisms of the opposition and to be available to hear the debate in this committee.

He said: "Unemployment is the most serious issue of this election." He accused the government of the day of attacking and restricting major industries of the province. He said that we'd lost the heavy flow of tax dollars. Well, they've certainly gained that back, haven't they, Mr. Chairman? They've got a nice flow of tax dollars now, the very dollars he said that provide programmes for people that need assistance. And he's cut back on spending; everybody knows that.

He said: "To get B.C. moving again we need a government that will work responsibly with industries and establish strong policies that will create jobs. We need a government that will end mistrust and restore confidence." He said: "100,000 people out of work; can we afford the Barrett way?" Today, referring to the cost-of-living statistics....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm waiting patiently for you to relate this to the administrative responsibility of this minister, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Protector of the company world!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfair tactic. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Your monthly labour force data for B.C. and Canada indicates the highest number of persons unemployed in the history of this province — 110,000 people. That's 10,000 more than he claimed at the time were unemployed in B.C. — 10,000 more people unemployed in this province today, Mr. Chairman.

Now I know that we did not have the opportunity to debate this urgent matter of public importance that was clearly within the rules of the House. It was for some unexplainable reason ruled out of order by the Speaker. But I had hoped — as he indicated, at least, by turning down the motion — that he didn't think it was urgent because we'd have an opportunity in estimates to raise this issue. And I would like....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. Under the administration of the proper minister, perhaps this debate would be in order. But I fail to see how it's in order under the administrative responsibility of the Department of Consumer Services. So I would ask, please, that you relate your remarks....

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to point out is that I want to point out the unemployment rate and indicate how that has been caused by the inaction of the Minister of Consumer Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the minister's administrative responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it must be within the ministerial responsibility. I will be listening, and if I sense that you're wandering, I will direct it to your attention.

MR. LAUK: I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, he said: "100,000 people are out of work. Can we afford the Barrett way?" Well, a question is being asked across this province today, Mr. Chairman. They don't even ask the question: can we afford the Bennett way? They know they can't afford it because they're out of work. They're paying higher taxes. They're paying higher rates for insurance premiums. They're paying higher rates for Hydro. And the Minister of Consumer Services has no clout, says nothing in cabinet, sits on his hands as the average householder in this province is being taxed to death, is working harder than ever — if they have a job — to try and pay those taxes. And the Minister of Consumer Services allows these rate increases by government betraying the promise to the people of this province that they would fight inflation.

"Get B.C. moving again, " they said. "Provide more jobs...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must interrupt you again to remind you that a debate on unemployment does not seem to fall within the responsibility of this minister's department.

MR. LAUK: Well, what then is this minister's responsibility? He's not responsible for rate increases in the ferries. He's not responsible for Hydro increases. He dissociates himself completely from his deputy's remarks on income tax buying. He denies

[ Page 1583 ]

making statements that he made up in Campbell River. He sends legalistic letters around, trying to get off the hook. He's spending more time writing letters to newspapers than he is spending time on his job. I'll describe that job to you, Mr. Chairman.

What's the history of the Department of Consumer Services in this province? Let's discuss that for a moment.

A lady by the name of Phyllis Young was asked to establish a department in the government service that would be designed for the protection of the consumers in this province, the average person in this province — not the big corporations, not B.C. Hydro and not B.C. Ferries, a department that was akin to the Department of the Attorney-General, a department that was committed to doing what was just and right by the consumer, and have the guts to stand up against one's colleagues in caucus and in government and protect that consumer's interest.

Now this lady, a former member of this House, established one of the finest departments of consumer services in the country, and enabled the passage of legislation in this House that is modelled throughout North America — the most advanced legislation in North America, legislation that is emulated in many other jurisdictions.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

But you know, Mr. Chairman, legislation is meaningless unless there is a strong minister to perform the tasks that were contemplated by the legislation, a minister who is heard and respected in his cabinet. A minister who takes the side of the consumer should be heard in his cabinet.

Let me point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that no later than last fall, Phyllis Young, in the strongest possible terms, indicated to the government of the day that she was the Minister of Consumer Services, that food prices were soaring to the detriment and disadvantage of the average person in British Columbia, more than in any other province in the country, and that so long as she was minister of that department, that must be stopped.

What we need now, and what the consumers of this province need more than ever in this province, is a minister like Phyllis Young.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They need Phyllis Young.

MR. LAUK: They need Phyllis Young, Mr. Chairman, not a minister who will say: "Well, the only thing a consumer needs is a...."

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Where is she? The people didn't seem to want her back.

MR. LEA: That was before you had five months.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's only taken them a couple of months to become arrogant and contemptuous of the opposition. You sit there, and because you've got your numbers, you figure you can make comments like that across the floor of this House. You are disrespectful to the 40 per cent of the people that elected this opposition; you are disrespectful to the other 11 per cent who elected a Tory (Mr. Wallace) and a Liberal (Mr. Gibson) to this House. The majority of the people in this province did not support a Social Credit government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, on vote 30.

MR. LAUK: I'm referring to vote 30, on the interruption of a very arrogant Minister of Health who is sitting here wasting his time when there is a very dangerous labour dispute going on outside.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): You're wasting your time!

MR. LAUK: You're sitting here wasting your time cross-commenting in an arrogant way, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to vote 30 please, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Would you call those members to order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Do you know, Mr. Chairman...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Whenever we start to hurt them a little bit, they start to yell and scream and bang their Pablum spoons on their desks, and their sand shovels, and start to shout over. It's the typical reaction we get from a very arrogant group of coalition elitists.

[ Page 1584 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 30.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister believes in the free market system, he believes that the buyer must beware, and he believes that there should be no.... Really, his philosophy is there should be no restrictions on unscrupulous vendors in our society — sales people and so on. He believes that because actions speak louder than words.

We are tired, as the minister so often has stood in this House and told us he was about something we had said, tired of hearing that minister say things and doing the opposite.

HON. MR. MAIR: Action speaks louder than words.

MR. LAUK: Actions speak louder than words; and the Minister of Consumer Services is a total failure. He has sat back in his chair and allowed those unscrupulous increases in government rates to occur at the maximum disadvantage of the people of this province. He has done nothing; he has said nothing. He's a disaster, Mr. Chairman.

The only thing we have got from him was his statement of what he was going to do for the consumer: let them get kicked in the rotunda. Well, the minister has fallen on his rather large aplomb, because in five months, Mr. Chairman, he has done absolutely nothing for the consumer except talk, try and change his speeches, send letters to newspapers and get carried away with his image.

Well, more than the minister's image is at stake in this province today. At stake today is the highest cost of living in this province. The highest unemployment rate in the history of British Columbia has taken place, and it's the third-highest today in Canada, including the Atlantic provinces.

It's an outrage: 110,000 people unemployed, the highest cost of living in this country, Mr. Chairman, and he does nothing. He has contempt for the average householder and consumer in this province. If he doesn't do something soon, he should resign in disgrace. If he, a former lawyer, a distinguished lawyer, I might say, an articulate man, not without intelligence, by contrast.... No, not without intelligence, but he has a fear to be heard in his cabinet unparalleled in the history of executive councils in this province. In the face of the highest cost of living in the history of British Columbia, he does nothing but make fatuous statements to the press.

He's a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. I regret very much saying that, but we have people coming to us every day with letters and complaints and frustration after frustration.

As the Minister of Consumer Services sits on his hands, there are 110,000 people unemployed. Can it be said too often, Mr. Chairman? It should be said in this House 110,000 times, one time at least for every member who is unemployed, every British Columbian...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: ...who cannot pay the high cost of living and the increase in rates in taxes that have come about because of the sheer negligence of that minister of the Crown.

I don't have any specific questions for this minister. One time they described Waldo Skillings.... There's nothing to ask, because he's not going to do anything, and he hasn't done anything! He has taken the best piece of legislation on consumer protection in the history of Canada, and he's letting it lie fallow to gather dust, turn yellow, gather cobwebs, sitting on his hands, swinging back and forth in his seat, chortling and laughing, our jolly Minister of Consumer Services. "Let them be kicked in the rotunda," he says.

Mr. Chairman, very disappointing indeed! The message that will get out to the people of British Columbia is that the Minister of Consumer Services is all talk and no action. He quivers in his boots when he goes to cabinet meetings. He's afraid to even mention what's happening to the consumer in the face of that Minister of Education over there who ruthlessly raised ICBC rates, in the face of the Minister of Transport and Communications, who, with his Rhodes Scholarship, knows full well that he needs four times the ferry rates to make a profit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, could you deal with the specific minister?

MR. LAUK: I am dealing with him. I'm saying that that minister's incapable of dealing with these rate increases because he's afraid of them. He can't be afraid. I'm asking him to take courage and speak up on behalf of the consumer in this province.

Do you realize what's happened in the last two or three months in this province? The price freeze was lifted. Phyllis Young's price freeze was lifted without any protest whatsoever from the Minister of Consumer Services, and in that period of time both unemployment and the cost of food have risen to disastrous proportions, so much so that people on fixed incomes are completely strapped and cut out from the mainstream of society. They cannot afford the transportation. They cannot afford ICBC rates, so they're without automobiles. They can't travel by ferry. There's going to be an increase in bus rates that we're threatened with. They can't pay the sales taxes, because they're on fixed incomes. They can't pay the increased cost of food. All we have from the Minister of Consumer Services is: "Oh, well, it's under review"

[ Page 1585 ]

or "We're monitoring; we have a little basket." He said there were 80 basket items. That minister's a basket case. All he can report to this committee and to this House is that he's got 80 basket items and one went up and one went down and this happened and that happened. Oh, I'm glad he's contenting himself monitoring price increases. The people are tired of monitoring. They're tired of studies. They're tired of reviews. They're tired with "Oh, we're having a look." They want action!

Today we were struck with a lightning bolt, 110,000 people unemployed in this province with the cost of living rising. This minister does nothing!

I regret very much having to say that, Mr. Chairman. I really do. I haven't said it about any minister this session. I hoped I wouldn't have to. If anything, the other ministers have been too active for me. I wish they would be a little less active and the people a little less taxed to death.

This minister is a do-nothing minister. They used to say Waldo Skillings was a rubber duck. Well, I won't pursue that. I was going to say this minister's a lame duck.

You know, he's got some opportunity to recover, not only his image, which he'll admit is not important — I hope — but recover the stature of the Department of Consumer Services that Phyllis Young gave it, the stature to the ministry that Phyllis Young gave it, and give real protection to the consumers of this province as Phyllis Young gave.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I would allow my anger perhaps to get the better of me if I did not consider the source of the remarks made a moment ago.

MR. LEA: Have some charity.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll content myself by saying two things, if I may, Mr. Chairman, through you to that member. In answer to the charge that my department is doing nothing I might just point out one fact under the Trade Practices Act.

Last year a total of $375,000 was returned under the Trade Practices Act by way of rebates and refunds. That's for the entire year. For the first three months this year, it's $230,000, which would work out to $920,000 if this pace continues. I rather expect that the pace will increase, if anything.

As far as my personal courage is concerned, Mr. Chairman, through you to that member, I have not found it necessary to defend my personal courage either in a court of law...nor do I think I have to in this Legislature. I know I don't have to to my cabinet colleagues. If I come under attack from either of my cabinet colleagues or anybody who really matters, then I will indeed take the remarks seriously, and I perhaps might get angry and answer back.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): What did you say?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend some time this afternoon discussing the price of food. Many people have mentioned that already under these estimates; I feel that it needs more attention. The cost is increasing and increasing and increasing to consumers. The minister recognizes how important this is in terms of what it does to take money out of the pockets of the consumers in this province, because a 1 per cent increase in the price of food in British Columbia removes in one year $10 million from those consumers.

Now that we read that we have 110,000 unemployed, those are the consumers that are going to be hardest hit by these increases in food prices. The Anti-Inflation Board indicates that the price of food is likely to take a sharp increase during the next few months — go up another 2 or 3 percentage points. As I point out, $10 million a year for every percentage increase in the price of food in the province.

According to the Malin report — this is a report that was commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board — Canadians are paying an average of 4 per cent more for food costs than they should be. One of the reasons for this, according to that report, is the lack of competition amongst the four largest food dealers. The major supermarkets are so vertically integrated at this stage that they virtually control the price of food in this country. The Malin report gives some indication of that in their study.

They control it from every level from the farm on — even before the farm, because they are involved in the manufacture of equipment that is sold to farmers to utilize on the farms. They are involved in the seed production and the sale of seeds that farmers use to produce food.

This kind of vertical integration, I think, can be demonstrated very easily by just looking at one of them — the George Weston empire — and what's happening there. Many of these major companies control the manufacture of machinery that's used on the farms. They are involved in the seed production. They are involved in the production of fertilizers. They are involved in the production of actually the paper and the cardboard that is used in the packaging. They are involved in the processing level; they are involved in the wholesaling level.

Some of them even have companies which are part of the empire that they are involved in that provide the shelves and the office equipment that is used in these various supermarkets. So the whole chain is so completely controlled by those four major companies that the consumers of this country are paying more than they should be paying.

If you just look at this Weston empire, they are

[ Page 1586 ]

involved with the Eddy Paper Co. — that is part of the Weston food chain. They control Kelly Douglas; they control Nabob Foods; they control Cloverdale Paint — I suppose that's the paint that is used to paint the supermarkets that we purchase our food from.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not any more they don't.

MS. SANFORD: All right. That may have changed very recently; I may stand corrected on that. Malkin's, Dixon's Food Service, Foremost Foods Ltd., Loblaw's, Super-Valu, OK Economy Stores — all of these are part of the same empire. Biscuit manufacturing, dairy industry, chocolate industry — it doesn't matter where you look; these major companies are involved in some form or other.

Now the surveys that have been done on food prices in Canada indicate that while there may be wide variations from district to district, generally the municipalities in the northern parts of the provinces and in the outlying towns pay higher prices for their food than can be accounted for in transportation costs. There is also, according to surveys that are done, very little difference between the actual supermarkets in one region. There may be great variety, but within each region they stay pretty close to each other.

There was a Batten Report, way back in 1948, Mr. Chairman, which said the same thing. This was a royal commission headed by Judge Batten, who studied food prices in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Judge Batten said at that time: "The dominant positions of Canada Safeway and the Weston companies have led to the currently unsatisfactory performance of the grocery industry in the prairies." That's mild language, but it's a strong statement coming from a judge heading up a royal commission. She recommended at that time that a royal commission be set up to investigate, under the Combines Investigation Act, and that if that Act couldn't nail them, then the Act should be changed. She felt very strongly about the influence of these chains in the prairie provinces.

Just in case the judge may have been correct, the director of the investigation branch of the federal government at that time launched his own survey under the combines Act. What did he find? He found that comparison shopping at Safeway's in Edmonton revealed that people in the poorer areas of town were paying more for their groceries than people in the richer sections. In the poorer areas these supermarkets charge more than they do in the richer areas. They know that the poor can't afford to travel and do the kind of comparison shopping that others can.

Finally, in 1972, as a result of this Batten Report and the investigation by the director under the combines Act, certain conditions were laid down by the federal government for Safeway's operation in Calgary and Edmonton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, are you relating to vote 30 and this particular ministry?

MS. SANFORD: This relates directly to food prices, Mr. Chairman, and I think that this is one of the most important items that the minister should be concerned about at this time.

Safeway accepted the requirements at that time, because they had no real effect on their operation. Safeway's merchandising chief at that time said: "What they were charging us with was standard practice — standard business practice — and nothing immoral or illegal." He also said: "We grew from" — and here I have to delete the expletive — "to a significant operation." Then he goes on to say: "Isn't that the aim of private enterprise — to grow and make money?" That's not much comfort for the people who are living in the poorer sections of Edmonton, who had to pay higher prices for their food in that particular area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly relate your remarks to this province and this minister?

MS. SANFORD: It applies — because these supermarkets are present everywhere. The point that I want to make at this time is that the Minister of Consumer Services for this province does meet with the federal minister responsible as well as the other ministers across the country. I am appealing today that this minister do something. He's been criticized for having done nothing. I recommend that he does go back to Ottawa, or to whatever province they're going to meet in next, and call for some legislation with teeth in it so that we can begin to control the growth of these major supermarkets, so that we don't have to pay more for our food than is absolutely necessary.

There's one other point. I'm going to ask the minister to initiate a programme in which he publishes the prices found by the monitoring that's been undertaken by his department. This was done in Saskatchewan — I brought this out the other day — and the experience in Saskatchewan has shown that as a result of the publication of food prices there, food prices dropped. In Regina, on March 27, 1976, there was a 3.65 per cent drop from the food prices in November. Now this, according to the people that we have been able to talk to back there, has been a successful experiment. It has brought some sense of competition back into the supermarket chains, not only in terms of prices but in terms of services.

[ Page 1587 ]

I'm asking that the minister here, in an attempt to bring down the cost of food in British Columbia, initiate a system of publishing food prices here in British Columbia. If, based on the experience in Saskatchewan, we are able to bring down the cost by one percentage point, we will save the consumers of this province, in one year, $10 million.

I would suggest that the minister do undertake this and that the costs involved are really not that significant. I have the figures for the five-month period for the province of Saskatchewan. It's not that significant, and in order to save $10 million or more to the consumers of this province I think that money is worth spending.

They have stopped the programme for the moment. They are evaluating it and intend to re-initiate it again. They want to refine it and bring it back in in the province of Saskatchewan.

Again I want to go back to my original request to the minister that he appeal in cabinet to have those ferry rates brought down. The increase in prices of food on Vancouver Island is being felt as a result of that increase, even though the increase has not been applied yet. Once June 1 arrives I'm sure that we will again see higher increases in the cost of food on Vancouver Island as a result of it.

Work in cabinet. Speak on behalf of the consumers of this province in cabinet. Bring down those ferry rates on behalf of the consumers on Vancouver Island.

Again, ensure that the increased costs in energy are not passed on to the consumers of the province. The Premier made a statement earlier today, and I'm asking you, Mr. Minister, to ensure that that freeze stays on so that the increase in cost of the price of a barrel of gasoline or a barrel of oil is not passed on to the consumer in terms of increased gasoline costs. Use your voice in Ottawa. Get some legislation in this country which will prevent the kind of ripoff that takes place in the food markets and use your voice here in Victoria as a member of cabinet on behalf of the consumers of this province. Speak out. Ask that price increases be reviewed, taxes be reviewed and medicare premiums be reviewed.

Mr. Minister, you have a responsibility; show that you have a voice. Speak for the consumers of the province.

Vote 30 approved.

Vote 31: deputy minister's office, $146,778 — approved.

Vote 32: administrative services branch, $249,725 — approved.

Vote 33: legal services branch, $72,028 — approved.

On vote 34: trade practices branch, $586,800.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister did not answer my questions about staffing. I wonder if he could explain to me just how he intends to use the people that are added in this vote.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — I did overlook that question. I can't answer it with precision, but I can say that the basic increase is caused by us taking over, after the last budget and before this budget, cemeteries and also motor-vehicle dealer licensing. You may recall that the latter function was transferred to us last fall and the cemeteries also sometime last year. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) managed to whiz that out of his former department and into our department, and he's still smiling.

Vote 34 approved.

On vote 35: community programme branch, $1,353,942.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the minister has had a couple of days to think over some of the statements made by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and myself about the Consumer Action League. I'm not sure whether the funding for that community group would come under this vote or not, but I would like to ask the minister to reconsider it, taking into account the really valuable work being done by those groups around the communities, as well as the fact that they are publishing a newsletter which is of great importance to a lot of people who receive it.

Yesterday, in speaking on this particular area, I mentioned the work that this particular group in Vancouver did in terms of helping the senior citizens to do their income tax returns and to file them on time as was necessary. I think that they are worthy of some kind of reconsideration by the minister. He seems to be a minister who is prepared to think again and take a second look at some of his decisions. I certainly hope that this is one area in which he's prepared to do so.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I don't want any actions of my department to be taken as reflecting upon the work of any group. That's not the point. I tried to make it clear yesterday that we have to make, in this year particularly, a value judgment as to where we spend our dollars and make sure we spend them wisely. I don't expect that those decisions would be agreed to by all members of the House. That would be most unnatural if they were. However, I want to assure the member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that we gave

[ Page 1588 ]

long, anxious thought to the grants that we gave. We have made those decisions. I have thought about them long and hard, and I am content that, while they are unfortunate and unpleasant decisions to make, they are the proper decisions. I am content with them, and I intend to abide by them.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like under this vote to pose again the questions relative to the spread of food costs. I would suggest that this is the vote wherein the research staff is working. I am wondering if the minister can assure me that he does anticipate reviewing the spreads in the food industry, particularly relative to the spread between the wholesale and retail levels. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask whether or not he is considering any thoroughgoing investigation into the mortgage rates and the operations of the mortgage brokers within the province.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the question of the spread in food prices has been already under discussion by an advisory committee to the Department of Agriculture, which of course is not under my department.

Insofar as mortgage rates are concerned, I thought that I had made that clear earlier. But I will repeat now, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the member for Cowichan-Malahat that this, strictly speaking, does not come within our department and actually does not come within the department by actual legislation — by the words of the legislation itself, particularly the Trade Practices Act. There may be areas where it does come within our jurisdiction, but basically we consider — and I think rightly so — that it is a federal matter, a matter of federal jurisdiction. Therefore it is simply out of our bailiwick.

Vote 35 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

On vote 39: minister's office, $126,940.

Interjections.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Well, Mr. Chairman, I am certainly ready to comment, but really, for a portfolio of this size it's rather astounding that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is not opening up this debate for us so we can have some idea of what his goals and philosophies are and just where he's moved since he took office. But so be it. I am quite prepared to start in and certainly hope that, with the questions that I propose and the ones which I know other members of the opposition will be proposing, we will then be able to get the minister on his feet.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I hope the minister is listening. I would like to welcome his new deputy here. I would like to start off with a couple of congratulations to the minister and then reserve the rest of my remarks for, maybe, some criticisms and comments and concerns which I have.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the minister on the continuation of the provincial learning assessment programme which, as you know, I heartily endorsed. I am very pleased that the department, under the new minister, is continuing this. But in saying that, I would like to pose to the minister one of my first questions relative to this. Although we know that the intent of the programme is strictly evaluation and not to be taken in any way in the form of the old type of testing given to children in the province of British Columbia, the idea, of course, is to assist the minister and his department in developing a core curriculum and in upgrading the basic skills. I think the parents of the province, teachers and the students themselves are aware that there have been areas which have been somewhat blank in the development of basic skills. I know that we are all going to wait with great interest the results of the first evaluation tests.

But the question I want to ask the minister, and I hope he will comment on it, is: would he explain to the House the very sensitive area of the interpretation of those results? I think this is an area which could cause great concern. I know that we are developing a committee of teachers, trustees and department officials who were, first of all, going to look at the overall provincial results and then, I believe, release them to the school boards — which in turn, we hoped, would handle the results very carefully, involving parents and teachers in looking at the results before they are released for general consumption.

My concern, to the minister, is: are you continuing on that programme of very careful background preparation for interpretation of those results? I'm very concerned, and I'm sure the minister is and his deputy, that we do not want to have a situation where one school district can say, "Oh, our marks were very high," and another school district say: "Ours were low." Therefore there starts to be a question of was it because there are poorer teachers in one district, poorer students, or what? We know that the socioeconomic differences vary greatly from district to district, and the way these are interpreted must not be in any way used to put the blame on teachers, administrators or any specific personnel. So I'm very concerned that the true objective of this basic learning assessment programme be carried out with proper interpretation of the results. I hope the minister will be able to clear that area for me, which is not only my concern but a number of other people's concern.

The second area I'd like to congratulate the

[ Page 1589 ]

minister on is his very positive stance on corporal punishment. I believe the minister has stated that he does not intend to return corporal punishment to our classrooms.

AN HON. MEMBER: Except through ICBC.

MRS. DAILLY: Except through ICBC. I think we're coming to that later, right?

I think it's of interest to the people of the province, Mr. Chairman, that the teachers of this province, with a very resounding majority, voted against the return of corporal punishment. This is after having been exposed to the removal of the strap for over two years. I think that is something that should be understood and pointed out to the general public because, after all, the teachers are the ones who have to deal with the children in the classroom.

The trustees — and I attended the trustees' convention, and I was very glad to be there when they had the debate on the return of corporal punishment — did vote for the return, but I want to point out that it was only by a majority of 29 votes, which certainly shows that there is not a resounding demand from the school trustees of the province for the return of the strap.

I would also like to point out that there was a Canadian Education Association panel less than a year ago where a number of representatives of British Columbia teachers and administrators and trustees attended. They, by and large, on this particular panel on corporal punishment, said to the other provinces who still retain it:

"We are very happy that it has been removed. When it was first removed by the minister at that time, we were concerned that there would be chaos in our schools, but instead we find that chaos has not resulted. We have created a more humane system, and now there is far better contact between parents and teachers."

And may I point out that the provinces which still maintain corporal punishment have headlines in their paper pointing out that the children are undisciplined and in chaos. I've spoken on this so many times in the House, and I've so many other points to make. I simply want again to congratulate the minister on his positive stance on that.

I also wish to commend him for opening the discussion on a very important matter, and that is a re-evaluation of the structure of the secondary school. It is an area which, I discovered in my three years as minister, is of major concern. What happens to students after grade 10 in our present system — not only the non-academic, which we must not consistently focus on, but also strictly the grade 10 dropouts? What does happen?

Now there's no question that right across Canada there is a re-examination taking place on the whole matter of the structure of the secondary school. There was recently, as you know, an external examination done by appointed members of the OECD to look into Canada's educational system, and I hope the minister or his deputy has had time to look through the preliminary report, where they point out that right across Canada there is a concern about our secondary school system. There is a concern that it has become almost a supermarket type of approach to education. They say that Canada has done very well in attempting to retain students in school, in developing a comprehensive school system. But actually they really question whether the goals of the comprehensive secondary school for young people from 12 to 18 years of age does, indeed, fit their needs. Does it permit them to develop and broaden themselves through a proper area of activities tailored to their own individual needs and talents?

So I want to point out to the minister that I think it's good that you have opened this for a discussion, and I'm sure already you have received letters pro and con on the suggestion that you are looking at a re-evaluation. I'm hoping that you are going, when you speak to us, to explain to us exactly what your policies are, what your ideas are, besides the very brief statement which you made at the trustees' convention.

I want to point out that not only was our government concerned about the structure of the senior secondary school and whether it was meeting the needs of the students, particularly after grade 10, but we took some positive steps. I must admit that they were not major steps, but steps which I think are worthwhile mentioning to the minister, and I'd like to ask him if he agrees with me that these steps should be continued.

If you are going to make any change in which you want to compress students down to the grade 10 level, discussions with the Department of Labour are essential, which we had initiated — Education and Labour- under the NDP government on the whole matter of the availability of apprenticeship programmes.

I know the minister has made comments about apprenticeship programmes, but I'm sure he's also aware how difficult it is for a young student out of grade 10 to get into an apprenticeship programme. So if you are thinking of giving them that opportunity to leave grade 10 for apprenticeship programmes, you also have the responsibility to work with the Department of Labour and the trade unions to see about the opening up of these programmes.

It's also essential to have discussions with Manpower, which we were just beginning to start, on the whole matter of the availability of Manpower seats, and whether or not it is.... And I'm sure the minister, in meetings already, national meetings, has

[ Page 1590 ]

found out that the other Ministers of Education are concerned about the number of Manpower seats which are decided upon by a federal Department of Manpower, and it leaves so few seats for the province. Should it be turned over entirely to the province?

These are areas, I think.... When the minister talks about compressing the grade 10, he does have a responsibility to look very seriously at these areas.

The other step we took in our concern over the grade 10, 11 and 12 situation and the number of dropouts was the expansion of the community college system. I'm very pleased that the NDP government, in their three years in office, provided the funds for the establishment of community colleges to cover the entire province, which means, of course, basically, that we were providing an enlarged re-entry system, and that's the point that really concerns me.

If a number of students are put out of school after grade 10, it is absolutely essential that there be a structure created for re-entry, and I would like to hear the minister's comments on his government's policy on the whole area of recurring education and the re-entry system particularly — not only for adults, but for these young students — if you are planning any restructuring of the system.

We also expanded the work-study programme, and I may say that I feel most strongly that perhaps that is the best area to move on, Mr. Chairman, where a young person is not just dumped out of school after grade 10. They should be given increased opportunity to go into the working area if we can get the cooperation of business.

I talked to chambers of commerce when I was minister, and I think that they agree. They're willing to cooperate, if we can give students an opportunity to go into the working world but keep the school door open for them so that they can get back and forwards very easily into the school system.

So there are some very strong implications that the minister's statement has left, and I think it is very important for him to allay, perhaps, the fears that are out there because of just a general statement he made. I am sure the minister is ready to enlarge on what some of his ideas are here.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Could be, but we haven't heard him yet on education, so time will tell.

The other concern I have is that if a student leaves grade 10, what of the basic skills that we were talking about, Mr. Chairman, that are so essential before a young person goes out into the world? The big concern now is whether we are teaching the basic skills. Therefore if you are going to let children go out of grade 10, or give them the opportunity, it's very important that those basic skills be taught to them by grade 10.

You know, we shouldn't make it appear, if this is the route the minister is going, that to get to grade 10 and to get a school-leaving certificate, again, if this is what his intention is — that it is an easy thing to achieve. As a matter of fact, this should be made very difficult. Certain basic skills must be achieved by that student before he leaves grade 10. If they haven't achieved those basic skills they should not be allowed to leave.

But I'm also concerned — and I've often spoken on this — that the basic skills, important as they are, are only part of the child's education. So what is going to happen to the personal development of that student who leaves at grade 10? Where are they going to get an opportunity, if they've mastered the basic skills...? Along with that must go the development of creative people. So they must have citizenship training, they must have the ability given to them, hopefully, to spend their leisure hours positively, have an appreciation of the arts, and in general be prepared for life...the family life programmes, which I want to discuss with the minister later on, and consumer education particularly.

Now if they do not get this by grade 10, and some people would question, I know, that they are getting it in our system today by grade 12 — and that is an area that we were trying to intensify during our time in office — if they do not get this by grade 10, I think many people would be concerned.

Therefore again I come back to the importance of the re-entry system and the recurrent education area.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I know it was left out there. Mr. Chairman, he said: "I never said grade 10," but I think that out there in the public.... Why I'm bringing this up is that I do think the public has interpreted it as a suggestion that you're going to restructure the secondary school system. I think, perhaps, that is what you're thinking of. If you are restructuring, I'm simply pointing out to you the areas of my concern in that restructuring because, obviously, in restructuring there may be a levelling off at grade 10. But we would be anxious to hear from the minister on that.

I am concerned that no students should leave our public school system without the opportunity for personal development as well as the basic skills. The basic skills, of course, must come.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Then again, if young people are allowed to leave school earlier, will there be jobs on the market? We've already had an attempt in the House today for an

[ Page 1591 ]

emergency debate on the whole matter of the serious unemployment situation in our province today. I think there's great concern out there that young people could possibly be thrown out on a job market which is very, very bad at the present time.

I mentioned to you earlier about the apprenticeship programmes. I'd like to hear comments from the minister if he's meeting with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) over the whole area of apprenticeship programmes.

Basically, what I'm saying on this particular topic is that I believe any government would be irresponsible if it attempted any massive restructuring of the secondary school system in this province without first looking at the whole infrastructure of recurrent education.

We hear this term "recurrent education" — it has been used over and over again by a number of people, and statements have been made on it from European ministers, and their commitment to it. As a matter of fact, the NDP government made a commitment to recurrent education, and with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from one of my own speeches on recurrent education — a couple of brief paragraphs in which I stated that the NDP government was committed to recurrent education, and then I stated:

"The basic purpose of recurrent education is to give the individual the opportunity to decide on his or her own personal future development. It aims to counteract the inequalities of our present educational systems and to distribute educational opportunities over the lifespan of the individual.

"Recurrent education has implications for the organization of work and leisure, and it requires a very close co-ordination between education, social, cultural and economic policies. It also means integrating the various sectors of educational provision, formal and informal, vocational and non-vocational, which sometimes, unfortunately, are insufficiently interrelated."

I think, if anything, this province and the Department of Education should be giving great emphasis to the day.... It's the whole area of recurrent education. I'm sure that we'd be glad to hear from the minister on his ideas on this.

I'm pleased that the universities council is continuing a committee on accessibility — which, really, follows the recurrent education theme. I believe at this moment the Universities Council is carrying on this committee, which we initiated with them a year ago and in which they will try to find out the best ways of making education accessible to the general public.

We have the community college scheme, but then we have to look at our night schools and the integration. A young person goes to work and leaves high school. The young person works in the daytime; can he get back at night for courses? If he works at night, can he get back in the daytime?

I think also something to look at — although I realize in times of economic restriction it might be a problem, unless we follow the European model, where the employee contributes — is the whole matter of worker educational leave — which is going very well in the European countries, where is it stated quite clearly that workers should have the right to educational leave. I believe in some countries the worker pays into it partly himself, almost like medicare premiums, and it's deducted from his salary; so it gives him an opportunity to go back to school. The employer also contributes, and the unions also cooperate.

I hope that at some time the Minister of Education will give consideration to looking seriously into that whole area of workers' educational leave, which does not mean that the government must finance the whole bill. But perhaps he would look into how it is being done in European countries.

Now I'd like to turn to some very specific directions and actions which this Minister of Education has taken since he became minister, and which concern me and others in the educational sector in our society in B.C. today.

First of all, in the area of finance: I think there's no doubt, and it's been backed up by the School Trustees Association, that the overall percentage of provincial funds to education since this government came into office, compared to the amount of money that the public school boards have to put out, and the local taxpayer...your percentage has dropped from what it was under the New Democratic Party government.

In other words, you have deliberately set a policy where there is less money from the provincial revenues for education for public school purposes. Therefore that means that the taxpayer must pay more for school taxes. I must remind the minister that he and his colleagues in the Social Credit Party campaigned on the policy of alleviating the burden of school taxation. Yet one of their first acts in government is to change the balance to some degree. Although when the NDP was in, we know that the majority of the percentage was still higher on the local taxpayer than the province, we have a situation now where you are making this even wider. The property taxpayers pay more, and the government is paying less. I really would like to hear from the minister how he correlates that with the statements made by the Social Credit Party and by that minister when he was over here that more moneys should come from the provincial coffers for education and the taxpayer should be relieved.

The other thing which concerns me is the statements which the Minister of Education has been

[ Page 1592 ]

making with reference to the short and very high local mill rate increase which his government has imposed upon the taxpayers of British Columbia. The thing which concerns me is that the Minister of Education has tended in his public statements to shift the blame from the minister himself and the government to the school boards of this province. I want to quote from a newsletter from the BCSTA in which the former president met with the Minister of Education. He met primarily because of the great concern of the school trustees that the minister had been making statements to the effect that the school board budgets and increases in mill rates were largely, particularly the increases in mill rates, the responsibility of school boards. They must take the blame.

Now apparently the president met with the hon. minister. I want to quote from the meeting. He claimed that "the minister agreed that any decision to increase the basic mill rate will be a provincial political decision necessitated by the state of the provincial economy, recognizing that such a decision would force school districts to cut back services and to increase the pupil-teacher ratio." So here we have the minister stating to the former president of the school trustees that the raising of the basic mill rate is a straight political decision by government.

Then the minister further agreed that from now on he will make it quite clear in his public statements that increases in the basic mill rate are not the result of decisions made at the school board level. Yet after that meeting with the school trustees and after the mill rate was set, an announcement came out that the Social Credit government — the Department of Education announcement from their government — stated that the basic mill rate, which had been 26.5 mills under the NDP, would be raised to 32.5 under the Social Credit government. This was a straight political decision, as the minister conceded in his conversation with the former president of the BCSTA.

Yet when we listen to the statements made by the minister about increased costs for education, we see a thread running through them where he is again trying to make the school boards the scapegoat and implying that it is because of enriched programmes and because of budgets that are too high by the school boards that the property owner is going to have to face these increased taxes. I consider that not levelling, Mr. Minister, not really being truly honest with the public. Therefore I've got a question for you: does the minister agree that the setting by government of a higher basic mill rate levy means that the local share to the taxpayer will be higher? That's a basic question.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Well, that will depend....

MRS. DAILLY: Well, you can have an opportunity to answer that fully when I take my seat, Mr. Minister. You have stated that to the former president, and yet all your statements following that have at no time pointed out to the public of B.C. that it was a conscious political decision of the Social Credit government to levy that mill rate. That is why we have such exorbitant mill rate increases in this province. We have such a variety of increases also. We have some districts with 33-mill increases and some well over 53.

The minister also stated that highly enriched programmes have had an effect on the overall government impact.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: All right, then. To some degree I can see that as true, but the point is that your basic mill rate decision had the greatest impact on the increase to the local taxpayer. So my other concern is really, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, if it is the enriched districts which are having the problem.... The North Vancouver school board, as was asked by the member representing the area, the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), finds itself with a very high mill rate, and then they are told: "Well, it's because you have enriched programmes." What incentive is there going to be in this province any more for any district to develop innovative, enriched programmes?

I'm sure the minister may say: "Well, this is the time of the economic restrictions, and we have to forget all about that." But on the other hand, when we look through the estimates book, Mr. Minister, I see grants here and grants there, and increases. I hope the minister is going to be able to tell us that somehow there's going to be some encouragement given for districts which we know in the past have been the lighthouse districts; they are the districts that have paved the way for very fine development in education.

This is very demoralizing for a district such as North Vancouver and others, so I hope that the Minister of Education will answer, and if he's going to say that enriched districts are the province, then what are we going to do about continuing innovative practices in education in this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes.

MRS. DAILLY: Two minutes, oh. Well, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more here, but I guess I'll have to leave it for another time when I can get on my feet. But I want to wind up with this particular area on finance, and some specific questions, very quickly to the minister, which really concern me in the area of finance. There was

[ Page 1593 ]

obviously a deliberate inflation of the NDP educational expenditures as shown in the Clarkson Gordon report. It is deliberate inflation, and I want to list the areas where the inflation took place, and we have already documented the $7.5 million for the universities.

I notice that the research and development vote had at least $1 million surplus, because the estimates that you see before you were revised by our department, and the minister is aware of them. So there is a $1 million surplus from research and development.

I understand, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the student loans were underspent, so there was a surplus in that area. And there are recoverable vocational moneys.

Now in going through all this, the only area I can see where there could have been some overexpenditures would be in the superannuation funds and in the post-secondary vote. But the most I can see is $2 million. So my question is: would the minister explain where this figure of $10 million came from? May I also say: how can we possibly believe the Clarkson Gordon report until we get actually specific answers from the minister on where he go...? I understand that the ministers all fed the material, and yet we, as opposition members, don't know what that information and input was. And until we get the answers from you, it makes the whole Clarkson Gordon report not credible. It looks like a snow job has been done, not by the Clarkson Gordon people but by the input given to them by various ministers.

I can only speak for the Education department, which I naturally happen to know better than the others. But in no way can I, as the former minister, sit here and accept the fact that in that report you listed a $10 million overexpenditure when I've itemized for you that the most I can see is $2 million. I think that we deserve answers on this, and, Mr. Minister, I have many more questions to ask at a later time. Thank you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the minister to rise to his feet and answer some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Burnaby North. I was astonished that neither then, nor at the start of his estimates, was there a word. Not a word, Mr. Chairman, on $846 million worth of expenditures, not to mention the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I guess he must feel that he doesn't have much to brag about. That's the only thing I can come to.

There are so many things to talk about with this minister that it's hard to know where to start. Never before have so few done so much to so many.

AN HON. MEMBER: Brilliant! Was that a paraphrase?

MR. GIBSON: That was a paraphrase; I admit that was a paraphrase, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: And in such a short time. It was done in such a short time.

I'm going to leave the ICBC for later, Mr. Chairman, and talk about education first.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): You've got a lot of polish, Gordon. Too bad it's all on your toenails.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You'll make the history books, Mr. minister, but for different reasons — the Education minister of the century.

I want to start out with good wishes in regard to the minister's new deputy, a man whom I have had the pleasure of knowing in the past, a man I respect very much and who will bring a great deal of credit to the department, I know.

I want, as well, to pay tribute to the fact that the Home and School Association was here in Victoria today. I imagine that most of them have had to leave at this late hour, but they presented an excellent brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to just mention some of the special points of agreement that I have with this brief, and not mentioning some doesn't mean that I don't agree with them, but you can just do highlights.

I would particularly draw the minister's attention to their comments on television-viewing habits, and I'd like to quote one line: "Televiewing is passive, a spectator sport, vicarious experience. Children need to be doing, practising and experiencing in the first person." That's part of the challenge of education in this province, I think you know.

Then we get on to the subject of family-life education. I have to tell the minister that many of the Home and School delegates — the ones that visited me, at any rate — were very distressed with the minister's attitude on this field of family-life education. I draw his attention to the recommendations there. I draw his attention, as well, to the recommendations under basic literacy reading and study skills. I want to quote out of resolution 14 — activity programmes: "We do not approve of elitist programmes which, especially in the larger schools, made spectators out of 80 per cent of the pupils, and which feature competitive team sports practised by very few after graduation." Amen to that, Mr. Chairman.

The section under education finance should hardly have to be drawn to the attention of this minister, because he espoused this very principle for so long

[ Page 1594 ]

when he was on this side of the House. But listen to these words: "Be it resolved that the B.C. Home and School Federation urge the provincial government to resume their rightful responsibility and ultimately finance education from the general revenue of the province." There are some thing very much worth studying in here, Mr. Chairman.

On this particular subject of family-life programmes, I would like you to clear something up for me, because I understand that he said to the group this morning words to the effect that more than 25 per cent of the population seemed to be against the family-life programme and that perhaps the programme shouldn't be continued in those circumstances, where more than 25 per cent were against it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I beg your pardon? Perhaps the programme should be reviewed, as the minister clarifies it. Well, I suppose any programme can be reviewed, Mr. Chairman, but I hope that this minister isn't suggesting, to this House that family-life programmes will be yanked out of the schools, because it would just be a tragedy if they were. You know what they're concerned with? With cleanliness and health and with family finance and with the whole area of parenting and with civic responsibility and with drug and alcohol abuse and with sex education; I don't think the minister would want any of these things taken out of the family-life curriculum. If he would, I hope he will stand up and tell us that.

I was very worried when I heard the reaction that the home and school group got about that. I hope the minister will clarify that for us.

HON. MR. McGEER: Why didn't you come and attend, yourself? Some of the MLAs were there.

MR. GIBSON: Gee, the minister, Mr. Chairman, in a little aside across the floor, asks why I didn't come and attend. He said some of the MLAs did. Maybe MLAs of his group had a special invitation, I don't know. I didn't receive one to that particular meeting.

MR. LAUK: Only ex-Liberals did.

MR. GIBSON: So will the minister clarify that please, Mr. Chairman?

Now I want to go on and talk a bit about school finance. Is the minister aware that in relation to total spending British Columbia still spends less than any other province of Canada on education? Is the minister proud of that? British Columbia still spends less in relation to total spending than any other province of Canada, in regard to education. The minister can't be proud of that; here we are the first or second-richest province in this country. If he wants to know the source of that statement, it's from the BCTF. I'll send him a copy if he wants it.

Our budget for school education this year is up less than inflation, only 9.4 per cent, and I say that's a disgrace. The percentage of local costs is up. If you look at the net operating costs, Mr. Chairman, the provincial share in this province went from 42.6 per cent last year, which, God knows, was low enough, down to 41.5 per cent this year. Of the increase, the provincial government only picked up 34 per cent of the increase in school-level education spending this year. That is just not good enough. It's particularly curious when you look at the past statements of that minister when he adopted a different viewpoint on the world and was able to feel that school costs should be removed from property. That minister used to campaign on that theme, you know, Mr. Chairman.

How he seems to have changed his mind on so many things. How your perspective alters....

MR. LAUK: The road to power is paved with...um, er....

MR. GIBSON: Where you stand depends on where you sit, is what they say, Mr. Chairman. That's the way it seems to go.

MR. KERSTER: How about sitting down?

MR. LAUK: He sat between two stools.

MR. GIBSON: Now. the minister issued a press release on the matter of share of educational costs. It was a very interesting press release, Mr. Chairman. It was dated April 9. When I read it, it reminded me of that grand old reply that an American senator used to have to letters that he thought he really shouldn't be receiving. He'd send back a reply saying: "Dear Sir; Some nut is writing me letters and signing your name to them." (Laughter.) When I looked at this press release, I wondered if that was what had happened in the minister's office. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Are you going to ask him to withdraw that, or are you accepting that?

MR. GIBSON: Because here we have this line which says: "This year's rate...." He's talking about the foundation rate and the general school levy, which had been set at 32.5 per cent. "This year's rate is based on last year's total education costs, so the basic levy automatically goes up," the minister said. Then lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, a few hours later there came bicycling along the halls a messenger who brought back an amendment to that press release,

[ Page 1595 ]

which was a good thing because that was complete nonsense, that phrase. Then I had occasion to phone the department a little later on, and I found that another paragraph in that release was completely wrong. So I want to ask the minister who's writing his press releases, because they seem to contain factual errors.

MR. LEA: It sounds like he's writing them himself.

MR. GIBSON: The hon. member for Prince Rupert said that it sounds like the minister is writing his press releases himself, and I think that Hansard should have an opportunity to catch that, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the local mill rate went up directly as a result of the increase in the foundation rate by this government from 26.5 per cent to 32.5 per cent. It went up directly as a result of that. It went up in my constituency by about 6 mills, which was the exact increase that the government forced, and in most constituencies around this province there was an automatic 6-mill increase forced by the government increase in that foundation rate, and this from a group that campaigned on the theory that they were going to help take the taxes off the local property owners. It's just an absolute disgrace!

And then there are the special grants, as if that wasn't bad enough. The explanation that the minister gives for the special grants that some districts get and others don't is that districts that have been real achievers, districts that have been lighthouse districts, as the hon. member who just spoke said.... Those kinds of districts get discriminated against by this government. So the lesson is this: the better job you do in a school district, the more you go to your local taxpayers and take from them funds to do a good job, the worse you're going to get treated in terms of educational grants. I say that is completely wrong. We already have an equalization system in this province, Mr. Chairman, which automatically works off the foundation rate. We do not need a double negative equalization system which discourages specific districts from going on with enrichment programmes and the kinds of experimental and adventuresome things that school districts should be doing if we believe anything about local autonomy.

Then I would point out to the minister what I hope he knows: the large and really unfair spread in mill rates in this province, running from something like 34.81 per cent — these are preliminary figures — up to 56.54 per cent. It is a spread which, I suggest, means that the equalization system is not working properly in our province, Mr. Chairman. We need a finance formula that is simple and that people can understand and know whether they've been justly treated or not, a finance formula that should be based on: historic costs; inflation adjustment; a student population adjustment; a student age adjustment, because students of different ages have different educational costs; the amount of the local tax base, which is where the equalization feature comes in; tax effort, which is how hard the local trustees are trying and how much they're extracting from their own taxpayers, because tax effort by local people should be matched by tax effort from the provincial government; special costs like the number of handicapped children having to be trained, special second language or English-language training, and remedial things; regional cost variations, because we have wide regional cost variations throughout this province; teacher seniority; and a host of other factors of that kind. When will we finally get that kind of a finance formula that will allow school boards to understand what's happening so that school boards can look at the treatment they're getting and say: "We know this is right" or "We know it's wrong"?

I want to say something particularly about district 44, which is my own school district. The costs are up over 10 per cent, some $4 million, and the provincial grant is only up 3.5 per cent, $520,000. Where is the equity in that, Mr. Chairman? Our costs in district 44 are growing, even with a static pupil population, due to increments in salaries which hit every school district, due to more secondary pupils, because, as the minister knows, secondary level pupils are more expensive to educate, and due to the change in the value of the instructional unit in terms of elementary versus secondary pupils last fall, because district 44 happens to be a district with a larger proportion of secondary students. Why wasn't this kind of thing taken into account in calculating the special grants?

It's a special circumstance, and it should have been taken into account, Mr. Minister, and I hope that after that meeting you had with district 44 the other day you've been able to get back to the books and sharpen the pencil a little bit and see where there might be some way of aiding this district....

HON. MR. McGEER: We told them no.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says: "We told them no." He's a hard man with a closed mind, Mr. Chairman. I'm sad that that should come so quickly.

We've got special programmes there, Mr. Chairman, that we're proud of and that the minister's taking no recognition of. The assistant superintendent by the name of Dr. Leo Marshall is doing training for teachers throughout the system — a retraining programme for 10- and 20-year teachers. That cost the district half a mill a year. That's the kind of thing that should be taken into account, because that is a genuine contribution to the education system in that district and in that province.

District 44 has itself the lowest pupil-teacher ratio

[ Page 1596 ]

in the lower mainland. They moved toward that ratio in good faith, following the policy of the former provincial government. Whether anyone in this House agrees with that former government or not, Mr. Chairman, they were the government of the day, and the school district in good faith followed their policy, and it received a share of the costs at that time. Now they're left carrying that whole burden. They advanced, they stuck their necks out a bit, and then they got them chopped off by the new government. The extra cost they have for that lower pupil-teacher ratio that they have wisely, in my view, decided not to tamper with should receive more recognition from the provincial government. It's a breach of faith, in my opinion.

I want to advance to the minister two specific suggestions from district 44. The first is that local appointments of superintendents should be extended. We've had experience with it in district 44. It's worked very well.

It's something that gives local school boards far more control over their educational bureaucracy if they have the opportunity of appointing, hiring and firing the local superintendent. The cut-off point now is a student population of 20,000. I suggest to the minister that I support this idea very much that it should be lowered at once to, say, 10,000, and thereafter progressively lower until every school district has the opportunity of appointing their own superintendent and enhancing local control.

The next suggestion from School District 44 I am glad to advance, though I am not yet certain of its merits. But I will say to the minister that it's endorsed by the BCSTA. That is the opportunity for school districts to appoint all administrators, such as principals, on contracts, the idea being that principals could then easily be relieved of their duties if they weren't working out well. Their tenure as teachers would naturally not be affected but would be as principals.

There is a difficulty, I see, with this, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in human terms, this kind of thing could have a very devastating impact on someone's income. Then in organizational terms, because school trustees argue for this amendment on the basis it would give them more flexibility over their staff, it might be a little like juries — if the penalty is too severe, they decline to convict. Juries have been known not to find people guilty of murder because they think they'd get the death penalty and they'd rather not take that chance. So unless there's income cushioning, I think that system might be counterproductive. Nevertheless, I am glad to advance it on behalf of my board of school trustees to the minister for his study because it would involve a change in the Public Schools Act.

How about other changes in the Public Schools Act? He said at the BCSTA convention a few days ago that there would be changes. I wonder when he's going to take the House into his confidence as to what these changes might be. Even more than that, I wonder when, if at all, he's going to take the BCSTA and the BCTF into his confidence. I would like this minister, when he finally stands up to say something in this debate, to give a guarantee that he is going to consult in important matters with the trustees' organization and the teachers' organization. I suggest that's a guarantee that will cost him nothing and it will save him a lot of grief over the years.

Look at the examples we've had so far. Do you remember school insurance, Mr. Chairman, fire insurance? Well, now the fire insurance provisions were drastically changed as of March I of this year. There was a press release that went out to tell people about it. Do you know the date of that press release? It was March 25. I stood up in the House and asked the minister if that was an example of the kind of consultation that school districts could expect, and he stood up and said "yes." Tell them 25 days later after you've done it, eh?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Remarkable, Mr. Chairman! The minister says across the floor that there have been no changes. I'll get on to the subject of fire insurance later, but I want to suggest that there have been some changes. The minister expected to make far more changes than in the event he made because of the outcry. Now he has appointed some kind of a committee to look at it because he's found these problems and he's backing off at a hundred miles an hour. But I want to tell you, it was 25 days after the decision had been made that the school trustees were told. And that's consultation.

We'd like a guarantee, Mr. Chairman, that those organizations will be consulted in every important matter affecting them and affecting education and consulted in advance.

MR. LAUK: You're too smug, Pat.

MR. GIBSON: I want to go on and talk a moment about independent schools, Mr. Chairman. This is a subject that used to be so dear to this minister's heart and a subject that I thought we had a promise from his new party on.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a priority.

MR. GIBSON: But you know, this independent school stuff was the old Socred humbug. They've talked about this before and didn't produce any action, and here we are right now and no action. I think when he was a Liberal his promise was genuine in that regard. What happened to it now that he's a

[ Page 1597 ]

Social Crediter? No action! It's a disgrace! How long is it going to take?

MR. LAUK: He's still a Liberal.

MR. GIBSON: The minister knows the.... Oh, withdraw that remark, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please withdraw that remark?

AN HON. MEMBER: Coalition over there. Didn't you know?

MR. GIBSON: He knows what the dollar figures are.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are slightly worse than the last coalition this country had.

MR. GIBSON: If they are to be treated on the same basis as the current school system, the charge would be only $15 million. If they were to be treated on what I would call a fair basis — because, remember, the independent school taxpayers are already paying taxes for public schools — then the cost would be about $35 million. Maybe I should put that differently. If they were treated on the same basis as the public school system, the cost would be $35 million, and if they were treated on an unfair basis, it would be $15 million. I don't want to put that backwards.

There has to be provision for an independent control structure. That's all the minister has to work out. This is in a budget of $3.6 billion, Mr. Chairman, an inequity that has gone on in this province, almost alone of the provinces of Canada, for decades. It's been rankling and festering and giving unfair treatment to a large group of parents, a school system with 25,000 children in it with some pretty interesting alternate ways of education. If that minister believes in free enterprise, why should he be afraid of a little competition in the school system? He might learn something. Give them their fair due as taxpayers, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The minister says across the floor that we're going to. When? The question is when? When the cheque is signed and presented — that's when I'll believe it. It's sure not in the budget for this year, is it?

HON. MR. McGEER: When we get the money to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano, please proceed.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: It's going to come from the resource-based industries of this province which you are letting off scot-free; that's where it's going to come from, and that is a sellout to the multinational oil cartels.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You asked — I told you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, order, please. Let's hear the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. Please proceed.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk now for a moment about the committee on sex discrimination in public schools. What did the minister do with that group? He slit their collective throat; he dispensed with them — one of his very first official actions. Then what do we find?

AN HON. MEMBER: Chauvinist!

MR. GIBSON: We have correspondence here, which I guess the minister got a copy of — I see he was down on the list. It was addressed to his deputy, and I'm sure the deputy will answer his mail better than the minister. It came from the chairperson of that provincial advisory committee, and they've been unable to get any signals back from the department, and they've been trying for months. They are concerned, as they should be concerned, because what is more basic to the formation of concepts about the role of men and women in our society than the school system? Possibly the family environment, and then right after that the school system. The way in which sex stereotypes are presented in the school system, in the textbooks and by teachers, is of tremendous importance, and that's what this committee was trying to get at. It was doing some good work, and the minister got rid of them.

I want to know why, Mr. Chairman, and I want to know what he's going to do about it. I think that minister has a few stereotypes of his own, and I think

[ Page 1598 ]

probably that committee didn't fit in with it. I read with great interest the remarks that he made that were chalked up on the blackboard during the women's rally here. They didn't exactly indicate an open mind towards women's rights, in my opinion.

MR. LEA: Chauvinist élitist.

MR. GIBSON: I want to raise some concerns relating to the status of teachers. I would like first of all to have this minister stand in his place and guarantee an end to that roll-back threat that he has had hovering over teachers' salaries since some very injudicious words early on this year. Would the minister finally get up and lay that ghost to rest?

The Public Schools Act is the clear arbiter of that question, Mr. Minister. Unless you intend to change it, just back off and say that you are going to leave the settlements alone — settlements which took into account the Anti-Inflation Board's guidelines. That was, a disgraceful thing to say, part of a fear campaign.

I'd like to get a report from this minister about the first year or so of bargaining. Bargaining this fall took place in unusual circumstances; nevertheless, it did proceed according to a zonal pattern. I would like to know from the minister how it worked, and I would like to know how he feels about that concept of centralized bargaining, because I'll give him my advice right now: it won't work. He'd better go ahead with the current system. The Public Schools Act has a good formula. It has one of the best labour relations formulas that's ever been developed in this province, and I hope that he will stand up and express his confidence in it.

I'd like to ask him about teacher training. We've all been concerned about jobs for teachers in the future, particularly as our school population is stabilizing and is now going to decline until the year 1982 and then climb back to about the present level by 1986. Will the minister and his department, for the benefit of the teachers of this province and the training institutions and would-be student-teachers, provide some kind of a five-year moving forecast of net teacher demand in this province? I think that's an important thing, not just for school-system planning, but for career planning,

I'd like the minister to say something about the way, in his opinion — because that's all it can be without legislation — that teacher groups and school boards and parent groups can interact. I would hope he would say that he's in favour of a decision-making practice that encourages a lot of consultation and a lot of participation of all three of those elements. There is no question but that the democratically elected boards have to make the decisions that they are called upon to under their responsibilities. The teachers, too, have professional responsibilities, so each sphere has its own area. The parents, of course, have the basic responsibility. But there must be contact between all three of them if the group is to work well.

I'd like the minister to tell us a little bit more about the learning-assessment programme, on which he issued a press release some weeks ago. It was, I thought, vague. I'd like to know what the programme that was launched in embryonic form last year found out, and I'd like a specific commitment that these assessment programmes will be released to the public, because the public, I can tell you, is very interested in them, and I will be citing some evidence in that regard later on.

I want to ask the minister to tell us something about what is going on at Jericho Hill School. He made an announcement on this last weekend. I am very, very concerned about this. The announcement was couched in terms of doing the best for the students. I'm certain that that is the intent, but I would ask the minister why there is not more lay control over what's going on in that situation. There was a lay board, I am told, which was disbanded last fall. It seems to be a pretty bureaucratic situation. I have tremendous concern about the future of seriously handicapped children, blind or partially sighted, deaf or very hard of hearing, being taken away — in some cases over the disagreement of their parents — from a facility that has specialized treatment ability, where the children can move among their peers. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe no child will be removed if their parent does not agree. I hope that that's the case, and I hope that no new child with these learning disabilities will be denied admission if their parent asks, because that has to be the basic thing there. There can't be too much power by bureaucrats in a situation like that, Mr. Chairman. It's very dangerous, and that's why I come back to saying: is there no way the minister can reconstitute a lay board in the Jericho situation?

I will have other items to take up with the minister later. I would commend those questions to his attention at this time.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): As the Liberal leader mentioned earlier on, the education portfolio is a vast subject, and I think it might be better if we ask selected questions in short bursts, if you'll pardon the expression, rather than make long philosophical speeches.

One of the particular questions I would like to ask is whether the minister is embarking on any specific attempt to rationalize the system for deciding on school budgets, because the school board in district 61, in Victoria, which is composed of very responsible, hard-working, highly motivated individuals, finds the responsibility of trying to formulate an appropriate budget for its district extremely difficult and frustrating within the system which now operates in the Department of Education.

[ Page 1599 ]

I am not about to castigate this minister or the department today; I'm talking about a system that's existed certainly for the several years I've been in this House — that's now involved three different governments. It's rather like the confusion that exists in the health field when a hospital or a school proceeds to function on a budget of which the details become finally known right in the middle of the year — April or May or whatever part of the year specifically; I'm not sure that it's exactly the same every year.

The school board were sufficiently concerned that they asked to meet with the MLAs from the greater Victoria district. We had what I think was a very fruitful meeting last night when the school board pointed out the unknown factors that continue to be a problem as they approach the time when they try to finalize their budget. They don't know what the basic levy will be by the Department of Education. More importantly, they don't even know whether or not there is likely to be any additional grant. For example, last year School District 61 got a $1 million grant in addition to the money based on the levy.

There just seem to be so many intangibles and such a variable approach by the government, or by the Department of Education, to one district as compared to another. When they ask questions they get the very general answer that it depends mainly on increased student enrolment, and so on. Last year there was no great increase in Victoria, and they got $1 million on top of their basic amount; this year there's nothing. A million dollars isn't peanuts, even though they are accustomed to the escalating costs of education.

So my basic question in relation to the financing of the public school system is: first of all, could there not be a system where at least the school board would have some basic financial commitment from the provincial government as early as possible in the education year?

For example, in this particular situation, this year the minister made statements which left the impression that very drastic restrictions might be necessary in the school board staffing, all crammed into four months out of the 12 months, simply because of this very really irrational way of telling the school districts late in the year what finances will be made available to them. I know the minister can't get blood or money out of a stone any more than the local districts, but at least.... And I can't help repeating that the same applies in the health field; I hope the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is listening too.

Hospitals or schools getting information about the money to be made available to them when they are already halfway through the year really doesn't make much sense. We have been told that this is a businesslike government and that it would put financial arrangements on a much more rational and businesslike basis. I wonder if the minister first of all would perhaps tell us — and we may be running out of time before supper because you have lots of other questions that others have asked — but that would have to be very much a basic No. 1 question.

A second basic question is the membership of teachers in the B.C. Teachers Federation as a compulsory aspect of being employable in the public school system in British Columbia. On principle I am opposed to that kind of compulsion in a profession. Again, that is nothing to do with this government or the last government or any other government. I just believe that the intertwining in the teaching profession of what are strictly political issues with professional issues is wrong. We have one organization — the BCTF. I think every profession should have the right to set up an association which is dedicated to getting the best conditions of work and the best salaries and the best pensions, et cetera, for its members. But when you have that same association responsible for the strictly professional academic standards and retraining and attempts at in-service training and all the other aspects of continuing professionalism, then I think there is an inevitable conflict.

Although it doesn't seem to be acceptable to the majority of the teaching profession, I still want to know why we cannot have two bodies in the teaching profession, one of which, as a professional college, would grant certificates to qualified teachers and supervise the whole question of continuing standards, upgrading of standards, and all the purely professional aspects, and have on the other hand a separate organization, such as the B.C. Teachers Federation, which continues to follow its own specific objectives which are much more political in nature.

Mr. Chairman, I talked to many teachers who are not that active within their organization. They are certainly very concerned about the militancy of the B.C. Teachers Federation and the degree to which the B.C. Teachers Federation can, for example, pass a motion that $1 million of their contributions be set aside in a separate fund for political action. Not only that, but every teacher who wants to continue to teach in this province has to be a member of that organization and contribute towards the $1 million fund whether they like it or not.

Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to embarrass this minister, but I can remember him sitting on this side of the House expressing great concern about the principle that is involved in compulsory membership of unions within professions. I also know that the government of which the minister is now a member, at their annual convention past year, passed a motion — a legitimate, democratic motion — which approved the principle that teachers should not be compelled

[ Page 1600 ]

to join the B.C. Teachers Federation.

I certainly have talked to teachers — one of them as recently as a few days ago in my office — who feel most strongly that this is not correct in a profession, that in order to practise your profession it is not just a question of proving that you are competent as a teacher, or as it might be in the case of a doctor.... You could have all the teaching qualifications that any human being could amass; you could be the best teacher in North America, but if you don't join the B.C. Teachers Federation — which is largely a political force, let's face it....

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Order!

MR. WALLACE: That's right — mainly a political force. If it didn't spend a great deal of its time in political activity, legitimately seeking the best wages and the best conditions and the best kind of system for negotiating their terms of employment, then it wouldn't be of such concern to myself or to many other people in the community. But the facts are very clear: you can become professionally qualified to teach in British Columbia, but if you don't agree to join the union then you can't get employment, or if you get employment by a school board and persist in not joining the B.C. Teachers Federation, you lose your job.

The Liberal Minister of Education has had....

MR. GIBSON: Former.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I beg your pardon. The former Liberal member for Point Grey frequently espoused the importance in a progressive society of taking just such a liberal view of the freedoms of an individual and the rights of a professional person to practise his profession freely without dictation from anybody, particularly with a political motivation.

I know the minister's not at all happy about the compulsory nature of membership in the BCTF. I know that the party he represents in this House passed the motion at their annual convention, suggesting that membership should be optional.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we won't get the old hackneyed answer that "well, of course, they negotiate better wages for the 90 per cent of people and the other 10 per cent are passengers who are taking advantages to which they have not contributed.

You know, that is such a simplistic answer to a matter of great principle. As the minister well knows, the medical profession seems to get along perfectly well with voluntary membership in the B.C. Medical Association.

In fact, you know, Mr. Chairman, it's almost embarrassing to bring this up because as soon as the present Minister of Education became an MLA he gave up his membership in the B.C. Medical Association — which, again, is a choice of the individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: It cost too much.

MR. WALLACE: No, I don't think it's that, Mr. Member. Frankly, I just think he chose to give up his membership in his professional body because, presumably, he felt there might be a conflict of interest. I accept that that could happen.

Anyway, it's not here to question the motivation. It's the freedom of choice we're talking about. That minister when he became an elected member of this House had the freedom of choice to join or not join the B.C. Medical Association. I don't know how many times I have to say it in this House, but I'll say it again. The freedom of a doctor to practise in this province is based solely on his proven training and qualification. It is based on medical merit. It has nothing whatever to do with being a member of any kind of union organization or similar type of organization. You get your licence from the College of Physicians and Surgeons if you meet the requirements, and by choice, as a doctor, you join the B.C. Medical Association if you want to.

It's so distressing, Mr. Chairman, that the member for South Peace River finds my outbursts troubling to his auditory mechanism.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that this matter will not be passed off lightly by saying "well, the teachers all want it" or "it's been done for years" or some simple, devious answer of that nature. The fact is that I think that in any profession freedom to practise your profession according to your professional ability is one thing; compulsion to be a member of a union is something else.

I find from discussions with teachers that it is the strongly union-oriented types of teacher who involve themselves in a great degree of activity within the BCTF and, therefore, all the information that tends to be publicized and highlighted in the media leaves the impression that 99.9 per cent of the teachers want to be compelled to be members of the B.C. Teachers Federation.

Mr. Chairman, just to put it on the record, that isn't the way it is in some areas. I have a lot of reason to believe that it is not the existing feeling of the great majority of teachers in Oak Bay.

I wonder if the minister would consider whether it wouldn't be wise to have some kind of referendum of all the teachers in British Columbia, of all the persons holding teaching certificates eligible to teach in British Columbia, who would not want it to be a condition of employment that they be members of the B.C. Teachers Federation.

I wonder in answering that basic question also if the minister would care to touch upon any meetings or discussions that he's had with the executive of the

[ Page 1601 ]

B.C. Teachers Federation to find out to what degree they truly represent the great majority of teachers' opinions on this issue within the profession. Would he consider discussing with them a very reasonable request that perhaps BCTF should hold such a referendum of all those persons in the province holding teaching certificates who are eligible to teach?

It doesn't seem to me that that's unreasonable. We're supposed to be living in a free society. The minister has frequently and correctly espoused the highest possible standards of professionalism, and yet the facts show that you can have some very highly skilled and well-trained professionals who — because, on a point of principle, they do not believe in compulsory union membership — might be precluded from contributing to the education system in this province, and probably precluded from being tremendously effective teachers to many of our children, not only right there in the classroom but in other ways within the public school system.

The issue, as I say, is not only a question of personal opinion but one of party policy. I hate to remind the present Premier — not hate to remind him; I just mean that I should remind him — that the question was often raised when the former Social Credit administration was in power in this province as to the significance, if any, that the Social Credit government attached to the motions which were democratically put forward and approved by majority decision at annual meetings of the Social Credit League. As I recall, the issue was quickly ignored, and we never ever did get a clear answer from the former Social Credit government as to the influence, if any, which motions passed at their annual conventions had on government policy. I notice the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is all ears....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They're not that big.

MR. WALLACE: He forgot for the moment that I used to attend Social Credit caucus meetings.

MR. CHABOT: I'll never forget.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) remembers, and the member for Columbia says he remembers, but I don't recall any particular caucus where we considered specific, important resolutions that had been passed at the convention. I'm just wondering if the minister would care to confirm or otherwise reveal that the new Social Credit government, so-called, is not any different from the old one, and that all the well-meaning delegates who go to the annual meeting and in good faith put forward resolutions and get them passed by a majority vote might as well forget about them, because they never surface within the caucus or within the cabinet.

MR. GIBSON: He was like that in the Liberal Party, too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How do you treat it in your caucus?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I have a very satisfactory time in my caucus. (Laughter.) I have to talk to myself severely sometimes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean most of the time.

MR. WALLACE: There's never any trouble getting a majority vote — I'll tell you that.

Mr. Chairman, I think that's a legitimate question: can the minister tell us if the caucus has changed its attitude and does in fact discuss contentious motions of this kind which have quite legitimately and democratically been discussed at a convention and have been expressed by a majority vote as the wish of the members of your party — the grass-roots membership? If so, I'm puzzled that the minister stated publicly a few days ago that he was taking no initiative at all on this very important issue of membership in the B.C. Teachers Federation.

I realize it's close to our adjourning time, but I wonder if the minister has time to at least answer that last question.

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

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): On behalf of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) I ask leave to table a telegram referred to by her during the oral question period today.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 1602 ]

APPENDIX

9         Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. Are any funds, including reserve funds and sums derived from consolidated revenue in any manner whatsoever, invested or deposited by (or) on behalf of any department, agency, or enterprise of the Provincial Government in (or) with any credit union in British Columbia?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is in the affirmative, (a) what was the total amount deposited or invested as of December 23, 1975, and (b) what is the total amount invested or deposited to date?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) Funds on deposit at December 23, 1975, $7,500,000 and (b) funds on deposit at April 23, 1976, $24,500,000."

17       Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

As of March 23, 1976, what is the value of shares owned by the Government of British Columbia in B.C. Telephone and the Westcoast Transmission Company?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"Market value at March 23, 1976, of British Columbia Telephone Company shares owned by the Superannuation Fund was $11,647,726.87 and Westcoast Transmission Company shares owned by the Province was $27,047,976.87."

59       Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Transport and Communications the following questions:

With regard to recent maintenance work on the Princess Marguerite —

1. Which company or companies carried out the maintenance work?

2. What was the total cost of this maintenance work?

The Hon. Jack Davis replied as follows:

"1. Outside contracts:

[ Page 1603 ]