[ Page 3265 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

On vote 212. Mrs. Wallace –– 3286

Mr. Levi –– 3265 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3286

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3265 Ms. Brown –– 3287

Mrs. Wallace –– 3266 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3287

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3267 On vote 220.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3268 Mr. Levi –– 3287

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3268 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3287

Mr. Nicolson –– 3268 On vote 22 1.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3270 Mr. Barber –– 3288

Mr.Cocke –– 3272 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3289

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3273 Mr. Nicolson –– 3289

Mr. Wallace –– 3274 Mrs. Wallace –– 3289

Hon. Mr. Mail –– 3276 On vote 223.

Mr. Barber –– 3279 Mr. Barnes –– 3289

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3282 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3289

On vote 215. On vote 225.

Mr. Levi –– 3283 Mr. Barnes –– 3290

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3283 On vote 229.

Mr. Barnes –– 3284 Mr. Levi –– 3290

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3284 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3290

On vote 216. On vote 230.

Mr. Nicolson –– 3285 Mr. Levi –– 3290

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3285 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3290

Presenting reports

B.C. Ferry Corporation report for fiscal period ending March 31,1977. Hon. Mr.

Davis –– 3290

B.C. Development Corporation annual report, Hon. Mr. Mair on behalf of Hon. Mr.

Phillips –– 3291

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A matter of grave importance was drawn to the attention of the House - namely, an allegation of contempt with respect to the Select Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Economic Affairs. I appreciate that Mr. Speaker has a grave matter before him to consider, but I would appreciate it if Mr. Speaker could communicate to the House when a decision might be expected.

MR. SPEAKER: Not today, hon. member.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 212: minister's office, $108,644 - continued.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to tell us something about what is happening with respect to Mr. Rosenbluth's report on the real estate inquiry which was released in April of 1976, particularly in relation to two or three of the recommendations. I have in mind recommendations 33 and 79, which deal with enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act. I just want to read a couple of sections in relation to multiple listings, and we have some recommendations about this

"It is reasonable to interpret section 32 (l) of the Act as indicating that the denial of access to the Multiple Listing Service represents an arrangement to lessen unduly competition in the sale of a product or to otherwise restrain or injure competition unduly. This would be an indictable offence and can be prosecuted under the Act."

This is in relation to some allegations which were made before the inquiry.

I also want to make reference to the question of franchising. As I understand it, we do not have any legislation in this province which specifically deals with the issues of franchising. I have in mind, in terms of franchising, the kind of saturation, for instance, of the real estate market with respect to organizations like Century 21 and Realty World, which are two very high-pressure - I am not at the moment making any accusations about practices; simply that they are becoming the most ubiquitous groups - operations in the province. These are the kinds of signs. In the inquiry by Dr. Rosenbluth, he makes some reference to what he considers wasteful practices in terms of a complete overservicing of an industry. This might be interpreted from the free-enterpriser's point of view as good competition; but there are other people who say that it is not. It's simply wasteful and it's highly competitive.

There was an article of the Financial Post recently, dealing with how the franchises work. One of the people interviewed - a broker who tried the franchise route and abandoned it - argues that the idea is excellent, but the franchise networks are being run by go-go enterprisers who don't follow through on their intentions. They are just not spending enough time training people.

The problem with the franchise kind of operation is that it could wind up being something like "Dare To Be Great, " where people who are pretty hard-nosed salesmen will get the feeling that somehow they can go into the real-estate business, obtain a franchise from one of these companies and somehow make some money. It's interesting that the franchise network in Canada is increasing quite dramatically. For instance, the Century 21 people started out in 1972 with 17; in '73 they went to 400; by '75 they were 1,800; and in '76 they had 3,100 franchises. These franchises are selling at anywhere from $6,000 to $17,000 or $18,000, depending on where the thing is being operated.

Specifically, to the minister: there are some observations in the Rosenbluth report. I don't know whether he wants to indicate to us that there'll be some legislation shortly or what he thinks about the need for franchise legislation. I think there is a very serious need for this. It assists the consumer. Because the government appears to be interested in fair practices in the private enterprise field, there is a need for this because there are some pretty serious complaints in this area. So I'll be interested in the minister's observations on it.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I must observe, of course, that enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act is a federal preserve and doesn't fall within our powers. However, one of the things that has come about since the Rosenbluth report was handed down is, in fact, a competition in rates which did not exist at the time he studied the industry. That to a large degree renders the results of that very able report somewhat nugatory because the problem he investigated is, at least at this point in time, no longer there.

The question of franchising is under investigation by our department, in co-operation, I might say, with the federal government, which is also undertaking a study of home transaction costs.

I think that one of the things we're seeing, Mr.

[ Page 3266 ]

Member, is a change in the overall real estate industry in that it is now becoming truly national in scope. I have said on many occasions that I expect that those real estate firms that do not computerize the availability of houses all across Canada and who cannot make that service available to their clients are going to be at a serious disadvantage to the large outfits, some of whom you have mentioned. Block Brothers is another one, of course, which doesn't franchise, but nevertheless does provide these services.

I don't think we have to concern ourselves with a "Dare To Be Great" situation because, of course, that comes under the Pyramid Distributors Act. Of course, it is unlawful both at the federal and at the provincial level.

I do agree with you that the question of franchising deserves a look from our department, and I want to assure the member that we are indeed looking at it.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I want to continue with some questions to the minister relative to the real estate industry and that aspect of his responsibilities. I would suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very definite form of monopolistic control in the real estate industry. Some of their approaches have been outlined in their chairman's report of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia last year.

They're talking about recruitment of salesmen in this report, Mr. Chairman, and they indicate that they have moved to curtail recruitment. They say that new recruitment procedures introduced in 1973 appear to have , halted the over recruitment. They go on to indicate that the council is of the opinion that the restriction of numbers should continue to be maintained. Now I don't argue with that concept; I think we have far too many salesmen, . probably, trying to chop up our province.

They go on to say:

"Although we may lose some applicants who would seem to be suited to the real estate industry, most are prepared to wait for the next available course, and only those who have acted on a whim pursue another livelihood. Our reflection, you will probably agree, is that it is desirable that instant entry to our vocation is not available to all because newcomers should be enforced to have a waiting period to discourage all but the serious applicant."

I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that this sort of approach is really eliminating the new or younger person who would like to get into this form of earning a livelihood, because they cannot wait around to apply at a later date. It seems that it is a closed shop, Mr. Chairman, without the opportunity for those who are not able to wait out to involve themselves in the industry.

A second point I would like to raise with the minister is related to the apparent price fixing that goes on. I have several pieces of material which I'm going to send across to the minister for his information when 1 finish my remarks.

These two advertisements are identical. They talk about Highland Wood. They give the prices: three and four-bedroom homes, $29,975 to $32,930; $695 down and $135.70 a month. Identical, Mr. Chairman. One is bought from the builder direct; the other is Block Brothers. Now that's collusion, Mr. Chairman. 1 think that's contrary to your Real Estate Act. We have a builder and a real estate company, both in the same paper with the same type of ad, advertising for exactly the same prices, exactly the same down payment and exactly the same payments. There's definitely some form of interrelationship there. 1 think that as the representative of the consumers in this province, it's something that you should be investigating.

I am going to turn them over. I have photostats made of those and various other documents which I am going to table when 1 finish my remarks.

1 have a letter here, Mr. Chairman, which was written to Professor Rosenbluth. It's from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. They're making some rather interesting suggestions to Professor Rosenbluth. One of the things that they talk about is the part-time employment of real estate salesmen. 1 think that if you look at regulation 913 of the Real Estate Act it refers to this same item - the inadvisability of part-time real estate personnel.

Again I have two advertisements, both from Nanaimo Realty in this instance: "Meet Frank Wilfert, one of our 45 professional sales people." In the ad it says: "He joined Nanaimo Reality that year and has been with them ever since. He is semi-retired from selling but he is still actively interested in real estate.---The other one says: "Meet Harry Donald. He is now semi-retired but still offers complete real estate service."

That sort of thing, Mr. Chairman, is not helping the unemployment, situation in British Columbia when we are encouraging these retired people to continue to work. 1 believe that regulation 913 makes some comment on that in the Real Estate Act. I would urge the minister to investigate that particular thing. Again, 1 will file those two advertisements with the minister.

The third item 1 want to talk about is multiple listing. I was very amused and somewhat flattered to find that in relation to the remarks 1 made a year ago on this very subject when there was another minister responsible, that other minister asked for copies of the information and 1 filed it with the House at that time. But unfortunately that other minister has apparently done nothing about it.

[ Page 3267 ]

1 was very interested to find that a photostat of my remarks had been circulated at the annual meeting of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. It's headlined: "The Attack Continues." 1 wouldn't want to disappoint the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, because the attack is going to continue again this year, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps this minister will be prepared to take some action. That other minister indicated a great deal of interest and some shock at what was going on with the Multiple Listing Service, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately he did not do anything about it because the whole situation is still with us.

I'm reading from the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board manager's annual report. He talks about this being the year which has been extremely gratifying, the heavy workload and so on. He says: "Every month was a record in the activity of the Multiple Listing Service." He says: "One only has to review the operating expenses and the various expenses to know that our production of multiple listings increased dramatically from 1976 over that of 1975. Though unit sales decreased slightly over this past year, the listings process increased approximately 50 per cent."

Mr. Chairman, what he is saying is that they listed 50 per cent more properties but they sold less. There is proof absolute, right in their own manager's words, that what 1 said last year is happening. The name of the game is to list, not to sell. To prove that, Mr. Chairman, they have contests such as "South to the Sun, " and it lists all the winners for 1976. What do you have to do to win? You get 30 listings. You only have to sell 15, but you get 30 listings and you get a trip south to the sun. If you don't list quite so many, then you get a mystery travel plan. If you list 20, you only have to sell 10 and you get the mystery travel plan, and it lists all the winners, Mr. Chairman.

Plan B is another mystery travel plan - not quite so mysterious and not quite so much travel - but if you list 15, you only have to sell 7. It's still the listing that counts. There's the big-barrel-draw winner, and so it goes. It's all related to listings, Mr. Chairman. And what do they do when they list? Well, they list at fabulous prices, unrealistic prices. They're not concerned whether it's a realistic price or not, because they want to get that listing. If salesman A goes and tells an owner, "I can get you $20,000 for that property, " salesmen B is in there to say, "don't list with them; list with me and I'll get you $25,000, " because it's the listing that counts. Once you get that property listed, then it doesn't matter who sells it. If and when it ever sells, for whatever price, the company which listed it gets its percentage. That's the name of the game, Mr. Chairman, and it's still there and it's still operating.

For the minister's information, I have some dollar and cents figures to back up my contention. Here is one property listed by Nanaimo Realty. It was listed at $135,000 and sold at $90,000. Another one was listed by J.H. Whittome at $25,900 and sold at $13,500. Canada Permanent: listed at $35,000, bold at $26,500; Nanaimo Realty: listed at $132,000, sold at $110,000; Nanaimo Realty: listed at $90,000, sold at $75,000; Block Brothers: listed at $1,500, 000, sold at $1,260, 000; Northbrook Realty: listed at $110,000, sold at $8 5,000; Northbrook Realty again: listed at $95,000, sold at $75,000.

They go on, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to bore the House with them, but that's the story. I do have copies of them and I do intend to send all this material across to the minister, or if you wish I'll file it with the Clerk - either way, whichever way the minister would have it. But there's the information, and I think we'll just send it to the minister. But I hope, Mr. Minister, that with all your enthusiasm and energy and apparent interest - though I was very disappointed, as the apparent interest was there last year on the part of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) but the situation persists - this year you will find time and the interest to do something about this kind of situation, which is one of the major reasons behind the very excessively inflated property values that we have on Vancouver Island and in other parts of British Columbia. The real estate industry, more than any one single item, and the multiple-listing system carried on by that real estate industry, is responsible for our terrifically inflated land values here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: I hope that the member for Cowichan-Malahat will not take this as any kind of a copout. It's not intended to be, but I hope that she understands that on October 29 last year I took on an enormous number of responsibilities that hitherto had not been mine. I have tried very hard to deal with each one of them as best I can within those time constraints. Some of the things that she has mentioned I have not had time to get to, but some of them I have made some starts on.

I want to deal, first of all, if I may, with the question of salesmen and say to the member that I too have shared her concerns. Really I'm at the point now of trying to determine which is the best way to handle the situation. When you go to some places in the lower mainland, you know, they have the last-man-in-the-lifeboat theory: close the doors to everybody else, and we're fine, and restrict us to this number. In some ways it sounds fine, but what it does is guarantee a perpetuating of mediocrity among those people who hold that perpetual licence.

On the other hand, a proliferation of licences to the point that nobody makes a decent living obviously doesn't serve the interests of the community either. I am inclined to think at this point that what we should be looking at - and this is what

[ Page 3268 ]

my ministry is looking at - is a minimum performance on either an annual or every-two-year basis in order to sustain that licence. It deals partly, Madam Member, with your part-time employment problem.

Of course, in good times we have all of those who hold licences coming out from other jobs they are doing, whether it's looking after their own home or some other business that they may be in. They start selling houses and compete with the people who have stuck it out during those hard times.

So while I'm not going to make a commitment that this is the way we're going to go, I am going to say that we have taken this up with the industry and have found quite a bit of interest in it. So far, it seems to me to be the most logical answer. In other words, if you're going to hold a licence, at least do a certain minimum amount of selling and have some minimum accomplishment attached to that licence over a period of time; or go back to square one and start over again. Don't start to take food out of the mouths of those who worked hard during the hard times.

The question of price fixing, of course, comes under the Combines Investigation Act, but I'm not going to cop out of that. If you can show me examples, and you have given me a couple, I will see that they are forwarded to the proper authorities for their investigation.

Multiple listing. I haven't had a chance, frankly, to look at that problem yet, but I give you my undertaking that I will. I do say this, however: I think that multiple listing as we have known it - the service - is going to become of less and less importance as the situation, which I described to the member from Burrard a moment ago, continues to come on stream. The more we have electronic selling and electronic information-gathering and the more we have the exchange of information between these companies, the less attraction there is to a person to put their house or their property - whatever it is - on multiple listing where, I agree, there have been abuses.

I can't do any more, Madam Member, than to say that I will indeed look into those abuses and I think I'm now getting to the point where I can devote some time to that aspect of my portfolio.

MRS. WALLACE: One other question related to the real estate industry and on a specific item, Mr. Chairman: I could probably wait until the vote but we may as well talk about it now while we're discussing real estate.

This is in the matter of the criteria for licensing agents. I've had one specific case brought to my attention where a person, who was highly qualified and well trained - she had a good background and had taken various courses in the province of Alberta;

she had acted as an agent and was licensed there -came to British Columbia and found that every possible roadblock was put in her way. She did, in fact, have to wait the two years and meet all the criteria that would be applicable to a person who was just beginning and had never had any experience.

I'm wondering whether you would be prepared to have a look at the licensing of agents and to give some kind of alternative criteria for people who have the necessary qualifications and experience. I'm not saying they shouldn't write the exams; they should, write the exams, but they shouldn't have to wait the two years or take the course over again if they're already trained and skilled.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm afraid that 1 can't adequately answer that question; 1 just don't know the answer to it. But I will take the question, if I may, as notice and try to give you a written reply to it. 1 do know that the whole question of criteria for licensing agents and salesmen is under review by the department; it's long overdue for review.

I can, perhaps, tell you how necessary it is by recounting to you an anecdote which came shortly after a speech I gave to some real estate people in Vancouver. A lady came up to me and said that in her opinion the minimum requirement for a real estate salesman should be grade 13. 1 said: "Why? Surely people learn to read and write a lot earlier than that and may well have the intelligence to pass the exam." She was adamant that it be grade 13. 1 said: "By the way, how far did you go in school?" She said: "Grade 13." So it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Each person has their own idea of what that criterion should be.

But 1 do undertake, Madam Member, to look into this whole question. -As a matter of fact, we are looking into it now as part of our ongoing study and 1 hope to be able to have better answers for you the next time you ask me the question.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, 1 would also undertake that. I will cheek my files. 1 think perhaps the case 1 have in mind went to the former minister responsible. 1 will see that you get copies of all the information involved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd be very grateful for that.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, last evening 1 asked the minister some questions about liquor permits. I pointed out just one example of a worthwhile organization that was supporting one of the major forms of entertainment in the community - Nelson senior amateur hockey. Not only that, but it served an educational function as well by means of athletic scholarships for post-secondary education.

Since the new regulations have been promulgated,

[ Page 3269 ]

I'd like to know the feedback the minister has had and what steps might be taken. Whenever a major change does take place, I think it's to be expected that there will be dislocations. 1 wouldn't say mistakes were made; I would just say that things have to be reviewed when major initiatives are taken with the best of intentions.

As 1 said, there are two things 1 want to bring up which tend to contradict each other. In this one case I'm asking for perhaps more license in terms of the dispensing of alcohol. On the other hand, I think that we should take the initiative that many members in the House have suggested and we should go along the lines of coming to grips with the problem of alcoholism and its many spinoffs.

During the cabinet visit to the city of Nelson, an announcement was made of a $5,000 grant to the Nelson Justice Council. 1 suppose the announcement was made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , partially because some of this certainly goes to the Nelson Justice Council. I'm also informed that a grant of over $60,000, 1 believe, has been allocated by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for the Nelson area toward treatment and detoxification.

1 would suggest that the $5,000 amount is insufficient for the programme which 1 read out during the Attorney-General's estimates last year -the programme outlined by the Nelson Justice Council. It is a programme which involves the pubs, the licensing of liquor outlets and even attitudes within the LC13. It is an all-encompassing programme. It suggested as but one of its recommendations random breathalyser tests and portable breathalysers. I welcomed the programme which the Attorney-General brought in known as the Batmobiles - that is, the portable breath analyzer testers. But 1 think that this minister has a great deal of responsibility, and I'm pleased to see he's announced additional inspectors. There is a great deal that can be done in the community.

There is in this community, as there is in Prince George, a situation which I think is ready and which could be most fruitful if adequately funded. A great deal of volunteer time has been put in over the past three years in considering this problem and coming up with some very solid recommendations. I'm not going to read the whole report but a great deal of this does have....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Sure, and maybe at the same time the minister could consider this. I would just submit to the minister that the $5,000 grant is really insufficient. A great deal is being expended by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in the area. If these two things could be looked at side by side in terms of optimizing the amount of the assistance that is going into this programme....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, I certainly will.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, with leave of the committee, in my tardiness to the House today because I was engaged otherwise I missed the opportunity to introduce to the assembly the Premier of Vorarlberg, one of the Provinces of Austria, Premier Herbert Kessler and his wife, who are accompanied by Consul-General John Hecht, the Consul-General for Austria, and who are visiting British Columbia. They've just left the gallery, but I would ask the House to welcome them to British Columbia and to our assembly. I ask you all to join me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston for the courtesy.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not certain as to whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was in Nelson when the committee was there.... He was. Well, then I'm sure he was very much apprised of the work being done by the Nelson justice council. The point I'm making is that if we're going to get the best for our dollar spent - and some initiatives are being taken in that area by the Minister of Health - there has to be more than tokenism. I think $5,000 would probably be almost as well not spent, if we're going to get really good efficiency and good mileage out of the money spent from the grant to the Nelson Justice Council in order to complement the work that's already being done through the Department of Health - which I understand to be funded through the Department of Health. There will have to be somewhat more adequate funding.

I think there was a misunderstanding. It was said that they would like to see a continuation of the volunteer participation. But if we're really going to mobilize the forces of the volunteers, there will have to be some other funding. I know the announcement was made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in terms of $5,000 but this programme really does depend upon getting participation at so many other levels: participation programmes in schools, programmes in the communities, things happening in the drinking establishments in particular. There were other programmes suggested such as voluntary interdict' lists and such. I only mention that as an aside to show some of the total consideration that has taken place. I know the Attorney-General's department considered this. It was addressed to him, but now it really should be addressed to the Attorney-General, to the Minister of

[ Page 3270 ]

Health and to the minister in charge of the liquor control board system in the province. So I'd like the minister to touch upon those two areas.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I will perhaps need some more clarification from the member on the problems around the Nelson senior amateur hockey. I'll see if I have your point correctly. If I haven't, you can clear it up for me.

If the Nelson senior amateur hockey team wishes to sell beer or cider publicly at the games, then with the consent of the local municipal authority they can get a permit to do so. There are rules and regulations as to when it can be served, in what kind of containers, and so on. Another alternative which is used, I know, in Kamloops is in the case of a social club which has its own particular self-contained unit within the arena. That club operates as a club and has a club licence. It sells alcoholic beverages during the course of the game, and so on, and it uses the proceeds for charitable purposes. Now I may not have got your point. I judge from the shaking of your head that I haven't. I'll leave it to you to clarify that for me.

Insofar as our programme relative to education is concerned, we're not taking any community-by-community thrusts. I think I could do no better than to read to you in part the announcement we made on March 31, because I think it sums up what we're doing:

"A major educational and advertising programme will be launched by the government to encourage better drinking habits. We have no real idea of the 'cost' of alcohol or extent to which bad drinking habits cause accidents, deterioration of health, accidents on the job, lost productivity, and so on, but we recognize that there is a serious problem. Because of this, the government will be undertaking a major, long-term programme designed to change attitudes towards drinking and emphasize moderation."

I don't think the member was here last night when I indicated that a cabinet document is on my desk now with respect to that programme, which incidentally is in co-operation with a number of other ministries, although not exclusive of their own thrusts. I hope to take that to cabinet in the very near future. That is the way we are going there.

MR. NICOLSON: It is not the Nelson hockey team that has been putting on these functions. It has actually been a separate legal entity or societal entity, and that is the Nelson Booster Club, which is the hockey booster club that has put them on. The booster club has also sponsored, through scholarship, three, four or five players. This has been part of the enticement to bring fairly high-calibre hockey players to Nelson to play amateur hockey. The functions which take place were selling hard liquor by the glass....

HON. MR. MAIR: At the games?

MR. NICOLSON: No, not at games. The Nelson Civic Centre - we almost have to get into some architecture here - was built during the Depression and was the first of its kind, I believe. It has the hockey arena and it also has other committee rooms, a library, a curling rink, and everything integrated, as well as having a gymnasium-auditorium attached. These functions, then, take place in an attached but separate facility. Some of the sales go on between periods, but there is no taking of liquor from the premises at which the social function takes place into the building. I might say that persons normally leave the hockey game when these things are not on -they're only on maybe once a month. They get a ticket at the door, they leave, they go to one of the nearby pubs and drink alcohol as well. So I don't think this particular function is really encouraging any more use of alcohol. At the conclusion of the game there is music.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you? Could these specific details perhaps be discussed between the member and the minister without taking time in committee?

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think that if one were to look at -the amount of time I've taken up in this Legislature, it would prove to be excessive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's just a matter of trying to conserve the time.

MR. NICOLSON: I always try to be concise, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The function is not a function of the hockey team; it is not, for instance, what we [illegible] in the Pacific Coliseum at a Vancouver Canucks hockey game. It was legal, but it has become a casualty of these particular changes in regulations. I would also say that at the conclusion of the game there is a social function. There is dancing; there are other things going on there. It is not just selling liquor by the glass like a bar - sort of a stand-up bar. Usually at the conclusion of the game, people are joined by players of both the opposing and home team. The league comprises Spokane, Cranbrook, Kimberley and Trail, and I think it is a very good thing in terms of promoting a more sportsmanlike atmosphere. The opposing team, in spite of what might have gone on on the ice, is seen in a social context and I think that it is very much better.

I just point this out as one worthwhile endeavour

[ Page 3271 ]

- something that has provided hockey scholarships for people who would never have had that opportunity. I could even say that many of the teachers in the Nelson school district No. 7 have been the product of these hockey scholarships and are very valued members of the teaching community in Nelson. So that is the context in which this occurs.

With respect, I appreciate that the government's position is that they would like to be fair to all areas in the province. But I would point out to the minister that since Prince George started its Carnage programme, I think the Nelson district can be proven to have the most unenviable record. At the time that I pointed it out to the Attorney-General in last year's estimates, it did have the most unenviable record in terms of impairment and consumption of alcohol in the province. Since that time, there has been to date a 400 per cent increase in traffic fatalities in the Nelson district. I would point out that while the average drinking driver is over 30, the average drinking driver involved in a fatal accident is in the low 20s. There's a tremendous difference. I do submit that it's a combination of aggression with impairment that causes traffic fatalities. We have this very serious problem in our area.

I raised the question last year in the House. I think some real emergency measures are required. People who leave a drinking establishment in downtown Vancouver are not likely to be traveling at 70 miles an hour getting home to Burnaby, but people who leave a downtown drinking establishment in Nelson could very easily, if they have their muscle cars and everything else, be traveling at speeds of 90 miles an hour to their own peril and to the peril of many other innocent persons.

So I do feel that extra measures have to be taken in certain communities where it can be identified as being a crisis situation. Where there is a community awareness and a will to do something about it, I feel that extra measure should be taken. This minister provides the revenue from this drug, which we dispense as a government function because it's the best way of handling a situation.

But I hope that he would take this responsibility very seriously and recognize that there are hot spots in this province - things that should be snuffed out. We certainly don't dispense our forestry fire prevention to areas in which they're having heavy rains. We dispense them to the areas which have suffered drought and in which there is a disproportionate danger.

I would submit that there's something disproportionate and alarming happening in the Nelson area. The reasons, I think, are very adequately put forth in the Nelson Justice Council report, which has been in the hands of government for over a year and a half now. Some measures have flown from that, but I don't think that the full message has come across. It's a long report- I don't expect the minister has read it. If he has, i certainly commend him. I know the Attorney-General's office spent a great deal of time with it and something did come out of it.

But I say that for a few dollars more - if we were to get $50,000 or $45,000 in that area - just think of the number of lives that could be saved. There's been a 400 per cent increase in an area which I believe last year was the worst area in the province in terms of drinking habits and fatalities , We can back this up with RCMP statistics and attitude surveys and many other types of statistical information. So I would ask the minister to consider this as a disaster area, a hot spot, a smouldering fire. People should be dispensed and something should be done to put this out, as happened in Prince George. I must say it happened pretty well there without too much government assistance.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, Mr. Member, dealing with your Nelson Booster Club, I'm beginning to get the impression that the problem is they can only get six special-use permits per year; therefore they're restricted. I'd be pleased to try to talk to you about this and see if there's anything that my department can suggest which will assist you.

I think you should understand, however, that if you were to give out special-use permits on a greater basis than six per year, the next thing that you'd have going for you as an MLA is a complaint from other licencees in the area that persons without any investment - regardless of the charitable attitude they express - are competing with them on a regular basis. This is what happens. You get the sort of "push down one bump of the pie plate and another one pops up .

We've had a specific problem in that regard with the rowing club in Stanley Park, which wanted to have more and more special-use permits. Of course, the next thing that happened was the licencees in the nearby area started to complain that we were giving them, with a minimal amount of investment, the same right to sell liquor that they, who had put a lot of money into their establishments, had. So it's a thorny problem, Mr. Member. I'll be very happy to discuss it with you or have my deputy discuss it with you, to see if we can come up with some solution. There may be some sort of social club type of situation that we can work out.

I share with you the other concerns that you have raised. I think, however - as a matter of fact, I'm sure - that they all belong with the Attorney-General. He is the one who has that programme of enforcement and of prevention; mine is more a programme of education. However, I'm sure we can bring your concerns to the attention of the Attorney-General. I'm sure he'll take them very seriously. I think they are serious problems, but I

[ Page 3272 ]

don't think my ministry has the wherewithal to do what you want.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, 1 will highlight the features of the Nelson Justice Council report which deals with the educational programme. There is a great deal of it in the report, and I will undertake to send that to the minister.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has many new responsibilities, having taken over a good p art of the work of the Attorney-General. 1 think that's all for the good because the Attorney-General over the years has been overloaded with almost impossible tasks such as keeping an eye on companies, insurance, liquor and all the rest of it.

One particular area, however, I would like to discuss with the minister for a moment or two. He's a rather.new fellow in the precincts and I would like to provide him with a little advice. He's also in charge of film classification.

Mr. Chairman, some of us who have been around here for a little while have been on one or two classification committees. 1 recall having been on one, I believe it was 1971 or 1972 or somewhere in there.

AN HON. MEMBER:---The Stewardesses."

AN HON. MEMBER: "Clockwork Orange."

MR. COCKE: "Clockwork Orange, - and a number of others.

But in any event, 1 do have something that 1 think we should consider at this point. I'm not suggesting that there should be any intensification of censorship, but 1 am suggesting that there should be some kind of new look at our method of showing a picture as being restricted. In some jurisdictions they have what they call the X rating, and there's nothing particularly attractive about an X.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm not suggesting censorship, I am suggesting that we shouldn't make the restricted movies so awfully attractive. If you go to a movie, for example, and they want to show a restricted movie, they show a little kitten moving a ball of wool around. Right away it's an attractive proposition; a kitten is a very attractive thing. They've used the cat as the suggestion that it's a restricted movie.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest they use a dog, and not a puppy. I suggest that they use a dog with its teeth snarling, and the most unattractive dog they can find, because in my view the movies are dogs for the most part. 1 don't really think that we should be letting the movie companies use this emblem to make their movies more attractive.

You'll notice in the paper, for instance, when a movie is restricted, oftentimes they'll make the cat on the ad three or four times as large as what they have to according to law. The reason they do that is because they think it -is attractive and it's going to attract people. Instead of something to warn, it's become a device to attract.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To attract other cats!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, 1 suggest very strongly that the minister take into consideration some real review of classification.

1 suggest also that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) could probably assist him. Among all of his staff surely there should be some people with some experience in this sort of thing. Mr. Chairman, I would really think that this is an area that bears looking at.

One other area, Mr. Chairman, that I want the minister to look at is this whole question of neighbourhood pubs. I am disappointed as can be in what seems to be occurring in my area. In New Westminster - and I'm sure it's happening elsewhere - city council, who has the right to license in concert with the liquor administration, has been pressured very, very heavily by the big hotel interests. As a result, instead of the minister's moratorium, now we have a New Westminster moratorium on neighbourhood pubs.

1 feel that neighbourhood pubs are a lot safer drinking milieu than the great big beer parlours. Beer parlours have tended over the years - and those who have watched to any degree at all know this - to be just a method of pushing beer as quickly as you can in the largest most unattractive amphitheatre that you can possibly find. Some of them now take in almost acres of space and hundreds and hundreds of people.

A neighbourhood pub has two great advantages: (1) there are not so many people involved; (2) it normally is the kind of situation that's very close to your home and you don't have to drive a car after having consumed something; (3) you're able to meet your neighbours and do a lot more talking than drinking. Try to talk in the average one- or two-acre beer parlour and you couldn't possibly attain the level of voice that would be required to get your voice across the table. The din is just that much. Each time the volume goes up you have to scream that much louder, increasing the volume. So there's nothing really neighbourly or particularly attractive with that kind of drinking setting.

I believe that we should, in -every way we can, encourage the smaller situation despite what the large hotel interests have to say and despite what the beverage dispensers' union. has to say. 1 know that they're not particularly attracted to the

[ Page 3273 ]

neighbourhood pub concept. That's too bad; that's unfortunate. It strikes me that the Act has not been kept at the highest level within the beer parlour situation. Therefore I suggest that we take a very good look at the neighbourhood pub situation in terms of building that concept and enabling it to become a far greater part of the scene in B.C.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , in indicating his seniority in the House, expected me to take his remarks on film classification on notice, as it were. I happily do so.

1 would like at this time to point out that Mr. Ray MacDonald has been the film classifier - note the absence of the word "censor" - since 1950 and is retiring soon, starry-eyed, no doubt! I would very much like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him. When I met Mr. MacDonald shortly after taking over the ministry, 1 met him as well as his two assistants, and 1 was surprised to hear that they were paid for the job. Apparently they are, and 1 gather from what they tell me it becomes....

MR. WALLACE: It's hard on the nerves.

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 think it is, Mr. Member. They tell me it gets tiresome. When it gets tiresome it's time for you and 1 to pack it in.

I'd like to talk for a moment about the neighbourhood pub because I think that the member for New Westminster has raised a number of interesting points.

I don't think there's any question, Mr. Member, that the concept of the neighbourhood pub is a very good one indeed. The problem has been in practice. Everybody wants the neighbourhood pub in somebody else's neighbourhood. It's fine as long as it's four, five, six or ten blocks away. The tendency, therefore, has been to put it in a place where it's convenient, such as a shopping centre. What you have, instead of people driving downtown to have a drink and driving home having been drinking, is that you have them driving up to the local shopping centre and driving home after they've had something to drink. We've got to the point now where we have become concerned with how much parking is available for a neighbourhood pub, which, of course, is the very antithesis of what we should be thinking about. We should be thinking of very minimal parking because people, in theory at least, are supposed to walk to these establishments. So as I say, I'm very supportive of the idea as a concept, but 1 can tell you that it hasn't been easy to implement in practice in the way that it was originally intended. In other words, it's a good idea that is difficult to implement.

However, I also agree with the member for New Westminster in his condemnation of the large beer parlour. I have said publicly that if the large beer parlour goes the way of the dodo bird, 1 won't shed a single, solitary tear. One of the things we have done to encourage this result is the creation of the new hotel pub licence. I may have touched upon this yesterday, but I'm happy to say that we have well over 100 applications from hotels for a licence which is analogous to the neighbourhood pub licence. They can sell all forms of liquor and they're restricted to the same hours, the only distinction being that they can have 125 patrons instead of 100. The extra 25 is a recognition that hotels generally - not always, but generally - do have some live-in trade which is going , to increase the amount of clientele they might normally expect. 1 think this is going to go a long way to alleviating the situation.

I think the member for New Westminster would agree with me that we are doomed to live in the post-prohibition era for some time to come, because we didn't do a damn thing about it for so many years. It's going to take us perhaps 8, 10 or 15 years before we finally get in British Columbia reasonable drinking spots, get rid of the big, smelly, noisy barn, and get some types of civilized establishments throughout our community where people can drink and either walk home or, if they must drive, drive short distances.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

1 can't get into specifies in New Westminster with you, Mr. Member, but 1 can tell you it appears to me, in theory and philosophy at least, that we're on all fours. We're very much supportive of any kind of small establishment that is close to home and keeps people out of their cars when they go out drinking, and also any establishments which create an atmosphere that is conducive to temperance, conversation and conviviality rather than drunkenness.

MR. COCKE: Just to follow that up, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear the minister say what he's saying. 1 listened to the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) last evening when he was criticizing people in the House for talking in terms of moderate drinking and one thing and another. I was reminded then, and 1 just wanted to suggest to the minister, that during the war 1 took some training in Montreal at a wireless school where, at that time, it was....

HON. MR. MAIR: Which war?

MR. COCKE: He wonders which war. For the record, it was the Boer War. (Laughter.)

But here was an open town, Montreal, where at that time, in 1942-1943, you rarely saw drunkenness. 1 mean, there was naturally the odd person around.

Later on 1 was posted to an air navigation school

[ Page 3274 ]

at Summerside, P.E.I. In Summerside, on the other hand, where they had outright prohibition at the time, the only way you could get booze, unless you happened to be on an armed forces base, was with a prescription at a drugstore. On a Saturday night in Charlottetown you could not walk down most of the main streets without hopping over the prostrate bodies on the sidewalk. Drunkenness was a real considerable situation in that area where there was prohibition.

So I don't think you cure anything either by trying to inhibit in that fashion by the arbitrary action of government, nor on the other hand do you help the matters by creating these monstrous drinking situations that we have. So I really think that the neighbourhood pub - and I'm watching your hotel pub as well to see whether or not that comes along -in a way says to me, however, that you're catering to that particular bunch who've always had it their own way. But we'll leave judgment of that until later. Certainly I'm pleased that's going to be a more modest setting as opposed to.... I'm really talking in terms of acreage; that's really what disturbs me, and it's just not a fit place to drink,

Just one more word on classification. Think about either X-rating or getting rid of the cat. I honestly think they're trying to make use of that symbol as an attraction, particularly when they use that symbol just before the feature comes on. When they're advertising the next feature they have this very attractive little kitten pushing around a ball of wool. That to me is not at all what is meant by "restricted." It's not a symbol of restriction; it's an attractive symbol and I think they're abusing it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to raise a few points to deal with the question of regulation of liquor and wine and beer. I would like to ask the minister if he could bring us up to date with the presentation by the B.C. Association of Broadcasters in the fall of last year. Their particular complaint is that radio and television broadcasters are prevented from advertising beer and wine, despite the fact that beer and wine can be advertised in the print media. As we've mentioned many times in this session, we do live very close to the American border and there are all kinds of unavoidable ramifications. We already know that the tourist industry is taking a beating because the Americans have decided that tax deductions on American conventions in Canada will no longer be approved. That's just a quick example of how intimately our whole lifestyle and many of the economics of our living are affected by our proximity to the United States.

Here is another example: the statistics from 1974 show that British Columbians spend 42 per cent of their time viewing television programmes beamed from the United States. We all know that a weekend, particularly in association with sports - golf games, baseball and so on - and I won't mention names, is just not complete without a certain brand of beer. This frequency of American advertising beamed in by television to British Columbia certainly puts the B.C. producer at something of a disadvantage if he is prevented from using the same vehicle of advertising.

I'm not personally here to espouse the cause of the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. I've looked at both sides of the question and I recognize some flaws in their argument, not the least of which is the rather facile argument that advertising doesn't promote sales; it only promotes a change of brand.

Mr. Chairman, I think if that was the case, the advertising business generally would not be the booming element of our total economy which it is. I don't overlook the fact that the advertising industry provides many jobs, and I wouldn't want to have my remarks construed as some kind of attack on the advertising industry. I think the crux of this particular issue is that the broadcasting media are being discriminated against in not being allowed to advertise a product which is legal in B.C. If you're going to make it legal to produce and sell wine and beer, I think it is totally unfair not to allow certain elements in the advertising industry to advertise it. I think that policy is wrong on that basis alone.

Either we stop all advertising or we let all advertising vehicles have access to the same particular product. It's quite obvious that the print media are allowed to advertise beer and wine and I've mentioned the television impact from the United States.

The third point, which I think is very valid, is that if it is a legal product that can be advertised through one or two arms of the advertising media, then it seems only fair to allow broadcasters the same access to that particular advertising. As I understand it, they have put some proposals to the minister, recognizing that there's a responsibility in advertising and that regulations could be readily drawn up which would be fairly strict in relation to the content and frequency of the ad.

I believe there's one proposal that suggests that at least 20 per cent of each ad would have to emphasize responsibility in the drinking of beer and wine by the consumer. I don't want to spend a great deal of time on this, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's an issue that transcends the whole question of the use and abuse of beer and wine. It relates to a vital part of our modem lifestyle, namely advertising - the good, the bad and the ugly.

I agree with many people that there is some incredibly insulting advertising that hits our eyes and our ears. It not only insults your intelligence but also your standards of morality at times. I'm not here to suggest that the minister should embark on an attack on the advertising industry, telling them what's good

[ Page 3275 ]

and what isn't good, but I'm saying that there's an element of uniformity and fairness that's involved here that the government should not continue to turn a blind eye or ear to. I wonder if the minister has had long enough to explore the issue, whether it's been discussed in cabinet and whether in fact he can tell us if a decision has been made. Maybe it's a little bit like the Colwood cemetery. The proposals are in the mixer and all we need is the approval of cabinet. I think that the B.C. broadcasters have a point.

Could the minister bring us up to date with the consequences of the legislation which made it possible to provide beer at sports events? Just on Saturday of last week, we had a very unpleasant incident in the city of Victoria where two of the prominent softball teams were putting on a very attractive ball game, but there were two or three groups, apparently. Being neither a ball game fan nor being in town on that weekend, I wasn't at the game, Mr. Chairman, but the press reports contain statements such as the following:

"Said an attendant who didn't want to be identified: 'They had all been drinking. They got this huge jug of wine off one of the groups.... What a night! Here I was busy attending to a woman who had fainted at the gate when this thing broke out in front of me.' "

While I've no wish to make a general conclusion from one incident, there's no doubt that many people in Victoria are very uneasy about that particular incident. Is it heralding subsequent similar occasions or is this in fact just an isolated event?

I wonder if the minister could tell us what has happened elsewhere in the province. Does he believe that, by and large, the advantages to the people attending these sports events outweighs the unpleasant rowdyism that occurred in Victoria?

Just before I leave that topic, Mr. Chairman, the report was described in the Colonist of June 26 as being an "ugly disturbance that brought several carloads of riot police to the park. The helmeted Victoria police poured into the park brandishing clubs when a drink-inspired fight between games threatened to turn into a riot." I'm reading directly from the clipping. This is the reporter's interpretation of how close it came to being something more than a disturbance. I would like to know what the provincial scene is on that matter.

I have another quick, simple question that I'd like to ask the minister of a government that's fighting inflation. I have The British Columbia Gazette for December 21,1976, Part 2, page 824, regulations made pursuant to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. I'm referring to the special occasion licences. The very simple statement under subparagraph (1) says: "The fee for a special occasion licence is $10."

HON. MR. MAIR: It's gone back down.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman. It used to be $2. We do a lot of socializing among the enormous membership of the Conservative Party in Oak Bay and we have a lot of special occasions.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yes, I noticed. There's not much else to do in Oak Bay.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Come on now. You used to attend those.

MR. WALLACE: It used to be $2 and it seemed to anybody with a Scottish turn of mind who liked a cheap event that didn't cost too much to put on that the liquor licence of $2 was very reasonable. Now the minister is indicating across the floor that the $10 has been reduced. I wasn't aware of that. Is it back all the way to $2? That's very good news, Mr. Chairman. You're being very helpful to the Conservative Party in Oak Bay.

I have another question I'd like to ask, and there's nothing flippant about the following topic, Mr. Chairman. That is the whole question of a review of the drinking age in light of some of the statistics others have quoted about the involvement of the young drinking driver in road accidents causing morbidity and mortality. Perhaps the minister can tell us if the government is reviewing the wisdom or otherwise of raising the drinking age. It's a very big subject in itself. I just want to say that some of the figures I'll quote very briefly were mentioned....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, on the subject of changing the liquor Act as far as the age of majority for consumption of alcohol is concerned, this requires legislative change. Therefore it's something that should not be discussed in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I respect that statement you've made, but vote 225 talks about liquor control. There's surely nothing more eminently related to liquor control than the age at which you can drink liquor.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll talk about it.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not asking the minister to tell me if he's got a bill in his hip pocket that he's going to table on Monday. I'm just saying that there's a great deal of public concern. The fact is it was graduation night at the high school in Oak Bay last night, and I didn't speak to one parent - not a single parent - whose first concern, after the glow and satisfaction of seeing their son or daughter graduate, was: "What now for the rest of tonight?" Their

[ Page 3276 ]

concern was access to liquor and how these young people might or might not handle that situation.

We all know of the tragic aftermath on many occasions. I don't want to belabour the point, but I think it's fair to raise the issue without talking about possible legislation because, as members of this house, we should reflect the concerns and the fears that citizens have on a variety of topics, and this certainly. has to be one of them.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, that in Ontario a brief prepared by the five-member panel and submitted to the Legislature's select committee on highway safety said that impaired drivers in the 18 to 19 age group are 70 times more likely to die in a collision than the average sober driver and that the drinking problem had a spillover effect on 16- and 17-year-olds, who can easily get alcohol through their older high school friends. We all recognize you can have a law and if you can't make it stick, maybe it's not a good law.

But I don't accept this all-too-easy argument some people present that, well, sure you can raise the drinking age but the kids will drink anyway. That's a copout. Just because it might be more difficult, or quite difficult, to make that legislation valid, I think that experience in other jurisdictions makes it obvious that any time a jurisdiction has lowered the drinking age there has been an increase in morbidity and mortality from accidents, to a disproportionate degree in the younger age groups. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the subject.

Another question that I've been asked to inquire into, Mr. Chairman, is the manner in which the authorities deal with liquor which is seized because it is illegally possessed, or because it's stolen, or for whatever reason the police seize liquor supplies. I understand that someone takes a sledgehammer and breaks it up or pours it down the drain.

AN HON. MEMBER: My God!

MR. WALLACE: It made me shudder to think of the waste, Mr. Chairman. Now I'm not sure that I have my facts correct, but I'm told by a lawyer in Vancouver that he is well aware of incidents where the seizure of illegal booze leads to some kind of traditional destruction of the illegal booze. Now, Mr. Chairman, whether that illegal booze is first filtered through somebody's kidneys or not, I don't know, but I've been told that's one way in which it's dealt with. On the other hand, I'm told that it is often just destroyed. Again, let's not get all holier than thou about this. If it's illegal, it should be taken from the person who has it illegally, but just to destroy it -particularly if it's Scotch (laughter) - seems to me a very insensitive way for the government to act.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's tragic.

MR. WALLACE: It is tragic, and it's uneconomical, which is more to the point. I would have thought that any government which could sell the same product twice would really wish they could do that more often.

Now I have two quick points, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the controversy that arose on the advertising of interest rates for registered retirement savings plans. It was an issue which was raised by Mr. Jensen, the regional manager of Investors Syndicate.

As the minister knows, the last date for contributing to a registered retirement savings plan is February 28 or March 1, as the case would be. Just before the closing date, there is a tremendous amount of advertising embarked upon by the various financial organizations selling registered retirement savings plans. There was the accusation against the credit unions that the 10 per cent they were advertising was not accurate. These mutual fund people like Investors Syndicate felt that they just couldn't compete and that there should be some clarification of the amount of information that should be included in the ad to make it quite plain what the net actual interest rate was. I wonder if the minister would tell us a little bit about that.

Finally, I'm always somewhat bemused rather than amused when the government of the day tells us that we don't have censorship in films. Now you can use all the fancy words you like, Mr. Chairman, but we have censorship on films. I'm not necessarily opposed to the attempt that's being made to prevent completely objectionable films being shown. All I'm saying is: let's just tell the truth.

This government, like the former government and the government before it, has censorship. To prove the point I would just like to ask the minister to give me the statistics for all the films that were eyed by Mr. McDonald and how many of those films were found to defy classification, and as a result of being unclassifiable - if there is such a word - were to be found to be unfit for showing in British Columbia. Now I did get the statistics for 1975, as I recall, and I would think that the 1976 statistics should be available. But when any government-appointed body prevents the showing of a movie, however valid the reasons, that's censorship. So with the greatest of respect, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, let's call it what it is: censorship!

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back first of all to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and his interesting recollections of Charlottetown during the war. I was reminded of a speech I gave in Courtenay not long ago. Somebody remarked in a question that the great system they had in Britain prevented the great number of drunks that one sees elsewhere. An

[ Page 3277 ]

Englishman stood up and said: "No, there are just as many drunks in Britain. They are just a little more dignified."

MR. WALLACE: They walk a lot.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's right! They've learned from a long experience how to walk when they're hammered.

I want to deal first of all with the member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace's) question with respect to broadcasters. I quite agree if ever there was a situation which proves that no liquor law is logical, this is it. It's an issue about which I think everybody has their own opinion. I can tell you that I have my own opinion and it may not necessarily accord with the policy of the government.

But let me make one or two points. You can't deal, in my opinion, with liquor as if it was boxes of soap or any other normal product. The fact that it may be legal is in a sense true but in fact it's more tolerated than legal; it's something that we know we can't get rid of. I'm sure you as a physician, hon member, would say that if we had never had alcohol consumption in this world it would be a good thing, and that any distribution of alcohol is a derogation from that statement and from that position. So we're dealing with something that is normal and legal in the sense that we have come to know that term. You're therefore going to have exceptions. Some of those exceptions are going to be based on reason, some of them are going to be based on prejudices and some of them are going to be based on politics.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, never!

HON. MR. MAIR: Having said that, let me point out that the electronic media have never been able to advertise in British Columbia. It's not as if we had taken away a right or it has been taken from them. They want it because they feel it's a matter of civil liberties that they should have it, and they may have a point. I'm not giving you an answer, Mr. Member; I'm just trying to give you the situation as I see it and the rationale that the government has taken.

One of the problems that the member raised is electronic advertising across the border. I want you to know that our liquor distribution branch takes the position that if anybody advertises liquor sold in British Columbia over the Bellingham station, we will de-list that liquor and they know it. We're now working on the question of cablevision to see if we can get some favourable response from the cablevision people to block out that advertising through cablevision of liquor products which are sold in Canada.

We're concerned that any kind of electronic advertising of alcohol cannot avoid a lifestyle type of advertising. I think we're inclined to the view that you expressed, Mr. Member: to say all you're doing is switching from brand A to brand B to brand C is just nonsense. You are in fact encouraging the use of alcohol anytime you show somebody doing it in a normal social type of atmosphere. You are creating the impression with somebody who doesn't already drink that it is a normal, natural thing to drink. I think the logical corollary from that is that you are somehow anti-social or unnatural if you don't join in the fun.

So those are the concerns that we have, along with the concerns that Mr. Lalonde has expressed nationally. I might say that I have visited with Mr. Lalonde with this particular problem in mind and he has suggested that a convention of all ministers responsible for liquor in the various provinces, along with the federal government, be convened for purposes of coming up with some guidelines which we can recommend to all of our governments,

I'd like to make one other point which may interest the members of the committee. When we were coming up with the liquor policy I spoke, I think, to anybody in British Columbia who had any interest in liquor, but I particularly talked to the three major breweries in British Columbia about the question of electronic advertising. Their answers were rather curious.

One said he didn't want it. "No way, " he said, "We've spent enough money on advertising as it is. Why should we get into that treadmill where we're fighting each other with more money down the drain to sell something that we're not having any trouble selling anyway?"

The second one said: "Yes, I want it because I think it's a civil liberty that I should have, but I wouldn't use it unless everybody else did, "

The third one said: "Yes, I want it. I want to be able to use it and I think it's my right to do so." Predictably, the third one was the largest brewer and the one who wanted to put the rest of them out of business.

I raise that point to show that other than the media there's not even unanimity amongst those who would advertise. I think I can conclude my remarks on that particular point, Mr. Member, by saying that the government's decision, as in all cases, is not final. It's something that we are continuing to look at but I see no particular change in government policy in the near future.

Dealing with the sporting events question that the member for Oak Bay raised, from the news reports I can only assume that those people who caused the trouble had gotten their alcohol other than at the sporting event itself, because they were carrying a bottle of wine. They should not have been able to get a bottle of wine per se at that event.

Quite apart from that, I think the basic question

[ Page 3278 ]

that the member raised was: "How is this working generally throughout British Columbia?" I can only say that we haven't had enough experience yet in British Columbia to be able to know. I can say however that the decision is strictly in the hands of the municipality. There are very careful guidelines as to the containers that may be used and the times that the liquor may be sold.

I think that one must also remember two salient features. In coming to the decision to allow this on a local option basis we have looked very carefully at other jurisdictions that have similar legislation and it works very well there; the second thing I think we must bear in mind, Mr. Member, is that we have always had problems since time immemorial at sporting events with people having liquor and drinking too much and getting into fights. It didn't take the sale of liquor at these events to cause those problems. Anybody who has been to a Grey Cup anywhere in Canada knows that the person without a flask on his hip or something along with him is the exception rather than the rule.

MR. WALLACE: Have you heard of the Rangers-Celtic soccer games?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think that we are attempting to completely cure the problem, but what we are doing is creating an atmosphere, we hope, where people will say: "No, I'm not going to pack a mickey or whatever it may be to the game and drink the whole thing. I will, between periods, have a cup of beer or a cup of cider or whatever it may be." We want to encourage those who otherwise would have had too much to drink not to drink that much. However, once again, if it does not work, Mr. Member, I repeat that the municipality has only to quash the bylaw to get rid of it forthwith. If it doesn't work I'd be the first one to encourage them to do that.

The special occasion permit that the member mentioned remains at $10 for public groups but for private groups it has gone back down to $2. We had a number of complaints from social clubs, men's clubs and so on around the province that the increase was almost an obscene amount of the profit that they would make out of the small event that they were going to hold. You might note that in the province of Ontario the price is $50 regardless. I got a stinging rebuke from my counterpart in Ontario when we reduced it back down. But in any event, that answers your question.

The question of drinking age, Mr. Member, is something that is totally out of my hands because it's a question of age of majority, not a question of age of drinking. If the government was to decide that people should not attain their majority until an age greater than 19, well, that's one thing. But there's nothing that I can see myself doing about going to a person who is a full-fledged citizen and saying, "You can't have a drink." I think you either make a person a full-fledged citizen at whatever age it is or you don't. I don't think you can have a half-citizen, and I wouldn't encourage it. In answer to the point that the member makes about his friends with graduating students and so on, I don't think anybody knows better than me the tragedies that can happen with youth drinking. But the graduates that your friends were talking about, I would suggest, were probably 99 per cent under the age of 19 in any event. They're getting their liquor the same way I got it when I graduated from high school and the same way that probably everybody in this place got it when they graduated from high school. It's a recurring problem that I don't think relates to the present age of majority.

The member raised a question concerning liquor that is seized. First of all, I must make the point that the vast majority of the liquor that is seized is seized by the RCMP, and I really have no way of knowing what they do with it. I have my suspicions sometimes, but I don't really know. I can tell you that that which we seize, if the seals are intact and there is no evidence of it in any way being tampered with, we sell again. We put it back on the shelves.

MR. WALLACE: That's a businesslike government.

HON. MR. MAIR: The beer goes to the minister. That's evident, isn't it?

Insofar as the question raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on interest rates, I want you to know that the credit unions recently at their convention agreed that they would set standards so that in future there will be nothing in their ads that will be misleading. A great deal of the problem, of course, is something over which I have no direct control because there is a dual responsibility, federally and provincially. But I will, Mr. Member, undertake to write Mr. Macdonald, the Minister of Finance, and share these concerns of yours with him in the hope that between the two of us we can make sure there is no repeat of the problems that have occurred in the last few years.

The question of censorship. At the risk of perhaps admitting too much as a politician, I'll be the first to admit that yes, indeed, we do censor. We call it classification, but sometimes we don't classify. Generally speaking, our refusal to classify brings a change in the picture by the snipping out of certain offensive material.

Now I might say two things. First of all, this whole question is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada and we'll know very shortly what power the provinces have in terms of classification. Secondly -

[ Page 3279 ]

and I think this might interest the member - the number of films that are refused full classification per year number some seven or eight, and of that seven or eight most of it has to do with violence, not sex. It seems that the people who are involved in movie making have some reasonable idea of what, if any, tolerance people have to sex, but are still experimenting on the question of violence. It's in that area that we have reclassified.

MR. WALLACE: How many does he classify in total?

HON. MR. MAIR: Let me say that the total amount that we classify in one way or another is about 70 or 80 a month.

MR. BARBER: I'd like, first of all, to congratulate the minister on doing a good job. 1 think he's competent and 1 intend to vote for him.

I would like to raise two matters, though, for which the minister is responsible in regard to special banking and commercial services in this province. He's responsible for credit unions and co-ops, and it's within that general area that I'd like to draw to his attention a couple of problems, one of which I think deserves some very special study.

That study is the problem of red-lining. Red-lining is a practice carried on very frequently in the United States and, according to verbal evidence which I've received, in some of the larger cities in Canada. Red-Lining is a practice whereby a bank, savings and loan association, a trust company or some other financial institution quite literally draws a red line on a map - which is where the name came from -around a given geographic area in which it has been determined, for whatever reasons the bank, the trust company, the credit union or savings and loan have, that there shall not be granted mortgages or loans for various purposes. Red-lining is a practice which is under increasing attack in the United States and which, it has recently come to our attention, is indeed being practised in Canada.

Red-lining has this particular result, Mr. Chairman. In a given neighbourhood - and, if you'll forgive me, at the moment 1 would like to use American examples because I'm most familiar with them; we're just now beginning to learn about Canada - a credit union, a trust company or a bank, particularly in the United ' States, to the best of our information, determines that, say, in a black ghetto in a rundown part of Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York City or Washington, the risks of credit are so great that regardless of the extent to which potential borrowers , invest in a bank located within that given neighbourhood, they are not permitted any reasonable return on their money via commercial or private loans and mortgages.

It has some very dangerous side-effects. Let me draw an example, if 1 may, Mr. Chairman. Let's say we have a neighbourhood with a population of 10,000 persons. Those 10,000 deposit annually in, say, the neighbourhood credit union the sum of $10 million.

If that neighbourhood has been red-lined by that credit union, the people who live in it are simply not permitted to borrow back their own money. They're not permitted to obtain it for commercial loans in order to improve or expand their businesses. They're not permitted to obtain it for home loans in order to renovate their bathroom or their carport. They're not permitted to obtain it in order to establish a business or take a mortgage on a house. When a district has been red-lined by these commercial institutions, the practical result is that no matter how much that community itself may have produced in terms of wealth - in this particular example, $10 million -they just didn't get it back. In fact, what happens is that that financial institution in question - the credit union, the savings and loan company, the trust company or the bank - loans it somewhere else, such as Houston, Dallas, southern California or southern Florida, where they consider the return is relatively safe and the results are relatively predictable.

In our view, Mr. Chairman, this red-lining practice is enormously destructive to neighbourhoods, particularly in the United States. But we now have at least verbal evidence - which I'm hoping the minister might be willing to consider studying in order to make it written, if such exists - that in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and perhaps Vancouver, particularly in its East End, red-lining is also increasingly becoming a practice.

The reasons for it are chiefly actuarial, Mr. Chairman. I'm not proposing that there's any conspiracy going on among the banks and the credit unions. 1 don't feel that and 1 see no evidence. The reasons are actuarial. It's been their experience that when you loan money in that particular kind of neighbourhood - usually occupied by people whose English isn't very good, whose education is perhaps not very high, whose job opportunities are not very great, and whose businesses are not very stable - the return on that money is rather low and the default rate is rather high. So for rather crude, obvious, commercial and actuarial reasons, they've determined that a particular neighbourhood shall be red-lined.

But what happens when that occurs, Mr. Chairman, is that the problem is only added to. The problem in that neighbourhood is that if homeowners are not able to invest in their own homes, improve them and bring them up to grade and up to standard; if small businesses are not able to obtain loans in order to continue to improve their own facilities, expand their stock, and increase their facilities and services, then indeed, the problem that caused the red-lining in the first place is only worsened in the

[ Page 3280 ]

second. Red-lining, in fact, adds to the disease which it is supposed to prevent.

Red-lining has been attacked in a number of ways in the United States. I wonder if the minister would determine to study the possibility that this problem exists in British Columbia, particularly in the East End of Vancouver and, by the way, on native Indian reserves, where some banks and credit unions have established and where it appears that the return which one would ordinarily obtain by being an investor in that financial institution through one's own deposits is simply not coming back in the form of loans for business, private, commercial or personal purposes.

This problem of red-lining, which has attacked neighbourhoods over and over again in the United States, is being handled in three ways.

As the minister is well aware, the banking system in the United States is much more state than federally controlled. It's far less monolithic than in our own country and far more subject to change and influence.

Indeed, frequently in the great cities of the United States, local banks have but one branch. They have a board of directors which is far more subject to influence in a positive way than our own banking system in Canada is.

In the United States, first of all, state legislatures have begun to pass laws against red-lining practices. They have begun to demand that banks chartered at a state level will be forbidden to red-line neighbourhoods. In fact, banks will be instructed to return a certain portion and percentage of the deposits which they've obtained from within a neighbourhood to the neighbourhood itself, in the form of personal and commercial loans and mortgages. They are required to do that.

Secondly, there has grown up in the U.S. an anti-red-living movement. It's been given the broad name of "Briarpatch Trust." I'd like to tell the minister how it works because I think we may well begin to see its correspondent here and he would be responsible for supervising - again, because some of this has come through co-ops and credit unions - any like version of it that came up in British Columbia.

The Briarpatch Trust was originally created in Chicago about eight years ago, Mr. Chairman, through an organization called the, Industrial Areas Foundation. A friend of mine happens to be on the board of the foundation. I receive its mailings and greatly respect the work of its late founder, Saul Alinsky. Mr. Alinsky was one of the most important, effective, controversial, hated and loved community organizers who ever worked in any place in the western world. Mr. Alinsky created the Industrial Areas Foundation, and the Industrial Areas Foundation in turn helped establish the anti-red-lining movement.

What they've done is basically this, Mr. Chairman, They organize a neighbourhood. Let me refer again to this particular example, the metaphorical neighbourhood of 10,000. They go to those 10,000 persons and they say: ---We want you to give us your power of attorney. We want you to sign over to us power of attorney over your savings. We want you to sign a piece of paper which says: 'I authorize you to negotiate on my behalf for the placement of my savings.' "

What they do with those 10,000 persons in a neighbourhood who have savings is take those 10,000 letters authorizing power of attorney and, together in a group, they go to a board of directors of a local bank and they say: "Look, the 10,000 of us, through these powers of attorney, with savings of $10 million, are prepared to take them from all the other banks and put them in yours if, first, you guarantee that 80 per cent of the moneys which we deposit in your bank shall be returned to us on the following basis. Of that 80 per cent, 50 per cent shall be made available to us in the form of home loans for improvements in our own neighbourhoods, 20 per cent shall be made available for commercial loans for small businesses, and the rest shall be made available for miscellaneous purposes under these following categories. Second, when you loan our money back to us in our neighbourhood, you will charge us this rate of interest for home loans, mortgages, conversions and so on. For small business loans and purposes you will charge us that rate. For these miscellaneous purposes you may charge these rates.

What has happened, Mr. Chairman - particularly in Chicago where it started - is that the principal arm of the anti-red-lining movement, this Briarpatch Trust organization, has now obtained power of attorney over $80 million worth of deposits. They have in fact succeeded in going to a bank - in this case three 1 banks, actually, in various neighbourhoods in Chicago - and they say: "Look, this is our money that we're talking about. Our money in your bank in the form of our deposits has not been returned to us in these various forms of loans and mortgages. If you want our business, here's how you're going to get it." Indeed, the banks have been compelled by the weight of that money and by the merit of that argument to begin to break down their own red-lining practices and return these moneys.

What's happened? Predictably, Mr. Chairman, those neighbourhoods best and most strongly organized, that made the most effective case and created the largest body of deposits which is now being returned in the largest amount of loans, are coming back up again. Small business is surviving; small business is obtaining the loans they need in order to get back into business and to expand their facilities. Homeowners that previously were ashamed of their homes and could find money from no source

[ Page 3281 ]

in order to fix them up are now, as the result of the success of the anti-red-lining movement, getting the loans at reasonable rates of interest - available, admittedly, by conventional practices in somewhat risky terms. But because of the pride engendered in the neighbourhood because of the strength and the conviction and the promise of what these people have done for themselves, the rate of the fault is actually lower than in some of the suburban areas of Chicago. They have discovered that in the last eight years.

The third thing, Mr. Chairman, that they've done in the anti-red-lining movement - which 1 hope the minister might also care to observe and determine whether or not such could potentially be applicable here in the form of credit unions, although in the United States the model has been banks - is that in Washington, D.C., they've purchased a bank. They went to a bank in the city of Washington, D.C., through the anti-red-lining movement, that was literally up for sale. This bank had one charter, one board of directors and one branch. It had assets at that time of something like $12 million. It simply could not make a go of it; the bank was for sale. Because it was located in a ghetto neighbourhood, because most of its customers were blacks and because most of its loans were defaulted, no commercial conventional bank was interested in purchasing it. It was just going to be another bankruptcy among many bankruptcies and defaults that one still sees in the banking system of the United States.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the member knows that this minister does not have jurisdiction over policies at banks.

MR. BARBER: Oh, 1 appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore perhaps the member could curtail his remarks in this respect.

MR. BARBER: What I'm trying to illustrate, Mr. Chairman, is the course and the cause of the anti-red-lining movement in the United States to later go on to lay some small evidence before the minister about the possibility that red-lining is taking place in Canada, particularly in Vancouver. If so, there is in fact potential redress through the credit unions and through the co-ops for which this minister is responsible. 1 think that is a reasonable connection. In any case, I'll not be much longer, Mr. Chairman.

I expect that the minister is interested. He has appeared to pay some attention. I'm sure that we're well aware of the problems within the East End of Vancouver. Neighbours there have been obtaining loans and mortgages from, among others, credit unions for which the minister is indeed responsible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member suggesting new legislation?

MR. BARBER: I'm suggesting that the minister agree to conduct a study into the possibility that red-lining is taking place in British Columbia, and 1 think that is very much his responsibility, Mr. Chairman. My use of these American examples will very shortly be concluded by talking about the third element of the anti-red-lining movement that has taken place in the United States, for which we may see a correspondent in British Columbia through the credit union movement, Mr. Chairman.

As I mentioned, in Washington, D.C., they purchased a bank. The neighbours went out and, again through these powers of attorney, with their own deposits, with their own lawyers, with their own private community corporation set up for the purpose, obtained a bank. And what they've done is once again ensure that their own money in the form of deposits and savings in a bank - or correspondingly in our province, Mr. Chairman, in a credit union - will be returned to them in a fixed percentage for commercial and personal loans, mortgages, conversions and the rest of it, and at fixed rates of interest which they can afford. Admittedly, the rate of return to the bank is somewhat less than in an ordinary situation. The rate of return to the neighbourhood in social and economic terms is profound and valuable, Mr. Chairman.

Now bringing it down to our problems in British Columbia, this is what 1 should ask the minister: I've received verbal advice from friends of mine active in neighbourhood and community organizing projects in Vancouver, particularly in the East End, that banks there, compared with banks in other neighbourhoods of that particular city, are enormously more hesitant to grant loans for small business, commercial expansion and private home improvements and renovations. Indeed, their suspicion is unfounded because at the moment the financial data that those banks are engaging unspokenly in red-lining practices in the, if you will, more deteriorated sections of Vancouver are not available to us. 1 suppose, in part, that one could offer evidence of this by the fact that the federal government, realizing that banks and credit unions were not doing their job in helping those neighbourhoods revive and improve themselves, created such programmes as the neighbourhood improvement programme and the residential rehabilitation assistance programme - RRAP and NIP, to be exact.

Those programmes were created because it would appear that the ordinary commercial lending institutions were not doing their jobs either. If it's possible that red-lining is taking place in Vancouver, Mr. Chairman, then what we have is the possibility of decay, which is so evident just to the south of us in a

[ Page 3282 ]

city where red-lining has been proven. That is now also under attack by another arm of the Briarpatch Trust. That's in the city of Seattle. Red-lining is known there. It has been demonstrated. It has been documented. It is now under attack and I'm glad that the attack is taking place.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, if 1 may repeat briefly, red-lining adds to the problem which it is supposed to solve. Red-lining creates further conditions of decay and despair and deterioration in the economic totality of any neighbourhood which has been so red-lined.

What we're hoping, Mr. Chairman, is, if the minister is willing to look into the problem in Vancouver, that he finds no evidence, that the suspicions of these community organizers are unfounded, and that, indeed, the banks are making ordinary loans - in an ordinary way at ordinary rates of interest - available to these people.

We do have sure knowledge, however, Mr. Chairman, that it is the conventional practice of large shopping centres in the great decaying cities of North America, and certainly in Canada, to charge somewhat higher prices than they do in places like, say, Point Grey, Shaughnessy, North Vancouver, British Properties and so on. It's well known that the average prices of food in the so-called ghetto areas of our great cities are greater than they are in the more prosperous and affluent suburbs of the same cities. If that's true, and 1 think it's been amply demonstrated, then it is just possible that these same disgusting red-lining practices are also taking place in our own city, for the same rather predictable, completely non-conspiratorial, actuarial reasons.

What we need is that.revival of hope and pride in our neighbourhoods, Mr. Chairman, which would allow those neighbourhoods to go to our credit unions and banks to make the case, saying: "Because of our commitment to our own homes in our own neighbourhoods and to our own small businesses on their corner stores and lots, we have every intention of using our own money in the form of savings as creatively and endurably and sensibly as we can." What we need is the practical advice and assistance and guidance of a department like this minister's, of a bank and a credit union system like the one we have, and of people who recognize that red-lining is a very dangerous and miserable practice.

I've already mentioned to the minister the second site of possible red-lining, and that is on Indian reserves. Indeed, on some of the larger reserves, particularly on the coast and a few up in the interior - I'm familiar with the Sugar Cane reserve at Williams Lake which has been the subject of a lot of controversy - there seems to be evidence, Mr. Chairman, that native Indians have made a fixed rate of deposit in a credit union and in a bank, and have received far less than that in return in the form of loans for personal or commercial purposes. It would appear that once again, a kind of red-lining is taking place in this province which, I'm sure, the minister finds, as well as we, really quite reprehensible. Once again, it may be that credit unions are involved in these red-lining practices. I hope not. It may be that banks are, and I hope not, too. But it is curious, Mr. Chairman, that in the only instances which most closely parallel those where red-lining has taken place in the United States, we also see the possibility of the same practice underway here.

So what I would finally ask the minister at this particular point - although later I will have some questions about co-operatives; I'll bring them up after I take my place for a moment - is whether or not he would be willing, through his department, to conduct an inquiry or a survey of the banks and lending institutions and of the credit unions, particularly in the more decaying downtown sections of Vancouver and around some reserves which you might choose at random for the purpose. It would indicate whether or not red-lining is taking place. If it is, would the minister be willing to entertain any remedy for it and/or be willing to endorse any of the remedies which people in the United States have now begun to find so very effective in their own fight about this really very devastating practice called red-lining?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm very grateful to the second member for Victoria for bringing this problem to my attention. I must confess I had not heard the term "red-lining" until today. That's not to say that I am so naive as to assume that banking or lending institutions don't perhaps have different rules for different areas. They probably have had that since the beginning of time.

The only lending institutions of any great consequence over which I have any specific authority, of course, are the credit unions. I undertake to the member to take this matter up with Mr. May and other members of the B.C. Credit Union, and further than that, if necessary, to determine whether or not this practice does exist, and if it does, to what extent.

I think it's difficult for me to promise at this point what, if any, action I would take until I know whether or not the problem exists and any degree to which it does exist, if it does. But I certainly will investigate the situation.

As a matter of fact, I am also going to the federal-provincial conference on Wednesday, provided the hon. members let me out of here by that time. I will take the matter up with Mr. Abbott to see whether or not this situation prevails elsewhere and whether he knows about it prevailing in British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: I deeply appreciate the minister's willingness to look into that. The evidence would

[ Page 3283 ]

appear to be far more in the hands of banks than credit unions regarding the possibility of abuses like red-lining, but all the same, I'm sure the credit union movement and Mr. May, whom I count as a friend, would be most willing to participate in such a survey.

1 would now like to talk about the minister's responsibility for co-operatives in this province, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 1 would like to register my personal regret that neither the previous government nor any predecessor governments really did a very great deal to foster or create the growth and development of co-ops in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: We propose a new Act, you know.

MR. BARBER: You do? Well, 1 realize you can't tell us much about it. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if the proposed new co-ops Act will be coming forward at this session?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult for me to say whether it will be coming forward this session, because that has to do with the order paper and the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . But I can tell you that it is ready to go and I think it will have a significant impact on the co-operative movement in the province of British Columbia. I think it's a good Act and long overdue, but I can't really go into much more detail than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. It would be not proper in committee.

MR. BARBER: Following that comment, Mr. Chairman, given that there is no Act presently on the table, presumably one can discuss the theme of co-operatives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a difference and 1 will just remind committee members, because we have been straying just a little. Matters pertaining to legislation or matters requiring legislation are not subjects for debate in committee. There is opportunity given on the order paper to discuss those matters but committee is not one of them.

MR. BARBER: I've just received advice from my Whip that I should do it under the vote for credit unions and co-ops. I'll take my place at that time.

Vote 212 approved.

Vote 213: administrative and support, $641,818 -approved.

Vote 214: legal services branch, $87,122 -approved.

On vote 215: trade practices branch, $648,720.

MR. LEVI: The comments I am going to make have no reference to Mr. Hanson as a civil servant. I just want to know if the minister would indicate to us whether the fact that Mr. Hanson is not a lawyer -yet I understand he is director of trade practices - is some form of a disability for him in forming opinions about just what kind of action needs to be taken. I understand that a year ago there was some separation of staff in that division partly around that issue. I'm not always wedded to the idea that lawyers have to run everything, but in this particular case where certain judgments have to be made as to whether cases should proceed to the courts I wonder whether they can be made by someone who is not a lawyer. I would appreciate it if the minister would make some comments.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's a very difficult question to answer, Mr. Member. I think you know some of the difficulties under which I labour. I yield to no one in my admiration for Mr. Hanson and the work he has done. I think that there are times when it would be helpful if the director of trade practices was a lawyer. However, I don't think it is essential. What I do think is essential, though, is that if the director is not a lawyer, suitable practices develop around his position so that he is able to get legal advice very quickly and respond to it. The problems that we had last year, without going into great detail, revolved around that particular point that I am just making. I think that we now have procedures within that branch where Mr. Hanson is in a position to obtain legal advice very quickly and to operate upon it. The system seems to be working much better than it did a year ago.

MR. LEVI: On the question of agreements to a voluntary compliance, is there not some way that these could be published in the press maybe? Because all we get at the moment is the enforcement bulletin, which is mainly for people within the government. It seems to me that if these AVCs are to have real value in terms of the consumer, there should be some mechanism of publishing these for the information of the public. I suppose the best way of doing this would be to buy ads in the paper. I realize that some of them are large in the detail but certainly the intent of the AVC should be specifically published. Otherwise it becomes a kind of centre-nous thing and the public are excluded.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, we do make these available to the public and if the press chooses to print them or broadcast them or telecast them they are welcome to do so. But I don't think we should give them some sort of

[ Page 3284 ]

artificial publicity that they don't otherwise get through the normal course of the media.

I don't think we ought to go out of our way to take -out ads at the public expense. If they're newsworthy, presumably our friends in the press gallery will pick them up and say, "it's about time that Ajax Motors got its just deserts, " or Ajax Appliances, or whatever it is, but to go and take out ads, the question that comes to my mind is one of extent. Which would be involved? Would they be all newspapers across the province? How far do we go with it?

I'm quite prepared to leave the dissemination of news to the media. I think they do a good job.

MR. LEVI: Well, I disagree with the minister. There are a large number of notifications put into the newspaper under the legals which are serving purposes. This one, after all, emanates from an Act. It is a decision which is made. The whole decision is entrenched in terms of the legislation which was passed in this House in order to protect consumers. Now the minister feels that he wants to rely on the generosity of the press as to whether they're going to print it or not. I doubt that that would happen, frankly - that they would print it - because some of the people who are involved in the agreement for voluntary compliance are people who advertise in that newspaper.

It would seem to me that in the interests of the consumer you don't rely on the press to publish it, but simply move to the legals or to some kind of advertisement. There is nothing wrong with using public money to pay for such advertisements if it's within the general purview of the Protection of the consumer. But I can't accept the minister's suggestion that somehow the press are going to pick it up. I don't agree with that at all.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I could do no more than say that we disagree.

MR. LEVI: Yes.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that the other ads the member refers to are informative ads required by the statute to be published, not results of lawsuits or results of negotiations. Now if the member feels that we should amend the Trade Practices Act, I'm sure he will bring a private member's amendment to the Act and we'll take it from there.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I have just a very quick question to the minister regarding the space rentals in shopping malls. Could the minister advise the House whether or not shopping malls are subject to any regulations respecting their letting of space to tenants on a first-come, first-served basis, or are shopping malls free to have a selective system and permit special exclusive clauses to tenants? I'm not sure if there is any way in the regulations in this regard, but could you comment on what the score is there?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I think I know the type of situation the member is referring to, where there is only one of each type of shop in the shopping centre. There is certainly nothing within my portfolio, and nothing that I know of, to prevent a developer from having those sorts of regulations. As a matter of fact, I think that even one of the members opposite is in a position where he, in his own business, has insisted that another business of a similar type not be put in the same shopping centre which, apart from some abuses which may come of such a system, does seem logical. I think if the member opposite were going to open some kind of a specialty store and pay good rent and pay a percentage of his profits to the landlord under the agreement, and then have the same type of shop open up next door, he, too, would say that he was being sandbagged. He may want to take steps in the beginning to make sure that wasn't going to happen.

That's a very frequent thing, and there's certainly nothing that I can do to stop it. I'm not even sure that I find it reprehensible.

MR. BARNES: I'm no expert on the question, Mr. Minister. I just happen to know of a few instances where there have been some complaints. A prospective tenant in one of the shopping malls at least - he must remain unnamed because of the fear of being further sandbagged - feels that it's unfair for him to be denied an opportunity to rent space in a certain location because of the commitments by the developer to one of the landlords - namely, one of the Safeway stores - that they have an exclusive clause not permitting any similar activity to take place. It seems to me to be a problem that your ministry would be concerned about in terms of fair trade practices and equal access to people in a competitive market. This, to me, is sort of like an anti-trust problem as well, where conceivably a firm could move in and eliminate competition in a number of ways, if they so wished, by extending that exclusive clause to eliminate a variety of competitors.

I don't know if it should be their legal right to do this in terms of civil rights, human rights or fair competition. It's just a question I'm beginning to think about, but I'm wondering if this is quite proper.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am advised that the federal government and their competition Act - their policy - are dealing with the unfair ramifications of what the member is talking about. I repeat that there is nothing within my ministry which would enable me

[ Page 3285 ]

to look into the matter at all. But as I say, the federal government with their competition policy and the proposed competition Act has dealt with the question, I'm instructed.

Vote 215 approved.

On vote 216: community programmes branch, $922,804.

MR. NICOLSON: Last year I mentioned to the minister in his freshman year as minister the situation that had existed in terms of the work done by the Consumer Action League in Nelson. The funding was cut off to this organization. It has continued to function, very much impaired by lack of funding; of course we are much poorer for the loss of this service.

I would just like to read a recent letter which was sent on to me. In fact the action that was taken by the Consumer Action League in Nelson was against the Columbia House Record Club and I guess they got some sort of a voluntary compliance - not under the legal provisions of your legislation but just by exerting some persuasion.

The letter was sent on to me with a footnote. It said: "Dear Mr. Nicolson: I'm sending a cheque for $25 to the Nelson Consumer Action League in appreciation of services rendered. Sincerely, R.B. Ludlow." Mr. Ludlow is one of the persons served. He wanted to let me know about it and he sent the cheque directly to them. It wasn't that he enclosed the cheque to me, but he had just sent on the response and some of the correspondence.

The Consumer Action League sent a letter to the Financial Collection Agencies, suite 201, Fraser Building, Seymour Street, Vancouver, who were demanding payment by Mr. Ludlow. They outlined the lengthy correspondence that had taken place between Mr. Ludlow and the Financial Collection Agencies. They outlined some of the points which apparently they were unable to listen to when it was Mr. Ludlow writing. They did get the ear of the collection agency and as a result of that any billing was dropped from him. He had paid his account and they proved to their satisfaction that this had happened.

This is a volunteer group which continues to work. People are not being paid and it is a service that is very much needed in the area. Now I might have missed an announcement that might have been made when the cabinet was in Cranbrook; perhaps they have announced funding of a service in response to a group in the Cranbrook area, the Cranbrook Consumer Committee. But I know that they were to appear before the cabinet and present a brief. It might be that some announcement was made at that time which has escaped my notice.

I do know that they have approached the town of Creston for endorsement. The town of Creston has endorsed it along with what might be the recommendation of that group. I believe it was their recommendation that a storefront office be set up in Creston - a centrally located office for the whole area. I would frankly like to see the Consumer Action League in Nelson.... They use that name. They, I think, originally grew up with and were originally associated with the Consumer Action League in Vancouver. This group is a very responsible group. They have provided some service in the area. But there is tremendous lack of knowledge of their existence because they simply don't have the wherewithal to make their presence felt in the way in which it should be felt.

I myself notice an increased number of persons coming to me now with questions about these things in which I certainly don't have the level of skill that is available through the Consumer Action League. Quite often, of course, we refer people to them. It should be seen as a visible front-line service in the area.

I note that this vote is somewhat reduced. I would also like to ask the minister, then, what response there might be to the Cranbrook consumer committee. Also, would the minister welcome a new application from the Consumer Action League in Nelson - the principles of it? Also, how much of last year's estimates were actually expended on grants to nondepartmental agencies? I believe there were some in the Abbotsford and Matsqui area, and one in Victoria area.

HON. MR. MAIR: I could find that out for you.

MR. NICOLSON: They don't have it here? Okay. Well, on those other two questions then, I would greatly appreciate some response.

HON. MR. MAIR: The problem of grants, of course, is always a thorny one for anybody who's trying to get money from Treasury Board. As I told the member opposite last year, what we tried to do was to rationalize the money we did have available in a better way so that we could spread ourselves into more communities.

Dealing specifically with the question of Cranbrook, we have a proposal before the government and the Treasury Board right now concerning an involvement there, the result of discussions we've had with groups in Cranbrook. We hope to have it part of our own department and we hope also, I might say, to embark upon a programme of co-operation with the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to see if we can't by joint use of premises, personnel and other areas cut down our expenses and therefore be able to use our money in more places and spread ourselves around even more.

[ Page 3286 ]

We recognize, Mr. Speaker, and I want the member to know this, that in the Kootenays - I know that's a big term to use - we are badly understaffed and under-represented. It's an area that we simply must improve our position in and we're doing the very best we can.

Cranbrook, I think, without trying to anticipate what my colleagues on Treasury Board will do or say, seems to be a logical thing to look forward to in the near future.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just point out to the minister that in Nelson there is an entire fifth floor of the government building vacant and so office space should not be a great problem

HON. MR. MAIR: So noted. Thank you.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm in the right spot. I notice that this particular vote deals with research as well as the kind of questions my colleague has been raising.

I would like to talk to the minister a little bit about nutrition. I think the minister of consumer services could serve a very valuable role in this province and to the consumer by ensuring that his research division.... I see the questioning look on the Chairman's face.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me just interrupt you long enough to check with the minister to find out whether this is part of his responsibility.

MR. MAIR: No, it is not, Mr. Chairman. The research that the member is looking at does deal with research in terms of market-basket surveys and other research programmes upon which we embark. But the question of nutrition and diet and that sort of thing we do not concern ourselves with. My colleague, the Minister of Health, has the responsibility for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the member would like to discuss it under the Minister of Health.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that perhaps I have begun on a slightly incorrect angle because I think the things that I wish to talk about do relate to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. He is reviewing the cost of food and he is doing studies relative to food.

Nutrition or lack of nutrition certainly in my opinion would relate to things like standards that have to be set relative to additives and relative to things like wood fibre in bread. These kinds of things I think relate to his realm of responsibility in a more direct line than to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) .

HON. MR. MAIR: May I speak to that, Madam Member? I quite agree there are a number of things which you could put into my pigeonhole as well as anybody else's. But the fact is that the way this government operates and the way the federal government operates, these simply do not fall within my responsibility. The matters to, which the member has referred fall within the Department of Health, not only provincially but also federally. Some that I think she's either touching upon or about to touch upon fall within the federal and provincial Ministries of Agriculture. But for reasons that I have no way of explaining, they do not come into my ministry and I have enough to worry about without inviting them in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the Minister of Health's estimates still to come, perhaps it would provide opportunity. We in no way wish to stifle debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, we shall leave that particular facet then.

I want to speak briefly about the food basket and the cost survey. I think that that is definitely under the purview of this minister. The point that I would like to mention is that very often when these sorts of surveys are done, while they often lump in the total amount of increase or otherwise, they very often relate increases to things that are imports. I'm thinking of coffee, sugar and these kinds of things.

The unfortunate thing that happens is that the local producer or the local product is lumped in with these things. As a result, there's a bit of bad atmosphere and the producer gets a bad name with the consumer. I'm wondering if in some way in the research undertaken by this minister and in the reports that he issues, he could specify very clearly, for the purposes of the consumers' greater knowledge and for the protection of the producer, those items which have increased that were locally produced and those which were imported. That's one thing I would like the minister to consider.

The other one that I would like to point out is that when these price comparisons are made, with B.C. versus the United States - which is the thing that we've been having so often - the figures given really aren't true. They don't take into account exchange, the travel, and those items which are really cheaper in British Columbia. The only article I have seen appeared in the Nanaimo Daily Free Press in December of last year. It went into a very detailed report of an AIB study that was carried out there and which indicated that while some items were more expensive in British Columbia, there were other items that were much cheaper in B.C., and there were many items that were identical in price.

I would suggest to this minister, Mr. Chairman, that in the research that he does on the cost of food, he would be doing a great service to consumers and

[ Page 3287 ]

producers in British Columbia if he were to make sure that those kinds of differences were shown in any report that he produces.

HON. MR. MAIR: To the member for Cowichan-Malahat: I quite agree with the observations that you have made with respect to the "market basket." This points out the danger in interpreting a statistic for a different purpose than that for which it was originally intended. The intention of the market basket was to show the average food buyer what a typical market basket cost. Of course, it is then turned around to say: "Well, B.C. food costs more than somewhere else." That is not really the purpose for which the basket was obtained in the first place. But I will certainly consider - and ask my staff to consider - the possibility of differentiating between local products and those over which we have absolutely no control whatsoever. Coff ee is a very good example.

I also think I would like the member to know that we did run a market-basket survey in Bellingham and we considered a number of items such as the cost of a person from Tsawwassen, or nearby, getting down to Bellingham to do the shopping - the gas and so on and so forth. We also considered and assumed that the federal government charged the appropriate duty at the border - which, of course, is not being done -and the difference on about a $45 basket was 7 cents. So I think that the member's point is very well taken.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Yesterday, some representatives from the Friendship Centres met with the minister to discuss with him the possibility of a consumer liaison officer. I wonder whether the minister would like to report to the House as to whether he was in agreement with this or not.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, regrettably the time of the meeting was the same time I was in here doing my estimates, but my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Perry Anglin, I understand did meet with the people from Pacific. I will be very happy either to table in the House the results of that meeting or, if the member wishes, in due course, to answer a question in oral question period concerning it. I don't have any information on it right now.

MS. BROWN: I would just like to support their request for a consumer counsellor. I think it's a very valid one and a person who would be very useful.

HON. MR. MAIR: I might also make the point, just so there's no misunderstanding, Mr. Chairman, that it never was intended - as far as I understand -that they meet with me personally. I think they made their arrangements with the deputy to meet the assistant deputy* minister, but I'll be very happy to look into what they say and report back to the House.

Vote 216 approved.

Vote 217: debtor assistance branch, $397,838 -approved.

Vote 218: companies branch, $1,007, 540 -approved.

Vote 219: insurance and real estate branch, $358,320 - approved.

On vote 220: superintendent of brokers, $777,732.

MR. LEVI: I have some concern here, Mr. Chairman, that the minister may not have enough in here. I don't know when he made up his budget whether he was looking at the whole business of the statement of material fact. As a matter of fact, his budget is only about $8,000 more than it was last year and he has embarked upon what appears to be an examination of statements of material fact. I think he mentioned there were two people.

I'd also like him to tell me, in terms of investigators, if there is in fact a reduction in investigators. Perhaps there is an increase in auditors. That's under the item "investigator." Under investigator 2, there were three and there are now four. Under investigator 1, there were six and there are now three. But they've added some auditors. Perhaps he might tell us what he's got in mind here in terms of the staffing to be able to meet with some of the more pressing problems that are resulting from the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

HON. MR. MAIR: When the estimates were prepared, of course, we had no way of knowing that that part of the legislation was going to be proclaimed. To that, and perhaps to one or two other extents, the estimates are not sufficient. I don't have the precise figures, Mr. Member, but we will require more funds than the budget shows in that regard.

MR. LEVI: One other question relates to a notice that was issued last October where there were a number of increases for registration under the Bills of Sale Act, Conditional Sales Act, and Assignment of Book Accounts Act, and there were several others. Some people who work in large stores, particularly where people are buying material on time, found that things jumped 100 per cent from what was $5 to $10 in some of these stores. This of course is passed on to the consumer. Is there any specific reason for the increase in these rates?

[ Page 3288 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: The filing fees?

MR. LEVI: Yes, this is Bills of Sales Act, Conditional Sales Act, Assignment of Book Accounts Act - there's a whole list of them. But those first three were doubled. They went up quite dramatically, and of course they have an effect on any consumer who goes into the store and makes an arrangement for time payment and that kind of thing.

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 think the answer is pretty clearly, Mr. Member, that, like a number of other filing fees, they had not been reviewed by this government, the previous administration or even the administration before that for many, many years. They were so out of date that they had to be revised.

It's very easy to play the 100 per cent game or whatever it is, but we're talking about, 1 think you would agree, relatively small amounts of money. There was no way that the amounts originally on the books could begin to cover the costs of the filing. Insofar as that part of government is concerned, we must have some sort of a user-pay philosophy. 1 think a person who is going to use a filing system provided by the government so that he can protect himself ought to expect that in so doing he will pay a reasonable fee. We felt upon reflection - and I say "we"; I'm sure that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) was part and parcel of it because it was about the time of the change of the ministry - that these indeed were fair reflection of the cost of doing that sort of business at that time.

Vote 220 approved.

On vote 221: credit unions and co-operatives branch, $217,440.

MR. BARBER: For a couple of moments I'd like to discuss the importance of co-ops in the province of British Columbia. I'd like to point out to the minister that they're one of the remaining pure forms of free enterprise. They represent the initiative, the expertise, the drive, the energy and the discipline of people who are really trying, in a businesslike and competent way - in an enterprising way - to make important things happen for them economically. It's a kind of free enterprise that we on this side support without reserve, but which 1 personally feel we did not support enough when we were in government, and 1 regret that.

I'd particularly like to ask the minister if he would be willing to consider the establishment of an advisory council on co-operative development in British Columbia. This council may well represent the co-ops as they. exist now in the fields of housing, food production and food sales, and in various of the aspects of co-operative developments that we've seen to date in British Columbia in the arts and in enterprises of various kinds.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, given the old-style co-ops have largely been established and are no longer growing, that the forms of co-ops that became so evident and so powerful in Canada in the '20s, '30s and '40s, especially in the maritime industries, especially in housing, have apparently reached a stable state and are not increasing much.

If it further seems that this kind of free enterprise is something which the minister can support and which we most certainly do support, then it may well be time to begin to look at the new forms and the new options available for co-operative development.

I'd particularly like to refer the minister to a form of co-operative development with which I've become recently familiar. I met with the directors of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance a little while ago. Once again, they are an American body based in Washington, D.C. The founders of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance are Mr. David Morris, who, if you will, came up through the New Left of American politics, and Mr. Karl Hess, who came up through the New Right. Mr. Hess is perhaps well known to the minister as a speech writer for Barry Goldwater and is a conservative of an honest and integrated sort who believes in the fundamental libertarian approach that honest conservatives often do. I've never met Mr. Hess but I've spent a couple of days with Mr. Morris. I respect both of them very much.

What the Institute for Local Self-Reliance has done, Mr. Chairman, is to find through co-operative development, again particularly in the poorer neighbourhoods of the United States, means whereby poor people through co-operative ownership and development of their own enterprises can begin to feed themselves, clothe themselves and house themselves more positively, more warmly, more effectively and indeed more cheaply than they could through perhaps any other form.

If the minister agrees with us that co-ops are such an important and valuable form of free enterprise, that they do represent an effort by people to look after themselves and help themselves, it may well be time for this province to take the lead, possibly through the instrument of a proposed advisory council in co-operative development, to look at some of those new options and new choices that are available to us. It's one of the most powerful and beautiful ways that poor people have of looking after themselves. It's extremely important; it's extremely valuable; it's extremely helpful, and I know it works.

I was in New York City a few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, on Manhattan, and I spent some time meeting with organizers in the Upper West Side who are now involved, together with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in doing just this kind of work. The Upper West Side of New York, as the minister

[ Page 3289 ]

may well know, is a racially integrated neighbourhood. It consists of black people, of Puerto Ricans, of Spaniards, of white people. Through a co-operative council it has begun to find ways, without relying to any extent at all on the public purse, of looking after itself.

What they have required from the public and what we require from the public through its government in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is the opportunity to obtain the kind of financial expertise and the administrative and financial competence to set these things up in a sound and businesslike way. That's extremely important, and the leadership of this minister is valuable in that.

What 1 think we secondly require, though, is the kind of exciting new initiatives that we've seen taking place in other parts of North America take place here. 1 wonder if the minister might want to give some consideration to a group which could advise him -obviously with no strings attached, no salaries required, no bureaucracy setup - on some of the new forms, the new options and the new choices in co-op development, with particular emphasis on self-reliance, self-help and self-determination for people who otherwise don't really get very far in our system because they don't understand it and they don't know how to use it. 1 think it's an important new range that we have available to us. I would be grateful for the minister's comments, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very pleased to take the member's suggestion under advisement. 1 have spoken to the co-op people, along with the credit unions, of course, and 1 know that they are very, distressed that our government has not addressed itself to their problems - nor did yours nor did the one before that - and 1 know that this is something that we must do.

1 hope you'll forgive me for not having got to this yet. I've got to a lot of other things, 1 think, since October 29. But I do assure you that I'm going to ask your community services branch, among other people who have terms of reference wide enough to handle what the member is suggesting, to look into the question of an advisory council or something along that line.

1 do also want to assure the member that 1 am going to take a long, hard look at the co-operative movement to see what we can do to be more supportive, to see what we can do to make the system work better. Particularly in outlying communities, communities that are not readily serviced by the things that we're accustomed to, I agree that they are an extremely important part of the community.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, 1 would hope that the minister by his remark was in no way denying the fact that during the NDP government British Columbia led all of Canada in terms of co-operative housing. 1 think that's acknowledged ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Casa Loma!

MR. NICOLSON: ... in the co-operative housing journal published in Ottawa. 1 note the minister nods, so....

MRS. WALLACE: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman - and I hope 1 can do this without being called to order - in relation to the members in credit unions it has come to my attention that there is a bit of ambiguity in the Act which raises the question as to whether or not a woman or a wife or a partner who is a joint depositor has a right to participate as a member. This affects women usually because it is a joint account in the name of the husband and the wife. There is some difference in interpretation by different credit unions and different branches, 1 understand, as to whether or not the wife has a right to participate as well as the husband in the membership meetings. 1 would ask the minister to check into that item and see if something can't be done to ensure that the woman's right is protected.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll be very glad to give that assurance to the member, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 221 approved.

Vote 222: film classification branch, $111,347 -approved.

On vote 223: rentalsman, $1,331, 092.

MR. BARNES: I have just one quick question: does the minister have any plans to control the commercial rents as an aid to the many commercial tenants who are presently without protection by the continuing rises in their rents due to unconscionable attitudes of landlords? This is the commercial rent, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, Mr. Chairman, 1 have no immediate plans to enter into this particular field. 1 might say that we have not been under any particular pressure; as a matter of fact, I don't recall receiving one letter on this subject since I took over the ministry. However, if pressure does develop and the need seems to be present, we'll take a look at it, of course. But the direct answer to your question, at the present time, is no.

MR. BARNES: I would suggest to the minister that perhaps the people who are most affected feel it wouldn't do any good, because you've been announcing that you're going to take controls off

[ Page 3290 ]

residential rents. But make a visit sometime down on Denman Street and Robson Street, and talk with some of these small entrepreneurs there. I think quite a few of them are under a great deal of pressure. The per-front-foot charge there is equal to renting a whole shopping centre in some areas, and I think it's passed on to the consumer of their goods. Maybe this is one way to fight inflation, which I'm sure the minister would like to do. I won't belabour that point, but I do think there is a need to give some protection at least to the small operator. They're in a very marginal business in the first place; if they get no help, then the consumers have to make up the difference. If they go out of business, we get larger and bigger and we lose the small specialty shops, the family stores and so forth. Many of them are feeling the pinch.

Vote 223 approved.

Vote 224: Rent Review Commission, $439,358 -approved.

On vote 225: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,064, 138.

MR. BARNES: I have a quick question. The minister indicated earlier in the year that he would be acting as the sole appeal court, as it were, to those persons wishing to appeal....

HON. MR. MAIR: I talked about that last night.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This was covered in an earlier vote.

MR. BARNES: Perhaps, for my benefit, you could just reply what the situation is. That's no longer the problem, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That information is in the Blues, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: You've changed your mind? You're not going to do it?

Vote 225 approved.

Vote 226: British Columbia ~Liquor Board, $45,000 - approved.

Vote 227: Corporate and Financial Services Commission, $30,144 - approved.

Vote 228: trust companies branch, $86,772 -approved.

On vote 229: building occupancy charges, $818,619.

MR. LEVI: My colleague, the member for Revelstoke (Mr. King) , and I have asked this question of a number of ministers. We've yet to get an answer on just what this $818,000 is based. Is anybody over there that's coming up in the estimates going to be able to answer us?

I'll particularly ask the minister now: what is the $818,000? He's got exactly the same look on his face as every other minister we've asked. (Laughter.) Presumably he doesn't know either.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister of Public Works comes up Monday.

HON. MR. MAIR: My colleague says the Minister of Public Works comes up on Monday. I assume that this is the appropriate chargeback to my ministry of those services which are provided elsewhere in the government to my ministry.

Vote 229 approved.

On vote 230: computer and consulting charges, $159,000.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister just tell me the charge on computer and consulting services for last year? Do you have that figure handy?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't have it handy, Mr. Member, but I'll be pleased to provide it to you.

MR. LEVI: I have just one other thing, Mr. Chairman. Some of us have been talking over here. I think that I'd like, on behalf of our group over here, to express our thanks to the minister. He's very frank and outgoing, and it's been a particularly enjoyable set of estimates.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I just hope the Premier doesn't consider that damned by faint praise.

Vote 230 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Davis tables the report of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation for the fiscal period ending March 31,1977.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would ask leave to make a short statement covering the annual report.

[ Page 3291 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It covers the three-month period beginning January 1,1977, and ending coincident with the fiscal year for the province, namely, March 31,1977. During that three-month interval, the traffic carried by the corporation was down by approximately 20 per cent as compared to the same three-month period in 1976. Toll revenues, meanwhile, were up by 47 per cent. Expenditures were reduced by 35 per cent. The provincial government grant to the corporation for that three-month period was $6.66 million. This was the equivalent of the operating loss during the three-month period covered in the report which I have just tabled.

It will also be of interest to hon. members to note that the operating loss of B.C. Ferries in the first quarter of 1976 - namely, last year - was $16.76 million. This year, the loss in the first quarter of the year was reduced to $6.66 million.

Hon. Mr. Mair, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Phillips, tables the annual report of the British Columbia Development Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before we adjourn the House, 1 would like to make a short statement. When the House first went into session this morning, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) asked me about a decision that is pending concerning a matter of privilege. I'd like to advise the House that it is my hope to have a decision to render to the House when we reconvene Monday next. 1 would also like to say that 1 am hopeful the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , who is the chairman of that committee, and the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , who is the acting secretary, will be in the House at that time.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1: 04 p.m.