[ Page 1893 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Confidentiality of B.C.'s position on Fisheries negotiations. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1893

Mr. Lea –– 1894

Mr. Lockstead –– 1895

Fiftieth anniversary of DeHavilland of Canada. Mr. Stephens –– 1896

Routine proceedings

Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act Amendment Art. 1978 (Bill M 215) .

Mr. Stephens. Introduction and first reading –– 1897

British Columbia Petroleum Sales Act, 1978 (Bill M 216) . Mr. Shelford.

Introduction and first reading –– 1897

Oral questions.

Advertisements re child adoption. Mr. Macdonald –– 1897

Proposed prices review and monitoring board. Mr. Gibson –– 1897

Municipal authority for Sunday horse-racing. Mr. Stephens –– 1898

Payment of duty on liquor. Mr. Lea –– 1898

Audit of Liquor Administration Branch. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1898

B.C. Rogers heritage site. Mr. Barnes –– 1898

Industrial development in Cowichan estuary. Mr. Skelly –– 1899

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

On vote 37. Mr. Gibson –– 1917

Mr. Lauk 1900

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1920

Hon. Mr. Mair 1902

Mr. Stephens –– 1922

Mrs. Dailly 1902

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1923

Mr. Levi 1903

Mr. Barnes –– 1924

Hon. Mr. Mair 1904

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1924

Mr. Levi 1905

On vote 39.

Hon. Mr. Mair 1907

Mr. Stephens –– 1925

Mrs. Wallace 1909

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1925

Hon. Mr. Mair 1912

On vote 40.

Mrs. Wallace 1914

Mr. Stephens –– 1926

Ms. Brown 1914

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1926

Hon. Mr. Mair 1915

On vote 41.

Mr. Macdonald 1915

Mr. Stephens –– 1926

Hon. Mr. Mair 1916

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1926

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 54.

Mr. Cocke –– 1927

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1927

Mr. Cocke –– 1931

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. MAIR: It is my sad duty to inform you and the House that Mr. David A.L. Tait, a member of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission for the past four years, died Tuesday after a lengthy illness.

Mr. Tait was well known and highly respected as a chartered accountant in Vancouver. He also served as past president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and was an active member of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Despite the fact that Mr. Tait had been seriously ill for many years, lie was always extraordinarily fair-minded, cheerful and courageous. He was an outstanding member of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission and he will be sorely missed. He will be missed, of course, by his wife, children, friends and everyone who knew him.

I would hope that the Speaker would convey the condolences of the House to his wife and children.

MR. SPEAKER: I will undertake to do that if that is the wish of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to say, in addition to what was said by the minister, that Mr. Tait joined in the newly created Corporate and Financial Services Commission and helped to make a great success of that body. He deserves the thanks of all the people of British Columbia and we greatly mourn his loss.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in the member's gallery are two very fine gentlemen and close friends of mine, Mr. Walter Szafranski and Mr. Ken Dawson. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock today we'll have 30 grade-nine level students from schools in St. Francis of Assisi parish, Logy Bay, Middle Cove and Outer Cove, St. John's, Newfoundland. They're here as part of the Open House Canada exchange. They'll be accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Tom Cosine and his wife, Mrs. Rosella Dyer and, from Hugh McRoberts Junior Secondary School in Richmond, Mr. Dale Ohman. I'd like to say that, although they're not here at the moment, I'm looking forward to having dinner with them tomorrow evening and I'd like to publicly thank them for their gift, a bottle of Newfie screech.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we've got Sister Connolly, who is the principal of the Convent of the Sacred Heart, and 40 of her grade 10 Canadian history class. I would like the House to bid them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: In the gallery today we have a group of students from Nanaimo senior secondary from the commerce department. They've been down having a look at one of the government offices to see how government civil servants conduct their work, hoping to gain some experience from that, and also to learn something from our conduct this afternoon. I'd ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yesterday in this Legislature the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , after the firmest kind of caution on the delicate nature of United States-Canada fishing negotiations, proceeded wilfully to table a sensitive document in this House. In doing so he undermined the traditions of confidentiality that must exist between governments from time to time. The respect for this kind of confidentiality between governments, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely essential.

This afternoon I wish to table with this Legislature correspondence which indicates that the official opposition, through the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) , was fully advised of the British Columbia position and received a copy of the B.C. submission. Not only was the member for Mackenzie advised of the British Columbia position, he undertook in writing to respect the confidentiality of the documents involved.

The member for Prince Rupert destroyed the principle of that confidentiality at 2:35 p.m. yesterday afternoon. Ten minutes later, at 2:45 p.m., the member for Mackenzie, realizing what was involved, returned the British Columbia position paper to the office of intergovernmental relations. In doing so - and I will table his comments with other material in a few moments - he said this: "Mel, because G. Lea tabled a copy of this proposal in the House yesterday, I'm returning the copy you gave me. Lea apparently received his copy from a source in the United States. I kept my confidentiality on this matter. Signed, Don Lockstead."

In order that this House can fully appreciate the nature of the events that took place

[ Page 1894 ]

yesterday, the members should know that the member for Mackenzie received this information on May 23,1978, as indicated in a letter which I will table with the Legislature, and which reads as follows: Mr. Don Lockstead, MLA, (Mackenzie) , Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

Dear Mr. Lockstead:

With reference to your telephone inquiry requesting a copy of the provincial government brief to the federal government on fishing boundaries, and further to your letter to me of May 18. 1 am pleased to forward herewith a copy of the government's submission. The submission has been forwarded to you for your own personal use, on the basis of your letter which indicates the contents will be dealt with in a confidential manner.

Yours sincerely, (signed)

Melvin H. Smith,

Deputy Minister, Constitutional Affairs.

The member should know, therefore, that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had the material referred to by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , but it had it on the basis of traditional confidentiality. In order that the Journals of this Legislature can appreciate the nature of the offence by the member for Prince Rupert yesterday, I will read into the record the letter received from the member for Mackenzie, and, of course, also table it in a few moments.

Mr. Melvin H. Smith,

Director of Constitutional and

Administrative Law, Victoria, B.C.

Dear Mel:

Just a brief note re our telephone conversation yesterday, regarding my request for a copy of the provincial government brief to the federal government on British Columbia's posture on fishing boundaries. I do understand that the brief has not been made public, and would therefore treat the contents of the brief in a confidential manner.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Sincerely,

(signed) Don Lockstead,

MIA for Mackenzie

Obviously the more responsible member for Mackenzie must have been overridden in caucus by the irresponsible team...

MR. MACDONALD: Withdraw!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...of Lea, Lauk, Barrett, Macdonald and Skelly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCARTHY: The government of British Columbia confided in the opposition on its position on these delicate matters. The actions by the member for Prince Rupert yesterday destroyed the basis on which the government made its position known to the opposition, even after the strongest warning to the contrary by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I will now table the original documents to which I refer.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) tables documents referred to. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Following a ministerial statement there is usually a response from the government leader.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not a matter of requiring it, it is a matter of courtesy being provided. Shall leave be granted to have a different member than the leader?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is acceptable to have a member responsible also reply, so the member for Prince Rupert is welcome.

MR. LEA: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your fairness.

What has happened here in the House today is, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to smear the member for Prince Rupert and the official opposition, and also to throw suspicion over the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) . Both have been tried here in this House today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I just interrupt? The courtesy of the House was extended to the statement as it was given. I would ask the hon. members to please reciprocate in this instance.

MR. LEA: The Deputy Premier, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , has come in

[ Page 1895 ]

with a statement saying that I, as the member for Prince Rupert, may have jeopardized the negotiations going on between Canada and the United States over fisheries disputes and international boundary lines. What the Provincial Secretary obviously doesn't know is that this report was made public at the fishermen's convention on January 30 in Vancouver. I'd like to read something from the Vancouver Province, February 1, 1 believe:

"B.C. Battling U.S. Over Sea Boundaries.

"An inconclusive dispute between Australia and Indonesia is one of the supports cited by B.C. in a position paper on west coast marine boundaries between Canada and the U.S. To the embarrassment of the provincial government, the paper was made public this week by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, which had been given the document on a confidential basis."

The Provincial Secretary went on to try to build a case that I had somehow overpowered the member for Mackenzie and had got the information from him and then had come in the House and lied as to where I received this thing. I can tell you that I got it in this brown paper envelope yesterday at 12 noon, and I can prove that. I think the Provincial Secretary owes me and the House an apology.

And further, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw a panicky Premier run and call a panicky press conference and then try to get out of it in a panicky way, as he has handled every other situation that he's had to deal with in the last year in this province. I believe he owes me an apology, because what he charged me with was sedition.

Mr. Speaker, this is an obvious attempt by the government to try to cover up their political stupidity in dealing with Ottawa in the way they have. They have a position paper that Ottawa has asked them to keep public, while Ottawa has taken a position that is going to take us all down the drain.

They sucked in a new government and a new Premier to the detriment of the B.C. fishing industry. I believe that anyone connected with the fishing industry in this province, whether they are in management or are fishermen or shore workers, should also get an apology from the Provincial Secretary for trying to pull this political sham on this Legislature.

The only thing that they didn't know is that we had a copy of this, and we got that today. We knew and I knew that the fishermen had that report. Everybody in the fishing industry around that union knew that that report was public, that it had already been made public on January 30, and the government knew it too.

That's all they're trying to do in here - pull a political sham.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I believe that ends the debate on the matter, unless there is a....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to know - just for the sake of the record - that the confidentiality of the brief I received from Mr. Smith was kept in every sense and in every regard. That confidentiality was not broken by me in caucus or anywhere.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I could easily have received that same brief from the United States delegation or I could have received that same brief from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union. I chose, however, to go next door and get it from government. It was closer!

However, the point I wish to raise is that if the Provincial Secretary and that government are accusing me of improper conduct in any way, then I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they invoke the standing orders of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Since the hon. member stood on a point of privilege, is there a motion he wishes to move or is there any action he wishes the Speaker to take?

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would assist the House. The statement by the Provincial Secretary raises a question of a cloud over the conduct of both the members for Prince Rupert and Mackenzie. It is incumbent upon members of this House raising such a question to place a motion on the order paper with respect to such conduct, and if that motion is proved false, that person's seat is at stake.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, 'the procedure in the House is that if a matter is raised under a matter of privilege, the hon. member undertaking the matter of privilege comes prepared with a motion. However, as I understand it, the statement was made as a ministerial statement and hence I do not see the necessity of a motion being prepared in that instance.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on my review of the rules and of May and Beauchesne....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Over several years in this House, which is something you should have done.

[ Page 1896 ]

Mr. Speaker, no member, be they ministerial or ordinary member of this chamber, has the right to criticize the conduct of another member in that member's office without a substantive motion on the floor of this House. That minister was allowed to do that without interruption of the House. That minister must now withdraw the statement or place a motion on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would please give me a reference, I would be happy to review it and perhaps come back to the House with a report.

MR. BAWTREE: May I have the indulgence of the House to introduce an important person who just arrived in the Speaker's gallery?

Leave granted.

MR. BAWTREE: In the House this afternoon in your gallery is a Mr. Doug McHardy, who is a very brave person. He happened to fly with me on a great many missions over Europe many years ago. I would ask the House to make him welcome this afternoon.

MR. LAUK: To save time, Mr. Speaker: the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May, page 361, "Matters to be dealt with by a substantive motion. Certain matters cannot be debated save upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Among these .... are the conduct of .... members of either House of parliament..."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Minister of Economic Development please come to order? Is it agreed that we can proceed to the point of order?

Hon. member, I will read the passage, as we say in my profession, cited at the 18th edition on page 361, and we will undertake to see whether or not the debate referred to in that particular section also applies to ministerial statements.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to make a friendly statement.

Leave granted.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, this, as we all know, is National Transportation Week. It's of special interest to me and I'm sure to anybody else in this House who is a pilot, and I understand that includes the hon. members for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) ...

MR. SKELLY: Alberni.

MR. STEPHENS: ... and Alberni (Mr. Skelly) . They all fly.

I'd like to recognize as part of this week that this is de Havilland of Canada's 50th birthday. This company is almost 100 per cent owned by the government of Canada; it has a great national history. If I might just touch on some of the points of the history of this company, one of its most famous planes, of course, was the Tiger Moth, which was the principal trainer for Commonwealth forces during World War II in the early stages. We're all familiar with the Mosquito bomber, built in Canada during the t-Mr. which made a great contribution to the war effort, and the trainer, the Chipmunk, that was developed in Canada and in which Prince Phillip first learned to fly. We're familiar with the Beaver aircraft, which was greatly responsible for opening up this coast and servicing the coast of British Columbia; the Twin Otter, which many of the members of this House use to fly back and forth between here and Vancouver; and the Caribou, the Buffalo, and lately the Dash-7.

This is a great Canadian company which has exported over $1 billion worth of aircraft to other parts of the world. I would ask all of the members to join with me and wish this company a happy birthday.

I had hoped the Premier, in his capacity as Minister of Transport, would be here today so that I could present him with this sticker to stick on his bumper. But since he's not here, perhaps I could give it to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . It might encourage him to go down to Ontario and steal this great company and bring it back here for British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps now would be an opportune time to bring to the attention of the members a concern which I have had for the seven or eight weeks that I have had the opportunity to sit in this Chair.

From time to time, hon. members ask leave to make a statement. The rest of the hon. members are expected to grant that leave without having any knowledge even as to the content of that speech or the subject matter to be covered.

[ Page 1897 ]

1 have discussed with the learned gentlemen the question of perhaps reviewing what happens in other jurisdictions in regard to this matter because it is my conviction that in granting leave, members should know what they are granting leave for. Perhaps with the concurrence of the House we could make this a matter to be researched under the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act. It is a suggestion for all members to consider.

Introduction of bills.

CAPTAIN COOK BI-CENTENNIAL

COMMEMORATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

On a motion by Mr. Stephens, Bill M 215, Captain Cook Bi-centennial Commemoration Act Amendment Act, 1978, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PETROLEUM SALES ACT, 1978

On a motion by Mr. Shelford, Bill M 216, British Columbia Petroleum Sales Act, 1978, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

ADVERTISEMENTS RE CHILD ADOPTION

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. I have in my hand an ad of May 29, of which the minister is now informed, whereby a lawyer in Vancouver offers pre-natal and post-natal financial help to a mother who might surrender her child for adoption by his client. Is the Minister of Human Resources concerned about this matter in the sense that it may lead to expectant mothers, who are often unmarried and young, looking around for the highest bidder? We could slip into a situation as has happened in other jurisdictions of, in effect, babies for sale, rather than orderly placement through the agency of his ministry after proper counselling as to where the child should best go and how the interests of the mother would best be served.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. We are checking out the legality of it with the Attorney-General's ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a brief supplementary. I don't think there is anything illegal about it, and I don't want to suggest that. But I suggest it is a matter of concern because in other jurisdictions this is the regular thing, rather than what has happened in this province heretofore.

PROPOSED PRICES REVIEW

AND MONITORING BOARD

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On June 10 of last year, while speaking in Harrison Hot Springs, the minister announced two moves to fill in after the federal anti-inflation programme ended. One of these moves was the establishment of the B.C. Council of Public Sector Employers, which has been done. The other was aimed at the establishment of the prices review and monitoring board. As I say, the Council of Public Sector Employers has been established. Can the minister advise the House if it is his government's intention to follow through on its promise of last June to establish a prices review and monitoring board?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question of policy?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this question does bear on future action of government. I could say this in response: this was a contemplated series of programmes associated with the anti-inflation programme depending, of course, on what action the national anti-inflation programme were to take with regard to price and wage monitoring after controls. As the member is aware, they have now turned this matter over to the Economic Council, and we are waiting to hear further developments in this area. As a matter of fact, it is a matter that is on the agenda of the upcoming Ministers of Finance national conference with Ottawa - I mean the item of post controls.

MR. GIBSON: Just on that point of procedure, I might refer to the memorandum circulated by yourself on April 24. Referring to May at page 356, 16th edition, it notes that an explanation can be sought regarding the intentions of the government, and that's what I'm seeking here. The minister proposed that this prices review and monitoring board was to have the power to refer unwarranted price increases to cabinet for action, under the Anti-inflation Measures Act passed by this House in 1976. In view of the fact that this is a power that the Economic Council of Canada, acting for the government of Canada, does not have, is the minister implying that his government is not now prepared to take action against unwarran-

[ Page 1898 ]

ted price increases by using section 6 of that anti-inflation Act?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY FOR

SUNDAY HORSE RACING

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.I would like to ask the minister whether, in view of the great and pressing needs of the horse-racing industry in British Columbia and the fact that during the horseracing season in the state of Washington approximately $1 million every month travels from British Columbia to be spent in the state of Washington, he is considering an amendment to the Municipal Act to permit municipalities to decide for themselves whether they should permit Sunday racing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the question directs itself to government policy. I am afraid I am unable to answer the hon. member.

MR. STEPHENS: I am asking the minister not about government policy, but whether he is prepared to investigate this legitimate claim and consider doing something about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS; Mr. Speaker, all matters affecting local government in British Columbia are, quite literally, constantly under review by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

MR. STEPHENS: On a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister if this particular matter which I have raised is currently under consideration.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it has been discussed in the course of a number of reviews, Mr. Speaker - the kind of review which you would expect a minister to conduct with senior staff, but it isn't a matter that is at the top of the list for action.

PAYMENT OF DUTY ON LIQUOR

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister tell me who pays the duty on liquor to the federal government? Is it the Liquor Board or is it the liquor companies that sell liquor to the Liquor Board?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, the member asked a similar - I agree not the same - question about a week ago, which I have under study at this point for an answer to be provided to the House. I will take this question as notice and answer it at the same time.

MR. SPEAKER: We cannot take a supplementary to a question taken on notice.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister if he knows the difference between the question I asked today and the question I asked last week. They aren't similar; they're just on the say subject.

MR. SPEAKER: This sounds like a supplementary question. I must caution hon. members that it is not wise - as a matter of fact, it's unruly - to seek the floor under the pretence of a legitimate means when really that is not the intent.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, any doubt that happens to be in my mind I undertake to resolve by reading the Blues.

AUDIT OF LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION BRANCH

HON. MR. WOLFE: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, last week I was asked a question by the member for Vancouver East. I believe he asked whether there was an audit team from the Ministry of Finance in the liquor distribution branch currently. The answer is no, because the auditor-general is presently involved in auditing the liquor control branch. The auditor-general's department is not within the Ministry of Finance; it's a separate department, of course. So the answer is that there is currently an audit being undertaken by the auditor-general's office.

MR. MACDONALD: Is this audit through the auditor-general looking at the alleged losses of liquor from the warehouse of the liquor administration in Vancouver? Is that in the terms of reference? Because that's the specific thing I asked about.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would not know the answer to that question. This would just be in the discretion and jurisdiction of the auditor-general to seek whatever areas she wished to audit.

B.T. ROGERS HERITAGE SITE

MR. BARNES: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. Will the minister tell the House to what extent the Housing Corporation

[ Page 1899 ]

is involved in the heritage site known as the B.T. Rogers mansion in Vancouver?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this was an oral question some weeks ago, and then a written question. I find it curious that at no time other than question period has the member who is speaking now attempted to reach me. I don't know what further information I can provide other than the answer that was filed, I believe, two days ago in answer to the written question.

MR. BARNES: Well, I have asked a number of questions that have not received answers. I didn't get an answer even now. I'd like to know to what extent the Housing Corporation is involved in the heritage site known as the B.T. Rogers mansion in Vancouver.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the general subject to which the member has referred again today, I filed an answer in response to his written question, which is in Votes and Proceedings of this House.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

IN COWICHAN ESTUARY

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question directed to the Minister of the Environment. Has the government allowed industrial expansion in the Cowichan estuary? Has a decision been made to allow industrial expansion in the Cowichan estuary?

MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the answer to that question would depend on what one refers to as industrial expansion.

Permission was granted for the replacement of a couple of dolphins in the bay recently, and there have been other applications which are under consideration. But if you are asking whether a general government policy has been established and announced that new industrial development is about to take place in the Cowichan estuary, the answer would be no.

MRS. WALLACE: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Economic Development. I understand he spoke in the beautiful city of Duncan last night, and in a press conference following that meeting I understand he made the statement that there will be development in the Cowichan estuary. Can he confirm that he made this statement?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I did speak in Duncan last night. I had to tell those great people in Duncan that the member was against pulp mills, and was against employment, and was against development and growth, and that she wasn't interested in the unemployed in that area. I had to tell them all about you. I'm sorry, but I had to tell them the truth.

MRS. WALLACE: Will you please answer my question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, to the answer. I said, if I recall correctly, that there was a task force studying the estuary, and that I thought it was possible that some economic development could take place along with environmental protection. That's always been my feeling. The two can be compatible. I'm not going to go around preaching doom and gloom and hysteria in this province that every time somebody does something to create jobs, they're going to ruin the environment. So I was very logical in my response to those good people in Duncan last night. I'm certainly glad the member has given me this opportunity to explain my position.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try again. Is the minister telling the House that he said that there will be development in the Cowichan estuary? Yes or no. Did he say that or did he not say that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll endeavour to draw the member a picture.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes or no.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, I pointed out to the great people in Duncan, those people who were concerned about the future of the young people and the unemployed, that I thought it was entirely possible that we could have economic development along with protecting the environment in the Cowichan Valley and the Cowichan estuary, and I think it's very possible. There is a task force, which they never had, studying the estuary. When they were in government they never had anybody studying anything. They allowed the first sawmill to go in there, and now they stand up like pious hypocrites and say that we're going to ruin the environment. No, that isn't what I said at all.

MRS. WALLACE: Do you ever speak to the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, 1 was just reviewing Beauchesne. Beauchesne clearly says on page 148, section 171 (x):

[ Page 1900 ]

"Speeches outside the House are not to be referred to in question period."

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps I should have observed that a little sooner.

B.C. HYDRO USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On April 25 of this year and then again on May 30 of this year, I asked the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for B.C. Hydro to this Legislature, a series of questions. Will B.C. Hydro be using toxic chemicals to clear rights-of-way this year? Could the minister identify precisely which toxic chemicals will be used, what amounts of toxic chemicals will be used and in what ratio? Would the minister identify the areas of the province where these chemicals will be used?

I have been informed by B.C. Hydro that the minister has the answer to those questions in his possession. Would he now be prepared to answer those questions?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would correct the member. The question was not asked in oral question period in the House; it was asked during my estimates. I'm endeavouring to get the answer. The information I have at this stage is not complete. As soon as it is complete, I will supply the information for the member.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CONSUMER

AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 37: minister's office, $150,911 -continued.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of matters that may involve other constituencies but they certainly involve mine. I have been in correspondence with the hon. minister. The last reply I received from him was April 19, at which time he said that he would do his best to consider my inquiry and answer. I just want to refresh his memory in case the matter has, as sometimes it does, get mislaid, knowing the busy calendar of ministers of the Crown.

I had written to both the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) with respect to funding of two tenants' advisory associations in my constituency. One is the West End Tenants Association. In my letter - I will try and paraphrase it - I stated that these two organizations had received grants from the Ministry of Human Resources in previous years. The Ministry of Human Resources has discontinued that funding, the Minister of Human Resources stating in a letter that he felt it was not proper funding under his department. I won't belabour whether or not I feel his judgment is correct on that matter. I'll just say simply that I do not.

However, I have searched the treasury benches and found, I hope, a more sympathetic member of cabinet, one who is not so politically ambitious or concerned about trimming back his budget at the expense of ordinary people but may be more concerned with ordinary people.

HON. MR. MAIR: I did not filibuster your estimates; do not you filibuster mine!

MR. LAUK: It's nice to drive a wedge between two Crown ministers.

Mr. Chairman, both organizations -Grandview-Woodlands Tenants Association and the West End Tenants' Association - had employed through this generous funding of the government two counsellors, one in each organization. These counsellors advised tenants an an independent basis, first of all with respect to their rights under the landlord and tenant legislation, now the Residential Tenancy Act; and, secondly, bringing to the attention of the B.C. Housing Commission of the authorities through the rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission general problems facing people in the communities in which they operated.

My staff in the constituency investigated. My staff consists of my constituency secretary, who also paints the office and does the laundry and does everything for a miniscule wage. I'm sure all hon. members would greatly appreciate that kind of service. She has accumulated enough information from tenants to convince me - and I'm certainly satisfied -that the services provided by these two individuals was greatly needed. Secondly, the service is not otherwise available to tenants in these two communities. In other words, it's an independent counselling service from people who are familiar with the rights of tenants with respect to the legislation available, and who have a voice and access to personnel in government, and to my office, for that matter,

[ Page 1901 ]

and can bring the plight of abused tenants to the attention of the authorities, and also to counsel tenants as to how to protect their rights under the legislation that is now available.

The cancelling of the money from Human Resources has really done away with the two positions in question so there are no fulltime advisers. It's done now on an ad hoc hit-and-miss basis through both tenants associations. They're trying to do their best. But as you know, Mr. Chairman, voluntary personnel have other occupations; they have other duties - family, personal and occupational, as they say - and it's difficult to provide this kind of service on a continuous basis as it is needed.

I speak particularly strongly for the need for these two advisers in my constituency because of the tremendous number of tenants who reside there. We have a greater number of tenants in my constituency than in any other and it closely borders on the riding with the second greatest number, Vancouver-Burrard.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it's incumbent upon some arm of government to provide some funding to this organization for the salaries of an adviser in each tenants association. I did receive a reply, as I say, from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . He stated in his letter of March 28:

. There is another ministry that has responsibility for landlord and tenant considerations as well as the office of the rentalsman. Both of these are able to create a better climate between tenant and landlord. However, the rise in vacancy rates appears to have ameliorated the need for such consideration ......

I'm sorry, I'm misreading the second para graph, but he does pass the can, as it were, over to his colleague. I then brought the correspondence to the attention of the hon. minister, who replied on April 12, saying:

"I am in receipt of your further letter of April 4 on behalf of the West End Tenants advisory counselling service and the Grandview-Woodland service. I would agree with you that there are unscrupulous landlords, just as I think you would agree with me that there are unscrupulous tenants."

I won't read the reply to that philosophical debate.

"It may be that there is a ministry which should become involved in this kind of problem but it is definitely not Human Resources. I recognize the sincerity of your request and I am sorry that I cannot be of assistance."

Then I brought the correspondence to your attention. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) did not waste any time getting involved in a philosophical debate, but replied:

"Thank you for your letter regarding the funding of tenant organizations. This question has also been raised by senior official- in my ministry and they've been analysing the implications of such a proposal.

"There are conflicting thoughts on providing such funding. I personally believe that the organizations have provided a useful service and deserve consideration. However, it appears to me that for the most part this service is, or should be, available at the offices of the rentalsman and Rent Review Commission."

Let me interpolate there that, considering that proposition, I have again canvassed people involved, including, on a confidential basis, people involved in those two branches. And it was felt that that probably is not appropriate. I continue the minister's letter:

"I am also concerned that due to the tenant organizations being extremely localized, funding may be more appropriate at the municipal level. The Ministry of Human Resources has apparently concluded that on a provincial level there are other services of a higher priority.

"While I realize that an early decision is desirable, I would like to discuss this further with the senior officials in the offices of the rentalsman and Rent Review Commission. Also, I do not currently have such funds allocated in my ministry's budget.

"I appreciate the concern, " et cetera, et cetera.

Now I think that it's vital that some funding be provided this year even by special warrant or by an amendment. This is the kind of special warrant that I think all sides of the House would agree with. We don't particularly agree with special warrant activity with respect to the political PR trips of other ministers of the Crown, but this worthwhile project certainly should receive that kind of consideration.

Both tenants association are trying to keep one or more individuals who are capable of this kind of service alive and well for hiring as soon as the funding is made available from the government. I hope the minister will rise in his place and say that he has looked carefully at the question, he has consulted with his ministerial officials who, I know, whole-

[ Page 1902 ]

heartedly support the funding of these individuals - politics aside - and will grant the funds.

HON. MR. MAIR: I have indeed instructed my staff to look at it. I apologize to the member that I have not been back to him quicker. However, I think the major problem was outlined in the last line of my letter to him -that there was no funding allocated in last year's estimates for this purpose and, as it is apparent from here, there is none in this year's estimates. Having said that, however, I would like to say that we are still trying to find funds, trying to make arrangements to fund these two particular groups.

I don't think this is the first time I have paid tribute to one particular individual in those groups. Mrs. Dewees, among a number of other people, provided great assistance to me in my ministry last year, when the Residential Tenancy Act went to the House.

What we are trying to arrange, Mr. Member -and I don't want you to take this as an undertaking, because it is not - is simply a statement on my part of our attempts in this matter. What we would like to try to do is to find some funds in our ministry to work out contractual arrangements with these particular groups whereby, in exchange for some funding, they can provide us with some informational services and also disseminate information to the members of their organizations on our behalf. This is ongoing at this point. One of the reasons that we have not been able to come to grips with it as quickly as we might have liked is, of course, the change in the rentalsman's office which took place five or six weeks ago. However, it is still under active consideration, and I hope to be able to satisfy the member's request very soon.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to express my concern to the minister and ask if he shares my reaction to recent statements emanating from the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I think the minister is nodding his head. He knows what has been coming out of that government recently - the Liberal government which has announced that it is planning to change its consumer legislation. In essence, it is going to - if anything - favour industry and big business and take away what the minister apparently thinks was a bias in favour of consumers. His reasoning for doing it apparently is that industry lobbied more effectively than consumers.

Now, of course, we have heard from the Consumers' Association of Canada (B.C.) , who say that is not accurate. So I don't think we are here to discuss that aspect of it. I personally feel, however, that the consumers' associations have done a fine job.

It's quite obvious there are some biases prevalent in the federal government, which does want to lean in favour of industry and big business. Therefore I think it is a tragedy when, after all these years, we have finally reached the point where we are getting good, protective consumer legislation. So my first question to the minister is: what is your reaction to this? Do you endorse the federal minister's leaning towards changes in consumer legislation? Do you feel personally the consumer is too protected today, that government should keep out of the way? I would be most interested to hear your reactions. And, of course, I'm sure you know that my basic philosophy is that the consumer does need protection. We still have a long way to go in legislation. And to point that out, Mr. Chairman, to the minister - how badly we do need to have legislation with a lot of teeth in it to assist the consumer and to protect him - I want to give the minister an example of a case which points out that the consumer today still feels helpless in the face of big business. The minister, I know, must receive a tremendous number of letters, so I will just refresh his memory on this one. It went through his office in Vancouver, and I understand a copy came to him.

It has to do with a case which has also been brought up in Lorne Parton's column. And the particular person who had the problem is a constituent of mine and came in to see me. I don't want to go into too many details and take up the time of the House, but, to make the point to the minister, I must go into some detail. This consumer bought a new Chrysler car. He was at his wit's end when he came, - to see me, and I believe he was when he went to see Lorne Parton. This car had broken down for at least 10 of the approximately 100 days that he had owned it. The final straw occurred about a week ago, when the right front wheel of this new car literally fell off. Fortunately the car was going slowly. The man and his wife had just come off the freeway. You can imagine what would have happened if his wheel had fallen off when they were still on the freeway. He was fortunate, that's all.

However, I want to repeat again, this is a new car that he was driving. He also showed me a stack of work sheets - it was the best example of a lemon you could ever see. The second day he had the car after signing the papers for it, which committed him to $8,000 plus for the cost of this car, the carburetor jammed at full throttle. This was a new car,

[ Page 1903 ]

and it was the second day he was in it. He had a frightening time trying to stop the car. It was found, when he took it back, that there was a part missing from the carburetor - a manufacturing error.

This was just the beginning of this man's problems. He continued to be faced with more faults and failures. He got so tired of it, and his wife reached the point where, naturally, she didn't want to go in the car again. I think we would all feel the same way.

He finally went back to the dealership. By the way, he has no beef at all with the dealership; they treated him very well. His main concern is with the car manufacturer. When he asked for his money back, he was told that they couldn't buy the car back and that they could just offer a trade-in. The manufacturer made it quite clear to him that the company was bound by warranty to fix any fault that occurred in manufacture, period. Secondly, they were in business to sell cars, not to buy them.

Thirdly, as for his worries about possible future accidents because of part failures, they said: "We don't deal with 'ifs'." This is what he got from the manufacturer after what he and his wife had had to go through with this new car.

He wrote to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I believe they did send a letter to the manufacturer, which was good.

HON. MR. MAIR: What date did he write to us?

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I don't have the the date with me but I will get it to you. He wrote to the Vancouver department, and I understood you might have had a copy. I think it did come to your office.

But apparently after writing to the manufacturer, they received a letter back which literally said: "Butt out." And the Action Line received the same kind of letter from the manufacturer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've got the letter.

MRS. DAILLY: Our Chairman has the letter, he can give you the letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I should point out that I have a copy of a similar letter. I think they ran several off.

MRS. DAILLY: I want to point out that this man has finally arranged a satisfactory deal. The point that I am making here on his behalf and on the behalf of other consumers in this province, and the point he wanted me to bring up to you, Mr. Minister, is that it leaves the consumer in a very unsettled, insecure situation when such a thing happens to them and they have to fight this as hard as they can. They start out being very calm about it and then they run up against this big company. So in frustration they go, of course, to Consumer and Corpora'a Affairs, where they should go. But Consumer and Corporate Affairs simply get a letter from the manufacturer saying, more or less: "Keep your hands off. We don't really care."

You can see how this man feels. He knows that his money is helping to finance the consumer ministry. The man came in fairly calmly, but he did say: "What recourse do I have?" That is really what he is asking. He said: "Here I am trying to fight a big company by myself." He is really asking, Mr. Minister: "Where does Consumer and Corporate Affairs fit into a situation like this? Can they not stand up to these big companies?" This is the point. That's why I get back to my original statement to you, followed with a question. I do hope that you don't follow the philosophy of the federal Minister of Consumer Affairs, who apparently thinks the consumer is only too well protected now.

MR. LEVI: I want to go back to last night at two or three minutes before 6 o'clock. To refresh the minister's memory, we were in the middle of a somewhat heated discussion about the need to refer the matter of supermarket kickbacks to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

The minister has made an interesting point, particularly in relation to the search and seizure requirements - that is, the question of going in and getting the right documents. What I would like to do is just quote from section 3 of the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act:

"The Legislative Assembly may at all times command and compel the attendance before the assembly or before any committee thereof of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the assembly or committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings or deliberations."

Presumably, committees can certainly operate within that section of the Act. In order to produce papers, I pres, you have to give them a list of what it is you want. I'm not completely clear whether you have to describe every single piece of paper. It would seem to me that as a first instance that would be okay too. The other thing, of course, is for the committee to make a request by the government

[ Page 1904 ]

to apply for, I believe, a search and seizure warrant in order to do exactly this.

Let's bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that what I'm really talking about is assembling information, assisting the Combines Investigation Act by going to chem and saying: "Look, this is what we have found as a result of calling people to us and examining papers that we have requested." If the committee chairman or the committee itself has been successful in getting the government to apply for a warrant of search and seizure, then everything is in front of the committee.

That, I think, is a very important issue, something that the minister.... Because, as I pointed out yesterday, he is the co-sponsor of the work that the committee is doing, along with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) .

Does the minister want to respond now? Because I want to go on to some other things.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to respond to the questions raised by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) . Madam Member, when I first heard of the federal minister's remarks - they were put to me by members of the press - I immediately dissociated myself from them, and I do so now. I don't know precisely what he said, but to the extent that he indicated that the consumer was going to take, a secondary role and that they had not lobbied particularly well and therefore business was going to get a better break, or whatever it was he said, it simply didn't make any sense to me at all. It's not that I favour either one side or the other in a problem like that. I favour fair play in the marketplace, and I favour rules that will make that possible wherever we can.

As to whether or not I think the consumer is getting overly protected, in one sense, of course, no, because there are a lot of individual cases, such as the member has mentioned, where people are getting ripped off, and they probably always will. Just because we do provide protection is no excuse to use the fact of protection in order to obviate the necessity for any more.

There is, however, a neat sort of philosophical argument that comes about, and that gets into the question of consumer education. Let me deal with just one area to give you an example. We now have got, I think, sufficient protection in some areas of the marketplace where the, ? consumer refuses to be at &11 critical of the product that they're buying. So now we have to use public funds in order to educate those people to become concerned consumers. We start in the schools, of course, now.

I think when your government was in power the thrust of many of their radio ads was that you ought to be critical, you ought to concerned, you ought to pay attention because, after all, no matter what the government does, they can't do everything for you.

So to some extent the consumer has been lulled into a false sense of security. But as far as I'm concerned, I would never allow that to be used as an excuse for not bringing into play fair rules and fair laws to ensure fairness in the marketplace. I just make that as an observation, that one of the other sides of the coin is that we do have to start to educate the consumer. He can't expect to have protection from the government to keep him out of all sorts of mischief.

Now insofar as the Chrysler case is concerned, I'm very pleased that you raised that because it is an interesting feature of our activity over the last few months. Chrysler of Canada did indeed take a position that we ought to butt out. They made it quite clear to us that they didn't want our help in mediating disputes, they did not want to hear from us, they did not want to talk to us. As far as they were concerned, if there was a problem with one of their customers, they would deal with the customer on a one-to-one basis.

I'm happy to say that we have now had discussions with Chrysler, and I will not try to tell you the tone of the discussions, but I think you can imagine. As a result of those discussions, they have turned 180 degrees and are now behaving themselves, I think, as good corporate citizens ought to. That situation, as I am instructed, has come to an end. However, it was a very real one, and I know of the case you refer to. I understand that our involvement with that consumer is very recent. They didn't go to us in the beginning; they went to other people whom you had mentioned, Mr. Parton and so on. But, in any event, I understand that that problem is either solved or about to be solved, and I do know and can tell you that Chrysler have changed their tactics and their point of view.

Dealing with the point raised by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , and our never-ending and interesting debate on how we solve the supermarket problem, I think the situation really is this, Mr. Member. The power we have as a legislative committee, or the power they have, is rather similar to a subpoena duces tecum, where in a civil case you can send a subpoena to another party and ask them to come to a certain place and bring with them certain documents.

The problem of that is twofold. First of all, you do not necessarily know what you want.

[ Page 1905 ]

Secondly, you've no guarantee, since you don't know, that they'll tell you the truth and bring everything that they have. A good example of that is in the Irving newspaper case, where I'm advised that under the Combines Investigation Act, which is the source of that charge, the documents which led to the downfall of the company were actually found under the bed of the president when his premises were searched. This is the difficulty.

We know we are not in an area where we are going to get a great deal of help voluntarily, that is if the allegations that you bring to the chamber or the suggestions you bring to the chamber are true. If that situation does prevail, we can't very well expect anybody to come leaping forward with bags of documents, saying; "Help yourself, and if you find anything incriminating, let me know." We therefore cannot assume that a subpoena duces tecum, or the equivalent, is really going to be of much assistance.

Since we don't have the power to search and to seize documents, the only place we can look for that power is the Combines Investigation Act. I've run full circle and get back to what I said yesterday: the place to conduct this investigation, if an investigation is warranted, is under the Combines Investigation Act, under the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and such information that comes to my attention, either through the committee or elsewhere, will be given to them for their analysis and action.

MR. LEVI: As I understand the outcome of the Irving case, finally they won on the appeal, if I remember rightly.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, they did.

MR. LEVI: They did, after about two and a half years' work and almost over a million dollars.

Ail right, I think we've debated that. We are now agreeing to disagree and that will be it. I won't raise it again.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions. I'd like to ask him, in the preparation of the report that is being done on the capital market study, if the minister could tell us.... One of the things that has happened in the stock market and capital markets is the propensity for a lot of companies to start buying back their own stock. I wrote to the president of the Toronto Stock Exchange because of a speech that he made in which he was very concerned about this process that is going on where companies are starting to buy back their own stock and are subsequently going private. The point that he was making was that the investor set out to invest in the stock on the basis that here is something worthwhile to do. The company puts out a prospectus and then puts out annual reports. As he points out, a number of companies are really dealing with their investors in a rather peremptory fashion and they're offering to buy back the shares. We've had a number of cases of this. I don't want to get into the Neonex case, because that is now before the courts. But there are several like that - Campeau Real Estate is another one. We had Newco in Vancouver.

I would hope that when they're doing a study of the capital markets and they're going to touch on the stock market, they will make some observations about this practice which is a practice that the Securities Exchange Commission is looking into. They're very worried about it because they're worried about the whole business of continuing to establish confidence on the part of the investor. If it seems to be now a continuing practice that companies are eventually going to pick up all their own stock and go private, then what happens to the market? I'm not talking about major companies so much as some of the smaller juniors, if you like, not specifically in the mining industry.

That concern is being shared certainly by the president of the Toronto Stock Exchange and the people at the Securities Exchange Commission. I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the president of the stock exchange here, but I would certainly hope that there would be some mention in the report about this because certainly from the point of view of the market, it's a very serious problem.

The other question I want to ask.... I understand the minister is the one delegated in the cabinet for the AIB.

HON. MR. MAIR: The Anti-Inflation Measures Act.

MR. LEVI: I don't see anything in the budget for tile AIB. Perhaps the minister might indicate to us what plans he has or what plans the government has. I know we're asking about future policy, but we have not had a report. Perhaps the minister will report to us on what involvement he had with the AIB and what we can look forward to. The government has indicated from time to time that even if ALB is dissolved, they have some intention of keeping it on. I think the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has indicated that on at least two occasions. So I'd ask the minister to look

[ Page 1906 ]

into that.

The other thing that I raised last year with the minister, and we've had a continuing debate in the press and in the media, is in relation to mortgage foreclosures. Last year I signalled to the minister that the problem was getting quite bad and has got progressively worse. What I was attempting to do when I raised the issue with the minister last year about the moratorium was simply to try to get his attention to the fact that there are some serious problems. It's become one of the most significant economic indicators. We have the usual standard aids for indicators, but we now have the continuing increase in mortgage foreclosures.

Interestingly enough, the Mortgage Insurance Corporation of Canada in their annual report of 1977 indicated that their losses in respect to mortgages and foreclosures were up over 100 per cent. In the first quarter of this year, MICC reports that their losses have increased by almost 300 per cent. Now while they carry a very large portfolio in the order of some $8 billion, the losses do not seem significant. But what is significant is really what is happening in terms of the whole mortgage field.

Now I appreciate - and I've spoken to several people in the mortgage field - that they go to great lengths to see that people aren't foreclosed. They suspend payments; they make a number of arrangements. As one person put it to me: "We're practically in the social work business, doing some debt counselling and trying to help people." That's fine, but it's a problem where I think there needs to be a greater understanding by the people who get themselves into these situations. I'm not suggesting we legislate. I'm not looking for legislation in terms of trying to get people to understand what they're getting into.

One of the very serious problems - and it comes from another ministry of government, not the minister's - is that I do not think people have fully understood the implications of being involved, for instance, in AHOP homes. That has probably been one of the more significant causes of the new phenomenon among young people. When it gets too tough to meet the payments, they now have a solution. They just pack up their things and they walk out of the door and they say: "It's all yours. We don't have any equity." On the one hand we have one ministry pushing AHOP, and on the other hand we have an increasing number of mortgage foreclosures, a lot of them related to the AHOP problem - and that is a problem.

I'd also like the minister to tell us on another point - and I have a range over a few points - in some detail exactly what did take place at the warehouse of the liquor administration branch. We've had a number of versions of this. I want to ask the minister: "Did $1 million worth of liquor disappear down the outpour pipe, or was it a computer error or what?" Because we have never quite had a clear picture on exactly what happened there. I would imagine that to cart $1 million worth of bottles out of that outpour would be quite an effort. You would have to get 900 pygmies working probably solidly for 90 days to do that.

So I'd like the minister to tell us specifically what is happening, and then perhaps the minister would indicate to us if it is becoming the policy of the board to have various people involved in the liquor industry to get into their own warehousing. I think that the minister has indicated that warehousing is a very costly process for the government. What does he have in mind in terms of that? What happens in respect to the cost and will that cost be passed on? Will it reflect itself in the price of ... ? I don't know whether it will reflect itself in the price of what is sold, because it's his ministry that sets the tariffs. So you might tell us just how this is going to be dealt with.

I would like the minister to comment to some extent on the travel agents' operation. There was an item this morning about a number - 30, I think, was the number - of agencies that are expected to close. Now I appreciate that one of the things that has happened as a result of having this travel agency legislation is that it tends to highlight the situation. You get an opportunity to look at the thing - and I presume the registrar is looking at them - and that's fine, because I hope we eventually will clear out a few of the bad apples.

One of the things I want to mention is - and that's perhaps in relation to the whole issue of company law and bankruptcy - the number of times when one looks at some of the failures in the travel agent business where the same principles invariably apply: they've been through this process before, they've reformed, then it happens again. Perhaps the minister is in a position to make some observations about this. Is it possible to keep these people out? Is there some kind of time period? It may very well be that they're bankrupt and they've been discharged, but it seem-, to me that some of the same principles are involved in the companies that go bankrupt. They've all been through this before; it's a bit of an old story. People in the travel agency business tell you: "We know about this guy and we know about that guy."

[ Page 1907 ]

The only other point I want to raise - and because it's been a matter of public knowledge, I don't think I'm going to have any effect on the price of the particular stock I'm going to talk about now - is Canadian Javelin. One of the things that concerns me about the Canadian Javelin Corporation.... That's the one which involves Mr. Doyle, who at the moment is a fugitive from all sorts of countries - I think the United States and Canada.

Now the Vancouver Stock Exchange lists the stock. It's not listed anywhere else in Canada. In fact it was removed from listing in Montreal for a number of reasons: failure to satisfy the stock exchange in respect to adequate financial reporting. What puzzles me is if that is what goes on in Montreal and they make those judgments - the SEC has made some judgments about this particular corporation -why is it that this stock can be listed here?

Now I've been told by the stock exchange here: "It really isn't up to us to withdraw stock when people have an investment. After all, they should have an opportunity for that stock to be listed. They've made an investment." But particularly in relation to Canadian Javelin, because we're dealing with an individual.... Albeit there have been some some convictions. There are a number of other outstanding cases - something in the order of 400 charges against the individual. But when we have a stock exchange like the Montreal Stock Exchange - which is not like it was several years ago; it's gone through that whole cleansing process - which is not prepared to list it, yet we are, that to me creates some problems. Does it say something about the permissiveness in terms of our stock exchange, or is it that we're just a little bit broad-minded? That, I think, is the problem. It's something that is constantly coming up, because they are constantly raising these issues. So I'll just sit down and let the minister have a go at some of this.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I have to gather my thoughts here, because I have so many questions and I have such terrible handwriting. The first question, I think, that was raised dealt with the question of companies buying back their own shares. May I observe, of course, that that wasn't permissible in British Columbia until 1973 and the new Companies Act. However, may I also observe that I do not blame you for that, because I do not think you're entitled to the credit for the Act any more than blame. It was something that came through, I believe, the legal processes and various committees and so on. But whether or not this is posing a problem in British Columbia is something, frankly, I'm not able to answer at this point. But I do undertake to take it up with Mr. Thompson, who is doing the study, and ask him to report back. Of course, when that report is available, I will have our answer, presumably.

I haven't read the Anti-Inflation Measure Act, frankly, Mr. Member, for a little while, but it's my recollection that my responsibility is in the area of price freezes and that sort of thing. The fundamental obligations rest with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Frankly, apart from the fact that it tended to get me involved in the agricultural committee as one of the instructing ministers - if that is the correct phrase - my involvement has been minimal.

On the question of mortgages, Mr. Member, I quite agree with your observations. I think, however, that if we were to look at foreclosures as a barometer of economic events, we would have to ensure that we s ee foreclosure in the modern context, not the context that I became familiar with when I first practised law. In those days, they were very sad times of people losing great equities and being thrown out of their house because they lost their job or some other misfortune had befallen them. Now while I am sure that does from time to time happen today, the genesis of our problem is the assistance that has been given to people to get into homes without any equity, particularly in the AHOP scheme. after a time, when a homeowner has stayed in it for a year or two, they now start to compete with new AHOPs that have gone in and are financially disadvantaged in so competing. They become a foreclosure while the other one becomes a sale.

Now I think that rather than a foreclosure, a better analogy to draw is similar to a tenant leaving an apartment because that's essentially what it is. The couple say: "To hell with it. I haven't got any equity. I can't pay the amount of the mortgage. Let someone else look after the grief." Now that doesn't make it not a problem; it makes it a very serious problem.

It is something, of course, that I don't know how you ever come to a conclusion on because it has been impossible to rationalize provincial housing programmes with federal programmes. I very much sympathize with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in this regard because I have had something to do with Ottawa in this regard and in trying to determine their standards and their rules vis-à-vis rent decontrol - what they are going to do about tax advantages and

[ Page 1908 ]

this sort of thing. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister - and I'm sure you found this when you were in government - you simply cannot get a straight answer. It seems that AHOP is just a masterpiece of ad hockery. It depends upon what the situation of the day is, political and otherwise, as to what sort of assistance is going to come. I say to you quite candidly that if the federal government had minded its constitutional Ps and Qs and kept its nose out of housing except to the extent of assisting provinces with funds instead of programmes would be in a position of being answerable to you for the problems that you have raised because we would have caused the problems ourselves.

Now I don't want to try and push everything onto the federal government, but I think I can say without fear of too much contradiction that the majority of problems we face in the mortgage foreclosure area today in terms of housing is a direct result of housing policies which are very much a result of federal policies.

Now dealing with the question of the liquor warehouse and the $1 million. I must tell you that the manhole incident....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we seem to have a collection of private conversations on the floor of the House and it is becoming a little difficult to hear the minister. Perhaps those members wishing to discuss their private concerns could do so in another forum. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and particularly my colleagues on my left are.... Of course, people on my left always cause me trouble, but my colleagues on my left are causing much of the problem.

The manhole cover incident arose in a rather amusing way, Mr. Member. I was on a phone-in show that you were on quite recently. I heard you making some unkind remarks about me, as a matter of fact. I was in Kelowna at the time. But in any event, I was on the same gentleman's programme, and he asked me how we accounted for a million dollar loss. I told him what I am going to tell you now.

We couldn't account for it in straight terms; it was only a very good estimate, we thought. We came to that conclusion for a number of reasons. Some of it was word we got on the street about establishments that had not been to a liquor store for an unseemly length of time. Where were they getting their booze? Some of it we could come to from reasonable estimates from within the system. One thing you've got to remember is that the security around there is bad. My gracious, there is even a manhole cover where you could gain access into the warehouse itself.

He said: "That hyperbole is too good to let go." He went into his Hibernian chortle and bellowed with great gusto that a million dollars had gone out of the rat hole or the manhole, or whatever it was, and it wasn't very long before the television cameras had the manhole cover firmly in view. That's how the story developed.

That, of course, is not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem has been terrible inattention aver the years, going back, I suppose, to the beginning of time, to reasonable accounting methods, distribution methods, warehousing methods, inventory methods in the liquor distribution system. We have tended over the past many years - and I think this again goes right back to the beginning of time - to view the distribution of liquor as something that we know goes on but we prefer not to deal with and think about.

I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that that attitude has certainly changed. We are putting systems into effect. I have Treasury Board approval for computerization and this sort of thing, and this kind of money will not be lost in the future. The systems will be more than adequate for the half-billion dollar industry that liquor distribution is.

Dealing with the question of our own warehousing, Mr. Member, we're in a very difficult position. The warehouse that we now have is inadequate for our present purposes. It certainly will be a disaster in the next few years if we don't do something about it. The capital cost of doing the warehousing will be, in our view, an unreasonable burden upon the taxpayer under 'all of the circumstances. Perhaps I should just give you one or two examples of what those circumstances are.

There are a good many distributors and agents in British Columbia who really - and I am being very frank with you - have done very little, if anything at all, to earn their money. The only thing they have done is to raise hob with us when their product is off the shelves in various areas because we haven't got enough of it. Yet we, of course, have not got the facilities to do their storing for them and we haven't got the facilities to keep a real handle on what their supply needs are. So what we have said to a lot of these people is: "There is no reason why you shouldn't warehouse your own requirements here. As we need them, we'll let you know about them."

I'm not in a position at this point, Mr.

[ Page 1909 ]

Member, to go into a lot of details on the warehousing programme because, quite frankly, we are talking in terms of negotiations with a great many of our suppliers. But there is no doubt about. it that our alternatives are fairly simple. Either we must spend something in the order of $35 million to $40 million of the province's money in order to warehouse these people's stock, or we're going to have to insist upon assistance from them in warehousing.

There aren't very many retail businesses that warehouse to the extent that we do, and we think that this is not unreasonable. We think that we are going to be able to effect a number of cost savings, not just in terms of warehousing space but in terms of shipping costs and that sort of thing. All in all, I think it should enhance the overall running of the operation.

Dealing with the question of travel agencies, I only just had an opportunity before coming into the House to read the article, because I think you know where my time was occupied today. I must say that it doesn't really surprise me that only something in the order of 5 per cent of the travel agencies and wholesalers - that's what we're really talking about - are in this kind of trouble, according to Mr. Burden.

I think it's only natural to assume that when we put in a new piece of legislation like this about an industry, where we have put the legislation in because of this kind of problem, the very fact of the legislation is going to shake the bad ones out of the tree. I think this is the process that we're going through right now. Anybody who would take from the interview today that we are going to have 20 or 30 travel agencies or wholesalers in trouble at all times would be grossly misreading the situation.

I think, as you have inferred, Mr. Member, that what we are seeing are the bad apples -although that perhaps is not a good analogy. We are seeing those who are in difficulty being exposed at this particular point.

I must say the question of whether or not you are going to allow people who have failed back into the business is a very delicate matter indeed. First of all, you cannot discriminate against a man or woman for failing for ever and a day. If the only thing he knows is being in the travel business or something like that, and he fails, everybody is entitled to a second chance.

The other side of the spectrum, of course, is that you can't allow a person whose record of failures has caused disaster throughout the business community to repeat those failures to the loss of the general public. Somewhere in there, a man who has got good common sense, a sense of balance and a good sense of discretion has got to enter and make that decision. I am very happy to say I think that Mr. Burden is that man, he has certainly shown every sign of that.

Insofar as Canadian Javelin is concerned, Mr. Member, I can't answer your question with precision. I will undertake, however, to take the matter up with the superintendent of brokers and take the question as if it came to me in question period. I'll take it as notice and supply you with the answer when I have it back from him.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a variety of items I want to discuss with the minister today ranging from a senior citizen's bathtub right through to the superintendent of insurance. Apparently the minister and I have a similar problem with handwriting, so I hope that he will be able to make it legible and be able to keep track of what I'm talking about.

The first item I would like to discuss with the minister is what is amounting to a whole new industry that has grown up in the last few months in Canada, and that is this business of cents-off coupons.

It is becoming a fairly substantial part of our costs in purchasing, and it is, in a way, infringing on our personal privacy in that the companies involved in this cents off couponing and co-op couponing are really going into a scientific study relative to the whole business of human population, size, density, age, income, size of family, relating to the sort of interests and purchases that they would make. With the things like telephone books and postal codes and so on, there is an ability to get inside information as to just who lives where and what they might be interested in buying.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In fact we have in Canada a company that has come into being, A.C. Nielsen. It's located back in the Maritimes and apparently it is a clearing house for all this coupon exchange. It would seem to me that a business which has amounted to something like $250 million worth of coupons that were distributed last year -that's the estimate - and something like $20 million that were redeemed, is getting to be a fair-sized thing to be happening in our retail market.

The thing that concerns me more than anything with this is that it's being used as an advertising tool. In fact some companies that

[ Page 1910 ]

had AIB regulations to return certain excess profits to the marketplace used this couponing as a tool for doing that. I have some qualms about whether or not that is a fair way to go when, in fact, they can decide where they will make that return to the marketplace, because it does go to a selected area. It goes into an area where they feel it will be most beneficial to them in the long run.

Another thing it does, in effect, is keep the list price artificially high, because of the discount that these coupons will bring about. I recognize that this is more or less a federal problem, but still the minister in British Columbia is charged with the protection of British Columbian consumers and, as such, I would think that he would be interested in attempting to do something about this problem and moving to try and control it. It seems to me to be getting very much out of hand, and certainly that type of advertising is an added cost to the consumer. I'm not sure that it is the best type of advertising, or a type of advertising that we really want here in British Columbia, or that it really is beneficial to the consumers.

I mentioned my senior citizen's bathtub, and I think I've talked about this every year. This is a senior citizen in Ladysmith who bought a mobile home. The problem with that home have been manifold - the insulation, the doors and the bathtub. The bathtub had a chip in the enamel, and he's been dealing with representatives of this minister's ministry, the consumer reps that he has contact with, I think, here in Victoria.

At first he was told that maybe he could put a flower over the chip on the bathtub. Eventually he got an okay to have the bathtub re-enameled. What he wanted was a new bathtub, because it was a new trailer.

He finally agreed that okay, if they would unconditionally guarantee a re-enamel job better than new, he would accept it. The latest word I have from this gentleman is that this enamel is now peeling.

He's a little turned off your ministry, Mr. Minister. He just feels that he has taken a great deal of not abuse, really, but he has gone along with the things you have suggested and he still has a sort of second-rate job. He has insulation which isn't properly installed.

The reason I am raising this again is because I want the minister to know that with probably the best of intentions and the best of efforts, he is really not getting enough teeth in the kinds of programmes that he is responsible for. We have to have enough teeth and enough real concern behind these endeavours to fight with. It is a fight. It's like the car that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) raised. They are not about to accept this if they think they can get around it. He is going to have to really get in and work to ensure that these things are satisfactorily resolved. If the minister wants information on that particular case I would be glad to provide it to him.

The question of liquor distribution has been raised here. I've had some correspondence with the minister regarding a liquor store in my area and the auxiliary staff there. I have a constituent who has worked for four or five years as an auxiliary employee. Every year he is laid off on December 31 and not rehired until about April 15.

The minister says he is aiming at a 70 per cent regular and 30 per cent auxiliary staff. He tells me it is even better than that in Duncan. The thing I want to point out to the minister is what this kind of programme does to those people who are auxiliary. This man has a wife and family; he's trying to buy an AHOP home. lie says they haven't had a holiday for five years because this takes such a big chunk out of his annual income that he is not able to live as you would expect a person who was a qualified worker doing a job would be able to live. I recognize that there are ups and downs in the trade and you have to have some give and take. But I would point out to the minister that it's very difficult for these people who are auxiliary for year after year after year and who are faced with only a kind of part-time job. I would ask him to try to work out some kind of a programme where people are not kept on auxiliary for any longer than a year or a maximum of two years. It does create a great hardship on those employees.

I want to talk a little bit about mortgage brokers. I suppose that things done within the law are binding; I know they are binding, but they can be unconscionable.

I have a young couple in my constituency who are getting married next month. They have been trying to buy a house. They didn't have money for a down payment. They located a house they thought they could probably afford and they went to a mortgage broker in Duncan, namely Swisscan Financial Services Ltd. They signed an agreement. I think they were foolish to sign it, but they did sign it. The printed part of the agreement says that if the mortgage is negotiated, whether or not the applicant accepts it, the mortgage broker is still entitled to his 3 per cent of the $1,000 deposit they have given him. Then in handwriting down at the bottom where they have also signed, the agreement says that if the

[ Page 1911 ]

mortgage is negotiated, whether or not it actually goes through - regardless of who accepts or turns it down - they still forfeit the fee.

What happened was that the house they were looking at was withdrawn from the market. Because of this handwritten bit at the bottom, they were told they had no refund coming. Eventually they did get, I think, $83 back out of their $1,000.

The interesting thing about this is: in a document which comes over my desk telling of what companies have been removed from the register and so on, I happened to notice that Swisscan are no longer legally in existence. Apparently the reason is that the owner of Swisscan Financial Services Ltd. has not been able to complete the examinations that were set under the Mortgage Brokers Act, Now I realize that Act was challenged, in fact, and the ruling....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm pointing up again the consumer's point of view. Here's a young couple, trying to establish a home for themselves, looking forward to getting married and having this kind of thing happen in a very question able kind of situation, with the owner of the company having some problems passing these required exams, leaving open to some question as to what the position of that company is, and forfeiting that kind of money which they can ill-afford.

So I would ask the minister to make some comment on that. I would urge him to review his legislation and regulations. He's not just the minister of corporate affairs; he's the minister of consumer affairs. That's the part that I feel is really important. I would like to see him stressing in his legislation the kind of Acts and regulations that will protect the consumer.

The final thing that I want to talk about is the superintendent of insurance and the Real Estate Act. I think it's been a perennial thing in this House, both before and after this Minister was responsible for the Real Estate Act, that love talked about multiple listings. On other occasions, I have read to this House the kind of inflated values that those multiple listings result in. I have given many examples. I have no examples with me today; I've given up, Mr. Chairman. Both the former minister who was responsible for this and this minister have said yes, they recognize the concern, they're going to do something about it. I have not seen anything happen yet. I just want to remind the minister that I'm still waiting.

I want to deal a little bit with the number of salesmen in the real estate business, how well qualified they are and the position of agents. The agent, of course, is a much more qualified person than the salesman. He's required to write an exam and, according to Professor Hamilton of UBC, who writes the agents' licensing course, he says that if a person passes the exam, the licence must be granted as a matter of right if they have previously sold real estate elsewhere in Canada.

Now the case in point that I have is the case of a woman who sold real estate for some five years in Alberta. She passed the exam and she has had to wait the full amount of time in order to qualify for her agent's licence, as if she had never sold real estate previously. Now I have some concerns about this interpretation that the superintendent of insurance is putting on the legislation. I think we need more of these qualified people, if we need more of anything in real estate, and less salesmen. I noticed something in the paper the other day that you're working to reduce this and the real estate board is working to reduce this. But in Nanaimo, for example, a city of approximately 44,000 residents, there are 206 licensed salesmen. That's one for every 220 residents. There are good real estate salesmen and there are bad real estate salesmen.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are bad MLAs.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, there are bad MLAs, Mr. Minister.

MR. GIBSON: Name names.

MRS. WALLACE: The problem is that we don't have the kind of controls that we should have over those people who are out front. They're the ones who are in contact with the consumer; they're the ones who the consumer relies on to tell them the many complicated things that they must know. Most people maybe buy or sell a piece of property once in a lifetime, twice at the most. They need professional advice. Yet we have salespeople all over this province who are not qualified or trained to give that advice.

I would suggest to the minister that he needs to put more stringent controls on the salesmen and encourage his superintendent of insurance to allow qualified people to be registered as agents without the kind of procrastination that has gone on in this one particular case that I refer to and others that I have had brought to my attention.

[ Page 1912 ]

The kind of thing that can happen with this loose sort of control was pointed up in the Vancouver Sun on February 2. I'm not going to bore the minister with the whole article. I'm sure he is aware of it. It is the story of a Scandinavian widow, 66 years old, who sold her home for $72,500 and wound up with $4,418.

Now it wound up before the courts and these people were charged. But it didn't help the widow. She sold her home for $72,500 and wound up with $4,418. That is just downright unnecessary in this province at this point in time. That's the kind of challenge that that minister must face and he must do something to ensure that that kind of thing cannot happen. We can take it before the courts, we can charge the people involved, we can fine them, but it doesn't help the widow. As Minister of Consumer Affairs, that's the responsibility of that minister and it's a responsibility that I ask him to face up to now.

HON. MR. MAIR: I was interested when the member for Cowichan-Malahat reminded me that I was the Minister of Consumer Affairs as well as Corporate Affairs, because the Act that she was dealing with at that time comes under the corporate affairs branch of the ministry.

MRS. WALLACE: But it's the consumers who are important.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, yes; and I think that points out the truth and the wisdom of the proposition that both sides of the ministry are dealing with the regulation of the marketplace for the protection of the consumer. I think that I recognize my responsibilities for all of the ministry, not just for one branch or the other.

On the question of the coupons, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked me a question in question period two or three days ago on this subject. I'm having an answer prepared and, of course, I will either give it to the House by way of an oral answer or I will file it in due course. In any event, I think it best that I leave it to people who are much brighter than I am to come up with the answers. I must say that it occurs to me that the problem is whether or not this particular device increases costs or whether, by increasing the sales, it reduces costs. I'm sure that the argument in favour of it is the latter. Of course you argue the other way. I prefer not to argue but to try and find people who can give me factual information which I can pass back to you - which I undertake I will do.

On the question of your senior citizen's bathtub, I think you would be the first to agree that it is very difficult for me in this chamber to defend individual cases. But let me just indicate to the member that we handle on the consumer side of the ministry about 7,000 cases a year. Now this isn't phone calls. We get over 200 phone calls per day in Vancouver alone. A great many of those are mediated, taken care of in one way or another. I frankly think that if you were to examine the records of that branch of my ministry, you would agree that we do a pretty good job. That doesn't mean that there aren't cases that fall between the stools, that there aren't cases that we make mistakes on, that there aren't cases that we perhaps don't pay enough attention and others that we pay too much attention to. After all, we are human beings like anyone else. But I think, on balance, my ministry and that particular branch do a very, very good job indeed. If you wish, Madame Member, I will certainly ask Mr. Anglin, who is seated on my right, to deal with that case specifically, to see whether or not it is an appropriate one for a substitute action.

I have a note here that I think might be of interest to you. Of the 7,000 cases that we actually handle a year, over $1 million in rescissions are achieved - or, at least, were last year - which I think is a pretty enviable record.

On the question of the liquor store, I don't have to tell you that - if you will forgive me for being this emphatic - we have had a hell of a problem in the liquor distribution branch. I am happy to say that we will be making an announcement within the next day or two which, I think, will go a long way towards curing that problem. We must have a manager of the liquor distribution branch who, above all things, will know a good deal about labour management relations and be in a position to actually enter into labour-management relations with the right sort of balance and sense of perspective. He has got to be the type of person that is not only technically able in the sense of inventory controls, supply and that sort of thing, but is the type of person who will restore morale, because morale is very bad. We've got problems with auxiliary employees and that sort of thing and I recognize that. I hope very much - I am very confident - that the man that we will be announcing in the next day or two is the man to do that job. I have every reason to believe so. We searched the length and breadth of this country to find him and I think that a lot of the problems that you have brought to my attention today - and a lot of problems that haven't been brought specifically to my attention

[ Page 1913 ]

today but which I know are on the minds of many - will not be problems this time next year.

MR. MACDONALD: Will he be a Canadian citizen?

HON. MR. MAIR: He's a young American, good-looking fellow, $80,000 a year, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

Yes, I can tell you this, that he is a Canadian citizen. Now I think I might observe that not everybody in this chamber was always a Canadian citizen, so perhaps we have to make allowances and let people come to our country. But I understand this man was born and raised a Canadian citizen - and remains one.

MR. MACDONALD: Is he a woman?

HON. MR. MAIR: She is a man. Well, it had to be one or the other and that's the way it turned out.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) - concerning the incident with the mortgage broker - once again, it is always difficult to deal with individual cases when you don't have all of the facts before you. But from what you told me, may I make the observation that when any people over the age of 19 go into a mortgage broker for the purposes of securing a mortgage, they must assume that that mortgage broker earns his living.

I would think, particularly since they obviously didn't go to a bank or a trust company or a credit union - the place that you might normally expect a young couple to go for financing for a house - that they recognized that they were going into something that was just a little different from the normal place you get house mortgages. And I would have thought that they would have taken some particular care to make sure that what they signed was what they agreed to do. It is not unusual. Indeed, it would be unusual the other way, if people who arrange mortgages and this sort of thing didn't have some contingency in the agreement whereby they got paid a fee, regardless of how the transaction for which the money was required turned out. After all, every time a deal collapses which is no fault of the mortgage broker, they'd be holding the bag.

Now that's not to say that in this particular case right was done, I don't know. If there was any kind of a ripoff, anything that is immoral or illegal, I hope that you'll give me the details and I'll certainly have my people take it up.

Now dealing with the whole question of securities - whether it be real estate or insurance or, indeed, securities as we know them - I think that you have raised the key problem in the corporate side of my ministry. I am totally 'unsatisfied with the legislation that we have in place. Some of it has served us well but is out of date. Perhaps we need new legislation. There is no question about it, we need a good review. And I must say that that's the reason that Tom Cantell is now in his new job as policy adviser to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Affairs. It is just this very area of dissatisfaction. Now in this session, as I indicated yesterday, I do hope to bring in one or two pieces of legislation which will start us down the road to having some rational securities legislation that will, for one thing, be consolidated into one package and, secondly, which will reflect the needs of the times rather the needs of 30 or 40 years ago. I don't think I can do any more than just indicate that that is a high priority item in that branch of my ministry.

Dealing with the question you raised with respect to the specific real estate agent problem, once again I would hope that you would allow me to take that question in the same manner as one might take a question as notice and com back with an answer for you at a later date. I do believe in my last estimates we worked that with some satisfaction and I did give you answers later on, and I undertake to do that. But on the basic question as to agents and salesmen in British Columbia, I quite agree that we have a lot of things we must look at. We have some very thorny problems arising right now. One of then is, for example, the "100 per cent house, " which I'm surprised nobody has raised. I'm very concerned about that, not because I care how the agent and that the salesman carve up their commission, because that's of no concern to me. What concerns me is the agent, by reason of the fact that he doesn't have a direct involvement, may not, in certain circumstances, undertake the responsibilities devolved upon him by the Act.

There are a number of other areas like that at which we are looking. I must say, however, that the educational and qualification standards in British Columbia in this particular area are the highest in Canada. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're good enough, but at least we're better than the other nine provinces.

On the Swedish case, Madam Member, nobody is going to have anything but sympathy for the lady who was taken in that particular case. However - and I don't mean this to be face-

[ Page 1914 ]

tious - I don't think I can be all things to all people and get rid of thievery. Thievery is going to take place no matter what you and I do and what this chamber does. I recognize the responsibility to try and legislate in the area of general malpractice, but in individual cases like this there is very little I can do but to join you in expressing my sympathy for the people involved. I hope that has answered the questions you raised.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House students from the Osoyoos Junior Secondary School. These students raised the money for the trip at no cost to taxpayers. They've raised the money on their own to come down here. Accompanying them are their teachers, Mel McKortoff, Mr. John Wallace and Miss Judith Robson, along with two super-moms, Mrs, Addie Donnelly and Mrs. Hazel Pendergraft and, I guess, somewhat the most important man of the crew, Mr. Joe Fefchak, the bus driver. I would ask this House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: Just one more item, Mr. Chairman. It's something that just came to my attention this afternoon, and it's something that has caused me a lot of concern. This is a case of a family, a man and wife, who were traveling in the United States, and the man was hit on a cross-walk by a motorist. I've been spending the morning sorting through that file, and it's a most unbelievable conglomeration of assorted odds and sods.

Where this minister is involved is that these people, before they left, took out additional travel insurance. Now that company is saying they won't pay anything until B.C. Medical and the various government authorities cover what they are supposed to cover. The B.C. government people are saying that they can't do anything until one or two years' time expires, and that these people could charge the person who hit them. They've investigated this. Apparently while the accident report shows the driver of the car completely responsible, they did not lay a charge. To file a case against the insurer of the driver of that car would involve three or four trips down to Palm Springs, where the accident occurred. It would involve very little return to them because the legal fees, the costs and expenses would be so high.

They are really caught in a box. They operate a small business. They are now getting letters from the hospital and the doctors who attended them saying that if these bills are not paid within 30 days, they will be placed in the courts. This is going to affect the credit rating of their company, and they are very concerned.

It's just such a hodge-podge of everybody going around in circles and, as I said, I've been trying to sort this thing out and get the question resolved for them. But I just felt that I wanted to take this opportunity this afternoon to bring the case to the minister's attention and urge him to work with the other ministers involved with the government schemes and so on to try and work out some kind of system that will cover people who are involved in out-of-province accidents or sickness or whatever, where they have additional insurance coverage. This kind of a runaround really creates a hardship on the person involved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I just have two issues I'd like to raise with the minister, and both have to do with the whole business of tenants and their rights.

I want to quote first of all from the minister's speech in talking about controls. I've got a copy of your speech, Mr. Minister, to the Greater Vancouver Apartment Owners Association, where in talking about decontrol you mention that both England and New York have attempted to remove rent controls and ended up recontrolling due to excessive rent increases without any improvement in housing. You said that Sweden was able to deal with it only because they invested huge sums of money into the development of housing themselves and created a vacancy rate. But you assured us that wouldn't happen here because you were doing a number of surveys and you were monitoring it, and you would be moving very slowly and very carefully. I won't repeat the ways in which you said you would move. It was very colourful language, but I don't think it bears repeating.

I'm wondering, really, what kind of results you are getting from your survey. I'm a little bit concerned that in this really bad economic time, with inflation being what it is, maybe this is not the time for decontrol. There was a time when $400 a month was an incredible rent. When you paid $400 you got a huge house with five bedrooms or something. Now we're finding more and more that you're getting very little for $400 a month. If you continue with your decontrol programme - and the next phase, I imagine, would be $300 a month - you would be talking about a large number of people on reasonably low incomes. You talk about the

[ Page 1915 ]

rich and the super-rich in your speech, but in fact you wouldn't be dealing with the rich and the super-rich. Somewhere between 65 per cent and 70 per cent of the people who live in the Burrard constituency, for example, are tenants and have benefited from the stabilization of rents, and are beginning to express some concern.

For one thing, you have given the July 1 date for the $400, but you have not said anything about when the next phase is going to be introduced or how long it is going to take. So there have been those kinds of insecurities.

The other thing, of course, is that we have all of the press reports about what happened in Alberta when they even started to talk about lifting rent controls. They talked about the average hike in rents being 30 per cent, and not too many of the families who are paying rent in the $300 to $400 bracket could afford a 30 per cent to 35 per cent rent increase. I'm not talking about the one or two landlords who would go overboard and really abuse the system. I'm talking about the rational and reasonable ones that, in fact, would use the opportunity to probably put in a 30 per cent or 35 per cent increase. It's too high.

I'm moving along very quickly; I have a lot more I could say on this. I wonder if it would be possible for you to open up the Act again and introduce an amendment which would prevent the birth of a child as being just cause for eviction. I recognize that the right to refuse rental accommodation to a person because they have children is something that should be covered by the human rights legislation, but it isn't. In fact we should be introducing in the Legislature some kind of amendment to some bill that says that you cannot refuse to rent accommodation to a family because that family has small children, but we haven't got that.

I'm trying to appeal to you, through your own landlord and tenant legislation, to look at your Act and see whether it is possible to open it up and put in it something to the effect that the birth of a child would not constitute just cause for eviction, and see if we can get around it that way. This whole business of landlords refusing to rent accommodation to families with children is a real hardship, in particular on single-parent families.

What it results in, of course, is that they end up paying a lot more rent because the landlords sometimes say, "Okay, I will take you, despite the fact that you have children, " and will also charge them more rent than they would if they didn't have children. So I'm wondering whether you would make a comment about whether you would consider opening up the Act.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, just finishing off what the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) said, of course I don't know about the case that she referred to. I hope she is listening because I hope she will bring the details to my attention. Anything my ministry can do, we will do.

Dealing with the question raised by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , I think the best answer that I can give with respect to rent decontrol, Madam Member, is that we are not going to move quickly and we're not going to move until we have data which would support any further move. I think you know that now that rent notices are compulsory, we have extremely good data and we are getting it. The reason there is uncertainty as to the time is for this very reason. I want to make absolutely certain that we have sufficient evidence of the ability to move downward before we move any further.

I quite agree with the problem that you raised with respect to Alberta, but I would like to point out to the chamber that Alberta had virtually no data base at all to work from when they decontrolled their rents, and that was their first problem. Secondly, they had no post-control controls, which we have got. I think those two essential differences are the reason they have had problem and the reason that we have some confidence that we are not going to have the same problems here.

Dealing with the question of an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act concerning children in tenancies, it's rather coincidental that this morning in the private bills committee, I undertook to look into a very similar problem with respect to the Vancouver Charter, and I have instructed my staff' to look into it, and I will certainly make that information available to the chamber when I have it.

MR. VEITCH: I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are three very important people: my wife Sheila; my father-in-law, Andy Boyce, a long-time politician in Ontario; and a person who is very interested in British Columbia politics and is a very good sister, Mrs. Mabel Woodcock. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: If the minister in charge of

[ Page 1916 ]

liquor administration is to be judged inversely by the escalation of the price of scotch during his term of office, we are looking at the worst minister that this province has ever had. That's all I'm going to say about it. It's ruining me. I don't mean the price; I mean the product. I'm just going to say a couple of things and then sit down.

Did the minister not say that we need new securities legislation, that it dates way back? Does the minister not know the Securities Act was totally revised in 1974? Is that what you were talking about? Check the statutes. It doesn't date back to the ice age. There were a lot of changes made during the NDP administration, which I'd almost forgotten about till the minister keeps jolting me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which we proclaimed. We proclaimed them.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we rewrote the Securities Act and the Companies Act and you folks proclaimed certain sections. But you wouldn't proclaim putting the Vancouver Stock Exchange rules and regulations under the final consent and imprimatur of the superintendent of brokers, because that was interfering with the market in a way that a free enterprise, bull-of-the-woods type would not want to do to protect investors.

I just want to ask the minister what he thinks about the Rosenbluth report. The minister keeps muttering about it as if it was a terrible report. It pointed out, after considerable work, two very serious social problems. I can put them very briefly. One, the salesmen were flowing into that industry, about 800 dropping out every year and about 800 coming in - grist for the Block Brothers mill. It is nice cheap labour and so forth, but very bad for the public and very bad for the salesmen in terms of earning a living and acquiring some professional status.

The other thing it said was that we've got to get away from the idea that the public have, and shouldn't have, that commissions can be set at their minimum levels: 5 per cent for a residential sale, 7 per cent multiple listing, 10 per cent for vacant land. That's illegal under the Combines Act, but the minister is not doing anything about it. Most of the sales taking place in the province of British Columbia are made on the base of minimum set legal real estate fees, and they shouldn't be.

If this minister is interested in protecting the consumer, he should advertise that you can make your own deal with the agent, whether it is 2 per cent for a simple sale or 8 per cent for a difficult one. But you are free to bargain, and you don't have to accept that 7 per cent multiple listing which most people just do. Of course, in most cases they are paying too much in the transfer of real estate from one hand to the other. That increases the cost of housing and it's a real hardship.

So what do you think about the Rosenbluth report? Are you just going to sit on it and mutter about it, or are you going to do something about it? Is it a bad report?

HON. MR. MAIR: Lesh deal wish scossh.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's Hansard going to do with that?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't know what Hansard is going to do with that.

To the first member for Vancouver East on scotch prices, I'm sure that that's the most serious of the questions he asked.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, there were two.

HON. MR. MAIR: The markup until recently by the government has been 113 per cent and it has just been raised to 115 per cent. The total price increase in scotch is going to average out about 75 cents a bottle, but most of that, Mr. Member, is due to the cartel that your forebears and my forebears keep going in the scotch whiskey department. The raise is due almost exclusively, but for about 10 cents a bottle, to them.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a racial slur.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, it's one that I accept and you ought to. So I really cannot control the avarice of our forebears, Mr. Member, and that's been the basic part of our problem.

On the question of securities, I think that the member misunderstood me because I was talking about securities legislation in the broadest sense, including the Real Estate Act and a great many other Acts that deal with what I feel, and I think most people feel, are in essence securities. Whether they're mortgages or agreements for sale or stocks or bonds or whatever they may be, it's that that we are reviewing with considerable interest.

What do I think of the Rosenbluth report? Well, I can do no better than say what I said before, Mr. Member - I'm underwhelmed by it. I didn't need the Rosenbluth report to tell me how many salesmen go through the system every year. That's something that I can get quite easily. I did not need a college professor to tell me that. As far as the commissions are

[ Page 1917 ]

concerned, which is the second major item that you raised, the whole question of commissions was overtaken by the 1975 amendments to the Combines Investigation Act of the federal government. So that no longer is of any great importance.

So we're really left with the question of salesmen and whether or not as a matter of philosophy we step in as a government and limit their numbers or something along that line, or whether we don't. You and I disagree philosophically. I don't intend to perpetuate mediocrity by closing the doors to able people coming onstream. I do intend to do as I did yesterday, however, Mr. Member. I intend to take some of the real estate agents to task publicly, on radio or anywhere else, who have been guilty of the sins that you have been talking about - indiscriminate hiring, just putting people through the mill and turning them out at the other end full of high hopes and empty pocketbooks. I think that's reprehensible, but I'm not going to pass laws to stop it because I don't think laws will stop it and I don't think that's a part of the marketplace that I ought to get involved in.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, we've been dealing with many important topics in these estimates and we'll continue to do so, but the British Columbia consumer, I think, should never lose track of the greatest ripoff of all, and that is the billion dollar annual federal tariff on consumer goods that are sold in our province. It's $500 per man, woman and child in this country. I'm glad the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is in the House because I know his ministry is doing some studies on these things. About $500 per man, woman and child in this province is the cost of the tariff to British Columbia. We keep hearing that one day something's going to be done about the tariff, and there are GATT negotiations going on now as there have been for scores of years. But all I know is that for 100 years this tariff policy has operated against the interests of British Columbia, and for 100 years there's been no significant, useful reduction to help the consumers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MAIR: I've got my own list of insults. I don't need yours.

MR. GIBSON: It's not just consumers either, Mr. Chairman, although that's what we're talking about now, but it hurts British Columbia jobs, because the tariff raises the cost structure that we have in this province, whether it's imported machinery or whether it's what we have to pay our people for a decent standard of living, because of the cost of imported goods.

What I want the minister to do - and he may have some of this underway now; I know the Ministry of Economic Development has some of it underway - is a comprehensive study with the Ministry of Economic Development. Particularly as this ministry affects consumers, put some precise dollars and cents on it. I can stand here and say $1 billion and I can say $500 per man, woman and child. I think those figures are pretty 'close, but we've got to have some hard research on that. Then those results have to be made public and they have to be provided not just to the public of the province of British Columbia, but to each and every British Columbia Member of Parliament in Ottawa to give them ammunition, and, as far as that goes, to all members of parliament across this country, because the other western provinces and the maritime provinces have some common cause with us in this regard. Then it should be taken up by the provincial government at the next federal-provincial First Ministers' Conference, to which it would apply.

Mr. Chairman, it affects everything that everybody buys - not everything, but most things: clothing, durable goods, cars, television sets, electric frying pans, whatever you might want to talk about. Even many food products are affected by this tariff.

The fact of the matter is that it is something that is not going to be changed unless we get a lot of very hard facts in this part of the world and then make a lot of noise. We understand that there is a problem with jobs in central Canada as far as tariffs are concerned. I think British Columbians are sympathetic to that and they understand that these things can't be phased out overnight, but there has to be some kind of action taken.

I just have a quote here in a newspaper from an unidentified spokesman in Economic Development who said in an interview: "The report" -which is the report Economic Development is doing on the cost of quotas on shoes and textiles - "would show that the tariffs and quotas were costing B.C. millions of dollars a year. I'm not sure what the exact figure will come out to be, but I bet it will be in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $50 million, perhaps a bit more."

These are very, very significant numbers and we just have to develop the data that will finally allow us to demand that Ottawa make the move to cut down this pernicious structure in a gradual way, with transitional grants that will assist the rationalization of been-

[ Page 1918 ]

tral Canadian employment. Not the loss of jobs - those must be maintained - but rationalized jobs that Canada can be productive in, rather than jobs that are artificially supported by the inordinately high prices paid by the western Canadian consumer.

Important as all these topics are, I am going to be brief. With reference to coupons, a subject which has already been raised, the question is: who is getting clipped? The answer is: the consumer. It is not the coupon. Coupons are a nuisance; they raise costs.

I want to make some allusion to an excellent column done the other day by Nicole Parton, who raised the issue in the first place and then did a follow-up column. She gave reaction to the first column. She said the head of a major grocery chain rang up to say, "Right on, " he'd like to see coupons eliminated entirely.

"Cons=ers called to admit to certain supermarket managers redeeming them without even batting an eye, even though customers haven't bought a single one of the products to which coupons are supposed to be applied. The supermarket, of course, gains a few cents handling charges for each coupon accepted.

"One highly reliable source squealed on a small food store that pays food salesmen 80 per cent of the food value of coupons the salesmen bring in. The small store collects not only the face value of the coupons but also handling charges. Who pays for all this finagling? Just guess."

We know who pays; it's the consumer again.

The minister has some legislative authority to move in this area, but I don't know if it is enough. I'm referring to the Trading Stamp Act which is under the jurisdiction of his ministry. It may be that that authority would have to be expanded somewhat to deal with this coupon problem. It would be vastly preferable if it were dealt with voluntarily by the manufacturers. I think something should be done, because I think it does raise prices unnecessarily.

As a general rule I don't like to make suggestions that see any kind of competitive practices restricted, but I suggest that this is a competitive practice that will actually lessen competition, particularly in the all-important kind of competition with respect to price. I think coupons fall within that category. I just add these few words of urging to the minister. I think he is sympathetically looking to see what he can do in this area.

I'll move on to other topics. I have a clipping here from The Vancouver Sun, November 24,1975 - a date that the minister will recall as having come before December 11,1975. This is by Neale Adams, a reporter with a reputation for accuracy, from Fort St. John:

"Social Credit leader Bill Bennett took a day-long trip into Peace River country Saturday and promised a Social Credit government would take a new look at the high cost of living in the north. He said the Socreds would reactivate a 1971 study and look not only at prices but also at taxes and provincial aid in northern areas."

Adams mentions later:

"The 1971 study was a joint product of the Social Credit provincial government, the federal government and the city of Prince Rupert."

I suspect that the then member for Omineca, now the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , would have had something to do with that study at the time.

"The study apparently showed that food prices in Prince Rupert were about 15 per cent higher than in Vancouver while the cost of other items apart from housing were about 4 per cent higher."

What I want to know from the minister is: what has been done to redeem that promise that was made before the election? I think that kind of thing should be studied.

The next topic on my mind has to do with the film classification officer, who falls under this ministry. I saw an interview with the film classification officer in the Vancouver Province some weeks ago, and I was so impressed with it that I wrote to the minister saying that. I want to put that on record here in the Legislature.

At various times in the past what used to be called a censor, now called a film classification officer, has been something of a question of controversy in this province. I think the current one we have, by her own words in this article, is bang on. I want to quote these words and say how much I agree with them. She is being interviewed as to the philosophical position that a film classification officer ought to take:

%ere in B.C. our major concern is with consumer information. We believe that if you give the consumer enough information he will be able to make his own choice. We say: Here is the product and there are the contents. Now you have to be the judge. What we don't do is involve ourselves in protectionism. We do some - in the restricted category it's like a child proof top on a medicine bottle. But the ultimate responsibility remains with the parents and the public.

[ Page 1919 ]

"In Ontario the key phrase in their thinking is consumer protection, as distinct from information. That changes a lot. It means the purpose of their regulations is prevention. Instead of a safety top on the bottle, they want to lock the cabinet to everybody." I agree with her words and I hope that remains the position of B.C. As she says at the end of the article: "I'll stand up for my rights. What makes B.C. so attractive is its tolerance. Why should we give that up?" I say amen. I commend the minister on his film classification officer.

The minister has a department, called a food price monitoring programme, listed in the official list of programmes put out recently by the Premier's office. I would be grateful just for some information - the number of personnel there....

HON. MR. MAIR: It's gone to Agriculture -with pleasure, I might say.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, it's gone to Agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Minister, I shall wait for those estimates.

My next comment has to do with the subject of liquor and, in particular, liquor education. I had some things to say in the estimates of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) with respect to what I thought should be the tone of anti-alcohol abuse ads and the volume of those ads. With respect to the volume in particular, I said at that time and reiterate now that I think it's a disgrace that we appear to spend so much more money trying to get people to partake in lotteries than we do trying to warn them of the dangers of alcohol abuse. I know the minister is mounting a new programme. I commend him for that. I want to say something about the contents of that programme.

The minister's deputy will have received a letter dated November 9 from the Alcohol -Drug Education Service signed by Frank S. Dingman for Violet I. Forster, president. It makes a good point, which I want to put into the record. It has to do with the tone of the advertising.

"Our major recommendation, one which we consider of paramount importance, is that your programme broaden its moderation message, in order to recognize and assist both alcohol users and non-users. This can be accomplished by emphasizing the responsibility of each individual to choose whether to drink or not to drink. This might be a useful central concept for the programme. For the drinking majority, certainly moderation seems an appropriate constructive theme - helping individuals avoid excessive consumption with its attendant ills, personal and social. For the non-drinking minority, however, the moderation theme carries the implication that to be fully normal one must use alcohol, that the non-user is somehow odd, almost a social deviant. Since alcohol, the legal drug, has proven addictive for some 100,000 B.C. citizens, it seems essential for your programme to make clear that the decision not to use alcohol is a valid and defensible option, recognized and supported by the programme and thus by the province."

Mr. Chairman, I endorse that as an important part of the message of the advertising programme that the minister will be mounting in his ministry.

I want to briefly say something about the drinking age, which is from time to time a matter of discussion in this province. I think that, probably at this particular time, that is something that is not going to be changed in spite of some representations to the contrary. But I think there is something we can do to better bring home the message to people who would drink when they are underage - the seriousness of that particular kind of activity. I refer to the Ontario Youth Secretariat report to the Ontario cabinet and what there was called recommendation 18.

Recommendation 18 made a suggestion that driver's licences, 16 to 19 - in other words, below drinking age - should be in some sense probationary, and that, were the possessor of that licence to in any way become involved in an alcohol-related offence, there would be a much stiffer period of suspension. In other words, to those persons under drinking age who are driving a car and who are not yet used to the terrible dangers that the mixing of drinking and driving can involve, there would be this tremendous added incentive of knowing that their driver's licence would be at risk if evidence of a mixture of alcohol and driving were to occur.

I would be grateful if the minister would obtain a copy of that recommendation and report - I'm sure his ministry has it in any case - and give some study as to whether there might be a practical implementation of that in British Columbia law.

The minister has in his ministry an agency known as the auditor's certification board. I would just be glad to know if it has ever certified anyone. My recollection of the stan ding orders and private bills committee's hearing last year is that that board had, in

[ Page 1920 ]

fact, not done very much. I would be grateful to know if they are doing anything yet.

Mr. Chairman, the last two points I have to make have to do with credit cards. In a sense this is an annual plea, but I have a little bit of a new wrinkle this year. The usual comment, of course, is that credit cards raise the price of everything we do by something like 5 per cent. They raise it for cash purchasers as well as credit card purchasers. Therefore people who pay cash instead of use their credit card should be able to get some kind of a discount. Well, that hasn't proven very successful. I wonder if there is some way of going about it the other way around -making it legal.... Maybe it would be legal without law; maybe it is just a question of attitude or policy or encouragement. Is there any reason why merchants should not have the authority to increase posted prices by a specified percentage - let's say 5 per cent -if a person chooses to pay by credit card. In other words, you would walk into a store and say: "I would like to buy that. It's very nice. It costs $10." "How would you like to pay for it? If it's $10 out of your pocket, it costs $10. If you want to pay for it by credit card, I'm sorry, I have to tack on 50 cents because, if I don't charge you for that, I have to somehow on balance charge the cash customer." It's just another interesting little approach. We have to find a way around this or, if we don't, the cash purchaser will continue to subsidize the credit card purchaser in our economy.

The other point I have with respect to credit cards is really a question. There is an enormous amount of personal information in the data banks of credit card companies, and I was watching with interest the programme "60 Minutes" on CBS, which found some interesting things in the United States, where apparently there is easy access to credit card transaction records by investigatory agencies, including even private firms. To some extent corporations have been using these firms to investigate potential employees. This raises an interesting question of a citizen's right to privacy. There is a lot of law in this area. I'm not familiar with all of it, but I don't think the Personal Information Reporting Act applies to it. Some of the federal legislation might apply. I'd be grateful if the minister could advise the committee if there is any serious question of protection of privacy in this area.

HON. MR. MAIR: I missed that last point on privacy, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: The last point was the tremendous amount of transaction information that credit card companies be it Chargex, MasterCharge, whatever it is have in their computers. Are these transactions protected or are they available to investigators, whether they may be official government investigators or private investigators?

The last idea I'd like to float - I realize I promised only two more points and this is a third one, but, Mr. Chairman, you've been very indulgent and I'm glad my half hour isn't up yet - is some comment about the self regulating professions. Here, of course, I'm referring to lawyers, where the matters are quite controversial these days - but I won't intrude on the territory of my honourable friend on my left - doctors, architects, engineers and so on. These professions, I think wisely, have been given the ability by society to regulate their own activities. All too often they do not have on their regulatory boards what you might call "consumer representatives." I'd like to ask the minister, recognizing that these agencies mostly don't report to his department.... But with his authority to protect the interest of the consumer, could he take under advisement with his colleagues, where appropriate, the addition of consumer representatives on the regulatory boards of these various societies?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, going back to the first point that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano made concerning the cost of Confederation, which is what we're really talking about, I suppose it would be unkind of me to remind the member that for approximately 80 of those 100 years the Liberal government has been in power in Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: It was the Tories who started it, though.

HON. MR. MAIR: Sir John A. Macdonald started it. I've made enough attacks on Scots today, so I won't say any more in that regard, even though I understand you're from lowland stock yourself.

But I do think, Mr. Chairman, that this is an important point. It's not one that I'm going to offer any solutions to, but I will make one comment. I don't think that the problems of Canadian Confederation exposed by the election of the Parti Quebecois are the only problems by any means that we must solve. I think a strong argument can be made for the proposition that if the province of Quebec caused no problem at all to Confederation, we would still have difficulties which would give

[ Page 1921 ]

rise to very serious negotiations and considerations by all governments over the next few years. I think that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has probably put his finger on at least what I consider to be the major problem of Confederation insofar as it involves British Columbia. It's perhaps a two pronged thing, but they tie in together so much: the economic disadvantage that we find ourselves in in the west, and particularly in British Columbia, and the political disadvantage. The two are intertwined so often that sometimes it's difficult to dissociate one from the other.

But I agree with the member and I think that his comments were meant, basically, as comments to find out, I suppose, what my position was. At the risk of being too agreeable, I'll say that I agree with you. I think perhaps that there are other solutions that could be applied in other places, and it may be that other political philosophies than the one espoused by the member might take hold. The one espoused by the member to his left geographically, but to his right politically, might do a great deal to turn things around in that regard, but that's for another time and another referendum.

On the question of coupons and so on, Mr. Member, as you know, as I said earlier in the House today and a few days ago, I have taken the question from you on notice and I'm endeavouring to get the answer for you. We have it under study. We do have a Trading Stamp Act which I don't really think is too helpful. I do not have the Act in front of me at this point, but I don't think that the coupons you're talking about qualify under the definition of "trading stamps." of course, that is the basic problem. However, I hope that you will accept my undertaking to give you the best answer I can when I've received some assistance from my staff.

On the question of costs in the north, I'm not going to try to give you a lot of bafflegab, Mr. Member. I haven't done any specific studies. There are none available in my ministry other than the food-market basket reports which we have had on an ongoing basis - less now than when we started.

We've had them for the couple of years that I've been involved. It's interesting, and I've certainly received a lot of correspondence on the subject. It's interesting that in some cases we find even lower costs in the north than prevail here. However the problem basically is the other way around and nobody would deny it.

My concern, of course, basically, is when the costs of living in the north exceed the difference in the cost of getting the goods there. I think people in the north expect that the beauties of nature and silence and peace and quiet must be paid for to some degree by some inconvenience in terms of cost of living, but they don't expect to be ripped off. However, Mr. Member, I do not have any studies ongoing. I've been given no such instructions, and I don'L know what more I can do Lo answer than that.

The film classification - I'm delighted to hear that you have complimented Ms. McCausland and I am grateful to you for the letter you gave me. The philosophy that she enunciated in that interview is indeed my philosophy, and will therefore remain the philosophy of the government, I suppose, so long as I am the minister at least. I have had a great deal of pressure from. other groups - predictable groups - which would have me judge the morality of various movies and to ban them because they didn't meet somebody's standards. I have resisted that and will continue to resist that sort of attitude. As far as I'm concerned, if a person knows the nature of the movie they are about to see, the selection is theirs and the question of taste is theirs and not mine.

The question of liquor education - I'm very pleased to have your point of view, Mr. Member, and I hope that you will take it upon yourself to let my ministry have your thoughts from time to time. I invite all members to do this, as we approach the conclusion of putting together our education programme. I'm not going to comment on whether I agree or disagree because, after all, there are so many points of view on the question of liquor education. I do think, however, that the biggest problem we have concerning liquor is young teenagers. I don't mean the teenagers that one of the members opposite and I were like, when we were 19 or 20, sneaking in a year or two early into the Georgia beer parlour - I'm talking about 12- to 13-year olds, and even younger than that.

I might say, if I may, in that regard, Mr. Member, I've come under some considerable criticism on the Wonder Wine issue, and I'm going to defend my position right now and say that if the product became marijuana instead of wine in 30 days, nobody would be doing any squawking about it. The thought that youngsters.... I must say I've had letters from all over the province from young people, saying, "Keep that stuff off the shelves, " and that's the reason. It's not the simple issue that some columnists make it - I might as well ban dandelions, and that sort of thing. We're now talking about something that youngsters can

[ Page 1922 ]

turn into wine, and I think that's a very dangerous and serious problem.

On the question of drivers' licences, I will take it up with the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. I see he is not in his seat tonight, but I think drivers' licences fall within his purview.

The auditor certification board - I am instructed that we do certify quite a few. I think the member knows that the reason for this board is to overcome the difficulties posed by a number of Acts, but most specifically the Companies Act, which require an auditor to be of certain qualifications and to certify people in areas where that isn't available. I don't know how many; I could find out for the member if he wishes. My Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Affairs just gave me the.... It's quite a few.

The question of credit cards. I appreciate the advice that's been given by the member opposite. You do know that under the Consumer Protection Act we have made it unlawful for the credit card company to contract so that a discount cannot be given, but I'll certainly take a look at the other side of it.

The question of information from credit companies - this is a source of great concern not only to my ministry but to the government in general. I am, as a matter of fact, chairman of the electronic payments committee, and the federal Department of Justice, as you probably know, has undertaken a great study on this. It's an enormous problem. 1984 may really only be six years away, and I don't know what more I can say to you, Mr. Member, except to assure you that we are very concerned about the problem and are keeping on top of it as best we can.

If you have any friends in Ottawa who want to give provincial governments a little better input into the electronic payments problem and get us on one or two of the committees that they don't want us on, I think I'd be able to answer your question much more positively next time round, if we're both in the same position. There are a couple of reasons I think we may not be.

The last question you raised, I think, deals basically with the question of lay benchers or something of that nature. I've been on record for many years now as being in favour of lay benchers, and have received considerable criticism from my colleagues. I quite agree that we should have consumer representation on various boards, and lay benchers is one area.

The travel assurance fund will have members of consumer groups and that sort of, thing on it, and I think that is an indication of where I stand on that particular issue. Specifically on lay benchers, I think it's long overdue that we have people particularly on the discipline committee other than lawyers judging their own cause.

MR. STEPHENS: I'd like to take up where the minister left off. I'd like to just make a few comments about the self-governing professions, not only in the area of advertising, which is a fairly clear-cut issue and very contentious, but in the area beyond that and which I think is more important. That is the right of the consumer in dealing with these various professions to receive more information than he is getting through not only channels of advertising but the right of professional people to discuss in a more open fashion the businesses they carry on.

I've always felt on this matter that the minister has just mentioned about lay benchers, that if there is any need for lay benchers or lay people in any of these professional regulatory boards or organizations, it's only because of a failure within the ranks of those boards themselves or those benchers or whatever organization runs the affairs of the society or the profession.

It seems to me that with a little guidance from-- the government, with a little legislative guidance, we could probably make these professional bodies a little more responsible to the needs of the consumer and to the public. They may respond if they understand this proposal.

I know there is great resistance to making an appointment of lay benchers within the legal profession. There always has been a great resistance to that. But I doubt very much if there would be a demand from the public itself to be represented if those benchers themselves were to open up a little bit and communicate better with the public. My suggestion to the minister is that if he hasn't already done so - and I suspect he has - he should give very serious consideration to passing regulations or laws which would insist that the present benchers or the present representatives of any professional organization be required to open up a little more to allow their members to communicate.

So often the benchers and the representatives of these professional groups act as a barrier between the members of the organization who wish to communicate with the public. I have a great faith in the members of the legal profession generally and in the medical profession and the chartered accountancy profession and the other professions. If they could be allowed a little more freedom to communicate with the public without the interference of what I like to look upon as the

[ Page 1923 ]

establishment of their profession, I think they would do a lot for their own organizations.

Mr. Chairman, some of the decisions in United States on these particular subjects -the challenge to advertising in professional organizations - have been just wonderful judgments. If I was an American, I would be very proud of those judgments. They fortunately have a constitution which protects not only the right of a professional person to communicate freely and openly with the public but also the right of the public to receive the information.

Now I would be very, very hurt and ashamed and upset if it proves sometime down the road that in this country our courts do not provide the same rights to our citizens and to our professional people. It could very well happen that our courts could rule that the members of the professions do not have the freedom of speech that their American counterparts have. It could very well rule that the public does not have the same right to information that the American public has. I am suggesting that the minister has a grand opportunity. As a matter of fact, it may be a great shame to this country if the courts of this land should judge against the right of free speech and against the right of freedom of information to the public. That would. be a great shame to this country.

I think it is time for the governments across this country to react now. Let's step in. Let's ensure that our public, our professional people. have equal rights to our American counterparts. I do not think we should sit by and wait for the courts to handle these issues. That seems to be what is happening. Everybody seems to be sitting back and waiting to see what the courts will do. I suggest to the minister that he has a grand opportunity to lead the whole of Canada in this field, to break it wide open, to set a whole new trend for this country. The public is demanding it. It would be a very popular issue and it would be very much welcomed.

The next thing that I would like to pass on to is the regulations under the Travel Agents Registration Act. This may be a matter which has already come to the attention of the minister and I hope so. But I notice that in section 8 (2) of these regulations, it reads as follows: "For the purposes of subsection (1) (b) , (d) and (i) , the registrar may consider the following as grounds for refusing, suspending or cancelling registration." Then subsection (b) says; "In the case of a corporation, the failure to establish and maintain net worth position of not less than $15,000."

Surely, Mr. Chairman, that should read "more than $15,000." 1 might be misreading this regulation but it seems to me that what you are saying in these regulations is that anybody whose net worth is less than $15,000 certainly can open up a travel agency business but anybody who has more than $15,000 net worth is disqualified. I don't know whether that's a typographical error or whether I'm misreading it in relation to something else, but I would like the minister to put his mind to it and either correct it or explain it to me.

The last item I would like to deal with at this time is this: I notice in vote 37 there has been added a policy co-ordinator at an additional fee of $24,420. 1 would like the minister to take a few minutes and explain just what that policy co-ordinator does and what the necessity was of creating that new position.

HON. MR. MAIR: I, of course, agree with the remarks that the member for Oak Bay has made with respect to the Law Society particularly. I don't have the carriage of the Legal Professions Act; it's the Attorney-General, as I'm sure the member knows. So I can only add my support to any legislative thrust that he may take that goes along with what we have been talking about. I would refer the member to evidence given by my deputy before the Law Society in the Labour case, and I can tell the member that I support the views of my deputy as expressed at that case. So insofar as I'm able, I will certainly continue to support those principles.

I very much recognize the dangers that the member has talked about. There have been suggestions that legislation in one province, Quebec particularly, which would have restricted the freedom of counsel to act as he deemed appropriately and in the best interests of his client, would perhaps have challenged the solicitor-client privilege which has existed since time immemorial. I think we must be ever vigilant to see that those kind of legislative thrusts are bashed down as quickly as possible, never to surface again.

On the question raised by the member on section 8 of the regulations, I will look at the regulations. If it's a simple error, as it would appear, then, of course, we can very simply amend it. So I give you my undertaking that I will look at it.

The policy co-ordinator in my office - I mentioned him briefly yesterday - is Mr. Tony Stark. I have listed a number of his duties, which I can say in all honesty are by no means

[ Page 1924 ]

exhaustive of the duties he performs for me. He acts in main as liaison between myself, deputy ministers, the two associate deputy ministers, departmental branch directors and that sort of thing when required. I think if you look through the estimates, you'll see the number of branch directors and the number of people I must maintain contact with from the minister's office on an ongoing basis. He reviews and prepares a great deal of ministerial correspondence, particularly on policy matters and technical matters arising out of various branches of the ministry. He acts in many sort of secretarial capacities, and one of the basic ones is making arrangements for the Confederation committee of cabinet, which I might say, without trying to elicit any great sympathy from you or anybody else, is almost like another portfolio these days in terms of the amount of work that is expended. It does have, as you know, a full time deputy minister in the Premier's office, and that alone is a significant contribution.

MR. KING: Where is the Premier?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll ask a little later, Bill, and let you know if you like.

He also collates all liquor licence appeal hearings, arranges ' them, sets the dates for them and appears with me on them and, of course, does the routine things in terms of my appointments, scheduling and that sort of thing. If you're interested in his qualifications, I'll very quickly give them to you. He has a B.Comm. from UBC, and worked as an assistant accountant with Peat Marwick Mitchell for about two years, then got his Master of Business Administration at UBC. He joined what was then the Department of Consumer Services as a trade liaison officer in 1975 with the previous government. In 1976-77 and this is when I first got to know him he assisted my former deputy, Bill Nelson, particularly in the anti-inflation committee of cabinet work, and then joined my ministry in the minister's office in May, 1977, in his present position.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, the minister made reference to the fact that he's sympathetic about the matter of advertising and information within the professions. However, he indicated that the Legal Professions Act was in the hands of the Attorney-General. That's quite right. However, I think the minister will recognize that when you get into the area of advertising, it comes directly under your ministry. It may very well be that the controls imposed by the Law Society on advertising are contrary to the law of Canada. If, in fact, the legal profession or any other profession does not have the authority to restrict advertising by professionals, then the matter is entirely within the hands of this minister.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that I'd like to know whether this minister feels that under the Trade Practices Act, if we were to amend the definition of a consumer transaction to include the giving of services, the regulations dealing with advertising under that Act would be sufficient to cover the professions.

HON. MR. MAIR: My instructions are that services are already included under the Trade Practices Act. Let me say this: I offer no barrier whatsoever to the legal profession in advertising, unless, of course, they advertise in a misleading %my in contravention of the Act. But I encourage it and there's nothing in the Trade Practices Act to forbid any advertising by a professional unless it happens to be misleading. So I don't think that there's any barrier in my ministry to him doing it.

There is great encouragement from my line ministry and in Ottawa for lawyers to advertise. As you know, the combines investigation people are very much behind the problem Mr. Labour now finds himself in and %which, I understand, the member, to some degree, has found himself in. So Ministries of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, both provincially and federally, not only do not discourage advertising by professionals, but encourage it provided it's not misleading.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I have just a very brief half-hour question. Could the minister comment on the funding for tenants' advisory counselling services? I know that this wasn't a programme under your department originally.

HON. MR. MAIR: I answered this question earlier for your colleague from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) .

MR. BARNES: My colleague raised that question?

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, he did, and I answered at some length.

MR. BARNES. Okay, then I will be very brief and just ask you to highlight your response if you will, in order to clarify the matter for me.

HON. MR. MAIR: I appreciate that everybody

[ Page 1927 ]

can't be in here at all times, least of all during estimates. I told your colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Member, that we are now actively trying to find some ways to fund these two groups. There are no funds available in the estimates of last year and we have none in our estimates this year. However, notwithstanding that, we are diligently searching to find a way that we can enter into some sort of a contractual arrangement with them whereby they can provide us with some help in terms of information and so on from tenants and indeed help us disseminate information to the tenants them elves in exchange for some sort of funding.

As I said to your colleague, I undertake nothing because at this point in time -we are searching for a way that we can do it. I do support these two groups and, as a matter of fact, I paid tribute to one or two of their members earlier. The reason it has taken me a little longer to come up with a concrete answer, whether it be yes or no, generally relates to the replacement of the rentalsman and the problem that naturally take place when you have a new person come in and take over the office. However, that is under specific study. I hope that ultimately the news will be good and I hope it will not be too long before I can give that news.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, were you suggesting that you agree in principle with the funding? You said something about yes or no, but you'd have to come back. I didn't know if that yes or no meant you weren't sure about the principle of funding that type of service.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am in favour of finding funding for these two particular groups. I'm not going to say I'm in favour of finding funding for every group that you may bring to my attention in due course. We will take them on their merits as they come. But as for the two that your colleague from Vancouver Centre has brought to my attention, yes indeed I am in favour of finding funding for them. Yes, I am trying to find the funding for them and I am trying to find some kind of contractual rationale for that funding.

Vote 37 approved.

Vote 38: executive and administration, $516,939 - approved.

On vote 39: consumer affairs, $2,906, 603.

MR. STEPHENS: On vote 39, particularly concerning the Travel Agents Registration Act, I note that the fund that has been set up under that Act to protect consumers will be accumulating an income of about $50,000 annually. I'd like to be corrected on that if that is not the case. I'd like the minister to itemize for me the cost to the government of administering that fund. It seems to me that considerable expense to the taxpayers had been incurred, such as the appointment of a registrar. I'd like to know where the cost of this registrar appears in the estimates and how much it is.

I also understand the registrar must have employees or inspectors. I'd like the minister to tell me how many employees he has and what the total cost of wages to these employees and inspectors is.

I understand that under section 11 of the Act there is also a travel assurance board to be set up. I'd like to know when that board will be appointed, how many people will be appointed to it and what the cost is in salaries for those people on the board.

HON. MR. MAIR: To be truly specific in answering your questions may require a little more research than I can give you at this point, Mr. Member. Anything further to what I am going to say that you require I'll undertake to give to you. The number of people involved in the administering of this particular Act, apart from the board, is five. You will find those five under the item for $980,606 under "Activity" in consumer affairs. They are five of those 48.

Assuming that the Lieutenant-Governor is available, the travel assurance board ought to be set up within the next day or two because it was dealt with in cabinet today. They are paid on a per them basis. If you look at the other side of the ledger, I might say that all of these costs are recoverable from the fees that are charged to the various companies involved.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the minister can't be specific on everything, but you have indicated five employees. Is one of those employees the registrar? Could you just pinpoint them again in the estimates? You mentioned the position where they are at but I can't see them.

Just one more thing. You indicated that on the other side of the ledger were the fees that would be directly recovered - from whom?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer to the last question is: licence fees recovered from agents and wholesalers do cover the cost of administration of the Act.

[ Page 1926 ]

The five people who are in the item that I indicated to the member include the registrar, two accountants, one secretary and one clerk. If the member is interested in the specific amounts each one of them is paid, I can get that for him. If you indicate that you wish the information, I will undertake to do so.

MR. STEPHENS: Please.

Vote 39 approved.

On vote 40: corporate affairs, $3,868, 245.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the minister to account for the additional 16 employees under vote 40, and the additional cost of approximately $1 million over last year's budget. What's the need for the 16 additional employees, and how does he account for the additional cost?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm going to have to go on notes that have just been provided to me. So, if we have to clarify it a little bit, I hope you will forgive me.

Four positions were converted from temporary to established status, according to my notes. Three positions were established by order-in-Council to increase the staff of the superintendent of brokers' office; and my staff will probably assure me that this was to handle statements of material facts which came by reason of the proclamation of section 55 (2) -or whatever it was - of the Act. Five were created by order-in-council last year to increase the office of the superintendent of credit unions, co-operatives and trust companies; and I might say that was a potential disaster area until we put further people in that department to take care of the inspections of what is almost $3 billion of assets in credit unions. Four positions were transferred from the office of the rentalsman; two are intended to give the office of the registrar of companies added strength, computerized systems and an increase in its legal capacity; two are intended to increase the investigative capacity of the ministry relating to the administration of both the Insurance Act and the Real Estate Act. Those are the 16 additional people.

MR. STEPHENS: A lot of the additional cost of $1 million is, presumably, taken up with additional wages. But there's a fairly substantial increase in the first item there -executive - which appears to have gone up about $59,000. I'd like the minister to perhaps make a brief explanation of the need for that.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think the best I can say is that this does reflect the increasing activity in and cost of administering this particular area. But I should also point out that, in fees recovered, we recover about $2 for every $1 we spend. I could be more specific if you wish.

Just dealing with one particular aspect, Mr. Member - which may help you to assess the situation - the increase in executive staff to three, for example, includes Mr. Tom Cantell, who has moved from the branch position that he was in onto executive staff as a policy adviser.

Vote 40 approved.

On vote 41: rentalsman, $1,293, 893.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I notice that this is one aspect of the ministry that seems to be reducing in numbers. The number of employees has gone from 76 down to 69. I'm rather hopeful that this is an indication of a continuing trend. Perhaps he could elaborate on that a little bit.

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer is, Mr. Member, that we have, for want of a better word, overestimated in the past - we've never had the 76 members. Because it was a relatively new department - if that's the right word - it was always a question of estimating during the former government - and certainly during the first year or so that we've had the thing - as to how many people we were going to require. We have now settled in. We now know what we need, and 69 is the appropriate number. Before it was just an estimate which did not turn out to be a fact.

MR. STEPHENS: I take it then, Mr. Chairman, that this member cannot take any particular hope in the possibility that this most unnecessary bureaucracy is on the way out?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, it's being merged with the Rent Review Commission for one thing. Secondly, I am quite frankly going to defend that method of solving landlord and tenant disputes as opposed to any we've known of in the past. I'm quite willing to listen to anything you may have for the future; but I think it beats the old system.

Vote 41 approved.

Vote 42: Rent Review Commission, $542,806 -

[ Page 1927 ]

approved.

Vote 43: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,170, 364 - approved.

Vote 44: Corporate and Financial Services Commission, $74,400 - approved.

Vote 45: Auditor Certification Board, $3,000 - approved.

Vote 46: building occupancy charges, $1,496, 912 - approved.

Vote 47: computer and consulting charges, $1,586, 923 - approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

On vote 54: minister's office, $119,793.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the minister as soon as he comes in - if he has enough courage to walk into the House. I know why he is out. I would be too, had I been Minister of Education over the past couple of years. What a disaster he has been.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reveal some of the disastrous effects of his administration. I'm going to be talking about the double disaster. I'll talk about the ICBC minister and the Minister of Education.

He is following a line right now, however, that is most often used by the First Minister of the province. He's the one who normally cuts and runs. I'm surprised that the Minister of Education was not in his place at the time of his vote 54, that most important vote, that salary vote. As I said before, loll certainly yield to the minister at this point if he has a few words to introduce his salary.

HON. MR. McGEER: I did not realize that the opposition was prepared to move with such speed. Under the circumstances, I am disappointed that they decided to take a pause right at this particular juncture.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was disappointed, when love taken the opportunity to speak in this assembly so far this year, that I didn't deal in more depth with the area of her greatest interest, namely the public school system in British Columbia. So I thought perhaps, particularly for her benefit and the assembly, I'd underline a few of the initiatives of the ministry in that particular area. I will put on my hat, if I may, for a time, as the minister responsible for the K to 12 programme in this province.

This is the 107th year in which we have had a public education system operating in British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Rosemary's high school is having its 250th anniversary.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, you see, we're a new part of the world. We are celebrating this year our first bicentennial, just 200 years since the first European explorer ever reached these shores. Literally, this was the end of the line for those who wished to travel from Europe. There was no part on the planet where it was a greater journey from Europe than this part of the world. That is why we were the last to be explored. But certainly we're not the least on the planet now. We have made remarkable progress in many areas, including, Mr. Chairman, so that I get back to the vote, the public school system.

MR. COCKE: I thought you were going to tell us about James Cook and all his explorations.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we are sending out a kit to the public schools of British Columbia. Considering some of the remarks that the member for New Westminster has made as an historical revisionist, I would highly commend to him that educational kit. I think he will learn a great deal about Captain Cook and the early history of British Columbia by studying that. Perhaps in the future, his political remarks may be a little closer to the facts of history.

As the members know, this is the first year in which the Ministry of Education has had a billion dollar budget all on its own. Mind you, it is the second year where the public school system of British Columbia has had a billion dollar budget. There is no question that the K to 12 enterprise in British Columbia is very big in terms I of dollars. It's a huge public system to be administered.

When one considers all of the students that are in our system today, there are some 750,000, of whom about 520,000 are in that particular area. There are some 27,000 teachers in the public school system. Our ministry staff which manages that is tiny indeed. They do a tremendous service. Some of the senior staff are here this -afternoon on the floor of the House. I suggested this year they bring their sleeping bags along. But for those of you who haven't met Dr. Hardwick and Mr. Fleming, Dr. Hardwick is the deputy minister and Mr. Jack Fleming is our associate deputy minister in charge of the financial operations of the ministry.

[ Page 1928 ]

I would particularly like to recognize at this time another Fleming, Mrs. Frances Fleming, who just yesterday retired from the service of the government. Like a number of people in the ministry, she has done tremendous service over a long period of years. Mrs. Fleming was the one who retired yesterday. I don't believe she has appeared on the floor of the assembly but she certainly deserves public recognition for the work that she did.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline the areas that have been of major concern to the ministry. In other words, these are the priority areas that we have felt have deserved attention in the past year.

The first of these is the need to put increased emphasis on general scholarship in our schools.

The second is to put emphasis on attendance in the schools. The third is to attempt to decrease vandalism in our school system.

Next is the development of programmes for the gifted youngsters in our province - not to forget at all the responsibilities that we have to those with learning disabilities. The next is the introduction into British Columbia of a French language programme - a core curriculum. And the next is the improvement of the articulation between secondary and postsecondary - whether the youngsters are going on to career, technical or vocational programmes or whether they are going on to advanced academic programmes.

I will just elaborate on those very briefly.

We have asked this year for reports to come from every single school in our province with regard to scholarship - the methods that the schools use to assess the pupils and the standards that they use for promotion. We have received that report. I must say that the report disturbed me very greatly because it shows that we do not have consistent standards or consistent policies of scholarship, of assessment, of promotion in British Columbia.

The variation is enormous, not just from district to district, but from school to school within districts. Some schools offer programmes for gifted children; most schools don't.

For those schools that do, those programmes may be in some subjects but not in others. In other words, the system - as it exists today, in these key scholarship areas - is almost totally random. So what we must do, Mr. Chair man, is bring some consistency so that the public knows, the students know, the teacher knows and the parents know exactly where the youngsters stand in the s ' school system, what the courses are all about and what the relative performance of the students happens to be. We have submitted the summary of that report to key educators all aver British Columbia, along with hundreds of recommendations, that had been made by people in the field them elves, as to how the system may be improved.

I'm waiting to get a response from people who have studied the information as it has arrived in the ministry and can see it as we have seen it, and to listen to a second round of evaluations based on a fuller knowledge of what's taking place. Then from that we will be able, hopefully, to set policies from the Ministry of Education that will provide a consistency to the public school system in British Columbia.

I reported to the House last year about the core curriculum that was introduced this past fall. We published a guide to the core curriculum and a special section of that dealt with the atypical learner in the schools. The document stated:

"When a child is professionally judged to be atypical, it should not necessarily follow that things the child needs to learn are uniquely and totally different from what all children have to learn. Simplification rather than differentiation is demanded. It is possible that learning outcome for any pupil might differ in importance from those of others at any given time, but no atypical pupil should be deprived of opportunities for sequential learning available to all pupils."

I'd just like to make another short quote from that section:

"The teacher of the atypical pupil, whether placement be in a regular class or a special programme group, must demand the best performance from that pupil. Rigour is an essential component of mastery, and a variety of meaningful presentations must be devised to stimulate interest and to pinpoint facts and skills on which further learning can be based. Time is not a factor here, and that type of pressure must not be generated by core curriculum. At every level feelings of self-worth should accompany worthy achievement on the part of both the teacher and the pupil."

I make special reference to that, Mr. Chairman, because I think it has to be kept in mind when you are matching what takes place in the classroom against the overall guidelines that must be set down so that consistency in our school system can be achieved. We know that many school districts are challenging their students in a variety of effective ways, and it is my hope that such programmes can be improved upon and expanded.

The second area that I mentioned was that of

[ Page 1929 ]

attendance. We commenced an initiative last fall because our ministry was receiving complaints that attendance in some schools in British Columbia was casual, to put it in its most charitable light. When we made spot checks, we discovered that the attendance in some schools was excellent and in other schools highly variable. So we simply asked to have more detailed statistics from each of the schools this past year.

As a consequence of the request for just that data, the ministry estimates that over a million and a half student days will be saved this year. That million and a half, Mr. Chairman, represents, in all probability, the level of truancy of previous years. What we are attempting to do is to track the reasons for absenteeism in our schools, because this covers up a variety of problems within the school and outside the school that remain unaddressed as long as the attitude towards attendance is as casual as it has apparently been in some areas.

MR. COCKE: What can you do for attendance in the House?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I suppose, Mr. Member, since you're here the challenge is to you to make the kind of interesting speeches that will command attention. I must apologize to you and the other members of the House for boring them with this particular discourse, but it is done at the special request of the opposition. With your indulgence, Mr. Member, we'll look forward to the kind of contribution from you that will improve the attendance of the members opposite. I must confess that it's beyond my capacity.

AN HON. MEMBER: The members opposite?

[Hon. Mr. Hewitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Touché! Well, Mr. Chairman, I could perhaps say that I wish for your attendance in the Treasury benches at the moment, but I know that you are going to do better service to the House in your present position.

The ministry has just completed, Mr. Chairman, a study of the attendance question. We've had people most vitally concerned with this problem from all over British Columbia meeting for two days in the ministry. Some excellent proposals have come forward which now will be discussed with the individual school boards throughout the province. It is my belief that the attendance problem, the acute difficulty that we had, has been cured and attendance now may be better than it's ever been. But nevertheless, it's not something that we can afford to be lax about. I mentioned that the ministry will be insisting that the schools encourage attendance at all levels.

We are now getting learning assessment reports from all aver British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Local school boards are taking a close look at the results from their individual districts and they have taken action to improve the quality and depth of their programmes where this has proved necessary. At the same time, steps are being taken within the ministry to improve the performance in curriculum, to improve in service education and to provide follow-up where the learning assessment indicates that this is required.

We are also developing province-wide assessment tests, not related to the provincial learning assessment programme. This year the math teachers' professional organization is being used for the first time to develop a province-wide examination in mathematics. If it proves successful and we anticipate that it will, then we will extend this to other subject areas where we can get benchmark testing. As members know, the provincial government made a commitment last year to provide a core curriculum in the French language to all British Columbians who wish to be taught exclusively in French regardless of whether they were anglophone or francophone. This was done because not only is this desired on the part of some British Columbians, but it is considered to be an important policy to establish in British Columbia, as in every other province, to build national unity and the Canadian dream.

Accordingly the Premier of British Columbia, at an historic meeting in the Maritimes last summer, underlined the policy which had already been announced in British Columbia that this core curriculum was to be provided. I wish to inform the House that the core curriculum has been completed and it is now available. This was done by engaging the Baldwin-Cartier school district in Montreal to prepare the necessary learning materials. We selected that school district because we wanted to have one with considerable experience in developing parallel French and English programmes where students could easily shift from the English to the French and back again. We did not want to develop in British Columbia two solitudes in our educational system, so we went where there was experience.

We've not only got the curriculum working and prepared, but we've managed to steal a man who was in charge of curriculum development for that school district. He has now come to

[ Page 1930 ]

work for British Columbia - Mr. Nick Ardinez -and I know that he's going to do the same kind of fantastic job here that he did in the province of Quebec.

We'll be making more detailed statements about the French core curriculum in the coming days. While the curriculum is now available, the organization of this at the local school district level is not going to be easy. The materials are available, but the instructors and the precise school organization is not something that one can put together overnight. So what we are going to ask the school districts to do this coming year is to implement this core curriculum at their option where numbers warrant. We're going to give them a year of shaking down and organization, and then we're going to say: "A year from September, you must, in your district, provide it if the numbers are there asking for it." We've got to give the school districts, in the view of the ministry and in the view of the govern ment, a year to get adjusted. You just can't turn something like this on with a snap of the fingers if it's never been done before, and it's only in the last few days, almost, that materials have come into our hands and are available.

Now I'd like to talk a little bit about the efforts we are making to develop more meaningful programmes for the secondary students who have made career or academic decisions and who want to see their final years in the secondary school system channelled in the most effective way. So if they're going on to academic programmes, we want to give them the opportunity to get the most advanced courses they can so that they can get a running start on the university and college academic programmes.

By the same token, if they are going into technical and vocational programmes then we want them to be able to use their final. years in the secondary schools, developing credits towards whatever trades or skills they are ultimately going to be pursuing in their postsecondary years. In other words, we want to let them gain employable skills in the secondary school programme and advanced placement in apprenticeship or college career programmes.

Now at this stage we're just initiating this in pilot programmes in individual schools. Where they are successful, we'll greatly expand them. I will just take one project in one school as an illustration of many that are taking place.

In the Richmond Senior Secondary School an automotive project commenced in September of last year. One hundred and forty students were enrolled in Mechanics 11, and the majority of these went on to the Mechanics 12 programme. Sixteen students chose the pre-apprenticeship project, which consisted of 336 hours in the school taking practical automotive work. In addition to that, 370 additional hours in the school are spent in different work situations. The school instructor visits various company shops to know precisely what his students should be getting in their classes. In this way, direct access is given to the students to the true work situation and it looks as though the employment prospects for the graduates are very high indeed.

Now in addition to this sort of thing, we have work study projects going on in British Columbia for students who are 15 years and older, who spend part of their time while they're students actually working in various jobs around the province. There are 267 school-based programmes and a total of 13,397 students who spend , part of their school day outside the classroom doing useful work. These students are fully covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. So we're trying as rapidly as we can, Mr. Chairman to get our secondary school programmes right down to practical cases - whether people are going into the world of work immediately or whether they're going on to advanced academic training.

Now I would, in this latter aspect, just make brief mention of our scholarship exams in British Columbia. The latest results of these have shown a substantial improvement over previous years. That improvement is encouraging, and I want to congratulate everybody who is involved. Eighty-two per cent of the students who wrote these scholarship exam -these are the British Columbia scholarship exams - at the January sitting achieved an acceptable passing standard. This is up from only 66 per cent one year ago.

The students are the same, the courses are the same. The examination is comparable, but the performance has dramatically improved. This is the sort of thing that the Ministry of Education believes is very significant. The improvement has got to be attributed to the efforts the teachers are making in the field to concentrate on scholarship and a more serious attitude on the part of the students who are enrolled in the schools.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to hold the House past 6 o'clock, detailing the many accomplishments of the Ministry of Education in this past year; I'll be delighted to talk about other aspects of this very diverse portfolio in the brief time that my estimates will be before the House, and I shall look forward to the questions from opposition members.

[ Page 1931 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the member for Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly) wouldn't have asked for this dissertation had she known what it was going to be like. What the minister has proven conclusively is what we have always thought. He spends far too much time up in the 39th or the 32nd floor of the Royal Centre where he looks after ICBC and Robbie , Sherrell and all those very interesting people.

I can't believe it, but he takes credit for what the kids did in their scholarship exams this year. He's a brave Minister of Education, this one. He says that there has to be emphasis on scholarship. I guess what he's intimating is that he's already there and that's why these kids have passed the scholarship exams. If he would like to look at a graph some time, he'll find that it's up and down and there is no one year....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister of heroin should just stay out of this debate - he is the senior minister - and just leave him alone.

I want to say to the minister that I have noted some of the questions that this business of attendance has aroused among school boards. I really don't think that he can even validate the fact that attendance is better right now than it has been. Certainly it's being looked at, and on that basis I hope that there is good attendance.

I do note, however, that there has been a reduction in vandalism; I'm delighted to see that. In terms of fires there is no question we were in a sorry state in this province.

I do want to say one more thing before tomorrow. I'm certainly not going to get into my introductory remarks tonight. The minister said in his remarks that he obviously bores the members. Then he looked around and found that all of his cabinet colleagues were gone. I don't really think that's the case. He just wasn't spouting fire and brimstone tonight.

But you notice that now that it's getting close to the hour of six, they are all coming in. They want to be here to watch the Speaker on his way out.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCarthy: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House instruct the committee of selection appointed on March 30,1978, to name a special committee to decide whether or not the honourable first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) or the hon. member for Boundary Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or the hon. member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) sat or voted in the Legislative Assembly when he may have been disqualified from so doing in consequence of receiving funds from the province of British Columbia resulting from his participation in the UBC and provincial housing study instituted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) .

The committee should decide whether or not the hon. member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) has sat or voted in the Legislative Assembly when he may have been disqualified for so doing in consequence of his receiving funds from the province of British Columbia resulting from his participation in a fence-building programme made available under the Grazing Act. The special committee should commence its sitting forthwith and report during this sitting of the Legislative Assembly and be authorized and required to allow representations of any persons by counsel on examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion does not indicate what the construction of the proposed committee would be, and that point is very crucial to understanding the intent of the resolution that's before the House.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a motion, as I understand it, which normally would require notice in this chamber.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was made by leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave was asked and leave was granted, hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Well, leave may have been granted for the Provincial Secretary to say something, but I didn't hear her move that the rules be suspended and that the motion be moved right now. I really think we should have notice to debate this particular thing. I think it's a little bit of an abuse of the process of asking leave to bring this kind of thing forward without notice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, leave was asked

[ Page 1932 ]

in the normal way that is done in this House. Leave has been granted and the motion has been put on the floor of the House.

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary did contact me prior to introducing the motion, and I agreed to grant leave.

The thing that disturbs me, though, in terms of debating the motion before the House now, is the lack of any indication from the Provincial Secretary in introducing the motion as to what the intentions are with respect to the construction of a committee. I appreciate the motion has for its purpose an instruction to the selection committee, but on an issue such as this which is very sensitive to the House, and in the interests of some co-operation in terms of handling this long-standing matter, Mr. Speaker, I think it would have been wise and prudent for the minister to give some indication and some assurance that the government intends to make this committee more than the cursory kind of thing it would be construed as if the construction of the committee holds a government majority.

While the House, I think, constitutionally certainly has the authority to investigate its own practices, procedure ' s and the conduct of members, I think if that exercise is to have any meaning whatsoever, then obviously it has to be seen to be even-handed and fair, and it has to be seen that way not only by the members of this House, but certainly by the public. That being the case, if the Provincial

Secretary would give some indication that the government would be prepared to accept equal numbers of opposition and government members on any committee that would have for its purpose the investigation of members of this

House, I think it would aid greatly in terms of making a decision with respect to acceptance or rejection of this particular motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, my attention having been drawn to the clock, business must cease.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.