1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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 27, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 35 ]

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. DAVID BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I wish to enquire as to whether the experiment with the tape machines is still going on?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the experiment is still proceeding. The

results thus far are satisfactory, and we are recording at a very low

rate of speed, 15/16th of an inch per second, and feel that this is

adequate fidelity for the purposes for which it is being used.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as you know the House has given its

consent for the experiment but we have not yet seen a resolution

dealing with how these experiments or how the tapes will be used. Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to say at this point that our side of the House feels

there is a great difference between a Hansard and being bugged. We'd

like to know more about what the Government's plans are with these

tapes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General.

HON. LESLIE R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'm

rather relieved to see so many members in their seats today after the

hockey game last night. As you perhaps are aware, Mr. Speaker, about

fourteen of the members of this Assembly participated in a charity

match last evening in the Memorial Arena, against the news media, and

before we were introduced to the ice a letter was read from the N.D.P.

Caucus suggesting that they hoped a good many of the Government members

would come and none of theirs because of the risk of injury; but, I

want to say that one of their stalwarts turned out, the new member in

their party, the honourable member for New Westminster. (Applause) We

also had the participation of the Liberal Members in the House in the

person of their Leader and the very outstanding goalkeeper, Mr.

Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. (Applause) I must say

the Leader had a little difficulty, he spoke at some length here

yesterday in this Chamber and appeared a little tired. He was being

wheeled out in one of the shopping baskets (laughter) but even at that

he only made a foot on the ice before he was warming the ice, but he

recovered later on.

On the Government side, Mr. Speaker, we had the member for Saanich

and the Islands — you should watch him on skates, my friend, the member

for Fort George, my colleague the Minister of Lands and Forests, who I

think would have been awarded the first star for outstanding playing on

our team, as he scored the first goal. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan

also was there, and the first member for Vancouver Centre. Perhaps he

hasn't recovered. He was the only one, I might say, on the ice to

receive a penalty in that game, and he deserved it. The second member

for Vancouver Centre as well, the first member from Vancouver Burrard,

the member for Richmond, and the member for Alberni, who scored the

second goal. (Applause) He went down the ice and stepped over those

bodies just as though they were logs on a beach, Mr. Speaker,

(laughter) and with all the rest of us on the ice or down at the other

end he scored that goal.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Did the Government score all the goals?

MR. PETERSON: I'm afraid so, Mr. Premier. And then British

Columbia's answer to Rocket Richard, the member from Columbia. Not

only, Mr. Speaker, were all of these members doing their bit for us, a

very worthwhile cause last night, but in my mind at least they

demonstrated a real need for this $10,000,000. amateur sports and

physical fitness fund, in terms of upgrading the quality of performance

of this game in the future.

I do want today to say a few words in support of the Motion that's

before us that we express our thanks to His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor for the opening speech delivered at this first

Session of the 29th Parliament, and because of a certain happening last

August, I would want as well to acknowledge the privilege that I have,

together with my colleague the Honourable Minister without Portfolio,

to represent the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain again in

this riding. In expressing my gratitude this year, unlike all previous

elections, Mr. Speaker, I can extend that gratitude not only to the

Social Crediters in the riding but the many others who crossed party

lines, the Liberals, the Tories and even some supporters of the N.D.P.

in the last election who voted this time for good government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Mickey O'Brien.

MR. PETERSON: I join the previous speaker in welcoming the

new members to the House — happy that all but one are seated in support

of the Government, but I'm sure whatever party they represent they come

here to do a job for their riding and to make some contribution as well

to the public life of this Province and I want to join, I'm sure, with

everyone in wishing them well in that endeavour.

I think a special word of praise and a word of tribute is due to the

mover and the seconder of the Motion that's before us for the

outstanding job they did last Friday. They got us off to an excellent

start, enabled us to withstand yesterday. You know, as I listened and

as I looked at the Member for Delta and the Member for

Revelstoke-Slocan…

AN HON. MEMBER: You were sad.

MR. PETERSON: I was sad? I was the most happy fellow in this

Province, I tell you, and you know why, Mr. Speaker? You know why?

Because as I looked at those men I realized just how far the N.D.P. and

the Liberals in this House were straying from reality — straying from

reality. Because before the election they tried to sell the public of

this Province a bill of goods that we were a tired old Government, that

we only had little old ladies and little old men coming out to our

meetings, Mr. Speaker. That was the message, that was the bill of goods

they were trying to sell, and just in the person of those two gentlemen

I think they disproved that allegation. You know, Mr. Speaker, not only

did they demonstrate the aggressiveness of and initiative of youth, but

they also had some good constructive thoughts, criticism and positive

ideas to put before this House, and this Government always welcomes

that kind of criticism. That's why, with this transfusion, that we had

last August, we attracted men and women from all walks of life,

different age groups, to support this Government, that's why you're not

going to be able to sell your current objective and that is to give the

false image of an overpowering, of an arrogant Government not

[ Page 36 ]

concerned with the needs of the people. We know

what you're about and you won't succeed. That effort, Mr. Speaker, was

obvious on opening day when we saw the leader of the Liberal Party and

the official leader of the Opposition on television following the

opening speech and the remarks they had to make on that particular day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wasn't that something?

MR. PETERSON: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we expect to receive

some criticism from the Members of the N.D.P. and the Liberal Party — that's their duty — and I think both we and the public understand that.

We understand, too, that on occasion that criticism represents not

necessarily the facts of the situation but also reflects their own

political aspirations in the Province, and we have come to expect that.

But we had some matters dealt with yesterday, for instance the

Leader of the Opposition spent most of his time on Cypress Bowl. I'm

somewhat reluctant to deal with this matter, but I propose to do so,

not in any detail, because the investigations that are under way by my

Department have not been concluded and I do not have the benefit of any

reports at this time. But I can't avoid commenting on the way in which

the Leader of the Opposition built up his case yesterday. He built it

up I thought very well and very carefully up to the point where he made

us feel at least was the missing link in the whole pattern, and then he

calmly announced that he, as Leader of the Opposition, had discovered

what that missing link was — it was a certain letter dated June the

17th, and out over the news services last night here was the news that

the Minister had suppressed information, and that was the impression

conveyed to this Assembly and to the news media. What are the facts?

Where did the Leader of the Opposition get this letter? He didn't tell

us. Right from the Minister's Department. Why didn't he tell us that?

He did tell us this, he did tell us this, but it was written right on

the letter so he could hardly avoid it, and that is that this wasn't

any confidential letter at all — no secrecy at all. Copies of it were

forwarded to the District Forester, Vancouver,

MR. BARRETT: I read that.

MR. PETERSON: I said you did — and to the Corporation of the

District of West Vancouver. Why all the secrecy, why all the

suppression? Referred as well, Mr. Speaker, indirectly in this

memorandum of November the 26th of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources — in the

summary, Item 22 refers to that — and again

the letter of June the 20th directed to the District of West Vancouver

incorporates many of the same matters that are included in this letter

of June the 17th. You know, I'm at a loss to understand why the Leader

of the Opposition left this impression, and I'm sure much more will be

said on this subject before this House rises, but I do hope that the

statements made will not leave the wrong impressions in this Chamber or

the wrong impressions in the public mind as the statements of the

Leader of the Opposition left when he spoke yesterday. Then the Leader

of the Liberal Party, some criticism as well. I think he spent most of

his time, at least in the early part of his speech, on the subject of

advertising,

AN HON. MEMBER: He's trying to find those 22 members.

MR. PETERSON: …and you know, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat

annoyed when he criticized our advertisement on the Human Rights

Commission, because if he thinks back, and the members of this House

reflect, you will recall that members of all parties asked that this

new legislation be advertised, that it be brought to the attention of

the people of this Province or it wouldn't be any good. It only came

into effect last year, introduced at the last Session, and what we did,

we invited submissions from six advertising agencies in the Province.

We had a committee of civil service select what would be the best

advertisements. We didn't go as high in the expenditure as the

submissions recommended, but nevertheless we did advertise in the

Vancouver papers and in the weekly papers in the Province, and we

placed ads during election and after the election. And after the

election. (Applause)

I surprise you, we, even put them in French, La prochaine de fois.

Do you object to that? The Leader of the Liberal Party who has so much

to say on Constitutional change, do you object to that? Do you object

to that ad? I probably might, too, but we also advertised in Chinese

and German, Italian as well, Chinese as well. This was intended for the

reading public of the Province.

Now the other thing that surprised me about the Liberal Leader's

criticism after his own party had asked us to advertise just last year,

and we did it as quickly as we could after the Act came into force and

after we got the submissions, for here is an advertisement in the paper

yesterday. While he was talking in this Legislature, his party — the

Liberal Party — what were they doing? Copying our ads, Mr. Speaker.

That's what they were doing. The same principle — if you can see five

different reasons there is only one word for you — Bigot, bigot. But he

didn't criticize that, that appeared by the Liberal Party yesterday.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he also criticized the ad on consumer affairs, and

here it is. I ask him specifically what he can find wrong with this ad

that appeared, he said, in the election campaign — he's wrong — he's

wrong. It appeared before the election campaign and the legislation

only came into effect July the 1st. It is the same type of

advertisement that was done in 1968, and he didn't complain about it

then. How petty can you get? How petty can you get? But his major

point, Mr. Speaker, his major point, and I don't want to miss that, was

that through our advertising and the amount spent on advertising that

we had bought the news media. That was his statement — that we had

bought the news media — which I think is a terrible allegation, and you

know, while he was saying this his very good friend, Stu Keate,

appeared in the Vancouver Sun last night — what did he say when he was making a statement?

AN HON. MEMBER: He declared that as a dividend. (Laughter)

MR. PETERSON: I hope he did, because we want to see a

prosperous press. (Applause) But what did Stuart Keate say in the

submission that he made in Ottawa? And this is Ottawa, Canadian Press,

reported in the Vancouver Sun January 26th, 1970. You remember

now what the Liberal Member said, that advertising bought the news

media? This is what Stuart Keate said: "The notion that major

advertisers can influence the news was, in his experience, a myth. The

fact is that most consistent pressures on the press originate not with

businesses but with friends." Not with businesses, but with friends. So

the secret is out. Now we know why, when Liberal candidates went down

and had a hamburger or

[ Page 37 ]

a swim in that election campaign, that it made the front page in the Vancouver Sun .

But really, and I say this seriously, I have never heard the leader of

any political party in this Province insult the intelligence of the

voters the way the Leader of the Liberal Party did yesterday when he

said the people got sucked in by this advertising. Those were his very

words. That people got sucked in by this advertising. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, the people of this Province were aware of our achievements.

They were aware of our policies that are reflected in the Speech from

the Throne.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PETERSON: …and they endorse them, and they endorse

them. Not only that, but at the same time they told the world that this

Province of British Columbia was not about to flirt with Socialism.

That was the message of that campaign. That was the message and that

was the key issue in that campaign. Yesterday, in the first twenty

minutes of the speech of the new Leader of the Opposition, what did he

do? He knocked private enterprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

MR. PETERSON: Freebooting private enterprise. Freebooting private enterprise, he said.

MR. BARRETT: Is that what I said…

MR. PETERSON: That's what you said, that's what you said, and

I think you were exercising restraint when you said it. You know, the

honourable Leader of the Opposition has in the past had a lot to say

about filing reports; he wanted this report filed, that report filed. I

call upon him now to file the Watkins report in this House,….the one,

according to the news media, he is purported to have signed. Did he

sign it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Stand up, stand up.

MR. PETERSON: Here, Mr. Speaker, is a report that, according

to all

interpretations, marks a sharp turn left for the N.D.P. — a

sharp turn left. So sharp was that turn left that the former Leader of

the Opposition, Mr. Berger, wouldn't sign it, so we'd like to hear a

little more on this subject.

I, for one, and I'm sure the vast majority of the citizens of this

Province, are grateful that Socialism was rejected. (Applause) They

recognize that the free enterprise system can bring greater benefit to

all the people of this Province than any other system yet devised, and

our responsibility as Government must be to encourage this kind of

expansion and this kind of development to continue in the Province

through the free enterprise system, through increased employment, to

give higher payrolls and a higher standard of living to all the people

of the Province. I, for one — and I am sure this sentiment is shared by

others in this House — in reading the Speech from the Throne, reciting

as it does some of the achievements of the people of this Province, I

can't help but have a certain pride in those accomplishments, and I

don't think you can read that Speech from the Throne either without a

sense of confidence in the future development of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any more people on welfare…

MR. PETERSON: I was listening to your friend seated next to you, you know but for the ball point pen, he wouldn't be here.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a welfare government…

MR. PETERSON: But for the ball point pen — twelve votes.

I don't want to dwell on the past, but more to the future. The

astrologists, Mr. Speaker, call this the age of Aquarius, the dawn of a

new era. While it is not, as far as this Government is concerned, the

dawn of a new era, it is a continuation of the age of challenge that we

have experienced in this past decade, and as well as in the fifties,

and certainly we have in this Province of British Columbia in the past

few years forged ahead in almost every field of endeavour. No one can

deny that, no one can deny that we have moved from a debt-ridden,

have-not Province, to a debt-free have Province of today. (Applause) No

one can deny that we have now become the number one growth area in

Canada and numbered among the three growth areas in North America, and

much of this, Mr. Speaker, is due to the kind of leadership that we

have received from the gentleman on my right. We recognize that, and

now that we look to the future and a continuation of this kind of

expansion, these policies and these programmes are on a sound

foundation, reflected again in the Speech from the Throne, such as

opening up that great north country by extension of the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway, and by many other things as well, which I am sure will

be developed during the course of this and subsequent debates.

I think, too, that much of the kind of progress that we make in the

future, in this decade of the seventies, will depend in some measure,

and I think in large measure, on the actions of labour and management

in the Province of British Columbia. The common topic now in talking

about labour and management and their actions, of course, relates to

restraint in the field of inflation, whether it's to do with wages or

profits or prices, and certainly this is important and will be

discussed, I am sure, further during the course of the next debates.

But I think we have to recognize, if we are going to continue our

prosperity, that we will still be primarily an exporting Province, that

we cannot change overnight. With about 30 per cent of our labour force

employed directly or indirectly in foreign trade, then these areas and

the joint actions of labour and management have all the more

significance, whether it refers to being competitive, the quality of

the goods, the promptness of delivery, or the many other things that

are important when one competes on the export market.

I would suggest today that one of the most important goals for this

decade should be the continued improvement in labour-management

relations in this Province, that labour and management must extend or

show or demonstrate greater responsibilities to the well-being of all

of the residents of the Province. There must be a willingness on both

sides to see that extreme action by either party can cripple the

economic growth process and the social benefits that this growth

generates. I think this area is so important that the elimination of

wasteful work stoppages should be an objective during this decade, and

we should start to make that a reality.

[ Page 38 ]

Now, we have heard some criticism from time to time, Mr. Speaker,

about some of our legislation in this field of labour management

relations. In particular at the moment it is concentrated on what is

commonly called Bill 33, the Mediation Commission Act. I am not going

through in detail the changes in that legislation today, but certainly

it did speed up the collective bargaining process and eliminated

Conciliation Boards, gave the freest possible relationship in this

respect between labour and management in the Province. When the

legislation was introduced, I indicated then that the compulsory

features which are the subject of most criticism — that these

compulsory features would be used most sparingly, and this has been the

case. As a matter of fact they have only been used twice since the Act

came into effect. There have been four hearings before the Mediation

Commission in this context. In two cases the parties of their own

volition agreed that the findings of the Mediation Commission should be

binding. No order from government at all. In two other cases we did

direct that they be made binding.

There was, of course, the other hearing in the private sector before

this Mediation Commission in the oil refining and distribution industry

in which there was a lengthy strike, not only in British Columbia but a

national dispute across Canada, and in that case I directed the

Commission, under

section 39 of the Act, to hold an inquiry into the

background of the strike and the matters in dispute, and then I

subsequently directed the Commission to appoint a Mediation Officer to

assist the parties in resolving the dispute. But, the fact is, that in

that particular dispute where the strike was on at the time of the

hearing, that the settlement arrived at across Canada was substantially

the same as the recommendations in terms of money that was given by the

Mediation Commission, so I think it is fair to say that the decision of

the Mediation Commission had a great influence in settling that

particular dispute, not only in British Columbia, but across Canada. In

the two cases where we ordered that the findings of the Mediation

Commission be made binding, it is interesting that in neither case did

they have to proceed with the hearing. In both of these cases the

parties, in that interim period, were able to get together and settle

their own differences.

Now we have a situation in the Province today that's of concern to

many people, and especially the residents in the Vancouver area, and

that is a situation where I feel we should not have to tolerate a

continuation of a work stoppage in the Vancouver school system. Some

220 janitors and engineers have a dispute with the Vancouver School

Board. They declared a strike. It's a legal strike — legal, not

illegal, and they are picketing the premises with the result, I'm told,

that some 70,000 students or more are not able to attend classes, are

prevented from attending classes. The Vancouver school system employs

some 2,960 teachers, paid by the taxpayers, needless to say, at a daily

cost of approximately $155,000. Of course during the strike while the

schools are closed, they are not able to do their job.

We talk a lot about education in this Chamber in each and every

Session. I think it's important that we do, because it is an area where

we must give a great deal of priority and a great deal of attention.

For we regard education in the labour-management sense sufficiently

important that when it comes to the teachers, and these are the great

number of people who are employed in the school system, we say that in

those cases, rather than tolerate strikes and lockouts, we will have

their negotiations, their wage demands subject to binding arbitration,

final and binding awards, and that has been a provision of the Public

Schools Act now for a long while. I find it difficult to justify this

procedure if, on the other hand, we are going to allow a smaller group

of people to shut down the whole school plant, and that is the

situation in the strike which commenced on Friday last.

A preliminary enquiry into the dispute was commenced by the

Mediation Commission yesterday. My information is that the union have

boycotted these hearings before the Commission. They did not appear for

this preliminary discussion held by the Mediation Commission yesterday,

and I have a telegram from the B.C. Federation of Labour saying that

they support the action of the union in boycotting the Mediation

Commission. Nevertheless the Commission has arranged for a formal

hearing on January the 28th, that's this Wednesday at 10 a.m. I haven't

had any formal request from either the union or the employer, the

Vancouver School Board, to intervene in this dispute, to invoke the

provisions of the Mediation Commission Act, but I am going to announce

to them and to the public today, Mr. Speaker, that unless the parties

are prepared to get together and settle their differences and settle

them quickly, there will be government intervention, there will be

government intervention. This, of course, would be an action of

Executive Council, of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Our next

meeting is on Friday, and if by that time this dispute is not settled I

will recommend to Executive Council that the hearings be on a

compulsory basis before the Mediation Commission, and that any decision

that may be reached by the Mediation Commission be made final and

binding on both parties.

This still means that the parties can carry on direct negotiations

or commence direct negotiations again. They can still resolve their own

differences now, before the hearing or even during the hearing. But the

fact is that I think we would be remiss in our duty if we allowed this

disruption of the school system to continue beyond this week, and by

intervening on Friday, the schools will be open on Monday. (Applause) I

have no qualms in the matter at all, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there

can be any doubt in this age, that Government has to accept the

responsibility of protecting the public interest, and this is the

principle and the whole principle of the Mediation Commission Act, and

it is, I think a correct principle that we have established.

If you look at some of the studies that have been conducted

elsewhere in Canada, if you look at events that have occurred here

recently at home, I think there is all the justification in the world

for this kind of legislation that we have on the statute books in this

Province in terms of the Mediation Commission Act. You may not be aware

of the Royal Commission that was undertaken in Ontario by Mr. Justice

Rand. His recommendation as it relates to the subject I am talking

about, Mr. Speaker, was this: He commended that the Government be

empowered to designate any industry, business or service as essential,

and to ban a strike or order a resumption of work. A declaration by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council could be made before or after a strike,

and if the dispute is not settled by negotiation it would have to be

referred for arbitration to an industrial tribunal which the Commission

proposed. So that is the recommendation of the Royal Commission in the

Province of Ontario.

Then we had a very extensive and a very costly study by the Federal

Government. In this report, the Federal Task Force on Labour Relations

had a different approach, but they recognized the importance of

protecting the public interest in those cases where the collective

bargaining process

[ Page 39 ]

so operates as to create intolerable public

hardship and recommended the creation of a Public Interest Disputes

Commission, which would have responsibility for determining special

procedures for resolving industrial disputes in industries under

federal jurisdiction, and for handling actual disputes where the public

interest is threatened.

Then I said there have been instances closer to home which

demonstrate the need for this kind of legislation, not only

provincially but I think federally as well. The dispute that I refer to

was the longshoreman's strike, which comes under federal jurisdiction.

A dispute where it seemed to me that they went out of their way to

assist the Prairie Provinces to keep the port facilities open for

grain, but showed utter disregard for the Province of British Columbia

and the welfare of its economy. Surely a point must come, where the

rights of the majority must supersede the rights of a segment of

society, particularly where hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of workers

not involved in the dispute, and this was true in this case, are

deprived of the means of making a livelihood, and as well the whole

economy takes a downturn as a consequence. Some means of arriving at a

fair and just settlement must be achieved without calling, as is the

only course of action open to the federal people now, a Session of

Parliament to deal with it, and I think the Mediation Commission Act,

so-called Bill 33, is the most realistic approach to this problem that

I am aware of anywhere.

Some of our people in the Province say that it is anti-labour, but

it certainly hasn't proved to be that way in terms of the settlements

that have been made in the Province. The average wage in manufacturing

increased oxer six per cent I think wages of all trade union members

increased substantially. We've had an increase, as well, in trade union

membership, so that this kind of irresponsible allegation just doesn't

hold water.

Now those of you who recommend boycotting the Commission and, as I

interpreted it, the recent convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour

adopted a more flexible attitude, at least, of using the services of

the Commission up to the point of the hearings. But yet, those who

oppose it really don't have any viable alternative to suggest. They

say, in effect, that any group should have the power to hold the

safety, well-being and the best interests of the entire Province at

ransom until they gain their ends. It's not only unions in this

respect, there are culprits on the employers' side as well who take an

uncompromising and unrealistic attitude and don't recognize that the

workers have a legitimate demand for increases, so it's not a one-sided

affair.

But when an irresistible force meets an immovable object what are we

supposed to do? Are we supposed to let the entire community suffer

until one or the other gives in? Are we to allow a few people to

jeopardize the rights of many people, because that's what results in

this area. That is why I want to emphasize today, at least as far as I

am concerned, the importance of adopting this as one of our objectives

as we move into this new decade. I think any civilization that's been

able to send men to the moon and back and accomplish these fantastic

things in scientific and technological area, should be able to come to

some kind of machinery that would resolve these types of disputes, the

amount of pay that a workman is going to receive, without the kind of

disruptions we have to put up with at the present time.

One other matter I want to discuss this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, was

also referred to in the Speech from the Throne. One of the important

announcements, I think, is that further considerations will be given to

certain aspects of the Automobile Insurance Plan, which came into

effect only on the first of this month, with a view to improving that

plan. But I think when we talk about improving this plan, and sending

it to a Special Committee of this House to have a look at certain

aspects of it, the first thing I feel we must recognize is that right

now, with the provisions that have been proclaimed and are in force and

have been in force since the first of January, this new Automobile

Insurance Plan is the best in Canada and probably the best in the

world. If you don't want to take my word for it, let me quote an

authority, a person who is a much greater authority than I on this

subject. I don't consider myself an authority. They have an authority

in the Province of Ontario attached to the Osgoode Hall Law School,

which I'm sure is held in very high regard by the first member from

Vancouver-East, Professor Allen M. Linden of Osgoode Hall Law School,

who is an acknowledged North American authority on this subject. He was

invited by the Toronto Telegram to give his year-end review of

Automobile Insurance, how he would rate the three plans operating in

Canada, the Saskatchewan Plan, the British Columbian Plan and the plan

operating in Ontario and the other provinces in Canada.

I would like to take the time to quote from his report which appears in the Toronto Telegram December 23rd, 1969. I quote,

"Perhaps the best system of auto insurance in the

common law world is coming into operation in British Columbia on

January 1st, 1970. It is a peaceful co-existence plan that provides

non-fault coverage without losing the right to sue for personal

injuries.

"First, this coverage, which is to be written by

private insurance companies, is a mandatory part of all auto policies

sold in B.C. In addition, auto insurance is made compulsory in that

province.

"Second, the new coverage protects not only all

drivers and occupants of motor vehicles, whether at fault or not, it

compensates all pedestrians injured by an insured vehicle.

"Third, the benefits are much more realistic than

those provided in the other Provinces. All medical and hospital

expenses in excess of those looked after by the present government

schemes are covered.

"In case of death, $50 per week (plus $10 for each

child) is paid to the survivors for 104 weeks. As in Ontario,

disability benefits are not paid for the first week, but thereafter the

amount is $50 per week (rather than $35 as in Ontario). More

importantly, these payments do not cease; in cases of permanent and

total disability, these $50 weekly payments continue until age 65, when

they are reduced by the value of the receipts from old age pensions

that are payable at that age in Canada.

"While the B.C. plan is now best in Canada, it will be

even better when another idea, presently shelved for further study, is

implemented. Not yet proclaimed in force are the provisions that no

action shall be brought for damages to property exceeding $250." And

then he goes on, he says, "The second best plan in Canada is that run

by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office, a government owned

corporation." Second best, happy to have second place any time — I

don't blame you, Mr. Member.

Now there has been some discussion about the costs of this new

insurance plan, both here in this Chamber and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker,

as far as the cost of the no fault benefits are concerned, it is the

accident benefits that are paid automatically for those whose policies

have not expired.

[ Page 40 ]

There has, of course, been no change in the premiums. In other

words, the insurance companies have co-operated to the extent that these

benefits are being added free of charge until the policies expire

during the course of the year. For the policies issued in 1970, I

understand that the average net increase varies from $11 to $13, around

$13 is my information.

As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, when I introduced

this legislation last year at the last Session, I did anticipate a

reduction in insurance premiums, and I said so, and I based that

anticipation as everyone also is fully aware, on the savings that would

accrue by removing the right of a person to sue for damages for their

automobiles over $250. That was the area where the great savings would

come into effect. In other words, a motor vehicle owner would be the

self-insurer of his own motor vehicle above that $250. You could sue

for the first $250 only, and even if your house was demolished by an

automobile, you could still only sue for the first $250 of damage to

your house. These are some of the problems that come up, and this is

included in the legislation under

section 14 of the amendments to the

Motor Vehicle Act last year. This is one of the provisions that have

not yet been proclaimed. The possibility still exists. There is valid

argument on both sides. Certainly as an impetus for better defensive

driving, this type of a provision has some merit. The big question, and

this is only one of them that have been put to me during the course of

the year, is whether the savings in insurance premiums are worth-while,

when you consider the additional risks that the individual has to

assume, so, as I say, this may still come into effect. What we propose

to do is enable those who have views to express them on this matter, to

appear before a Special Committee of this House on this particular

aspect.

I think, too, we have to recognize one of the principal contributing

factors — and this is an area that I hope will be fully explored by the

Special Committee — one of the principal factors in automobile

insurance costs is in the property damage repair bill. The prices for

repairing your motor vehicle have been increasing rather rapidly, and

if there are going to be significant savings in insurance premiums,

then this is the area in which the savings must take place. I think

from a philosophical point of view it still is more important to mend

broken bodies than it is to provide insurance to mend busted or bent

fenders — that's a matter in all of its implications that the Committee

we had at the last Session admitted they didn't have an opportunity to

fully explore. This will give the Committee of this Legislature the

opportunities to fully explore this aspect.

The best way, of course, to reduce insurance costs, to reduce

insurance premiums, is to eliminate the accidents on the highways. It's

not possible, of course, to eliminate all highways tragedies. I think

that there is a chilling inevitability in this area that must be faced,

and there still has to be a lot of time and a lot of money spent both

in minimizing the number of occurrences of these tragedies on our

highways, as well as minimizing the costs associated with them. I think

we are making some headway in this battle, in terms of safety on our

roads and our battle against careless drivers and dangerous vehicles.

The number of fatal accidents this past year, for the first time for a

number of years, had declined. Less in number than either 1968 or 1967,

and that's so even though there is a lot more traffic on the road, a

lot more vehicles in use on the road.

There are several programmes in this area that we have been giving

priority to, and one of those, referred to in the Speech from the

Throne, is the driver demerit system, which has been gradually

extended. It started here in the county of Victoria and now, as of the

ist of April, will cover the whole Province, the county of Vancouver,

the largest centre, being the last to come under the umbrella of this

new provision. The basic principle being that a greater deterrent to

bad practices on our highway is the loss of your license, rather than

the payment of a fine and, during the course of this experiment — which

started as an experiment — we have been evaluating the number of

penalties to be attached to each specific offence. Some changes were

made just within this past month or so in reductions in some areas of

the number of points for different offences and, of course, we've added

points for other offences. For instance, for refusing to take a

breathalizer test under the new Criminal Code amendment which has just

come into effect, will cost you ten points. If you take the test and

you flunk it, if you get a reading of .08 or higher, you still get the

ten points. That doesn't end the matter either, there is only one way

to win, and that's not to mix liquor with driving. That's still not the

end of the matter, because when you get 10 points you get a special

assessment of $25 penalty fee, which goes into a fund to promote driver

safety programmes and some research projects on discovering why, not

how, motor vehicle accidents occur.

Another area that is covered, of course, is the vehicle itself that

is driven on the highway, where we are spending considerable time

meeting with other Provincial Ministers and the Federal Government on

safety standards for new vehicles as well as, of course, extending our

own motor vehicle inspection programme in the Province. You'll find

extensions in that respect both in Richmond, where it is already in

effect as of December, and the Burnaby station which is underway, so at

least in the Vancouver-Victoria area and the lower mainland area we

will have fully covered that particular aspect. In a general way we are

trying to stress and place more emphasis on education, trying to

up-grade driving habits through defensive driving courses, and there

has been a tremendous increase in these defensive driving courses.

Rather than having a suspension of a licence when you get to that

9-point level, you're called in, and in many cases you have to take the

defensive driving course, and the Government as of last year has made a

grant to additional defensive driving courses in the Province.

These are some of the tools, Mr. Speaker, that have been used to

promote highway safety and to lessen the cost of traffic accidents. At

the same time, I think we must make it clear that as far as this

Government is concerned, we are going to ensure that the citizens of

this Province receive good value for their insurance dollar. We think

that this objective can be accomplished without resorting to the

doctrinaire socialist approach — an approach that was repudiated last

August 27th in this Province. The compulsory package will be one of the

areas that this Special Committee will look into and I feel that it is

imperative that they have the authority to consider whether the

automobile insurance premiums that are presently being charged are

commensurate with the risks that the insurance companies are assuming

under the new Iegislation.

There are other announcements from the Speech from the Throne, Mr.

Speaker, which promise a busy, and I think, interesting session. For

example, the proposition that individuals will be given more protection

in relation to rental housing, and this is important. With the increase

in urbanization, with the increase in apartment living, as the first

member from Vancouver-Centre pointed out in past Sessions,

[ Page 41 ]

the relationship that presently exists between landlord and tenant

is increasingly important. We have and intend to put forward a new

concept in law in this respect which we think will resolve some of the

difficulties, at least, that exist in the tenancy agreements now in

effect. It's not my prerogative to discuss legislation today, but there

will be remedial legislation proposed and there will be some other

non-controversial legislation, like how to classify moving pictures and

censure them, but I won't go into those either.

But before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the

House that in future Sessions I hope we will have greater assistance in

terms of legislative proposals, assistance from the new Law Reform

Commission which is now being established and is in operation in the

Province. I think we have been fortunate to assemble some of the top

legal brains in Canada to serve on this Commission. It is under the

chairmanship of the former Minister of Justice, the Honourable Davie

Fulton. The other members of the Commission include Dr. Gosse, who was

the senior full-time counsel to the Law Reform Commission in the

Province of Ontario which has an enviable record already in this field;

Mr. Frank Collier, the gold medalist in the law class of 1950, and a

practising member of the Bar, will serve the Commission on a part-time

basis; Mr. William Getz, who is a professor of law at the University of

British Columbia, is coming on a full-time basis. I don't have all of

their recommendations, Mr. Speaker, but I think their names, among

lawyers in this Province at least, speak for themselves. Those who know

Mr. Getz, for example, I think will agree. The Federal Government

thought he was good enough to serve on their Task Force in 1967 and he

will be the full-time Commission counsel, taking over his duties this

year. So this Commission is now at work, and I hope will be of

assistance to us, not at this Session, but in the future. I think even

without their help, Mr. Speaker, when the full legislative programme of

this Government is unveiled during the course of this Session, we can

acknowledge again that British Columbia is moving ahead both in the

economic and in the social sense.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. FRANK A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure

to rise once again to represent the constituency of Atlin in this

Throne Debate. In so doing I wish first of all to commend the other

Atlin candidate in the recent election for the continuance of a clean,

just, and constructive campaign. That's number one. Secondly, for all

the candidates in Atlin to continue to focus the attention on the needs

of the North, and this I have noted ever since I entered politics in

1949, and I am very grateful. I don't know what happens in the other

ridings, but I do know that we have had a very good campaign in the

constituency of Atlin.

We are not the only ones who are gratified in this respect, Mr.

Speaker. Being in the House this length of time, and knowing

practically everyone in my constituency, I can truthfully say that the

people I have met in my riding are also gratified that we have stuck to

these two points, because the northern people, as you know, Mr. Speaker

— you are a northerner yourself — I mean we're almost a different

breed. We like development, we like to talk development and we like to

see development. This Government has more or less changed that breed

because the northern development, as far as I'm concerned, has been at

a total walk, it has been so slow.

I believe that our people throughout the North, north of the Prince

George — Prince Rupert belt, are getting a little annoyed at the laxity

of a defining as to just what has to be done for the North. In this

respect I would say that northern development is a concern of everyone,

and particularly those who are resident in the North and those people

who wish to become resident in the North. People who would like to

carve out something for themselves, bring their families to the North

and they would like to have some form of security. At the rate of

northern development, I am quite sure, and I think I speak for quite a

number of people who have gone up North, they find that there is not

too much up there, and then they come wheeling back to the metropolitan

areas. I don't think this is good. I think the Government should have a

little bit more policy initiated so these people could be encouraged to

go to the North and stay there and develop it.

I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder, the Honourable

Member for Delta and the Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan

respectively for their contribution to the debate when they took their

places last Friday. I would like to say that it is a high honour to be

selected by the Cabinet to reply as mover and seconder to the Speech

from the Throne, and I sat here listening very carefully, and I can say

that both members contributed and fulfilled their duties well and

effectively.

I would like to say a word or two about the remarks of the member

for Delta. He had some interesting remarks to make. He said something

about a possible Government control and administration of the B.C.

compulsory automobile insurance in the event that the automobile

insurance industry increases its insurance rates. I would like to

advise the Honourable Member for Delta — I am sorry he is not in his

seat — to be a little more careful of his remarks that the Government

would move in to control and administer the automobile insurance, in

case the Honourable the Premier may dub him a Marxist Socialist. I

would remind him that on occasion when we on this side of the House

call for more Government control on electrical distribution or on

ferries, schools and hospitals, liquor, the B.C. Telephone or car

insurance, the Premier or someone on that side of the House would

immediately classify the New Democrats as Marxist Socialists.

Now it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this

Province have enjoyed the benefits of these Government controlled

programmes. It is also common knowledge throughout the country that the

former C.C.F. and presently the N.D.P. has advocated, as its manifesto

and policy, these and other Government controls for Democratic

Socialist measures. If, on account of our party position, Mr. Speaker,

in these matters we are termed Marxist Socialists, then I can only

conclude that the Premier of this Province, who has done a fair job

since his term of office as Premier in controlling these public

services, is the best Marxist Socialisti in the business. But,

apparently the public just wouldn't buy this in the last election. The

Premier himself knows that we have always been and will remain as such

as Democratic Socialists. But, he insisted on giving us another name

and perhaps by his machinery, by terming us Marxist Socialists he won

out, but I just hope that one day the people are going to wake up and

learn.

I would like to make one or two observations on what the mover had

to say. He made some extraordinary proposals to secure funds for

pollution control. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that every citizen in

British Columbia is concerned about pollution control, and I am quite

sure that they are

[ Page 42 ]

concerned about the source from which to secure funds to do

something about controlling pollution. I also believe that the public

will not buy the member's suggestion to increase the sales tax from 5

to 6 per cent, the result of which he hopes may cover the cost of

controlling pollution. It was reported about four months ago that

British Columbians pay the second highest per capita provincial tax in

Canada and, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the people in British

Columbia wish to be burdened with further tax increases, whether they

be hydro rates, car insurance rates or Social Services Tax.

Furthermore, I do not think that this Government should take advantage

of its increased mandate to increase taxes. Now I know, Mr. Speaker,

that this is a hopeless statement, because I predict that this Province

within this decade of the seventies will far surpass the Province of

Quebec as having the highest per capita provincial tax-payers, thanks

to this Government and its theories.

I wish also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the newly elected members

to this Legislative Assembly. I do hope that they will soon recognize

the amount of work that is involved, and problems unsolved, in looking

after their respective constituencies, even though such a riding may

have been under Social Credit government for years. I think I can

safely say that in my term of office I have seen all of the ridings,

travelled throughout the Province, and have seen ridings that have been

held by Government members as not just up to scratch. They are

certainly in need of a lot of improvement and I do wish that the new

members will recognize this very fact, particularly those members who

are representing the interior ridings, the west coast of Vancouver

Island and the northern part of this Province, and I do hope that they

win also be bold enough to bring these matters before the House.

I am mindful of the contributions made in this House of the two

previous members of South Peace, and I note that my good friend is

going to follow me in this debate, but I would just like to say that

his two predecessors certainly did well in presenting the problems of

the North. We also believe that they were pastured because they dared

to speak on the problems of their constituency. But I say this to the

new Honourable Member for South Peace, being a northern member, those

two gentlemen certainly gained my respect because I have terrific

problems in my riding, and I also have travelled time and time again

through the riding of yours, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Minister of

Agriculture and the two Peace River areas, and I know that you are

certainly in need of some adjustments in your areas, I am going to tell

you, I may be speaking for myself, but I respect those two boys from

South Peace, the two honourable members who are not here any more, for

speaking out. The member for North Peace, as well…I'm sorry I left

you out….but I can predict that you are going to speak out this

year. I hope you do, because I think you are one of the young clerks,

aren't you? (Laughter)

But I am very serious about this, and I do hope the new members,

particularly those from the North, remain bold. I may have made a nasty

remark that certain people were pastured, maybe that's wrong, but for

gosh sakes speak up for the North. It's tremendous. I'm going to speak

a little later about northern development, about certain people wanting

to take over certain areas north of our boundaries. This, I think, is

where those of us who are northern members will have to say something,

because the Government hasn't proven itself yet in developing northern

British Columbia. But in any event, I can say this, don't ever think

that just because you may be a backbencher for the Government that you

have to keep quiet about the conditions in the North. I am going to

tell you, you are going to earn your money.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you in the House to take it from me that I

do not wish to examine or make observations respecting the result of

the last election. All I can say is that the best campaigner won…and

that was all that stood. I'm not going to debate that point. I don't

care how they did it. This is a brand new ball game in existence now

and we have to look ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. CALDER: I say no matter how they did it, they produced a

deal and the public bought it, that was it. We lost, and we're

certainly not going to spend our time making any excuses. We're making

plans for the next election.

I do wish, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the attention of the Government

the many interviews that I have had with the youth of the Province, and

I must say that there were quite a number of them that moved northwards

looking for employment. These interviews certainly revealed the desire

of these young people to take

part in the last election, and I find

that quite a number of these people that I talked to, or people who

came to my office in your city, Mr. Speaker, were in the area of 17 and

18 years of age. I'm quite sure that in practically every riding,

during the campaigns, you all witnessed the number of young people that

came to assist you. It was quite a concern in my area and in Prince

Rupert and Skeena, the three areas in which I participated in the

campaigns, where these people not only wished to assist in campaigning

but they certainly wanted to take

part in the voting. I note elsewhere

where the Governments are insisting on the 18-year voting age, and I

think this Government should consider that as the voting age in the

Province. (Applause)

Mr. Speaker, during the last two days of October I made a trip up to

the Nass River, which is the southern part of my constituency. We have

a convention of people who live in the Nass Valley and we decided this

year to hold the convention at a community of Kincolith, which is

located at the mouth of the Nass River. The Nass River, as you know,

flows into Portland Inlet, and prior to that time l had been notified

by fishermen and people who travel up and down that inlet of the danger

of floating logs. I phoned one of the fishing companies — delegates to

the convention also came from this particular company — so we had quite

a load on this large seine boat that had to go to Kincolith.

I suggested to the Captain that we start off quite early in the day

in order to see for ourselves the source from which this criticism had

arisen that logs are endangering boat traffic. Well, just about 25

miles north of your city, Mr. Speaker, we proceeded into this inlet. At

the very southern end of this inlet, as you know, there is a place

known as China Hat, and from there it's about 35 miles to the entrance

of the Nass River. I suggested to the Captain and the people on the

deck that we count logs floating out of the Nass River as a result of

the operation of the Columbia Cellulose Company. You're very familiar

with this inlet, Mr. Speaker. From China Hat to what is known as Sandy

Beach is just about five miles. The width of Portland Inlet is from

five to eight miles, and we were just hitting a straight course, and in

a distance of five miles we gave up counting. We counted as high as 60,

and that was that, and we still had another 35 miles to go before we

reached the mouth of the Nass River. A lot of these floating logs were

bound, so they must be escaping some-

[ Page 43 ]

where.

When we had the representative of Columbia Cellulose speak at our

convention he told us they had strict rules and it's almost impossible

for logs to escape but Mr. Speaker, I was the witness to this — by the

time we got halfway to Kincolith it was dark and we had to slow that

boat down because we were just hitting too many logs. This was just a

straight line travelling in a five to eight mile width of that Inlet,

so you can just imagine how many logs were going down that Inlet that

we couldn't even see to the right of us or to the left of us. I think

this is a very serious situation. We do have people who salvage — I've

met some of these people who salvage the logs — and they tell us that

they're just making a living. So where are all these floating logs

going to? They could be going on back tides into the southern part of

the Alaska Panhandle, they could be going anywhere. This is the one

thing that I would like to point out to you and to the Minister who is

in his seat, the Minister of Forests.

During the campaigns I took time to travel through the Nass from the

mouth of the Nass up to about a twenty-mile point, and that condition

prevailed. When you get into the Nass you're getting into very shallow

water. We are told by the Fisheries Department — this is the Federal

Department — we are told that they are keeping very strict rules. About

two years ago, you will recall, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

we gave you a certain Federal Bill which states that the company may do

such and such if permission was granted by the Federal Fisheries, and

you indicated to us in your office that you didn't know that such a

Bill existed for the Nass River. Now this is two years ago, and log

dumping, dynamiting on the Nass River, which is a fishery bed, still

continues, and I think this Government is very lax, to put it

truthfully, in not refereeing what goes on in the Nass or in some of

the rivers that are considered spawning rivers. The Fraser River and

the Skeena are in the same boat, and we would like to see this

Government take a little bit more action in this respect, Mr. Speaker,

because it's getting quite serious.

We have food in the Nass River — salmon and another known as an

oolican, sometimes known as candle fish. We are told that slash which

becomes waterlogged and then gets imbedded in the shallow water does

not interfere with spawning. Now I'm not a fishery biologist. The

Federal people indicate to us that there is no problem there. I don't

believe it, I just don't believe it. Last September I met a number of

people during my trip to Montreal and I was told there, when we were

talking about lake pollution, that slash that was produced in these

lakes from logging has practically eliminated trout spawning in quite a

number of lakes in Quebec, and I'm quite sure that this eventually is

going to happen in the Nass River and elsewhere in which slash now has

become embedded on the river bed. I don't quite buy biological

statements, for some reason I just don't buy. I will come to this a

little later, about the salmon in this Province, but I don't think that

this Government should just sit and watch industries that are under

this Government's jurisdiction destroying another industry that does

not come under the Province. I'm talking about fishing which comes

under Federal jurisdiction, and just because it's Federal it seems to

me that this Government turns its back to it.

We speak so much about food supply, on account of one of the biggest

problems which now is under discussion the world over, and that's

population explosion, and pertinent to that we must talk about food

supply. It's well known that here in this Province we are the suppliers

of one of the greatest salmon productions in the world, and I think

that this Government should take some action in assisting the Federal

Fisheries Department. Ever since this Government has come into this

House and taken over the reins of government in this Province I have

noticed, I don't know about the other members, but I have noticed that

there's always some kind of a fight against the Federal, and in this

respect it's clear to me that this Government is spiting the Federal

just because they don't have anything to do with fishery rules. I don't

appreciate one bit when we witness one industry destroying another form

of industry, and I think this Government should take cognizance of this

fact and should play a major role in the protection of fish. (Applause)

Let's look at something else that may be destroying our fish. In

addition to the logging effluent, there's been so much discussion about

the pulp mill effluent that I'm not going to enlarge on it. All I can

say is that the Speaker of the House will verify this. I'm talking

about pulp at Port Edward. We have a very narrow entrance into the

community of Port Edward in which the new pulp mills are located, and

we are told time and time again by people I know and I take their word

for it, that when they go to work in the morning to do booming at the

mouth of that Port Edward entrance, they see hundreds of sockeyes come

belly up at that entrance. Honestly, this is a real serious situation

and nobody is doing anything about it.

Now Prince Rupert, as you know, is located on an island. I don't

think anything has been done with the effluent of that new pulp mill

there because there's the back and forward flow behind that island.

It's little wonder that one of the top people who are engaged in this

northern corridor made a remark to McLean's which Prince Rupert people

have been most critical of. He had a reason for giving that. He knew. A

very prominent person, and I think the Minister has read about that

person's remark.

Do you know, I'm a real eater of seafood, Mr. Speaker. I do a lot of

work for people who don't belong to my riding. People come to my office

because my office just happens to be in Prince Rupert. They are on

unemployment insurance, welfare, what have you, and whether or not I

accomplish anything they usually say "Well, how much is this going to

cost me." I say, "This is my M.L.A. work — forget it." But they don't

forget it. They usually come to me maybe two or three days later, or

maybe a week or two later and say "Frank, come on down to the boat,

I've got a load of crabs, or clams" and they say "come and help

yourself". This is their way of thanking me for the work I do for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I usually say "Where did you get it? Where did you

get this stuff?" If it comes out from the islands just outside Port

Edward I usually refuse to take it, because clams, cockles and any of

the seafood from outside that area is just completely yellow — maybe

from sulphur coming out of that plant. If anybody comes down from my

territory, which is a virgin territory, Nass River, and they say "Well,

I got it in the Portland Canal", I say, "For gosh sakes I'll be down to

Cull Bay" which is where all the boats tie up, and I help myself to all

these different seafoods. But even there I don't any more, because now

the B.C. Molly is spitting effluence into Observatory Inlet, that's in

the Alice Arm district. Now I'm pretty careful as to where I'm going to

accept and eat this food.

We have a monthly mail delivered to us of toxic reports by the

Federal Government and I really read it carefully because I'm pretty

careful where I accept clams and cockles, salmon or anything else. This

is how serious it is, Mr.

[ Page 44 ]

Speaker, and there is no end of it, there is no end of it.

I spent a little time up at Prince George, and went through the

plant and witnessed what they are trying to do to stop the killing or

the destructive effluents that may destroy our salmon in the Fraser,

one of the world's major fish rivers.

But now we've got something else coming up, and it's the talk of

today, whether or not we're going to allow oil drilling offshore, and

this is very serious. I just read the other day — I think all of you

have read it — in the state of Louisiana you saw a person holding up

dead birds. We saw what happened a year ago in Santa Barbara. You know,

again it's useless for me to say anything, because here again there's

this fighting going on between this Government and the Federal

Government. This Government is going to allow oil drilling here. Gosh,

no matter how much we fight, you'll see oil drills in the Strait of

Georgia, offshore here and on the island — you'll see it, and we'll see

the same pictures that have been produced by Louisiana and Santa

Barbara. We will see the same thing. Because this is part of the spite

that they have with the Federal Government. The Federal says we don't

allow it, the Mines Department says yes we will allow it, and the

battle keeps going on. You'll see it, you'll see drills in the Strait

of Georgia. It's just too bad, and I'll be wasting my time standing up

here and pleading with the Government to stop any oil drilling in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to deal with one subject. Actually I

should deal with this under the Highways Department, but this has

become such a major issue in my riding that I feel I should bring it up

at this time, and that has to do with just one bridge that would

connect the communities of Terrace, the Nass River and the community of

Stewart. This has been quite an issue for the last three years, ever

since the road has been completed from the Stewart end to the south end

of Watson Lake. I am very sorry that the Minister isn't in, he is quite

conversant with this, but I would just like to tell the members that we

recognize the value of logging roads, we recognize the amount of money

the companies pay to this, we recognize the faults of the members of

the public that result in fires and theft. We recognize all that — I

think we've thrashed this out in the Forestry Committees year after

year, and particularly with Columbia Cellulose. I'm not actually

against Columbia Cellulose — they have become one of the builders of

the North, but there are just not enough guidelines by this Government

— that is my criticism.

But I will say this, that as far as this bridge is concerned, if

it's going to be built over the Nass River, it will not only connect

the two villages, then everyone can sit back and be happy, but there

are a lot of other things involved. Stewart has become part of the

Regional District of Terrace. Terrace has become a centre for the

airways, and flights are quite free and are away from the coast weather

and accessible to Stewart. The schools and the hospitals have come

under the Regional District of Terrace, and the microwaves are through

there, practically everything is through there, but there is still no

connection between Stewart and Terrace. This is an old story to some of

the older members here. I've brought this up several times before, this

is a new Parliament, and I would like to bring it up again. I am not

the only one who has been stressing the need of this link, I'm just a

small voice in it. The Chambers of Commerce, for the last two years,

have really come up with this, and I think you were present, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture, in the recent northern Economic Conference

when this came up. I'm sorry I wasn't there — I was pretty busy — I

was invited to it. I think you and the Minister of Forests know what

this is all about, and you've been told why it is required, and I do

hope some action will be taken this year to do something about it.

A few minutes ago, I said something about northern development being

at a turtle walk. You know, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a lot of

money spent up in that northern part, right from the west to the Peace

River, there's been a tremendous amount of money spent, particularly by

mining exploration people. It just seems fantastic. I can name you a

lot of companies that have gone broke by this exploratory work. I'm not

going to delve into incentives, this may come up under the Department

of Finance, when the Estimates come up, we may have something to say

about the taxation. These people, Mr. Speaker, may talk a lot about

taxation, but I think most of the talk in the board rooms have to do

are on the west side of the northern part of our Province and happen to

be in my constituency, and for years and years they've been looking

forward to the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar Road.

Knowing what's going on on this Stewart-Cassiar Road, I think this

Government should step in and see what is going on up in this cost-plus

area. The Ginter people on the north end have been so slow, that this

is what I term northern development at a turtle walk. 1963 was the year

that the road was supposed to have been completed, and I have been

extending the completion date year after year, and Ginter is still up

there in this wonderful contract. I go up there sometimes and sneak in

to see what's going on, and it's so slow. You know, I think the

Department will tell the members of the House that it's only gone here

an average of about four miles a year, and this is not good. In this

last four miles it hasn't been that difficult for a modern contractor

to do the work, and I doubt if they will complete it until next year.

I'm not going to say that about the contractor on the south end, he's a

good one, and he's doing some travelling. You talk about a good

contractor. People are sitting back waiting for this access, so if

you're sincere about northern development, why don't you put on a crash

programme — it's only about 30 miles to go — and then you will see some

mining action up in that area. Quite a number of these mining companies

are getting a little fed up at the lack of progress. Here again it's

because there's no guide-lines by this Province, by this Government.

I woke up during the Speech from the Throne, there was one place

where I woke up, and that was when they mentioned about the P.G.E.

going through Dease lake. This is a good deal and there should be some

action going on. The PNR was supposed to have a map reserve done right

from Prince George to Whitehorse, and then after the Wennergren debate

when that sort of fizzled out, they quietly removed that reserve and, I

found out later, they quietly put it on as the PGE right-of-way. That

was good, and now they have a second phase from Takla Lake over to

Dease Lake, and I'm going to tell you that this is tremendous — a

tremendous deal. Speaking for the North, this is good. I think people

in the western part of the North will really appreciate this. But how

about the Stewart-Cassiar Road? That was an old story years ago, and

it's walking, you know it's being developed so slowly. I'm trying to

say, for gosh sakes why doesn't this Government prove that they can

develop the northern part of British Columbia?

The Premier has come up with such statements as let's take over Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Look, let's

[ Page 45 ]

forget about that. The natural resources now are just cropping up

all over that North, I'm going to tell you, and I think one day in the

very near future, those two areas just may combine and develop into the

11th province. I can see that they're just liable to. But I think we

should just keep out of it, because we haven't proven ourselves in this

Province. This is the message I'm trying to produce here, we just

haven't proven ourselves. You know, there's a great story about the

W.A.C. Bennett Dam. That may be good for the Province, but other than

that it is just routine Government public service all through that

area, and actually you cannot say that this Government is a fighter and

developer of the North, it's quite slow. I'm just ending my subject,

Mr. Premier, I'm sorry you weren't sitting there, so…

AN HON. MEMBER: He was out building a railroad again…

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a bit to say about

Indian Affairs, and I don't want to just touch on it and then forget

it. I would like to leave it until the Budget, because this Government

and the Federal Government and all the provinces are negotiating very

seriously on what's to be done on the White Paper that's been produced

in Ottawa. I do have some remarks to make on that, and I would like to

major on just that one in the Budget Debate.

I would like to go back to the automobile insurance, very briefly.

This party has for years and years advocated for a

Government-controlled one, and just about an hour ago the

Attorney-General said that they have the best car insurance in the

world, and do you know, I don't buy that. It will never be the best

until the Government controls and administers the car insurance. I

think this is a pretty well-known fact, at least to our people here,

and it will never be the best for the people, as long as the car

industry people have one motive, the profit motive. I think this

Government should really consider taking it out of the hands of

industry and controlling the cost this way. If you don't, you're going

to be forever seeing insurance rates increase and I think that this

Government should really consider this.

Mr. Chairman, on the basis of these two points, I now move, and

seconded by the Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet, this motion:

"That the motion in reply to the Opening Speech of His Honour be

amended by adding the words: 'but this House regrets that the Speech

fails to disclose any proposals for implementing a universal Government

automobile insurance plan whereby automobile insurance would be

provided at cost to the public'."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet on the amendment.

MR. WILLIAM L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I would like to rise,

Mr. Speaker, and second that motion, the amendment to the Speech from

the Throne and in so doing, take my place in the Throne Speech in this

new Parliament, in the first Session of the 29th Parliament.

I would like to congratulate all the new members who have been

elected to the House, and the old ones who have been re-elected. I am

very pleased to have been re-elected to represent the district of

Yale-Lillooet and I will do my utmost to take up any and all problems

from any and all people regardless, period. Like the rest of the

Province, we had an election up in Yale-Lillooet. Unlike some parts of

the Province, not only did we have most of the Cabinet, but we had the

Premier, and you know, Mr. Speaker…

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Point of Order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your Point of Order?

MR. CAPOZZI: The question is, is the member at this stage speaking to the motion, or is he at this stage speaking in the Throne Debate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The mover and the seconder are allowed some latitude in this particular situation. However…

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, his opening comments…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment please. You asked for some advice, let me give it.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, I asked for the status of the present speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well if the member will just wait a moment, I

was giving it to him. The mover and the seconder are allowed latitude.

However, any succeeding speakers on the amendment must stick to the

amendment itself…

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to his

opening comment, when he stated that it was with a great deal of

pleasure he was rising to speak in the Throne Debate…. Is he speaking

in the Throne Debate as he stated, or is he speaking on the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mover and seconder are allowed latitude to

speak in the Throne Debate as well as on the amendment, however, any

succeeding speakers must stick to the amendment itself…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker or does the member for Yale-Lillooet have the floor…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I gave your member the answer. If he wishes to challenge the chair on it, that is his privilege.

MR. HARTLEY: The member from Vancouver Centre is in his usual

state of confusion. The rookies have done a much better job to date

than he is doing after three years…

Now as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Premier once again came to

Yale-Lillooet. That's very interesting, so long as they had a Government member in Yale-Lillooet right from year one, a Social

Crediter, the Premier never once showed his face in that riding, but

the minute we elected a member in the Opposition, he came up and held

meetings here and there. Three years ago he held three meetings and

went out and mainstreeted, sent out engraved invitations. This year, he

held a big meeting in Merritt and he even sent invitations to the

people over in the member for Kamloops' riding, trying to fill the

hall, but he just got half the turnout this time that he did three

years ago. The novelty is wearing off. This time he didn't bother

making any promises, because three years ago, he came up and he took

the headlines in the local paper. Bennett says "Yale, Lillooet to get

highway projects." They haven't done anything about it. It's still a

good promise so

[ Page 46 ]

you didn't make any more promises.

Now the Attorney-General had quite a bit to say about them placing

advertisements in the papers. Now this is one little local paper, and I

count seven political advertisements in one issue, and most of them

full page ads. Here's one "The Proven Way for British Columbia to Build

a Sound Financial Future, Buy 6 1/2 per cent B.C. Parity Bonds." Paid for

by B.C. Hydro, and we wonder why the rates are going up. Here we are,

the Human Rights Commission. Another full page. Pulp Mill Effluent, a

third full page. Another one for the candidate, and one on the back

page here with the Premier's picture announcing his public meeting in

Merritt. Now, there was at least $200 worth of advertising spent in

that paper. You see this ad, in the almost 200 rural papers in this

Province there is something like $400,000, and that is just for one

week, Mr. Speaker. What kind of money did they spend, and I wonder

where they got it from. Apparently, the people of the Province fell for

this advertising, but how much longer are they going to fall for it.

How much longer are they going to accept the bait of invested interests?

I believe the motion that we are speaking on is a very good example

of just what has happened. I believe that in this new decade and in

this new Parliament we should use a different approach. I believe the

people of the seventies are going to want something more than just the

rags to riches stories, so long as when they are listening to those

stories they see right out here in the James Bay area high-rise

apartments, would-be sky scrapers and slums side by side. In many parts

of the Province this is the case. I believe the people of the seventies

are going to ask for answers with regard to pollution. We don't need

pollution. We don't need discrimination, we don't need the war in

Vietnam. Do we need wars, period. Mr. Speaker, it's not just the

University crowd that is asking these questions, but it is the young

businessman and the suburban housewife. They are demanding answers and

demanding leadership, and if this Government doesn't give that

leadership then we will.

Mr. Speaker, about the good life. Just last week I clipped a picture from the Vancouver Province

that shows a Mrs. Catherine Pritchard looking very, very sad entitled

"Golden Years Tarnished. Commonwealth Fall Hits Investors. Life's

Savings Swallowed Up". Some 6,000 citizens in the Province lost, some

all their life's savings, many of them a good bit, and when this

happens to a person in their retired years they have no way of

replacing that lost money. This particular lady, Mrs. Pritchard, when

she can, she goes out and scrubs floors. She says she has a TV set

that her husband bought her before he died but she doesn't know what

she is going to do to repair that set if it ever breaks down. Is this

the good life, Mr. Speaker? There's an old clipping that was from the

Victoria Times and it says costs rising faster in British Columbia than

anywhere else in Canada. That the cost of living has risen faster in

Vancouver and Victoria than in any other city in Canada. Is that more

of the good life since the election?

Now I would like to thank, through you, Mr. Speaker, the

representatives of the Hydro Commission for the many electrical

extensions that have been completed in Yale-Lillooet last year, and

other major extensions completed down the Fraser Canyon from Lytton to

Kanaka Bar. But I would also like to point out that there is a great

need for an extension up over the Hope-Princeton Highway so that the

Manning Park Lodge, the Department of Highways equipment barns, and the

residences of all the people and the employees that live there can be

provided with electricity. The community of Princeton last year was

without hydro-electricity for about a week and while this was a

responsibility of West Kootenay Hydro, I believe that it's time the

B.C. Hydro and West Kootenay were tied in. I believe the next step, and

we've said this before, but I believe for us to have an effective and

efficient hydro grid system throughout this Province, it should be all

under the B.C. Hydro. I hope in the new Budget, and I am mentioning

this now before the Budget is drawn up, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the

rural electrification subsidy will be continued at least at the two

million dollar mark as it was last year. I am pleased to hear that

we have support from the Peace River.

As I mentioned yesterday when we were trying to maintain respectable

working hours in the Session, I mentioned that I felt, and I would like

to repeat, that we should have two Sessions a year, a Spring session

and a Fall session. After all, this is a billion dollar Budget, and I

believe this Legislature spends less time in Session for any Province

in Canada with a comparable Budget related to its population.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. HARTLEY: We know, Mr. Speaker, that some members have

very little respect for this institution. We hear them speak out. This

Government prefers to rule by Order-in-Council, Mr. Speaker, that even

when the Legislature is in Session they'll go behind the green doors

and pass Orders-in-Council. They prefer to rule by all night sessions,

they show great arrogance and really complete disregard for many of the

democratic processes. I think it is much better that we give much of

our Legislation first, sometimes second, reading at a Spring session,

and then in a Fall session after we have had time to study it and

discuss it with our constituents and the various School Boards and Town

Councils, we assemble in the Fall and give it third and final reading.

Last year in the Budget we had an extra dollar per capita grant for

hospital services. This grant was made to the various city governments.

But, the Social Credit have mucked this up just as they have mucked up

medi-care, hospitalization, and many other institutions that they have

gone about in a most half-hearted fashion. Now there are communities in

British Columbia that provide ambulance service to you and to everyone

that travels in their area, and I am thinking of the community of North

Bend and Boston Bar. They had a volunteer ambulance service, as anyone

who drives off the Trans-Canada Highway from the black ice, goes over

the bank and is injured, this little group of individuals will rush you

to the nearest hospital. But being as this is an unorganized community

they in no way qualify for this dollar per capita grant and they

receive no assistance, and yet there are much larger communities that

accept the money and have no ambulance service. I think our ambulance

grant should be extended to include unorganized areas as well as

organized areas, and this ambulance service should be a definite part

of B.C.H.I.S. It has to do with sick people, it has to do with

hospitals, and it should be part of a co-ordinated plan.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see on page 4 of the Throne Speech

that the Government, through the Lieutenant-Governor, was giving

recognition to the first single ore body of sufficient size and grade

quality to support the copper smelter. This is up in Highland Valley.

I've raised the matter of a copper smelter to be built in the western

interior of British Columbia since I was first elected to this body,

and I

[ Page 47 ]

am raising it again. I think it is absolutely wrong for us to be

exporting, last year, over $90,000,000. worth of copper in the raw. I

think this copper should be smeltered and refined, and then around this

would develop secondary industry. I think this is much better than

keeping people on unemployment insurance and welfare, Now, just where

this smelter is built is something for the engineers to decide, but I

believe there is something that we can decide through the Department of

Mines, that each time we let a contract to Japan or anywhere else, that

that contract to export high grade copper will have a clause in it

stating that when we have a smelter and we are ready to smelter our own

copper ore, that at least a substantial percentage of all copper mined

in this Province will be smeltered in this Province. I think this is

the very least we can do to provide jobs and employment in this

Province. Yes, last year the so-called free enterprise Government of

Ontario passed this type of legislation. In South America, one of the

little countries there, said that those who wish to mine our copper,

unless you are prepared to build a smelter you will get no licence to

export. If they can do it in the best interests of their people, I

believe we should do it in the best interests of full employment for

our people.

There is the matter of a new townsite, an instant townsite, to be

built at Logan Lake in the Highland Valley. I hope that we will see no

more company towns built in British Columbia. I hope that the

Department of Lands and the Department of Municipal Affairs will not

give the go-ahead to Logan Lake Townsite until the health facilities

and the educational facilities in Merritt and Ashcroft are expanded to

their most maximum efficiency. Then when that is done and the mine, and

I hope the smelter, are ready to operate, if it's in the opinion of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs the town is needed, O.K., but at this

stage I feel there is no need to develop a Logan Lake Townsite. I am

glad the Minister agrees, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to raise the matter of the raising of the level of Ross

Lake in Skagit Valley and the flooding of some 6,000 acres in Skagit

Valley. This was agreed to by this Government in January 10th, 1967. We

placed questions on the order paper that month in 1967 enquiring into

the proposed development of this dam. Since that time I have had the

pleasure of a trip up into the beautiful Skagit Valley and it really is

a most beautiful valley, and possibly you have to see it to appreciate

in a small way the tragedy that will befall this beautiful valley if we

allow it to be flooded.

This area lies up on top of the Coast Mountains south of Hope, and

you drive for some 30 odd miles through a rain forest, up through the

giant firs and the cedars, and then when you break over the horizon and

fall away in the eastern slope of the Coast Mountains you find an

entirely different ecology. There you break into rolling range land

with great Ponderosa Pine, and down at the lakeshore you'll see birch

trees the like of which I have never seen before. Birch trees three

feet through, and this is going to be flooded. In this area the deer

spend their spring and summer, it's a spring and summer pasture. The

game department have a corral where they catch deer and tag them and

keep record of them. It is also a wonderful place for the trapper. The

last time that I was up with my son, we went up with a trapper, and he

picked up his traps as he went in and he caught quite a good sized

bob-cat, two otter and two beaver. There is also mink and ermine and

all other fur-bearing species that inhabit that area, and I think it

would be a terrible shame to flood this valley. It's about the last

open valley with first-class fly fishing, first-class sports

recreational area. I think it would be an absolute shame to flood this

when we have such a great need for recreational areas close to

Vancouver, and this is within easy driving distance of Vancouver.

I notice in the Sun on December the 11th that the Minister of

Recreation says they are having preliminary studies for an 880 acre

Class A park. Now I have looked at this valley first hand and I have

looked at the maps, and if they are going to have an 880 acre park

there, it is going to be up on the hillside, it's not going to be in

that great valley bottom. I have no objection to having parks on the

hillsides, but I think if it is important to have a hillside park it is

more important to have a park in that great valley bottom, and I would

like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Government initiate a

meeting of the International Joint Commission to renegotiate the treaty

that was signed by Minister of Water Resources on behalf of this

Government in 1967. I think by initiating this meeting and calling in

the Federal Government, the State of Washington, and the City of

Seattle, that I'm not suggesting that we break our word but I believe

we can offer them something that is better for them and better for us.

I feel a few miles further west in Yale-Lillooet are the Upper Hat

Creek Coal Fields where there's what is close to one-half a billion

tons of proven up coal. The modern way, they tell me, to make power out

of coal is to gasify that mine

section by section, for the B.C. Hydro

to build a thermo unit on the top of the mine — and let us sell Seattle

the peak load power that they need, rather than flooding one of our

finest recreational areas in the lower mainland. This would be less

expensive for them and it would be better business for us. They would

get low-cost power and we would hang on to one of our best recreational

resources in this area.

Now, during the last Session of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, we

passed Bill No. 74. We heard the Attorney-General make reference to

this legislation this afternoon. We heard the member for Delta call for

a special committee and a Prices Review Board to try and control the

ever-increasing cost of car insurance. Now when this legislation was

brought in we stated that the price of car insurance would go up. The

Attorney-General said no, it will go down by about 25 per cent, and I

have the quotes from the paper here, but we won't go on with that now — I think the record speaks for itself. We also said that the way this

legislation would be used, would be that the Premier and the

Attorney-General and the Cabinet would roar around the country during

the election, that it was election propaganda, they'd go out and say

"Look, you don't have to vote N.D.P. for Government car insurance. We

could bring it in under this legislation." Oh no, you said you wouldn't

do that, but that's exactly what you did.

Now we're calling on you, Mr. Speaker, to implement

Section 250,

sub-section 4, and bring in licence plate car insurance. We have very

many reasons for making this request, and one of them is this piece of

paper that every householder in the Province received — yes, and I'm

going to show you — "New Car Insurance Law for British Columbians".

This is made out just as though it were an official Government

document, but who paid for it? The car driving, the car buying public

of this Province. It cost approximately $25,000 for every householder

to receive a copy of this. It was put out as though it was an official

document from this Government. It states, "No-fault accident benefits

coverage: drivers operating without this compulsory insurance are

subject to fine or imprisonment".

[ Page 48 ]

The insurance companies put this out through their Insurance Bureau

of Canada and they tried to scare everyone that didn't have insurance

into buying high-priced car insurance, and I know as an insurance agent

there has been the greatest run for car insurance — people have gone in

and bought car insurance that haven't had it for years.

Now I'm not saying that this is wrong — I believe everyone should

have car insurance, and I believe that car insurance should be

compulsory, but I believe this Government and the leader of the Social

Credit party that heads up the Department under which car insurance

falls are bankrupt. They are morally bankrupt when they would pass

legislation and force people to go out and buy to make profits, and

fabulous profits, for the great insurance corporations.

Here is another ad that appeared in the Weekend Paper this weekend,

in the magazine section. How much it would cost I don't know, but it

says in this, "In spite of the new B.C. legislation on car insurance"

in spite of that legislation — insinuating that the legislation had

forced the cost of the car insurance up — in spite of that legislation

"Wesco Insurance Company gives you an opportunity to save as much as

20, 30, 40, or 50 dollars or more on car insurance this year". We

checked with this outfit and you can't save 20, 30, 40, or 50 dollars.

This is a false advertising, and these are the people that helped put

up the campaign-funds for this Government, and this is the sort of

tripe that they're handing out, trying to hoodwink the public today,

and this Government is sitting back and allowing this to happen.

I'd also like to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, just what the

Attorney-General is doing to see that the monies that are being

collected for the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund are being used for

that purpose. Every dollar that is paid in an insurance premium for

third-party liability, two cents goes towards the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund. Out of every hundred dollars, $2 goes, so that at

December 31st, 1965 there was $1,451,000 that hadn't been used in that

Fund. That was five years ago. How much is there today? Could there be

five million dollars? And what is this Government doing about it?

The way the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund operates is like this.

They make a levy on every insurance premium that is collected. The

insurance companies hold this, these premiums. They hang on to them and

they invest them, they invest them through their finance companies at

18 and 24 per cent. Then at the end of the year, or year and a half, if

the Fund needs money, they make a levy on the various insurance

companies. If the Fund needs money before they get this levy then they

operate on bank overdrafts, so that in the same year that I quoted, the

year ending December 31st, 1965, the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund

paid close to $50,000 for bank overdraft and bank charges. Rather than

using the money that had been collected on the premiums of the citizens

of this Province, they used overdrafts and the insurance companies used

the money that was collected to invest. They kept the earnings and

charged the costs of those overdrafts against the Fund. There was a

surplus of over a million dollars in '65. I'm asking the

Attorney-General just what he's doing about that ever-increasing

surplus, how much is there today and what's he going to do about it?

The member for Delta asked that we set up a Price Review Board for

insurance. That is not necessary. It won't work. It's mentioned that

we're going to have a Committee. That's not necessary. We had a

Committee last year and we told you exactly what would happen, and it

has happened, so why go through that waste of time again? We believe in

committees, but those that were on the Committee sat silent when we

gave them the answer to the problem of automobile insurance in this

Province.

We in the New Democratic Party feel that public automobile insurance

is a natural for public enterprise and this is why. The B.C. Government

Motor Vehicle Branch keeps a record of all the motor vehicles

registered in B.C., it keeps a record of all the drivers, and these

records are programmed into the computers in Mr. Hadfield's office just

across the street. We say it is a natural — insurance is a natural — because all we have to do is to programme those computers with an

insurance formula and then when you receive your licence registration

form and go in prior to the 28th of February, you'll pay the additional

sum and you'll be automatically insured, you will be insured and every

other vehicle on the road will be automatically insured, and all you

will need is a little slip like that. This is what is used in the

Province of Saskatchewan — that's all you need — that's your guarantee

that not only are you insured, that every pedestrian, every passenger

in the Province is insured.

There's no need for a Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund and there's no

need for 188 insurance corporations. There's no need for 188 boards of

directors, there's no need for 188 general managers, there's no need

for 188 sets of computers, there's no need for 188 salesmen scattered

over this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the greatest corporate

bureaucracies ever forced on any people anywhere in the world, and

forced by this Attorney-General in the name of private enterprise.

Didn't you hear him get up and say this afternoon he believed in

private enterprise? Yes, that means private enterprise for the

corporations to gouge the little people. That's who he stands for.

That's who elected him, and that's who he represents.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this was never more clearly shown than in

the issue of January l7th of the Victoria Daily Times. There was a

headline there "Freedom a Joy for David Jones", and I think it is a

credit to John Mica and to the Times that they took up the battle for

this young, 18-year old husband who was thrown in gaol because he did

not have car insurance. That was his only guilt. He was thrown in gaol

and he was given absolutely no time to pay that fine. I think it's very

good that the press did force attention on this most iniquitous Social

Credit insurance law.

It is rather ironic that in the same issue, Mr. Speaker, on Page 9

there's another

article "B.C. Auto Plan claimed Best in the World" but,

by the Attorney-General, speaking in Nanaimo. Now here we are, Mr.

Speaker, he says "the best plan in the world" for who? For the

insurance corporations. But the poorest plan in the world for the

people. We throw the people in gaol.

The Attorney-General said the prices wouldn't go up — they went up

$22 per person. Close to a million drivers' licences in the Province — that's $22,000,000 the insurance corporations are making this year

that they didn't make last year. They're going to have an overall

increase of 6 per cent. The Attorney-General says this is the best

legislation in the world. I add, "for the insurance corporations". Who

does he represent? Throwing the kids in gaol. So, I commend the press,

I commend the people on this side of the House and all those that voted

for car insurance and I'll make a prophesy that before this decade, the

seventies, are out if this Government doesn't bring in car insurance, we will.

MR. GARDE B. GARDOM (2nd-Vancouver–Point Grey):

[ Page 49 ]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the suggestion of the New Democratic Party

would be putting the driving motorists in British Columbia right from

the frying-pan into the fire and I think the only thing that we would

be doing in B.C. would be compounding the bureaucratic syndrome. In my

view, Mr. Speaker, we're not after more government, but we're after

better government, and the Socialists' suggestion, with all respect to

the government that we have, that this more government would mean

better government, I think is nonsense.

We always hear a lot of talk about the direct cost of insurance in

the Province of Saskatchewan and it is true that the direct cost of

automobile insurance in the Province of Saskatchewan seems to be lower,

but you also have to look, Mr. Speaker, at the indirect charges, and

the indirect charges there are a burgeoning bureaucracy and that, in my

view, Mr. Speaker, is no way to either most effectively, or most

economically, or most efficiently, reduce the cost of car insurance to

the B.C. motorist.

Now, there have been three overall focal points of criticism that

the insurance industry has faced, and I think the insurance industry

deserves the criticism that it has faced. Wootton certainly criticized

the industry. The results of the Wootton Commission, they particularly

criticized the lack of competition within the industry and they

criticized the operative methods of the industry.

Secondly, last year's Bill was in itself, I suppose, an indication

of the Government's side of criticism of the industry, because they put

a Sword of Damocles over the head of the industry, and maybe industry

deserves it, and the Government has the power at this time, as we all

know, of having Government control and having Government operation of

the car insurance industry.

Thirdly, earlier this afternoon the Honourable the Attorney-General

indicated to this House that the Government has wakened up and

appreciated the fact that the insurance was coming in at pretty darned

high cost and it's decided that it wants to take another look at the

cost. Well, we think they're a little slow in coming to that conclusion

— it was pretty obvious to this side of the House that that was going

to be the case last year — but be it slow, Mr. Speaker, it's certainly

better than nothing, and it's suggested that this Committee investigate

the thing.

I'd like to make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that there are two

paths to savings in the insurance industry. One of them, I think, would

be to tender this no-fault package to the industry — have Government

tender it to the private carriers. Because it seems to me to be a bit

patently unfair to go ahead and enrich one side of the community with a

compulsory measure, and then not being able to ensure to the driving

motorists that they are definitely receiving the best value for their

dollar and the best coverage for their dollar. Now, I think that might

be one way, Mr. Speaker, to arrive at better competition. The methods

that we've been following to date in the industry don't seem to have

done it, but I can assure you I don't think this big fat step into more

and more socialism is the right answer at all.

A second measure of savings would be this, Mr. Speaker. Insurance,

as we all know, is essentially a prepaid trust. You have to pay your

premiums before you get your policy, on the whole, and the insurance

industry likes people to believe that out of the cost of your premiums

they have to cover claims, operational charges, expenses, and so forth,

and have something for profit. Well I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, I

don't begrudge anyone in our society a fair profit — absolutely no one,

be it the insurance industry or anyone else, but for the industry to

say that they sort of have a divine right to seek prepaid insurance, I

don't think is correct, and if they wish to ask for prepaid insurance I

think that they should say to the driving motorists in British

Columbia, "If you wish to pre-pay your insurance, my friends, I am

going to give you a discount at the rate of bank interest for one

year", and then we would find about a 10 per cent saving there alone. I

think, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is premature.

I would very much like to hear the deliberations of this Committee.

As the Attorney-General did mention, last year there was not furnished

to the Committee, as you perhaps well remember, pretty well any

evidence of cost, and it's my understanding of what you were discussing

this afternoon that the cost feature is the thing that is going to be

emphasized in front of this Committee. This is surely something that

the insurance industry knows itself, too, and I would like to see their

response to this Committee during its deliberations and afterwards.

Now finally, Mr. Speaker, I think this is just another rip-roaring

step towards complete state socialism and we anticipate it from these

people over here, and we'd end up with Big Brother everything. We've

got a Government majority, in my view, Mr. Speaker, that should be very

carefully watched in this House, and I think its powers are awesome

enough at the present time and they should certainly not be increased

by the measure that's been suggested by the Socialists over here. We

don't need an injection of more socialism, we need better free

enterprise and competition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FRANK J. NEY (Nanaimo): Well, I have always believed that

economic justice can best be won by free men to free enterprise. This

idea of training another bureaucratic group in Government, is not only

going to cost the Province more money, but it's going to give the

public worse or poorer service. I'd hate to have to go up to our Court

House on only five days a week, closed between 12 and 1:30, and expect

to get good service when I buy my insurance. The thing that gives

people good service is competition.

You're talking now about the huge profit in the insurance industry,

and you're talking rubbish. If you want to talk the facts and check out

the type of money that is being made, then you'll see that what you're

talking is absolute rubbish, and the reason rates have been going up

during the past few years, the reason for the high cost, is that

two-thirds of the cost of insurance is in auto repairs and the other

third is litigation. Very soon, the way you're going, we're going to

have Government paint shops, Government auto body repair shops and

right down the line, in fact you can go on all the way until in the end

we'll all be working for the Government.

I've never known anyone to be able to sue the Government yet,

(laughter) but at least you can sue your insurance company if they

don't give you a fair settlement. You're going to put the people of

British Columbia in a position where they will have to accept any

decision that's made by the Government and, last but not least, if the

government insurance is so good why has not your good friend Mr.

Schreyer in Manitoba accepted government insurance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

[ Page 50 ]

MR. DENNIS G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, it seems

that there is some confusion in this House with regard to how we are

going. I've heard different talks from both sides saying different

things. However, the thing that I think is probably most significant

that has come out this afternoon was enunciated both by the Liberals

and the honourable member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the

Attorney-General. The best and the best for whom, and I think they both

agreed that it was best for the car insurance companies.

You know the tears that flow down Bay Street, and Howe Street, when

the insurance rates are being discussed and reviewed, are like a flood

— they create a flood — a flood of great despair, it would seem.

However, they're laughing and they're laughing loud because of the fact

that they know perfectly well that the losses are underwriting losses.

Direct underwriting losses, but many of us in this Chamber know that

premiums placed in unearned premium reserves attract a tremendous rate

of interest, and as a matter of fact today they are attracting

fantastic rates of interest. Invested at today's rates, at anything

from 10 per cent upwards, I am sure that these profits do not readily

show when they are discussing things with the Government officials.

These are the areas where they want to stay in the business, and that's

why they are still in the business. If they weren't making a profit, if

they weren't making a profit, Mr. Speaker, they would be out of the

business, and these profits are re-invested, Mr. Speaker, in buildings,

and more of the same, and what have you.

Eventually, premiums are used to pay claims, the same premiums you

know that were in the unearned premium reserves that made some money.

Now they are out there to pay claims, but they are not paid

immediately, Mr. Speaker, so once again they are invested, and

oftentimes it's up to two years prior to a claim being settled. There

is another immense fund that is invested and kept and making large

profits which do not reveal themselves in this matter of premiums

versus claims situation that seems to be so cut and dried to some of

the members here.

Now, there is one other significant factor, I believe, and that is

the way we show our profits and losses. We show our profits and losses

on a very direct situation, we show an earned premium for income. Let's

figure, for an example, take a premium of $120, the earned premium the

first month is $10. That's the premium income for that month. The

expenses, however, are in cash. The first month, therefore, all

commissions, all of the other expenses that insurance attracts, are

charged off. Now, this is not significant, I recognize, if you take a

whole year into account, but if you would think about it just for a

moment, you could see that a company that is growing, that is writing

more insurance this year than they did last year, would show a

significant loss in this regard. So therefore the company that is

growing shows the greatest loss.

Now I am not in favour of welfare and charity for the great

corporations, neither do they need it, Mr. Speaker, nor do I think it

is incumbent upon us, no matter our persuasion politically, to force

people to do business with a cartel which has not shown signs of good

corporate citizenship, and I believe that everyone on the Government

side of the House knows it as well as I do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ALEXANDER B. MACDONALD (1st-Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker,

today the Government announced an important change of direction.

Through the Attorney-General they made it very plain to the people of

this Province that they would not, in spite of the window-dressing in

that Bill 74 of last Session, that they would not go in the direction

of public auto insurance. I think that's perfectly plain. He wants the

committee set up to tinker with the present Act and to try to save him

from the egg on his face, because he brought in Bill 74 last year and

he announced that there would be great reduction, 25 per cent

reduction, and when the election was over, when he had misrepresented

auto insurance to the people of the Province of British Columbia, he

refused to proclaim Bill 74, he shaved

part 14 off it,

section 14 of

the Motor Vehicle Act.

Your own child, you refused to give it a name. You brought this

brave new plan into existence for the benefit of election purposes,

and then refused to christen your own child. So the issue is joined,

and I say this very frankly, that you people will either bring in

public auto insurance in this term of office or you will be swept out

of office on this issue. I say you will, I say that on this rock you

will flounder, Mr. Premier. This is a real issue.

Yes I know, you've tried to ride two horses. You said, "Oh we're

thinking of the public," but the Attorney-General made it very plain

today that he was… How much did you get in campaign funds from Wesco

Insurance in the last election? The Attorney-General said he didn't get

campaign funds from Wesco, and the interesting thing about that is that

he did know where he did get his campaign funds, and he did get them

from the insurance companies, and he says….oh this great law, this

great law, we have legislation with a lot of teeth in it. False! False

teeth!

Because when the Insurance Bureau of Canada announces rigged prices,

no competition, as was suggested by the member for Nanaimo and the

member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who thinks it should be put out — there's no competition in this field. The Insurance Bureau of Canada

announced a flat increase, right across the Dominion of Canada of $13

net, $13 net cost and the Attorney-General gets up and he says just

right — just right, plus 6 per cent. There's no competition in this

field. There is no combine perhaps in writing, but it's the old

business of the gentleman's agreement. The gentleman's agreement is the

best of all devices to stabilize our dividends, our profits, and our

prices and that's the kind of competition you have in the insurance

industry. Sharpen your pencils, says the Attorney-General, they should

sharpen their pin heads on that side of the House…. (laughter)

….and the Attorney-General has found a professor to support his plan

— from the law school of Osgoode Hall, he says, although Osgoode Hall is

no longer a law school, and that professor is ready to go down the line

with you and defend the right to sue, he is ready to defend the

lawyer's right to sue.

One member talked about the Saskatchewan plan. I don't want to go

into it in detail, but I want to give you the net public benefits to

the Province of Saskatchewan of their public plan, very briefly. In

1968 they made a profit of $1,020,000, over a million dollars, and they

make — I'm coming to the investment part — well below anything we have

in British Columbia…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MACDONALD: …They have in the Province of

[ Page 51 ]

Saskatchewan, a premium tax of 3 per cent on their premiums — you

have no premium tax in this Province. You have on life insurance, none

in this Province. Another public benefit. They have in Saskatchewan a 1

per cent tax on premiums for driver training, something badly needed in

this Province. Not under-financed, they financed it through their

insurance system, and still make a profit, as I said, in 1968 of over

$1,000,000. Then as the member for New Westminster has pointed out, in

Saskatchewan the investment income brought into the Treasury $421,000.

Now I say to the member for Nanaimo, who said that the insurance

companies were not making money, that they should look at the stark

figures of what has been happening in the Province of British Columbia.

Here they are, from 1964 to '68, premium income went up from

$43,000,000 to $80,000,000. Losses rose, though, only by $34,000,000 to

$55,000,000, and the result of that is simply this, that while the

income of the auto insurance companies in that period went up by 84 per

cent, the loss payouts went up by only 58 per cent. Now who can tell

me, with those figures in front of you, that the insurance companies

are losing money? They are losing money all the way to the bank. They

are making money, and they are making money on a scale which certainly

doesn't justify the increase at the present time.

The real problem, Mr. Speaker, that the Government benches are faced

with — and why I said this will be an election issue in times to come

if they don't go public — is simply this, that in the case of the

private insurance companies, 188 of them, of the premium dollar, they

give back to the public 65 cents, and 35 cents goes for overhead,

commissions, profits, sales, bureaucracy, private bureaucracy. For 35

cents of the premium dollar is lost, so far as the public is concerned,

whereas under a public plan, the figure is 10 per cent. That is why we

say you can tinker with the present legislation all you like, but we

say there is a saving to the public that alone is at least 25 per cent,

which you by your votes could make available to the public right now,

in this Legislature.

We point out, as the member from New Westminster did, that there is

a tremendous profit also on the investment reserves of the insurance

companies. Each year, at the present time, the people of British

Columbia contribute $80,000,000 in insurance premiums, of which the

payout is less. But the point is that the insurance companies have the

control and investment of that sum in their hands and this should

interest the Premier. Somebody has said that there is a dangerous

radical about, a well-known Marxist-Lennonist called Professor Mel

Watkins, who said that Canada and British Columbia should retain

control where they can of their investment capital, and here you see

the insurance companies, largely American-owned, having at their

disposal a huge investment fund which they invest not in beautiful

British Columbia, but across the line, and we say, Mr. Speaker, that on

these investment reserves of the insurance companies, the investment

income should remain in the Province of British Columbia. We say that

the investment of those reserves in terms of jobs and industry and

development should be in the Province of British Columbia. (Applause)

Invest in beautiful British Columbia our own dollars. Keep our

greenbacks in British Columbia for British Columbia. You can say that's

anti-American if you like, Mr. Speaker, but I say it's pro-Canadian.

When I said that the insurance rates could be reduced just on these

overhead figures I have given by at least 25 per cent at the present

time within a few days of this Legislature acting, I did not include

the profits on this investment income, because don't forget you're

dealing here with profits never disclosed by the insurance companies.

You're dealing with the investment income that the real beneficiaries

of high interest rates make. The beneficiaries of the high interest

rates are not the little people…but the real beneficiaries of high

interest rates in the last two or three years have not been the little

people of Canada, but they have been the auto insurance companies.

We say that that money, added to what I suggested was the immediate

saving that could be made, should be returned to the Province of

British Columbia, saved for the people of British Columbia, us