1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 26,1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 39 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the

Chamber appears to be filling rather more slowly today than on most

occasions and I was afraid that perhaps the participation of so many of

the Members last night in the roughest, the toughest, and the fastest

Canadian sport might have taken its toll, but I think probably most, if

not all, the Members who did play in that game are present today.

In addressing myself to the motion that is before us, Mr. Speaker, I

want first of all to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the

motion for the excellent addresses they gave. I think they deserve top

marks. I felt that both of them in their remarks first of all captured

the historical significance of the year — the entry of British Columbia

into Confederation. Despite the complaints we voice from time to time,

both here and when we go to Ottawa, despite the fact that we recognize

that some areas of Canada get greater benefits from Confederation than

do others, nevertheless, we are all proud to be Canadians. And, Mr.

Speaker, we are determined to make this union more effective than it

has been in the first one hundred years to the ultimate advantage of

all. The Members, quite readily so, pointed out some of our

accomplishments in the past. It's time to remember accomplishments,

time to be thankful for our blessings Nevertheless, they very quickly

made it clear that we couldn't, in any way, afford to rest on our oars,

and they advanced some constructive proposals. I think, just as in the

past, we must always welcome constructive criticism and constructive

proposals, as we try to formulate even better policies, as we dedicate

ourselves anew to this next century of Confederation as far as British

Columbia is concerned.

There are many problems of major proportions facing us as well as

all the people of Canada. Some of these have been discussed at some

length already in this relatively early period of the debates.

Unemployment, industrial disputes, pollution, expropriation — although

I couldn't put that quite in the same league as those other topics I've

mentioned — are some of the important matters that have been discussed

in length already. One of the trends that impresses me, as we look to

the future, is the personal involvement of more of our citizens in a

host of modern crusades, seeking answers to these kinds of problems.

Society seems to be shedding its introverted nature and there is a

movement of all citizens to optimize their social, cultural and

recreational potentials. All of our citizens want to enjoy the good

life; we hear that when they gather in Ottawa to meet with the Minister

of Health, or the City Council Chambers yesterday, or when they come to

see us in Victoria. But what many of these people who gather together

in this fashion seem to overlook and seem to forget is that we cannot

and they cannot receive the good life, unless there is a sound and

expansionary economic growth in Canada. That's what's overlooked.

Unfortunately, just at this particular time when our prosperity should

be at a peak, we are not enjoying the full growth potential. We are not

achieving our full growth potential. The reasons are several, I think,

and I'm not going to discuss them all. But foremost among them must be

what I could only describe as, and I'll do this in a kind way, the

questionable economic policies of the Federal Government that were

introduced and maintained during the past year. We've pointed out on

many occasions that it is the responsibility of Government, through its

policies, to establish and maintain sound and expansionary economic

growth. Once this environment has been established, the private sector

of the economy will flourish, job opportunities will increase and a

higher standard of living will be enjoyed by all citizens.

A marked difference of philosophy between the New Democratic Party

and the Social Credit administration was apparent today, when the

Leader of the Opposition spoke and proposed that there should be a 3

per cent tax on capital investments and improvements, money used to

improve. I don't know whether he had in mind homes, or just what he

had, but that's capital improvement, in the Province of British

Columbia, and that we should use these revenues to provide direct

employment; that is, for the Crown, the Provincial Government, to

employ the people with the revenue that's produced in this fashion. As

he advanced his proposal, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help but recall that

under some forms of Socialism all of the citizens are employed by the

State. All of the citizens are employed by Government. This Government,

and I think this points out a basic difference between an

administration that subscribes to competitive, individual enterprise as

compared to parties that espouse the Socialist doctrine, believes in

employing people to do useful work, and we are employing more

additional people even at this very moment. But, nevertheless, it is

the private sector, through individual enterprise, through the free

enterprise system as opposed to the public sector, that must be greatly

expanded if we are going to make any real and great impact on the

unemployment situation that exists in Canada today. With approximately

five hundred and fifty thousand or more people out of work in Canada,

it is a serious situation, one in which none of us, or I suggest no one

in Canada, can take any satisfaction or pride. It's sufficiently

widespread now that I'm sure most of the Members in this House know

people personally, friends or relatives, that go to make up these

staggering statistics of unemployed. We don't need any demonstrations,

whether they are violent or peaceful, to remind us of the

unsatisfactory employment situation that exists in Canada today.

The Leader of the Liberal Party, the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, in his discussion of this important subject, said

there was only one paragraph in the Speech from the Throne dealing with

employment. He referred to the paragraph on welfare, as I recall; I

marked it at the time. He conveniently neglected, Mr. Speaker, to refer

to a most important paragraph on page 7 of the Speech which points out

that British Columbia leads all Canada in providing new job

opportunities. Leads all Canada! "British Columbia increased the number

of its labour force gainfully employed more rapidly than elsewhere in

Canada. In the Atlantic Provinces, the increase was 23.8 per cent; in

Quebec, 30.7 per cent; in Ontario, 33.2 per cent; in the Prairie

Provinces, 24.0 per cent; but in our Province, the increase was 57.2

per cent." 57.2 per cent. This is the increase in gainfully employed

and is the most important figure, in my judgement, that's contained in

the Speech from the Throne. There isn't a Province in Canada, my

friends, that isn't envious of the record of this Province in creating

new jobs.

The Speech from the Throne also records the fact that British

Columbia leads all Canada in the increase in its labour force. As of

October last, I was advised that, in the last

[ Page 40 ]

five-year period, our Provincial labour force grew

70 per cent faster than the Canadian average. In the 12-month period

preceding October last, at the time when we did have a general economic

slowdown in our Nation, this influx was even greater and our labour

force in British Columbia was then growing at a rate over three times

that of the rest of Canada. I can give you the figures broken down into

male and female, if you wish. With this rate of growth, certainly, it

would be a conservative estimate to say that there should be more than

one million workers in British Columbia within a three-year period.

Even in this dynamic Province, there's a limit in our ability to absorb

such large numbers in our work force. Here is one of the main reasons:

One of the main reasons for a higher rate of unemployment in British

Columbia than in many other parts of Canada is because people are

flocking to British Columbia, and they are flocking, in many cases, to

no jobs. If they are going to be out of work, why not be out of work

here in a much more pleasant part of the world which is the Province of

British Columbia? There's no way in which we, in the Province of

British Columbia, or the Government of this Province, can ensure the

number of people looking for jobs and the number of jobs available come

out even. We don't subscribe to the idea of stopping people at the

border between Alberta and British Columbia, people coming from other

parts of Canada. We don't subscribe to the idea of labour camps, where

you put your excess people into these labour camps and put them to

work, as has happened in some countries of the world. We believe in the

free movement of Canadians across this country, and we also believe

that those who don't want to work can opt out, and be drop-outs. That's

another question and I won't get into that at any great length.

There is an even more basic reason for the high level of

unemployment in this Province. And it's a reason which the Liberal

Leader chose to ignore in his attempt to make political capital out of

this situation yesterday. Political capital, because when he was

talking about unemployment, when the Leader of the Opposition was

presenting this unemployment picture, if you turn that picture upside

down, you know what's written on the bottom, "Made in Ottawa." He

attempted to blame the high unemployment rates in this Province on

strikes and lockouts. He read out first the time lost through

industrial disputes — a list I might say that is patently false. False,

and I'll show that before the day is out. He then said, as a

consequence, the unemployment rate in this Province is double that of

the Nation, because of these other statistics that he quoted. What

nonsense! Certainly, strikes and lockouts have an economic impact that

do affect unemployment and I'll have more to say on the industrial

relations picture shortly this afternoon. But to lay the entire blame,

to say it is a consequence of the time lost through industrial disputes

therefore we have this high rate of unemployment, is a red herring

drawn by the Leader of the Liberal Party in an attempt to cover up the

root cause of unemployment. And the root cause is National Government

policy. It's no secret, no secret to anyone in this Chamber. They have

said so themselves that they are going to create a condition of

unemployment to curb inflation. You've heard it said by the Prime

Minister and there's no way this Province could avoid the serious

impacts of this policy. In no Province did this policy hit harder than

in British Columbia, because in every month last year our unemployment

rates were higher than the year before. Yet the Federal Government

continued this policy deliberately. I think a parallel can be drawn

between the Federal Government's attitude toward inflation and Don

Quixote's proverbial view of the windmill — his obsession with one

purpose caused him to overlook all else to the detriment of himself

personally and, as a result, he suffered. The people of Canada are

suffering today as a result of these Federal policies, especially the

unemployed.

I want to talk about a few of those policies today, because I feel

that they deserve some scrutiny. Monetary policy was used to push

interest rates to very high levels and funds required for much needed

social capital outlays, home construction, business expansion, all of

these were in short, costly supply. In addition, high interest rates

forced companies in need of funds to offer bonds at unrealistic

interest rates and these costs are going to be built in for years and

years to come. In these circumstances, as well, few companies could

finance additional activities which inevitably would increase

employment.

Then, at a time when high interest rates and the

inflation-unemployment problem, when all of this clouded the economic

picture, the Federal Government applied its coup de grace by emerging

with the White Paper. Is my French not too good or is none of you

bilingual? The coup de grace by emerging with the White Paper on Tax

reform. If ever fuel were thrown on fires of confusion and uncertainty,

Mr. Speaker, this was the occasion. This was at a time when there

should have been stability and expansion in the private sector, and

they came out with this White Paper, which I gather the Members across

the way fully support. Then, in addition, we had something else happen

and I won't use any foreign terms, because apparently I don't pronounce

them too well. Another questionable decision was made and the foreign

exchange rate was unpegged and the employers in British Columbia,

particularly those engaged in manufacture for export, immediately faced

costs and competition due to this decision. It's difficult to see how

this policy could do anything but aggravate an already critical

unemployment picture and, certainly, in my opinion, this is what

happened.

Now the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, refers to a number of

job-producing programmes which will increase employment opportunities

this year. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that there was only one

paragraph from the entire Speech from the Throne that referred to

employment. I've given you one additional one already. If only he had

looked at those referred to on page 5 of the Speech — the expansion of

the highway systems, railway construction programmes. These programmes

have been delayed and I refer to them not only because they do provide

direct employment by Crown agencies, but they also have a very

beneficial influence, in an indirect way, of linking communities of the

Province together, of developing a sound system of communications which

will enable the private sector to expand in growth. You can't criticize

this Government as a "Blacktop Government," you can't attack the

P.G.E., you can't go through the Province attacking every mining

venture, my friends, every pulp and paper venture, and say that nothing

has been done in British Columbia or criticize us for not producing

jobs. You can't have it both ways. The Speech from the Throne also

refers to a school construction programme, a very big programme, a

hospital construction programme, all of which will provide additional

jobs. But the important thing, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the direct

employment, is the fact that our policies are to expand the private

sector, to ensure that the economy will flourish and that job

opportunities will increase.

The Leader of the Liberal Party put a question several times yesterday. That question is, "Where is the take home

[ Page 41 ]

pay you promised?" The fact is that in

labour-income there were steady increases recorded during the year. At

mid-year, total wages and salaries in British Columbia amounted to

377.2 million dollars, a gain of 6.9 per cent over '69. The

accumulative total to June, 1970, was up 13 per cent over the previous

year and the average weekly wages and salaries in the industrial sector

are reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. These are the latest

figures I have, $137.37 in June, a gain of 6.2 per cent over 1969, and

12.7 per cent over 1968 — highest in Canada, the average weekly wages

in salaries 8 per cent higher than the National average. I have the

comparison, Province by Province, for those who want to see. The Leader

of the Liberal Party seemed to be very much involved with the Liberal

Government in Saskatchewan and Quebec, well, British Columbia is 19.9

per cent higher than Saskatchewan, 12.3 per cent higher than Quebec.

The people in British Columbia will know what will happen if they ever

elect that Member to lead this Province. I was rather intrigued by the

Leader of the Liberal Party's address yesterday. The way he started

out, it seemed to me, he had a lot to say about leadership on this side

of the House, that is, he was critical of the leadership but, in his

Address, he started out by saying that the Liberals would supply

leadership through plebiscite. It seemed that everything was going to

be submitted by a plebiscite. "We don't know what to do," in other

words. He was saying, "We'd like to have the people tell us." In the

next breath, how did he end his remarks? "Not Liberal leadership by

plebiscite, Liberal leadership by dictatorship". (applause) That's

right! Because he advocated, Mr. Speaker, that the Government should

dictate what increase should be given to the workers in their

particular industry. That's exactly what he said and, in fact, they

should be compelled to take it. That's the Liberal idea of collective

bargaining. I want to say it differs substantially from our own because

we believe in collective bargaining and the only time we believe in

making the award public is when the public interest is seriously

jeopardized. I'm prepared to stand up and account for the instances in

which those provisions of the Mediation Commission Act

were introduced this year. It was a difficult year — the summer of

discontent. I think even though I shouldn't say our politicals

opponents, but most fair-minded people would at least credit this

Government with having brought that boiling pot back to a light simmer

towards the end of the year. We predicted, as many Members did, that it

was going to be a difficult year and unfortunately that proved correct.

There are many, many

reasons. The Leader of the Liberal Party chose to ignore these reasons

when he spoke at some length here yesterday. The simplest reason, of

course, for the increase in industrial disputes last year, was the fact

that we had more contracts coming up for negotiation, affecting

more workers than ever before in our history so, therefore, even on a

proportionate basis, you would expect more time lost than in any other

year in our history. Then, too, we had the serious effects of inflation

and unemployment, combined with what is a traditional fear on the part

of labour and that's the fear of lay-offs because of automation. Last

year, I think it's fair to say, this traditional fear of lay-offs

because of automation certainly was overshadowed by a conflict of two

forces that were meeting head on — inflation, on the one hand, with the

workers feeling that although they have negotiated increases it would

all be eaten up because of inflation before the year was out and, on

the other hand, the business man, sensing a softening of the economy or

perhaps more accurately described as a recession and, therefore, that

he had to be careful what increases were made in his total cost,

because if he went too far he wouldn't be in business very long, he

wouldn't be able to remain successful.

Here is the basic confrontation that existed in British Columbia.

Aggravated, I might add, by the feeling on the part of some labour

unions that we were going to have wage controls on a National basis.

More than one union leader that I met with during the past year during

the course of negotiations, advised that one reason for holding back

their demands was that they wanted to improve their relative position

while they could and before any controls were imposed. Basic, I think,

to all of these factors, however, is something that we should have

touched on before and that is what I call the rising expectations of

the workers of this Province. In this day of rapid communication,

television, travel, it is natural that more should be expected to

arrive than in years ago, a decade or two ago. People are aware that

the good life is available and naturally they want to take steps to see

that they receive their full measure and this is, I think, a natural

thing that's happening in British Columbia today. We see it happening

every day and, of course, when demands become exaggerated, when you try

and take too big a step at one time, then this is going to lead to

confrontation. 1970 was a poor year as far as British Columbia was

concerned, but not nearly as poor as the Leader of the Liberal Party

tried to paint the scene yesterday afternoon.

I'm giving you the facts today, my friends. You take them down, you

go back to your constituency and quote them and you won't get in any

trouble. You won't have to rely on 12 votes to get elected next time,

if you quote my stuff. 1970 was a difficult year internationally in

labour relations. Mention was made of Saskatchewan and Quebec having to

call Special Session of the Legislature. Great Britain had to introduce

emergency legislation. The United States Congress had to take special

action to keep the railways running. In Sweden, the land to which the

Socialists always point with pride, there were major strikes last year.

New Zealand as well, where they've long prided themselves on the

effectiveness of their procedures in settling labour disputes. There

was a breakdown in New Zealand in labour relations during this past

year. Nevertheless, I would agree that our record was unsatisfactory in

terms of industrial disputes last year. But, again, not nearly as

unsatisfactory as the Leader of the Liberal Party pointed out. He said,

"Our time-loss, man-days loss, was 2,900,000". Do you know what the

figures are? The figures of the Federal Government and the Provincial

Government were 1,684,463, almost 100 per cent wrong. My sources are my

own Department, the Research Branch and the Federal Government — the

Federal Government's own department. They have revised their figures.

You may have the old figures. The Mediation Commission may even have

the old figures. I'm giving you the accurate ones. For instance, one of

the errors was that was there were 30,000 people directly involved in

the construction lockout when, in fact, it was about 15,000. So there

is an error in doubled the amount of time-loss.

Let me compare labour disputes, not with other jurisdictions but

with our own. This was a bad year. It wasn't our worst year. The only

real way to compare is the time-loss as a percentage total working

time. Because you have this increased number of people working in your

Province and the time-loss this year, I gave you the amount in

man-days. Expressed as a percentage of total working time it was .943,

less than one per cent. Now for comparison purposes. In 1959 it was

1.338, higher in 1959 than in 1970. In 1952,

[ Page 42 ]

when my friends of the Liberal Party were in power, Mr. Speaker, it

was 1.326, much higher than in this year 1970. That's the only fair

comparison and, even so, the figures I've given you for 1959 and 1952

only include disputes coming under Provincial jurisdiction. They don't

include legal strikes or lockouts, they don't include Federal

Government strikes or lockouts for this year for the first time in our

figures, so that we have the same figures as the National Government.

We include the National Government strikes and lockouts, the Post

Office, the tugboats, all this kind of thing, as well as illegal

strikes and lockouts and it's still significantly less than in the

years that I mentioned. So while we had a bad year, a year that is not

one that we want to see repeated, nevertheless, I think we should keep

the situation in perspective.

The Leader of the Liberal Party, of course, placed the Federal

disputes way down the list, I think No. 6 was the tugboats, because the

only reason is, there weren't too many people directly involved in that

strike. But anyone in the Province knows what happened in that strike.

It was the most disruptive dispute that occurred in British Columbia

last year. It shut down the whole forest industry, it lead to more

court cases and sentences than any other dispute and you put it at the

bottom of the list. What an apologist for the Federal Government.

I could discuss the major disputes that came under Provincial

jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. We had one that occurred, if you remember,

early in the year when we were still in Session — that was the School

Board dispute, when the schools were shut down, and we had to threaten

to use the binding provisions of Bill 33, of the Mediation Commission

Act , with the result that that dispute was settled.

The Pacific Press was touched upon by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey yesterday, which involved a work stoppage of

nearly three months. What he didn't say was that the Mediation

Commission and the two members of the Mediation Commission brought

about the settlement of that dispute. He didn't want to give any credit

to the Mediation Commission. Then the dispute that had the greatest

impact under Provincial jurisdiction was certainly the construction

one, involving the greatest impact on our economy, that caused a rather

serious disruption during the summer months, as a result of a lockout.

I think it should be made clear by a lockout by the employers, when it

appeared that agreements were not going to be obtained without

resorting to strikes or lockouts. We made every attempt to settle that

dispute through collective bargaining. I personally sat with the

parties for many days in negotiations, offering them every assistance

we could. If they wanted an independent person, fine. They could have

an independent person of their own choice and that would be fine. The

Deputy Minister of Labour was with them continuously for nearly two

weeks, and the strike carried on. Finally, I had to indicate, on behalf

of the Government, that the situation was sufficiently serious that we

would have to invoke the final and binding provisions of the Mediation

Commission Act. The strike continued. You know the impact, the effect,

it had on construction, essential construction, as well as other

construction — schools, hospitals. We moved. The Cabinet made an Order

under

section 18 of the Mediation Commission Act . And, now, the Leader

of the Liberal Party, I presume from his comments, is most critical of

the fact that we suspended the hearing before the Mediation Commission

to enable them to continue collective bargaining as long as they

returned to work. Why shouldn't we? After all, the objective was to get

the parties back to work. The objective was to get construction into

full swing in the Province. And if, after passing the Order, we didn't

cancel the Order before the Mediation Commission, the Order still stood

— and still stands — to go back to work and all that happens is a

postponement of the hearings before the Mediation Committee. What's

wrong with that, Mr. Speaker?

Compromise the law, that's what the Honourable Member for West

Vancouver…. (interruption). That's a lot of nonsense, because here

we were. I wanted to make it parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, another dispute I want to touch upon briefly relates to

the forest industry. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I don't

often agree with him but the Liberals would bring chaos to this

Province. Fortunately they won't have an opportunity. Another dispute

which caused considerable misgivings was the coastal forestry industry.

We had problems right at the beginning, disagreement as to who could

appear at the talks. It was almost like the Vietnam peace talks at the

start.

Very early in the game I met with representatives of the IWA,

representing the workers, and the Forest Industrial Relations,

representing management and, to make a rather long story short,

eventually they agreed to the appointment of the Honourable Mr. Justice

Nemetz of the Court of Appeal of this Province. With the approval of

the Mediation Commission, and I want to emphasize this, this Order was

passed by the Cabinet. We are grateful to Mr. Justice Nemetz for

assuming that onerous responsibility and for effectively discharging

the duties that were given to him. Certainly, there were telephone

calls, certainly, because I reported them to my colleagues in the

Cabinet and to the Mediation Commission after my meetings with

management and labour. This is one of the areas in which we had

complete agreement by management, labour, Mediation Commission and

Government. So, why try and ridicule it, my friends? Following the

report of Mr. Justice Nemetz, I shared in some rather lengthy meetings,

with the result that a settlement was achieved.

I can say this, from the experiences I've had this summer,

collective bargaining is not dead in this Province, despite what the

armchair experts have to say. Collective bargaining is not dead and,

certainly, we avoided a major stoppage in the forest industry at a time

when, if you think back, both labour and management were predicting the

inevitability of such a stoppage in the early part of the year. This

settlement and the Nemetz report were used as a basis of agreement in

the pulp and paper industry, in the northern and southern interior

forest industries and, indirectly, had an effect on the disputes of the

smelting industry at Kitimat and Trail.

We tried to be flexible this year in our approach to

labour-management relations to meet with the parties and not tie

ourselves to a single approach. I think this has been demonstrated just

in the instances I've given you this afternoon. The Mediation

Commission Act , commonly called Bill 33 and the three-man Commission

has been subjected to continual criticism from Day One: The Chairman of

the Mediation Commission, a former judge appointed by a former Federal

Government; the other two Commissioners, both able, senior,

distinguished representatives of labour and management, respectively.

All men of integrity and ability; each of them highly regarded by their

fellowmen the day before they were appointed to this Commission. But

since the day they were appointed, they've been subjected to a

relentless and continuing political attack, as has our legislation. It

would be too much to expect that we would agree with all they had to

say or do, and I'm not suggesting for a

[ Page 43 ]

moment that we do. But the point I want to make clear today is that

this Government has not lost confidence in its labour legislation as

some members would try to make the public believe. Nor have we lost

confidence in the machinery established pursuant to that legislation

for the Mediation Commission. If there were ever a need to justify the

existence of the Mediation Commission, I draw your attention to the

dispute which occurred in Port Alberni. Here's a case where the parties

went before the Mediation Commission of their own volition; they agreed

to go before the Mediation Commission. And following the receipt of the

Mediation Commission's report, they rejected it with the result that 55

electricians were going to directly affect some 5,000 employees and

thousands of others indirectly. Because of the welfare of so many

persons and the effect on the economy of the area, the Government made

the findings of the Mediation Commission final and binding on the

parties and work continued for Port Alberni.

Now, if we accepted the advice, the recommendations, of the Leader

of the Liberal Party, we would have had to convene a Special Session to

get these 55 men to work. That's how ridiculous his suggestion is. As a

matter of fact, if we adopted the proposals he advanced yesterday, do

you know how many Special Sessions you would have had to have last

year? Three, at the least and, perhaps, more, four or more Special

Sessions in addition to the extraordinarily long Session we had last

year.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are those who would flout the law,

there are those who have stated they would defy the law. I'm advised

that considerable progress is being made in the transit dispute and we

are hopeful that this dispute will be settled this week. That is, I

think, excellent news for everyone. That is the latest bulletin thus

far received and I think even the Leader of the Liberal Party would be

gracious enough to acknowledge that that is good news for the people of

British Columbia.

I want to say a few more words concerning those who openly advocate

the violation of law. These are people who are really preaching anarchy

in British Columbia. They are no heroes fighting for the poor as they

like to make out, the downtrodden workers, workers who receive the

highest pay, the best working conditions in all of Canada. These are

advocates of dissension and upheaval who would not tolerate for a

moment disruption of this kind within their own organization but they

attempt to perpetrate this on the people of the Province. They are the

ones who, for political reasons and for political purposes, advocate

the nonappearance before the Mediation Commission; who state that, in

no circumstance, are the public interest and welfare to have priority

over the interests of a select group in our society. These are the

people who are supporters of the New Democratic Party, who support the

demands of a few rather than the well-being of the public of this

Province.

The Statutes of this Province are the result of many years of

experience and study. A number of the important features have been

copied by other jurisdictions. The labour laws of this Province embody

the best ideas and principles we've been able to produce and they are a

reflection of the wishes of the public, a public that is sick, tired

and fed-up with labour relations where the parties seem unable to

resolve their difficulties without disruption to the economy and

services to the economy of this Province.

I've made it clear on more than one occasion that our labour laws

are always subject to review. Indeed, during the latter part of this

year, I made it clear that the Government would welcome proposals for

the improvement of collective bargaining and that we would welcome

proposals for improvement of our legislation governing labour and

management. Some proposals have been received, not nearly as many, I

might add, as I anticipated. But may I reiterate this? We are prepared

always to review, to keep our procedures up to date. This has been our

policy in the past and it will continue to be our policy in the future.

Any proposals that are received, certainly, will be given serious

thought.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one or two other matters that I want to deal with

briefly. Perhaps just a word on expropriation, which was discussed on

Friday as well as yesterday, because I agree with some of the comments

that have been made on this subject. I agree with the desirability of a

single, comprehensive expropriation statute, rather than the multiple

provisions that prevail now in this Province. We have had the benefit

of the recommendations of Mr. Clyne. We've also been studying the

recommendations of the law reforms connected with the Province of

Ontario as well as the new Act that came out from the Government of

Canada. We have been working on a draft on expropriation and those of

you who have been following the activities of the Law Reform

Commission, which is now in full operation in the Province, will have

recalled that early in the year, or last year in July, they announced

this was one of the subject matters that they were studying in an

endeavour to produce a draft statute that would contain the best

features of all of the legislative proposals that have been presented,

including those that have been drafted by my own particular Department.

Another subject which I want to touch on, and this is final. There

are changes of policies in each and every Session as long as we are in

Government. There hasn't been a Session since 1952, since the people in

their wisdom elected the man to my right as the Leader and Premier of

British Columbia, that there haven't been improvements in policy. A

reason why you have such a small group in that corner of the House, the

Liberals, and why you were defeated is, because you refuse to give the

people the results which the people wanted from the management of their

affairs and that's why you are out of office and we are in.

Mr. Speaker, automobile insurance. This is probably one of the few

Sessions when, in the opening days, we haven't had a great deal of

discussion about automobile insurance. The fact that the Leader of the

Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party in their major addresses

to this House made no reference to it, I think, augurs well for the

progress that has been made in this very difficult field. A year has

passed, Mr. Speaker, since the compulsory automobile insurance laws

were brought into effect in this Province. A year ago the indications

were that approximately 5 per cent were uninsured. The most recent

information that we have been able to gather, particularly from the

enforcement agencies in Vancouver and Victoria, the police authorities,

indicates that today less than one per cent drive on the highways

uninsured. This substantial decrease has been accomplished without any

increase in bureaucracy or enforcement, at no cost or inconvenience to

the public.

The major change, of course, in addition to the mandatory features

of the legislation, was the introduction of the no-fault benefits.

These, I suggest, have been very well received by the public of this

Province. Unquestionably, the payment of claims under the no-fault

cover has placed thousands of dollars in the hands of claimants, where

payments could not have been possible under the tort system, dependent

as it is upon proof of negligence. All of

[ Page 44 ]

you have received information which shows instances where people

could not have recovered, before the introduction of this no-fault, and

thousands of dollars in benefits have been paid in these circumstances.

It's too early for credible statistics to emerge to test the

adequacy of the premiums that are being charged for the no-fault

benefits but I am advised there is no increase planned in the amount of

the premium payable in respect to the no-fault benefits this year.

Of continuing concern to the Government is the large increase in the

amount of money paid out by insurance companies during the past year in

respect of accidents that occurred in British Columbia, together with

the increase in premium costs to the automobile driver. Of course, the

only effective way to really reduce the cost significantly is to reduce

the accidents and the claims that 'are made for recovery as a result of

those.

Nevertheless, since insurance is compulsory now, and has been for

one year, in British Columbia, I do feel that we have some obligation

to ensure that the rates being charged for automobile insurance are

commensurate with the risks being assumed by the insurer. I'm pleased

to announce today that the authority to accomplish that objective has

now been appointed. The British Columbia Automobile Insurance Board

provided for in the amendments to the Insurance Act has now been

established. The Board consists of the members of the Public Utilities

Commission, the three-man commission, together with two additions — Mr.

Cantell, the Superintendent of Insurance, and Mr. Byron Straight. Mr.

Straight is a well-known actuary in Vancouver, who served as a

consultant to the Special Committee on Automobile Insurance of this

House last year.

We anticipate that the taxpayers of this Province will realize

considerable savings by having the new authority integrated with an

existing one, namely the Public Utilities Commission. In terms of

office space, in terms of supporting clerical staff and day-to-day

administrative expenses, the savings should be substantial in each and

every year. The Board will begin immediately to discharge its duties,

the duties as set out in the Insurance Act. These include the

supervision of premiums, of automobile insurance rates. They include as

well the administration of the Motor Vehicle Act Special Fund, which

was created for the purpose of automobile driver education and

training, as well as research on automobile and highway safety. The

Board's function is an important one and I'm confident that it will

discharge its duties in a conscientious and equitable way. I'm sure we

all join in extending it our best wishes.

One of the problems we face in automobile insurance in making it

compulsory is to ensure that everyone who has a driver's license can

get insurance. It's not difficult if you have a good driving record.

But if you accumulate a lot of points — you know, the Honourable Member

across the way does more talking from his seat, but he has very little

of consequence to say when he gets on his feet — other than personal

attacks against anyone who makes a success in the Province of British

Columbia. To make it clear for the record, I was referring to the

Second Member for Vancouver East.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems, as I was saying before the

Honourable Member persistently interrupted me, is the difficulty of

people who have relatively poor driving records to obtain insurance.

The companies have attempted to provide this through what they call

"the Facility," which in its simplest form is a method by which the

companies insuring drivers who may be classed as undesirable risks

might reinsure portions of that risk with all those other companies in

the Province which write automobile insurance.

The availability of insurance, as of January 18, has been further

increased for the people on bad risk driving by amending the Facility

arrangements to create a new service known as "The Insurance Exchange."

This provides a means by which an agent in any part of the Province who

may be unable to obtain insurance for his client in the open market or

through the Facility, can telephone toll free to the Insurance Exchange

Office, where he will be given the name of an insurance company which

is immediately bound to the risk. Immediately, the insurance is placed,

there aren't the delays and, hopefully, they will know immediately as

soon as the rates are established what the rates will be. There won't

be these delays and people will be able to get their insurance quickly.

Regulations pursuant to the Insurance Act were approved by the

Cabinet today, incorporating these new provisions and requiring each

automobile insurer to accept any risk that properly applies thereto. We

have also provided for appeals to be made to the new Automobile

Insurance Board. First of all, the insured motorist, the fellow with

the bad driving record but a record that's not bad enough to involve

the suspension or revocation of his license, has the right to appeal to

the Board with respect to the premium that's being charged. This is the

area where you get into high premiums. Then, too, there's an appeal to

the Board provided to insurers in regard to decisions that are made

with respect to the percentage of the risk allowed to be shared in the

Facility pool, and in respect to the amount of business received

through the Insurance Exchange, so that they are required to accept a

share of the bad risks and, if they feel they are being unjustly dealt

with, then they have a right to appeal to this new Automobile Insurance

Board.

These regulations have been approved by the Executive Council today.

I have the original Order now signed by His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor on both the appointment of the Board and the

establishment of these new group procedures. Thank you very much,

indeed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to

see that our Attorney-General is back here in good health, his usual

good self. We may differ in political philosophies but we wish poor

health on no one, and good health and happiness to all. As for my

friend from Vancouver Centre, the more this Government smuggles car

insurance up, the better my speeches will be. Thank you for making them.

My friend from Oak Bay, Mr. Speaker, was back proposing taxes on the

sick people of this Province. He has raised his ante from three dollars

to five dollars a day sickness tax. This is the kind of rubbish he's

going to peddle this year. The Social Credit policy of "sock it to the

sick." Of course, to some of them earning $50,000 a year at least in

that profession, maybe five dollars a day is nothing to them. But an

old age pensioner and those of us who have never been in the hospital,

can expect, if we ever go to a hospital, it will be in our later years,

in our old age. And that's when we may well be trying to get by on a

minimal pension, and $5 a day, $150 a month, is far more than the

senior citizens of this Province can afford.

My friend from Oak Bay should well know that there are many of his patients who cannot afford to buy the

[ Page 45 ]

prescription drugs that he prescribes. So he writes out a

prescription, as all doctors do, and because of the high cost of

prescription drugs they cannot buy the medicine that he has prescribed.

So he can't help them. What he's going to do now is to make it equally

impossible for people to go to the hospitals. He should know that

co-insurance is no deterrent. If there are people in the hospitals

sooner than they should be or longer than they should be, it's the

fault of the man who admits them, the man who discharges them — the

doctor. We don't need co-insurance for that, we need doctors of

principle and of high professional calibre.

I was pleased to hear the Throne Speech mention pollution. I hope it

will do a great deal more than what was accomplished through our Litter

Act at the start. It faltered very shortly after the start. Our major

problems of pollution are caused by the short-sighted policies of the

exploitation of our resources. So long as we allow the exploiters of

our resources to make pollution pay, we'll continue to have major

pollution on the exploitation of these resources. Not only do we allow

them to make it pay but we allow the representatives of these

exploiters to attack every individual and every group that speaks out

against the destruction or contamination of our environment. This is

what has gone on under both the Provincial and Federal Governments, who

are jointly responsible.

There is one proposal, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to suggest and

that is, that as our budgets grow and the work load increases, that the

B.C. Legislature should have a Spring Session and a Fall Session. It's

all very well for the Leader of the Liberal Party to refund his

indemnity; he's probably getting financial assistance from other

sources. But for the working M.L.A.s, the men that make this a

full-time job, I believe there's a great need for a Spring Session

where we can give first reading to legislation that has to do with our

hospitals, our municipalities, our regional governments, so that we

could mail the legislation out that would deal with the rural

populations…. regional population. Then, in a Fall Session, after

we've discussed it with our constituents, come back and give second,

third and final readings to this legislation.

I'm pleased that the Attorney-General hasn't left, particularly when

he expressed disappointment that our Provincial Leader, the Leader of

the Official Opposition, had said nothing about car insurance. It

wasn't that he hasn't been working on it. Last year he wrote to all of

the major car insurance companies in this Province. Our Leader wrote to

the leading car insurance companies a very simple, direct letter. I'll

read the copy of this letter to the Zurich Insurance Company and, as

you know, the Zurich Insurance Company is one of the great

international insurance companies with its head office in Switzerland.

Last year, it grossed almost four million dollars and had almost four

million dollars worth of premium income in this Province. To the Zurich

Insurance Company: "Dear Sirs: I would appreciate a copy of your latest

annual financial report. I am particularly interested in your profits

and loss on the sale of auto insurance. Yours very truly, David

Barrett, M.L.A., Leader of the Opposition." Now, there's a

one-paragraph, one-sentence letter. Zurich Insurance Company certainly

made a speech about it, about three pages, and they go on and on. I'll

read the second paragraph. "As you will now be aware, I telephoned you

when I was in Victoria last week. In an effort to clarify just what you

are after I spoke briefly with Mr. John Wood, your administrative

assistant." He goes on, quotes figures this way, and back to front. I

won't belabour you with this but I thought that that one sentence there

just tells us that they are not going to come clean. Three pages of

gobbledegook. It's not just from one company, it's from practically all

of them. Not one laid it on the line and said, "This was our operating

profit, " not a single one. You can have the whole file. Now, there's

another interesting development, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Attorney-General,

out of this letter. When Mr. Jamieson, not the B.C. manager but the

manager for all of Canada, came over to Victoria to pay his respects to

our Provincial Leaders, he announced on January 11 what the

Attorney-General just announced this afternoon. He announced that an

Insurance Board would be set up in this Session of the Legislature. You

were listening; it will be on the tape to play it back. Why weren't we

told this at this time? What does this tell us, Mr. Speaker? This tells

us that the insurance industry has this Government, has this insurance,

the Attorney-General, this Department of Insurance, in its pocket. This

Government Board, it's not more freedom for the car-driving public but

it's more bureaucracy and less service, more Government and less

freedom. This is what you're doing under your Government. More

bureaucracy, more boards.

Now, the Attorney-General stated that, in his opinion, the no-fault

insurance was working well. I don't know whether he has spoken to the

Superintendent of Insurance or the Deputy Superintendent or whether

he's even been in touch with any of his constituents. These files that

I have here are files of correspondence from constituents who have

found it most difficult to collect under the no-fault plan. Each one of

these files shows no monies were paid until after months and weeks and,

in desperation, these people got in touch with an M.L.A. After writing

some letters, the claims were paid. Now, to me, this defeats the entire

purpose of no-fault insurance. It was my impression that no-fault

insurance should work something in the fashion of Workmen's

Compensation, that if the person were injured in a car accident they

would receive their $50 a week, little as it is, to supplement their

income until they are able to go back to work. They would receive this

within a week or two weeks; there would be no hang-ups, no need to

resort to lawyers. This has not been the case and many people are now

finding that while they pay the full $20-odd premium for no-fault

insurance, they're not covered. If anyone in this Legislature, if any

sitting Member, has been injured in a car accident, you will have

realized that you are not covered by the wage indemnity of the no-fault

insurance. If your mother and your father are senior citizens and are

injured in a car accident, they are not covered. If your brother, your

sister, your nephew, your niece, are on welfare or unemployment

insurance, they're not covered. If you're driving a vehicle and covered

by Workmen's Compensation and have an accident, you're not covered. The

100,000 welfare recipients, the unemployed, the members of the

R.C.M.P., are not covered. Mr. Attorney-General, and you, Mr. Speaker,

your no-fault insurance is being very poorly run; it's very inefficient

and it's too little, too late.

There was a young man, driving a motorcycle. A pick-up came out onto

the highway and knocked him down. He had his pelvis broken and was

hospitalized for several weeks or months. This involved the case

between the CIS…. . and Norwich Union, The contacts were made and

while the adjuster sent forms, from that day until this, that lad has

received no payment, and this accident took place on May 1, 1970, eight

months ago. That man has not received one penny from no-fault. He did

receive a $4,500 out-of-court settlement quite recently, but I doubt if

he would have

[ Page 46 ]

received that if the Department of Insurance and his M.L.A. had not

concerned themselves. There was a young man killed on March 22, last

year. The vehicle that he was riding in was Policy No. 765448, Western

Union Insurance. The insurance that his parents held was with the

Guardian, Policy No. 8286077. The same agent handled both companies.

That young man was killed on March 22, last spring. I heard about it

or, at least, I heard no benefits had been paid out in November. I

wrote to Mr. Cantell, I wrote to the insurance companies and, along in

December, the $500 death benefit was paid.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General says that no-fault insurance is

working in this Province. It wasn't working for that old couple that

lost their only son. They've been put through enough grief and

emotional despair without having to go on hands and knees to beg for

$500 to bury their son, their only son. And you say the plan is working.

I have several other cases; I believe I'll wind up with this one.

Some of these came from other constituencies. I have a very interesting

case in the North Okanagan that took three years. I had a very

interesting case very recently. A couple of ladies were driving up the

Fraser Canyon, the car slid around over the bank. One passenger was

rendered unconscious and very badly bruised, but, after they'd been

taken to hospital and checked out, they were allowed to find their way

home. This lady has received payment for her broken glasses, but she

has received no allowance for the fee that she had to pay or the taxi

service to get her home. She's received no allowance; nothing from the

no-fault; no $50 a week; and no allowance to pay for the help that she

had to get in to look after the house, cut the lawns and so on, while

she was laid up. I wrote to the Federated Mutual Insurance Company,

where Mr. Froese is the Manager, under Claim 522A9722, and he wrote a

beautiful letter, saying that this lady had given them a release. It

was such a sweet letter, it was just dripping with honey. So sweet that

I became suspicious. I went down and asked the lady if she had signed a

release, and she said: "At no time have I signed a release but within

36 hours of the accident, while I was still suffering from shock, I did

receive a long distance phone call from Vancouver and they asked me

many questions. They told me that the conversation was to be taped, and

they asked me if I would try to answer yes or no, if possible. They did

ask me about signing a claim form." This conversation, no doubt was

what the Federated Mutual was trying to interpret as a release. This is

what they were doing, knowing that they have this Government in their

pockets and that they can get away with anything. They wouldn't try to

get away with it, if they knew that they hadn't set up the campaign

funds that helped elect this Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't imputing a thing, I was

making a statement. Mr. Speaker, I stated that the insurance

corporations of this Province have this Government in their pocket, and

I'm not withdrawing it. I refuse to withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, there's nothing wrong with it.

MR. HARTLEY: No, there's nothing wrong with that statement

whatsoever. I am stating my position and that's it. I have sufficient

evidence here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the Member, by his statement, imputing improper motives to the Government?

MR. HARTLEY: I was imputing nothing. I leave to you to draw whatever opinions you may have.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the Member imputing improper motives to the Government?

MR. HARTLEY: No, no, I'm not imputing anything.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, proceed.

MR. HARTLEY: It's my feeling, Mr. Speaker, that when the

insurance companies are feeling so secure, knowing that they have the

legislation they asked for two years ago, knowing that they have the

Insurance Board as they stated on January 11, two weeks before it was

laid before the House, they were feeling so confident with this

Government that they are, instead of sending a new agent over there to

say, "Will you sign a quick pay claim, will you sign a release?" They

merely get on the long distance phone, they tape it, and then they try

and use this against the poor widow who had a just claim. This is

what's going on in this Province. I have named names, I have named

companies. It's there for the records. Mr. Speaker, my neighbour from

Chilliwack, the Member for Chilliwack, says that he's through

(interruption). All right, I'll read a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, from

the Superintendent of Insurance. It was written to Mr. H. Tall, Tall

Agencies Limited, 1310 East 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C.: "Re: Safeco

Insurance. I acknowledge receipt…." and this is from Mr. Anderson,

the Deputy Superintendent of Insurance. "I acknowledge receipt, of a

copy of your letter of November 15 to Safeco Insurance Company of

America, and have noted the contents therein." Next paragraph, follow

this. "The availability of insurance to all persons, subject, of

course, to unbiased underwriting requirements, is needed. Yours truly,

D.E. Anderson." Is that abusing the rules of the House, Mr. Member from

Chilliwack?

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): No, Sir.

MR. HARTLEY: This is your own Department, indicting what is

going on under the No-Fault Insurance Act in this Province. Mr.

Speaker, if the people of this Province don't recognize that the New

Democratic Party, not only in the Opposition but in the Province of

Saskatchewan and in the Province of Manitoba, are the only groups in

the one hundred year history of this Nation, that have dared draw up

legislation that the insurance companies opposed, don't try involving

me. We have a record that we are proud to stand on.

Mr. Speaker, there's another great shortcoming in our insurance laws

and that's this Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. Out of every dollar

that is collected, two cents, or two dollars out of every one hundred,

is repaid by the insurance companies and can be called on by the

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund when they need it. When we checked this

out with the Auto Insurance Committee, we found that only a small

portion of the money that the insurance companies was retaining had

never been called on, and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund operates

on overdrafts. While 2 per cent may not seem like very much (two cents

in the dollar), when you realize that this year the premium income in

this Province will reach 120 million dollars, that means that two and

one fifth million dollars are being paid out by the public

[ Page 47 ]

to operate a Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund that is not

indemnifying, in a proper fashion, the people that are injured in

accidents that are not covered by insurance. And if my friend, the

Member from Chilliwack, thinks that I'm abusing the House, I would like

to tell him of a lady who was picked up along the street, in Hope, with

a broken hip, bruised, shook up. They took her to the Hope Hospital,

then took her on down to Chilliwack. Eventually, when she got back home

to Princeton, they thought, they could be covered by no-fault

insurance. But here they were, two pensioners; they earned no salary;

they lost no income; they had no coverage. So we turned to the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund. I phoned them up long distance and they said,

"Yes, we'll look after that, we'll pay ambulance costs. Tell them to

get a housekeeper, nurse, and we'll look after that." Very good, time

went on, I thought it had been looked after. I got another call from

the old folks, "When are we going to give them some assistance?" So I

got on the phone again, wrote a letter to cover that call. I got word

back that they were getting right after it, sending a copy of a letter

to the adjusters. Then, in about two weeks' time, I got a letter from

the Fund, saying that they weren't sure that it was a car accident.

This lady was picked up on the street, seriously injured, too serious

for the local hospital. Now, how do you prove that you were injured in

a hit-and-run car accident when you're alone and no witnesses?

Before I took it up, as a layman, as best I could, I got the name of

the specialist, Dr. Victor M. Raz, in Chilliwack. I'll read the letter:

"William L. Hartley, M.L.A. Re: Mrs. Marguerite Cadsand — 63,

Princeton, B.C. — Thank you for your letter regarding Mrs. Cadsand. I

first saw this lady on July 2nd, 1970, when she was transferred from

Hope Hospital to Chilliwack, by Dr. Murakami. Both she and Dr. Murakami

informed me that she was hit by a small red car which went away without

stopping, near the bus depot in Hope. She had bilateral fractures of

the femoral neck, with considerable bruising. These injuries are almost

certainly due to the car knocking her down. It is very difficult to

produce such injuries by any other mechanism. I hope this information

will be of assistance to you, in helping Mrs. Cadsand. Kindest Regards,

Signed: Victor Raz."

Am I again abusing my privilege? Mr. Speaker, I say it's my right.

If these Members across there were doing their job, I wouldn't have to

be taking up problems from Chilliwack and North Okanagan, and all over.

They're sitting back. They have too big a majority, they're too cosy,

and they're too comfortable.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there are certain very simple remedies for

this situation, but before I go into that I would like to say that I

feel that Mr. Cantell, and Deputy Minister Anderson, do a good job in

assisting people. They've done a good job, I know, in helping me to

bring a little pressure to see the right thing done and I commend them

for this. But, to me, the answer to a better programme, a proper

programme, of automobile insurance in this Province is not more

bureaucracy. As you can see, we have the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund, and the Facility which is the poor risk pool. We've got 185

insurance companies; we've got a Superintendent of Insurance; an

Assistant Superintendent; and, now, we have an Insurance Board. And you

say the Socialists bring in bureaucracy. This is the biggest

bureaucracy there ever was.

Now there's one simple answer to this. I would like you, when you go

out of here, to go to the library. I'll send you this copy of the

Minister of Public Works Report from 1953 to 1954, signed by the

Honourable Phil Gaglardi, when he was Minister of Public Works. The

Coalition Government had been concerned about the high costs, the

thousands of dollars that they were paying out in car insurance, so

they set up an Insurance and Safety Committee, under a chap by the name

of Lonsdale. In 1953-54, he suggested that they send 3,000

Government-insured vehicles: the Department of Highways' vehicles; the

Forestry vehicles; the Department of Agriculture; that all the

Government-used vehicles set up a fund and self-insure them. This is a

statement from that Report. "The Report of the Insurance and Safety

Committee from Department of Public Works, 1953-54: From the standpoint

of self-insuring the fleet of Government cars and vehicles, our

experience for the fiscal year ending, has shown conclusively that very

great monetary advantages accrued as a result of the Government

deciding to take this step. The costs were reduced to one eighth, from

105 thousand dollars to 12 thousand dollars." Now, in today's language,

when we have considerably more vehicles, that means reducing, Mr.

Speaker, a one million dollar premium to 125 thousand dollars. That's

what we're talking about and we propose, Mr. Speaker, that there is a

very simple answer to this. But it takes courage, the kind of courage

that Ed Schreyer, the Premier, had, when he had a majority of one. He

took on all the insurance agents and all of the insurance companies,

not only of that Province but of this Nation, on this continent. How

would you do it? You would set up a fund, similar to what we have now

in the Honourable Wesley Black's Department of Highways Report, under

their Safety and Insurance Committee. We would go to Mr. Hadfield and

have his computers that contain the vital statistics on your and my

driving record, and the vital statistics on one million motor vehicles

in this Province, and we would programme those computers, so that when

we bought our license plates on March 1, or prior to March 1, we would

pay an additional sum of money. If an old age pensioner were knocked

down in Hope, or Chilliwack, or Hat Creek, or anywhere, she would be

made well to the best of the ability of the medical profession and the

other professions that would be looking after her. If a car were

damaged, it would be repaired, and it would be repaired out of this

fund. You wouldn't have to have 185 presidents, and boards of directors

of insurance companies. You wouldn't have to have 185 sets of

computers, you'd have one set of computers. Mr. Speaker, if this

Government fails to act on this issue, just as hospital insurance

created the collapse of the Coalition, car insurance will bring this

Government to defeat.

Concluding on car insurance, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this

Legislature, every citizen in the Province, pays approximately $20 to

buy no-fault car insurance. Just as I read from the Department of

Public Works Report from 1953-54, 17 years ago, in excess of 6,000

Provincial Government–owned and operated vehicles are reported in the

Minister of Highways' Report this year (see p. 30). Those vehicles paid

the approximate $20 but did they get no-fault coverage only? No, they

received complete coverage. There is no deductible on the collision and

there's no limit on the public liability. Those aren't just little mini

cars; these are the great low-bed trailers that the Department of

Highways operates; the snow ploughs that are operating under the most

dangerous and severe conditions 24 hours around the clock. It would

probably cost you $2,000 a year to insure them under the regular

commercial channels through the regular commercial companies, but under

this publicly-administered plan by this Government, they are insured

for an average of $24 per

[ Page 48 ]

vehicle. Yet, because this Government sits back, because this

Government is in the pocket of the insurance industry, they sit back

and allow the insurance industry to believe that the people of this

Province will wait when, if they would read their Province's own

Report, they would know there is a much better way (interruption).

Well, you sat there and the previous speaker got up and called us a

bunch of Communists, and you've never asked him to withdraw that. I am

making no imputation. If you read something into it, you'll have your

turn, Mr. Minister, and you can reply.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you make a ruling on the use of that language in the House.

MR. HARTLEY: You should have been here, Mr. Member from North Okanagan when I was telling what's happened to car insurance in your district.

Mr. Speaker, the next point I would like to deal with is with regard

to the raising of the Whatshan Dam and the proposed flooding of the

Skagit Valley as agreed by this Government with the city of Seattle

under an amendment to the Treaty of January, 1967. At that time, in

1967, I raised the matter in this House and placed a question on the

Order Paper. It was discussed quite fully here last year by Members on

this side, including the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. Both he

and I attended hearings in Seattle, hearings put on by the Seattle City

Council and, while they were interesting, I really didn't go down there

expecting that they would withdraw their right to our assets, assets

that had been given to them under such favourable conditions. I thought

we were being very presumptuous going down and expecting this, so we

didn't come away disappointed. But I did learn certain things by going

down there. I learned that, on their second hearing which was held in

December of last year, under Item No. 12 of their agenda that day, the

City of Seattle was exporting sufficient power outside of the city and

outside of the State on which they levied a 5 per cent sales tax that

brings them in an annual revenue of a quarter of a million dollars

which is better than eight times what it will pay us for the right to

flood those six thousand-odd acres in the Skagit Valley.

This matter was also discussed at the Wildlife Convention in Trail.

The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources,

spoke as the guest speaker and he was asked if the Government would

consider withdrawing their end of the Treaty. After a long, round about

answer, he said, "No, possibly the Department of Recreation would

consider recommending to the Federal Government that it be withdrawn

but the Federal Government opposed it."

Now the Skagit Valley dispute has generated considerable public

interest and, I believe, this is a good, healthy sign. It shows the

people of this Province and the people in the State of Washington are

concerned about their environment. They're concerned about the right to

have good recreational areas. Now, what are some of the unique

potentialities of the Skagit Valley?

(1) It is the only undeveloped

flat valley within easy driving distance of the great metropolitan area

of this Province, within two or three hours drive of Vancouver,

Westminster and the lower mainland. You can go up into this valley,

where there is not a farm, not a road, not a railroad. I didn't

appreciate the value of this until I heard the Trailhounds Association

from Abbotsford presenting their brief to the hearing in Seattle. They

pointed out that in this Province of British Columbia there are very

few places where you can let hounds run without the danger of them

running across the highway and being killed by a car, or a bus, or

running in front of a railway. When you think of that, there are very,

very few flat, level valleys, such as the Skagit, where that can be

done. It's also one of our best fly-fishing streams in the Province. It

has a first-class spawning area in the reaches of the river, in the

portion of the valley that is not flooded. I should mention that a

portion of the valley is now flooded, probably the better part of a

mile. Approximately six hundred acres above the American border did

flood and has been flooded for many years. But like most hydro dams

with water there in the spring, the spring water collects. The dam

holds it back but the minute the draw-down takes effect, you have just

a great mudflat, with stuff sticking up here and there. I don't have to

tell you that. The Member from Columbia knows what's going on in his

riding. We've all seen what's going on in the Peace River. But why add

more of that to our problems? (Interruption.)

I believe this Government has made it abundantly clear that they're

not concerned about saving the Skagit Valley for the people of this

Province . I appreciate the fact that the Honourable Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano has given considerable time and effort; he attended

the demonstration in the valley, as did one or two other M.L.A.s. I

think only one other M.L.A. spoke. The Skagit Valley is in the

Yale-Lillooet riding and we appreciate and are pleased to get help from

any and every source. We feel that this is a worthwhile project to save

for the people of British Columbia. I believe the Government recognized

this when they set aside a park reserve last year, adjacent to Manning

Park, adjacent to the Washington State National Park, and by fitting in

the six thousand-odd acres under the Treaty, tying it in with Manning

Provincial Park, the new recreational park reserve that was set up last

year, and the North Cascades National Park, we could have one great

international public reserve. This is a place where Americans and

Canadians, people of all lands, could play together and relax. When you

realize that last year we spent close to 30 million dollars in mental

health, surely, is there any better way to keep people out of mental

institutions than to see that they have good, clean, healthful

recreation? Now, where do we go from here? This Government says, "No,

what is Ottawa going to say?" I see where the Honourable Jack Davis

went to Washington for the International Joint Commission. Did he go

with blood in his eyes, fighting for that valley, or did he go

half-and-half? I'm afraid he went half-and-half. You will remember in

February of last year, the Leader of the Opposition read a letter from

Mark Rhodes, where the Honourable Mitchell Sharpe stated that the

International River Improvement Act of 1955 could be used to block the

giving away of the Skagit Valley from the people of British Columbia to

the people or to the power corporation of Seattle. Now, Mr. Sharpe has

put this in writing. It's there on the record. I think the record of

this Government is the alienation and giving away of resources: natural

gas, oil, copper, coal, minerals, hydro electricity. They have sold the

natural resources of this Province to foreign lands unforgivably and

their record is only exceeded and excelled by the Federal Government.

In the hundred years since Confederation, going right back to the days

of the late Honourable William Lyon MacKenzie King, the Liberal

Government in Ottawa has done anything and everything to placate our

cousins from the south and I expect very little from the Federal

Government in blocking this sale. I hope that I am disappointed but, if

I'm not disappointed, I would invite my friends, who I believe are

[ Page 49 ]

seriously and honestly concerned about this, to either sit here or

sit as Independents so that the Liberals in Ottawa can say, "Well,

those Liberals in British Columbia that took up the fight for the

Skagit are men of principles" (interruption). The Deputy Minister tells

me they are preparing to make a move. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Leader.

There are alternative methods that could be used to generate

electricity as an alternative to hydro. One is to sell natural gas to

the United States or build a thermal plant and sell the electricity so

that we're involving some man-hours. Give them a good deal on some

electricity, tell them we feel that we have erred in signing this

amendment to the Treaty three years ago, that we're living in

fast-moving times and so we'll give them a good deal on some hydro.

Two: The B.C. Hydro owns millions of tons of coal in the upper Hat

Creek coalfields. Next to hydro, the cleanest form of electricity is

electricity generated through thermal power. Some of the old lands in

the clear field where the seams are too narrow to get in and mine them

by manpower, by hand, they set these coalfields afire, they drill a

shaft down and blow air in to facilitate the combustion. This, in

burning the coal, generates coal gas similar to what the city of

Vancouver was using under the old B.C. Electric before the advent of

natural gas. I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that as an alternative,

rather than flooding this valley, we make some use of those great coal

reserves that are owned by B.C. Hydro in the upper Hat Creek, that

instead of strip-mining that area, we merely start a fire in the seam

below, control the combustion, control the amount of coal gas generated

and develop thermal, on-site power — and make some jobs for Canadians

rather than flooding another valley.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that our

philosophy is quite different from the philosophy of these people over

here, that say, "If there's a tree, chop it down. If there's a

beautiful valley, flood it. If there's a mountain, flatten it." That is

your philosophy and, gentlemen, it will go down as having been known as

the Government of fast-buck Bennett. It will go down in disgrace to the

future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on unemployment. I

know of nothing that is more devastating, more demoralizing,

particularly to young people. My faraway friends over yonder like to

call out about differences in political philosophy, differences in

economics and I would just like to have a word, Mr. Speaker, about

that. There is a marked difference in the philosophy between this group

of Social Democrats and those people representing corporate capitalism.

Whether it is the international corporate mining interests, or the

international corporate insurance companies with headquarters in

Zurich, Switzerland, there is a marked difference. First, a Social

Democrat believes in full employment. They believe in a planned economy

that's planned for progressive development of the natural resources

with full employment. The corporate capitalists call them Social

Credits or Liberals or Conservatives. You all represent corporate

capitalism, and there's no more free enterprise. The best example you

have is your insurance. What free enterprise is there in insurance?

You're not free to take or not to take; you're compelled by corporate

capitalism headed up by a Social Credit Government. Now, we have a

basic difference in philosophy. We believe that it is possible to plan

for full employment. A member from North Okanagan says, "What's an

example?" Three years ago, Sweden had 2 per cent of the work force

unemployed. Did they go bury their heads in silence and say, "We hope

it'll go away?" No. They called a Special Session of Parliament and

enacted legislation so that everyone was shortly back to work. The

Social Democratic Government is concerned with people. It gives people

the first priority. Corporate capitalism guarantees to the captains of

industry a minimum of 2 per cent of unemployed at all times. That

little Government in Manitoba, when it comes to standing up to the

people that tried to hoodwink the Churchill Pulp Mill, had a previous

Government invest 90 per cent of the people's money and put up 15, and

then stood by and said, "We will administer that 90 million dollars for

the people." Have they ever been dictated to? Have they ever been in

the hooks of corporatism. I'm sure when the Honourable Second Member

from Vancouver East speaks he will give you a few examples of just what

has gone on in this Province.

I was moved by the speech of the Leader of the Liberals. His ranting

and demands for antilabour legislation; his comments about the

unemployed, made me wonder. I closed my eyes and I recalled how the

late Gerry McGeer read the riot act from the Cenotaph and I wondered if

he had been the leader on January 21 in this House, would he have stood

up and read the riot act here? I hope not. Certainly, the type of talk

that he gave in these very serious and trying times leaves one to

wonder. I doubt very much if he will be given that opportunity; I'm

afraid it will be many, many years before a party of that brand will

form a Government here. Because in Canada, there are just two political

philosophies. There are not the Social Credit and the Liberals and the

Conservatives, and the Social Democrats. There are the parties of

corporate capitalism on the right, and the party of the Social

Democratic on the left. The Social Democrats believe in full

employment, worthwhile pensions and a high standard of living in a

good, clean environment for all. Those are our policies and we'll

continue to fight for them.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I would like to move an amendment

and I have a copy here for you. I would like to move, seconded by the

Honourable Member for Atlin that the motion in reply to the Opening

Speech of His Honour be amended by adding the following words: "….but

this House regrets that the Speech of His Honour failed to provide

any proposals to meet the critical state of unemployment in the

Province, affecting many thousands of our citizens and their families,

and fails to deal with the impact of widespread unemployment upon the

social and economic life of this Province."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, in seconding the

amendment, I would like to say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this

Centennial Year, it is gratifying to me to take my place to speak on

behalf of the people whom I represent, the people of the constituency

of Atlin.

I don't intend to be very long because I am going to say my little

piece this afternoon as a speaker. You know, not so very long ago,

people said to me, "Oh, you're the baby of the House" and this was in

1949. Today they say, "little chief with his grey hair." They say,

"you're the grandaddy of the House."

The person who moved the motion, the Member for Columbia, made

reference to the fact that I was the only Member that had assumed

position in the House here and that Doug Jung assumed position as a

Chinese representative in the Federal House, and that my good friend,

Marchant, was the first Indian in the Federal House. But we are

[ Page 50 ]

celebrating the Provincial House and the little chief, he's still

the first one here, and I would like to thank you, Mr. Member for

Columbia, for that comment. It brings to my attention that there are

Indian people in this Province who would like to see Indians appointed

to the House, just like they have in the House in New Zealand with the

Maori people. You know one of the happiest moments in my life was that

competitive spirit. Do you know, I fought to get into this House? In

this respect, I fought to become friends of yours and we became pals. I

do not agree with the Indians who are now peddling and saying, "Well,

let me in the door." They are going to have to get into the door on

their own initiative, just like I did, and I don't agree that we should

have the same plan that they have in New Zealand. If Indians in this

country are going to be recognized, they're going to have to be

recognized on their own initiative. I don't agree with appointments — they've got to get into this House exactly the same way I got in. Many

of you may not agree with that but that's the way it is. I'm very sorry

for the native Indians who may disagree with my point of view. It's

been made a front-page story and I particularly brought this to your

interest because the Member for Columbia brought it in. I take this

opportunity to say that if Indians come into the House, the Senate or

anywhere, they have to have the same recognition as anyone else. That's

the way it is. They have to be recognized and this is the way they have

to be recognized. I'm glad that, in this Centennial Year, I'm standing

on my feet representing the constituency of Atlin, speaking on their

behalf, speaking on the behalf of great people. You know, Atlin is a

great riding. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have a Klondike up north and Atlin

was involved at the northern

section of the riding. I said not too long

ago that one of the keys to the development of this Province, and I

think I also speak for all the northern Members, was the mining

industry and the guys who blazed the trails in the mineral industry.

I'm rather disappointed that there was nothing in this Centennial

Speech that paid tribute to these people who, in one hundred years,

blazed that trail, built the Province that culminated in this grand

celebration which we're going to witness this year. Not only on behalf

of the people that I represent in the Atlin riding, and I don't have to

elaborate on the many klondikes that took place in other parts of this

Province, I would like, at this time, because the Throne Speech didn't

do it, to pay tribute to those people who prepared and laid that

pathway upon which we are now celebrating. And I'm going to also state

that the Indian lands are going to be paid in this country. I wouldn't

say this outside the House, but we are prepared to go into the Supreme

Court of Canada.

I'm very happy that the lawyer for the Government appeared in

October and said before my lawyer, "There are no objections." So now we

are going to appear on the third stage of the fight for our lands in

this country. I only hope that this Government, to whom we are

directing this case, is going to adopt a gracious attitude in this

Centennial Year and hold this country for the Indian people. We are

going to fight, we're going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

We are going all the way. I haven't even talked about this matter to my

own lawyers on this side of the fence but we are hopeful that justice

will prevail.

I'm going to tell you that this is a beautiful country. You stated

that you went through the country, Mr. Barrett. It's a beautiful

country. Do you know this is the only piece of real estate, Mr. Deputy

Speaker, that has not been paid for? You're going to pay for it and I

stand on my feet, even though I know that I may be ridiculed on account

of the fact that I'm the plaintiff in this case. We are going all the

way on this case. We sued this Government in 1967 and what happened in

'67? It was a grand year, I don't have to elaborate on that. But now

we're celebrating this particular year and I don't have to elaborate on

that, either. All I'm saying is that you had better recognize our

position.

Let's talk about confrontation and meeting people. On the opening

day here, I was a little frightened. I was one of the twelve people who

were appointed to meet the Russians in October, the results of which

you read the other day — that certain agreements had been reached. I

was in Ottawa all during that month. I walked in Ottawa, back and forth

from the Chateau Laurier over to the old station as one of the twelve

delegates for Canada that talked with the Russians. We were escorted

back and forth with machine guns, this was during the time of the

kidnapping and killing. It was most amazing. I just couldn't believe

that this thing could happen in our country but I was a witness to it.

This freedom — I just couldn't buy this. Here we are meeting with the

Russian delegation, about twenty of these very grand people who belong

yet the people who came over as a delegation for the fisheries all

Russian delegation said to me when we were sitting in the window and we

saw all the soldiers walking back and forth. He said, "Well, Mr.

Calder, you see all those boys walking back and forth, that's what

takes place when you dish out too much freedom. You fellows accuse us

of confining freedom." I almost grabbed that, as a matter of fact, I

still grab it because this guy, I think, was quite sincere. And so this

is what happened the other day. We are giving too much freedom. Our way

of life is to give freedom but I think we should learn a little bit

from other countries. Here is a country which we accuse and yet they

don't have it. In the same breath he says, "Mr. Calder, you see those

armed guys walking back and forth. There's about two hundred of them."

At the reception on our last day, he said, "You know, Mr. Calder, we

don't have that in our country." I almost said, under my breath,

"You've got them in plain clothes." There is still that underlying

freedom. So now we come to our very own existence. I was frightened the

other day. I sat over where Mr. Alex Macdonald is sitting. Mr. Deputy

Speaker, here's a guy who admitted he was afraid. I'm going to tell you

I admitted to a lot of my friends here that I was afraid. But why do

these things happen? Here it's happened in the East where I was a

witness. It's happening here. I think the reason why it's happening is

because the Governments and the people who are engaged in the welfare

of people are just not meeting the people. I would like, Mr. Speaker,

to say this. I have my tribe in the Nass River who are hostile to me

and we're righting to be heard. They want to know, they want to give me

their problems and tell me all about them, so that as their Member I

can speak on their behalf in this House. The same thing applies to all

other people. We've got standing committees, like we heard the other

day, that are provided by the rules of the House. We also provide that

if there's any special thing to be heard, we provide special hearings.

We did that with the fisheries not too long ago, which I'm going to say

something about in the later debate. Those people who appeared in the

House — that was drastic. There is no end to this, Mr. Speaker, it's

going to happen again, and again and again, whether we like it or not.

Please don't blame our Party because I take my hat off to people,

commentators, the

[ Page 51 ]

people who saw this. It is rather foolish of my good friend from

Columbia to come out the next day and point a finger….

MR. SPEAKER: I

regret drawing the honourable Member to order but the discussion, as

proposed by the amendment, is the subject of unemployment. While I

agree there is some indirectness to be attributed to the show that was

put on here the other day, I wouldn't like to see a debate on that

particular subject. I'm not objecting to you touching upon it lightly

but try to deal with the real problem which is the unemployment which

is facing the Province.

MR. CALDER: I'm just arriving at that, Mr. Speaker (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: I realize that, but I presumed that he was

talking to the amendment. I wouldn't like it to be understood generally

in the House that we're going to be discussing the situation which took

place the other day.

MR. CALDER: I'm rather sorry that I had to enlarge on my

introductory remarks. I'll go now into unemployment. I was just getting

into it because here were the people up in the gallery. I think it is

rather embarrassing for the Government, particularly my good friend the

Member for Columbia, to get engaged in accusations. Mr. Speaker, I

would like to say something on which you have directed me to speak. It

has to do with the motion that has been introduced by the Member for

Lillooet and I would like to relate that to what is going on in the

north. There is unemployment, Mr. Speaker, in the north and I'm very

unhappy about the situation up there. You don't ever hear statistics

about people who are unemployed up north. I would say 50 per cent of

the residents in northern British Columbia, let's say from the Prince

Rupert to the Jasper belt, let me pick a figure out of the clear blue

sky and say 50 thousand people. That was the figure I used when I said

not too long ago that there should be natural gas going through all the

areas that involved 50 thousand people and I never even asked the

departments exactly what that figure was. They use that figure in the

statistics of Government and say that there were 50 thousand people

involved in natural gas requirements. So I'll say that maybe half of

those people in that belt are unemployed. I think I could be safely

backed by all the Members on the floor of the House including the

Member for Peace River, the Minister and everybody else. I am very much

concerned about this unemployment and this is the motion we're talking

about. I don't have to elaborate upon the points raised by my leader,

Tommy Douglas. I think he made very specific points, which you all read

in the paper, the points he raised during our banquet in Victoria. I

think the people who didn't attend the banquet certainly read the

account of his presentation at that banquet. It was good, I certainly

enjoyed it. But in addition to what he said, the Government also should

be doing something about it. I am rather amazed that the Government

hasn't done too much about this. The only way, Mr. Speaker, that we can

solve this whole problem is by cooperating and this Government has not

cooperated. You just don't cooperate with the Federal House.

We're talking about the unemployment insurance, we're talking about

everything and all you're doing is blaming the Federal House. Do you

know that all the time you're blaming the Federal House, the poor guy

who is in need is sitting back there. I think the only way that we can

help solve the situation is for you and all the Provinces and the

Federal House to cooperate. You people have met in the Provincial

House. The Governments of the day have asked you to appear. Why don't

you do something about it? You don't want to. You just want to place

before the people this halo over your heads. You know I had an occasion

to spend one month in Japan this year and I certainly enjoyed my time

at B.C. Day. I think B.C. Day was a terrific day. We also had a

terrific Canada Day.

You know, I had the occasion to go through the secondary industries.

It was one of the motives upon which I went to Japan to see them. I had

a very happy occasion. I was taken by certain Japanese authorities to

see these. I think back, "What about these superports?" I see you have

a little smile on your face, Mr. Speaker, because a superport involves

your city. If it goes to Ridley Island, naturally, you'd be very happy;

if it goes to Kitson Island then you won't be so happy because it's

next door. Whether they go to Stewart, which isn't my riding, whether

they go to Bella Coola, whether it be all the way through Roberts Bank,

I wouldn't call these superports, Mr. Speaker, if I were you. We're

neighbours. I wouldn't call them superports because as far as I'm

concerned they are an exodus for jobs and secondary industries. That's

all they are. They're just funnels by which our raw materials are going

through out of the country. I found this out in one little encounter in

Japan.

Yet we can open up right next door. Our committees, upon which

several Members of the House sit, talk about investments, the American

investment, the Japanese investment, and see whether or not we can

arrive at certain areas which we can reach and work together on these

investments. I really believe that. I'm sorry the Premier is not here.

I want to tell him, especially when my Leader talked about talking to

certain industries. I went broke in Japan, Mr. Speaker. I knew I was

going to go broke so I made an arrangement with my banker that if I

went broke I would go to see the Bank of Tokyo. It just so happened I

arrived at the bank just a day after the Premier and his colleagues had

left. I was told by the interpreter that they had been given a real

grand time in the suite of the President of the Bank of Tokyo. I walked

into the place just a day after and I tell you they really rolled out

the red carpet when they found out that I was the little chief. And

about seven hours later, in the evening, the interpreter said, "You had

a bigger reception than the Premier" (laughter). I'm still talking

about the secondary industries upon which I'm going to elaborate later

on during the debates. What I am trying to say is this, that the

Pacific rim, and this was taken up by my Leader yesterday, this

Government hasn't even touched discussions on the Pacific rim. Here is

one country which I talked about even to the banker. He talked to the

company — I was talking to the Government, which is the Bank of Tokyo,

on what they would like to do — investments. Now, we're talking about

employment. Here is one field, Mr. Speaker, and I'm saying this about

the superports. The ports are no super to me after what I saw in Japan.

The ports, whether they be at Roberts Bank, Bella Coola, Stewart,

Vancouver, Prince Rupert, are no super to me because to me that is an

exodus for jobs and secondary industries. The only time, Mr. Speaker,

that I will call them super is when we can export the finished product.

I think this was brought out by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.

I think what he was trying to say was that if there's going to be

investment, let's go fifty-fifty with any country that wants to come in

here and create these industries so that we can create jobs in our

land. We're

[ Page 52 ]

talking about jobs, we're talking about unemployment and I'm very

sincere in this. I can go on and on about what I saw in the Far East.

Let's talk about something that's near at hand, Mr. Speaker. Let's

go back to the north. I said in the last Session, when the Premier

said, "We're going to Dease Lake," "No, let's talk about some

examples." He says, "Well, we're going with the PGE up to Dease Lake."

What the heck is up in Dease Lake? It's in my riding. We have great

hopes in that particular area but it isn't that big, although the

people in my riding might not appreciate what I said. We have great

hopes in that particular place, and very casually I said in the last

Session, "Well, let's go to Whitehorse." Do you know I only said that

and boom. I got mail. People up in Whitehorse started to write, "You're

right, Frank, you're right." This involves a policy of the

Government. No, don't shake your heads, it's true. This is the

Centennial Year and when we were coming into Confederation, we talked

about, "Well, we$re going to join only if the railroads come to the

coast." The railroads have not ended, yet we're going north. It's going

north, young man. I'm quite sure that my friends from Peace River are

not satisfied yet that it's going to stop at Fort Nelson. If we are

going to contribute to Confederation, which is not yet at an end, we've

got to contribute as a Province which is now realized by people all

over the world. We've got to go to the Northwest Territories. We've got

to go to the Yukon and to Alaska. There is profit for this Government

right there. We haven't finished the railroad system yet. You've got to

go into the north to realize revenue for this Province. The same thing

with roadbuilding. We're talking about unemployment. We've read nothing

but blame for the Federal Government for its laxity in unemployment,

but I think this Government has a part to play in this field. I

appreciate that this Government has done a good job in apprenticeship

under the Labour Department. Some of my own family members went through

that field and they've done well. A couple of my own nephews now are

earning $7,000 a year under the Labour Department and you're increasing

that potential. That's fine, I think this should be publicized. You can

do a lot of things rather than wait for the Federal House to do

something. This House can do a lot. Not too long ago the Premier had

his finger pointing in Time magazine, "Go north, young man." I plead

with the people who are responsible in my riding. Now I'm going to be

rather parochial. I plead with the departments, "Look, we've got only

20 miles to go on the Stewart-Cassiar Road." A Centennial project.

Before you leave, Mr. Premier, why don't you make it a Centennial

project? Once that is connected, you are going to see numerous

companies building up their claims. We've got a lot there that's ready

to go and they're only waiting for this road to be completed. The

Members of this House don't even know what is going on in one of the

greatest projects in the north. Several people smiled when I said about

two years ago there were three big projects in the Province — Columbia,

Peace and the Stewart-Cassiar Road. It is a big project. All you

require is 20 little miles. The entry is now finished on the north end

so let's get rid of him, you know, Ben Ginter. Let's get a new contract

and boom. I'm very happy that he is now finished with his contract.

I've been waiting for that guy to get off our backs.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a cost plus, what are you going to do?

MR. CALDER: It's a cost plus and he gets about one and a half

million dollars every year and he has only averaged about 4.5 miles a

year for the last 10 years. Let's get him off our backs and put a new

contract on that road and let's finish it this year so that company

after company can start developing and create jobs. This is what I am

driving at — creating jobs. We've got only one bridge over the Meziadin

to connect Stewart and Terrace. You people know all about the southern

tip of my riding. All we need is a 300 ft. bridge. Everybody has been

asking for it. Build it and create jobs. The PGE was going to Peace

River. Let's go further and create jobs. We're going to Fort Nelson.

Let British Columbia help build the Northwest Territories by creating

jobs and building that railroad. I read the other day that one of the

Members, I think it was Mr. Fraser, mentioned about buying out the

railroad in your riding, at least, part of it. I said that several

years ago. The Premier has a habit of turning his back to us, but when

I mentioned that year that we should buy out the railroad from Prince

George to Prince Rupert, he turned around and faced me. He didn't nod

but I knew that he was interested. I agree with the Member. Let's buy

it out. Let's control the railroads in this Province and let's create

jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in seconding this motion on unemployment, I believe

that the Government has a great part to play and I'm going to say this

very sincerely, Mr. Speaker, that as long as this Government is going

to attack the Federal, and the Federal attack this Government, there

will be no solution. There's got to be cooperation in this field and it

is a serious matter. As a matter of fact, you've got to confront the

people who are engaged. I wouldn't mind seeing you opening up a special

committee to hear these people. I'm going to say this because of what

happened the other day. You're going to continue seeing that and you'll

see it because you don't want to talk to them. You can stop it. You can

stop violence. You can stop these people from being violent by opening

the front door and hearing them talk. I really mean it, even though I

said I was frightened the other day at the opening. Yet those people, a

lot of them are university students, you can talk to them. Mr.

Attorney-General, if you provide an avenue by which they can say their

piece, you are preventing violence.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Labour Committee work.

MR. CALDER: Let's activate all the committees. I really mean

it, I've got a lot of faith in human beings. You might say that thirty

people up there were a nasty bunch. If you can only talk to those

people and open the door and hear their piece, hear their suggestions,

they'll tell you. I think the whole structure of the matter is that if

you avoid it then you are part of inciting a riot, because those people

want to be heard. I think in the matter of being heard I think this

Government should hear out these people on unemployment because we have

a structure here comprised of a lot of Members of Parliament and we can

hear them. Let them be heard, let us open up the doors to these people.

If you don't, you're going to continue to have these riots and parades

and everything else. I'm rather disappointed in the fact that our Party

has been blamed for this and I'm very disappointed that even though the

commentators and everybody else knew what was going on, I couldn't

understand why the Member had to go and accuse us. I think the Member

later was rather embarrassed and I think the Government was

embarrassed. This case is a big issue, the unemployment. As a matter of

fact, I told my own Caucus the big issue is unemployment

[ Page 53 ]

and I think every Member in the House is going to have to say something about unemployment.

Before I sit down I am going to say something that's in my line. I

don't give a hoot what my Party says — I'm going to have my say about

this. I hope that the people who sponsored any kind of a rally are

going to learn a lesson from this. Do you know I made two remarks

within a space of four years against the B.C. Federation of Labour. I

am not going to take them back (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CALDER: I said something about people in the north and

I've been talking about unemployment. University students, men and

women born in that place up there. I'm very touched over this. Indians

and everybody else. You've heard me say that. They don't get the first

chance of a job up there because the seniority lists are way down here

in the city areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. CALDER: The unions. Ever since I've said that, I've had

Indian Affairs and the unions phoning the offices up north and saying,

"We've got a job for you." It paid off. What I said, it paid off. I won

my fight. I'm still being congratulated by the Indian Affairs branches

all over the place because they are getting phone calls from the

unions. "How many Indians have you got that can come in?" But it's not

good enough yet. I won the fight and I also made a nasty statement

which even my colleagues here don't like. I said that the only way that

the Party can get into power is to oust the other guy. All of us in the

House are all union members. We're all union members. Every rank in

here are one-time members of a union and we all know that the unions

have played a major role. As a Member of Parliament I don't want that

guy to control me as a lieutenant. Never. They're not going to knock me

out in the Caucus meetings (interruption). We've got a freedom party

going here. If we don't like what Ray Haynes has done, we're going to

tell him so. He provided an avenue by which other people told him the

other day (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CALDER: You can't accuse him. Even though he hasn't

spoken to me, I can't accuse him. I think this nonsense of accusation

has to stop. But let him learn a lesson because he provided the avenue

through which things happened. I don't care what my Party says. That is

right. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think any

section of

society is going to control any part of the elected Members. This is

what I have said to my group and I think this is what you have to

recognize in all the groups. No

section of society should control — big

companies or the unions. I really believe that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Don't forget what he said. Big companies. What about the insurance companies?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CALDER: I'm going to go a little further than this. I

have never forgiven Ray Haynes for what he did to me. I made certain

statements two years ago in my riding. I can't very well point a finger

at him but I can indirectly do so. The statements I made I believe were

true, and the union people in my riding said, "You say it, Frank," and

I did, on the floor of this House. But two people arrived from Stewart

to try and knock me out in the last election and the people in my

riding said, "You go back out, we sent Frank to say this." I said it.

With Mr. Ray Haynes — I'm going to say it right now because the next

election is just liable to be my last run and I'm going to say what I

want to say now — he wasn't satisfied with that. He was on the

Provincial Council, which is public knowledge, and refused to send

money into Atlin, so I had to foot the bill myself on the last election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We all did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CALDER: I'm not finished with him. That guy should resign

for what happened because he instigated the last riot. Honest citizens

who are labour people should tell him to take off. I am a fighting man

and I'm ready to go to bat against Ray Haynes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, as I enter the debate, I

compliment that Member on his forthright statement. I'm sure the

Province has been waiting to hear this kind of a statement from a

Member from that political party.

I would just like to say at the beginning it is a pleasure to change

the trend of things and talk a little bit about money and about

inflation and unemployment. As I've said in this Legislature for the

past four or five years, there have only been about one, two or three

occasions on which the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Member

for Coquitlam, has made an attempt to speak about the economy of the

Province. It was most interesting yesterday to hear his comments as he

staggered along from left to right, first of all damning Kaiser, then

building up Toyota. What were they doing when he was doing these

things? Let's look at these companies for a moment. Let's look at his

philosophies. We are talking in terms of jobs and profits. We hope that

by bringing other countries' investment into this country we can

maintain or gain a maximum investment in jobs and a maximum investment

in profits. Let's look at where the most jobs and the most profit are

going to come from for Canadians. Is it going to come from Toyota or

from Kaiser? First of all, in jobs, he mentioned that the Kaiser deal

should never have gone through. He has called it a sell-out on many

occasions in this House. Yet, if the Burlington Northern gains their

application, that will mean immediately to the Canadian economy, 1,500

new jobs for Canadians. Now if the CPR is allowed to stand in there and

throttle the economy of the Kootenays as the Member of Kootenay

suggested last time — and last time he just about didn't make it

because of it because those people in that town wanted those jobs.

There are 1,500 jobs available there immediately if the coal can become

a competitive factor. At the present time, the CPR monopoly is selling

coal. In fact, if we had had the way of the Member from Kootenay,

instead of receiving anything from there, we, as taxpayers of Canada,

would have still been paying $2.50 for every ton of coal that came out

of there. Instead, we are receiving more returns now and this will

continue to build into a great enterprise.

There are two ways of making money out of enterprise in our Province. The two ways of making profit: the profit can

[ Page 54 ]

come from dividends or it can come from capital gains. Let's see

what the Americans have made in profit out of our country so far in

dividends and capital gains. How much in dividends did Kaiser pay this

year? Did they pay every American shareholder who invested at $12 a

share? Did they pay a good return? Did they pay 10 per cent, 20 per

cent? Of course, they didn't. They haven't paid a dividend yet; in

fact, they showed a massive loss. What did they do in capital gains for

those who had the faith to invest in this economy? They bought shares

at $12 a share and how much are those shares worth today? For every

thousand dollars that every American invested in Canada last year, it's

only worth five hundred today. They didn't take out an immense profit,

they took out an immense loss. They took the risk the Canadians

themselves should have had the courage to take in the beginning. At any

rate, Kaiser, at least, offered its shares in Canada; 25 per cent of

the shares of Kaiser resources are owned by Canadians. Let's talk about

the Leader of the Opposition's proposition. What percentage of Toyota

is owned by Canadians? Is it 25 per cent, Mr. Leader, because that's

the way the profit is going to go? Will the profit come back through

dividends or capital gains? There's not going to be one dividend coming

to Canada from Toyota; there's not going to be one capital gain coming

to Canada from Toyota, because Toyota is a Japanese-owned company and

it is not available in Canada. There will be, in the long term for

people who have faith in that project, returns coming to Canada through

dividends and, hopefully, through capital gains as well.

How about the job situation now? Now for jobs, the Leader of the

Opposition is going to get us 200 new jobs compared to 1,500 in Kaiser.

Which is the better deal, with no profits and no dividends? It is a

rather simple comparison and he should do his economic homework and

study a few of these facts before he goes running about the

international market. In referring to the economy, it is easy for us to

stand and blame a Federal Government, a Provincial Government but, as

we look at this problem, we must instead look first to the

international situation because 1970 has been a year of instability and

a lack of confidence in the world market. This is largely true because

of the importance of the American dollar in the world economy. Perhaps

it shouldn't be so, but it is and, for the first time in the history of

the United States, they have had and developed a massive deficit of

trade balance. In fact, the United States which has usually had surplus

capital to invest in foreign aid and foreign investment, foreign

investments that we need in the Province of British Columbia this year

because of their deficit position, they have not been able to make

these commitments to the other parts of the world and this has created

instability, this lack of capital input throughout the world, not just

in Canada and in British Columbia.

The outlook for the next year does have some hope, though, because

the United States is attempting to bring stability back to the American

dollar. They have acted in a reasonably successful way to control their

inflation and, hopefully, this huge output of money, this huge output

of capital, that has caused this deficit position, and the war in

Vietnam, may be brought to some satisfactory conclusion. At least from

a monetary point of view, and a social one for that matter, the

withdrawal of United States from Vietnam should help the economy of the

world by stabilizing the United States dollar. While the current crisis

has been avoided, the strength of the American dollar itself and its

importance in the economy of the world does come into question. We can

recognize that because of the importance of the American dollar. To

lessen the importance of the American dollar in international trade,

some changes are going to have to be made in the international monetary

system. We have seen during the past ten years a decline in the value

of the tangible of gold as a reserve asset. We have seen gold shipped

to the less intangible American dollar as a reserve asset, and then we

have seen the third, even more, intangible special drawing right of the

World Bank become prominent features in world banking international

assets.

It is important that we maintain all three of these forms of assets.

We must have a medium of exchange, we must have a credit rating as

established by the special drawing rights of the World Bank and we must

have an asset reserve situation both on the international level in the

World Bank and at the National level in Canada. I hope that stability

will be brought to the world economy by a strengthening of the World

Bank, both economically and politically. It needs to be tied even

closer as an arm of the United Nations and it needs to be given more

authority. It's interesting to note that the authority that they will

gain will be determined by their method of determining credit. The

World Bank, unlike the Bank of Canada and banks of the United States,

its reserve assets must be in the tangible gold standard. However, the

World Bank has seen a greater wisdom; it has seen that gold is not a

real and tangible subject. It has seen that the real credit of any

nation must be measured in the productivity of that nation, in the

productivity of its people and its resources. The World Bank has seen,

not only has it seen but it has demonstrated, that we must look at, to

establish a stable world, monetary philosophy and policy. We must

understand and accept that the real measurement of credit in any nation

is its social credit. The credit of a nation is social and this is

being understood by the World Bank and it is being brought into

function. It is functioning successfully and it's going to continue to

strengthen. I hope that, as it continues to strengthen, we can

participate more and more in this World Bank as well.

During the past year, Canada has recognized that inflation must be

controlled. This is not just Canada, each country in the world has

recognized this. In recognizing the necessity to control, each country

has, in its own way, taken action. In Canada, of course, as a young

Nation, we reacted a little bit and I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just

saying that we over-reacted, as we often do, and we over-reacted at the

wrong time, in the wrong place and in the wrong way. What did the

Canadian Government do? To start out with they decided to control

inflation with increased interest rates, and by increasing the interest

rates all they did was people continued to borrow and they added to the

cost of inflation. A very unsuccessful ploy. Then they decided that

they would tighten the money supply. At the same time as they tightened

the money supply, they were passing out and preventing responsible

developers from moving ahead in their expansion plans because the

responsible developer, like our Premier, didn't move ahead into the

borrowing market under those interest rate situations. They prevented

the responsible borrower from going ahead and from developing, yet they

gave credit to the person who could least support it. They passed out

bank card cheques to every consumer who had already consumed more

credit than he could possibly afford — the second mistake of the

Federal Government. The third mistake, they made a very timid approach

towards the Income and Prices Commission, they made a timid approach

towards controlling wages and prices because wages and

[ Page 55 ]

prices have to be brought under control to control inflation. The

only method of really curing inflation …. the standard of living,

after all, is our productivity, and as we produce more goods our

standard of living rises as long as wages and prices do not accelerate

more quickly. We have accepted in our economy a state of inflation; we

have agreed that we will allow some inflation; we have agreed to live

with it; but we could not live with the state of inflation that we've

experienced in the last two years.

Our Federal Government recognizes rightly; as I said, they just took

the wrong action at the wrong time and they went too far, too fast, too

soon, in the wrong way. A fourth method that they took was to make

discriminatory sanctions against productive Provinces, again defeating

their own purposes, stopping productivity when you cannot stop

productivity or you lower the standard of living. They were successful

in doing it; they lowered the standard of living and they created the

unemployment situation that finds us with the people out on the streets

looking for work today. That's how it happened. In addition to that,

they applied further sanctions, not against just this Province but

against every exporting Province in this country. They again freed the

dollar. They let it float on the market, let