1972 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 93 ]

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1972

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all

Members of the House feel for His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor who

last night at the State Dinner didn't feel very well, and was advised

to go to the hospital.

The report that I received this morning is that he had a good night,

and is coming along as well as can be expected. I'm sure that all the

prayers and all the thoughts of all Hon. Members of the House will be

with his Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I too

would like to pass along our deep concern, and thankfulness that he had

a good night last night, and hopefully his illness is only temporary.

I'd also like to ask the House to welcome a group of some 40

students from Centennial High School in the great district of Coquitlam

who are visiting here.

Introduction of Bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, once again it's my privilege to join this debate in thanking

His Honour for his speech on this opening of the third session of this

parliament.

I'm not going to take any advice from the Hon. Member from North

Vancouver (Mr. Clark) as to my remark. We won the bet. We got them out

of their seats within 32 seconds this year.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that disturbs me quite a bit is the

way in which some public issues that affect people, or the hardships of

people are used in the political arena.

I've commented many times in this House on the way in which

political people in opposition in this province have ridden on the

backs of the poor to make a point. They've taken issues like glue

sniffing to make a point. They've taken issues like the Willingdon

School for Girls to make a point many years ago. They've taken the

whole drug scene to make a point as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition did the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very good point too.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And off the top of his head he indicated

that the only solution for young people of 16 years of age was to tell

a mother that the answer to her problem was that youngster lay in the

proposition of the free drug culture, the state drug culture, of

England.

Mr. Speaker, that kind of statement is typical of the suggestions

that are made from time to time about the hardships of people in the

name of politics — the preoccupation with some situations like the glue

sniffing situation — without listening to what we have been attempting

to do and what what we've been attempting to say.

Long before this became a political issue in terms of glue sniffing

the government and the Attorney General's Department, and my Department

have been examining the proposition of where the municipalities might

fit into this particular situation and remove any technical and legal

difficulties that are involved.

But when I hear remarks like the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) gave out with respect to the drug culture to try and make a

point — that nobody on this side of the House cares, or nobody on this

side of the House is doing anything about this in terms of our public

posture — I'll accept his challenge as to what I would have told that

mother or that person 16 years of age. Because I have already done that

in my own constituency.

Many people are concerned about the drug culture in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and they have asked questions to me as their

Member. I'll read the letter that I sent to at least 100 people in my

own constituency who wrote me as to where I stood.

This is to acknowledge your letter of January 11, 1972 regarding the drug problem in British Columbia.

In my opinion there is far too much public waffling about the drug situation.

For example, federal and provincial agencies are

saying they don't know enough about it to take a stand. Many medical

doctors are reluctant to take a stand. A great number of studies and

Royal commissions have not been taking a helpful position. In my view

there is only one posture to assume with respect to this problem and

that is to clearly say as I do now, that drugs are a bad scene. Period.

As Minister of Social Welfare, when there was a

Minister of Social Welfare, I had some background on the impact of the

drug culture on young people. In particular. And without reservation it

was not difficult to come to the conclusion that whatever the merits of

a particular drug might be the problem lies in the creation of the

culture and the moral climate that surrounds the use of the drugs, and

the impact of that culture on the individual. I have no hesitation then

in saying publicly and to you that my position is simply that the whole

drug culture is a bad scene, period, and should not receive any

encouragement from any public people.

Now, Mr. Speaker I open my remarks in that context because I think

there is far too much use of what are real serious public and personal

problems in the whole range of the social services simply for the

opportunistic gains of a particular party, at a particular political

time.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's bad politics, I think that's bad

government, I think that's bad debate. And the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition ever since he came into this House has been a past master at

that kind of an approach to politics in British Columbia, to

alternatives, to the Brannan Lake School for boys — all of these

situations.

MR. BARRETT: Say something.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: He doesn't like what I'm saying. The

Opposition never likes what the Hon. Member for Comox says. But I'm

going to say it anyway.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 94 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the Speech

from the Throne, I was naturally delighted as the Member for Comox to

have such prominent mention of the new highway system that's moving

up-island, from Kelsey Bay to Beaver Cove without federal help. I'm

very pleased to be able to say that following my suggestions of a

couple of years ago, that the ferry system from Kelsey Bay to Beaver

Cove needed expansion, it went on to show last year a record increase

of 80 per cent. The whole north end of Vancouver Island is a complete

new empire today, a tremendous area which when we brought that area to

the attention…

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I'm coming to my friend again. Simmer down, simmer down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: When we brought that area to the attention

of the federal minister Mr. Marchand, my colleague the Hon. Minister of

Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr. Williston) and my colleague the Hon.

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr.

Skillings) went to the north end of Vancouver Island with Mr. Marchand

with the support of every single municipal council in the north island

area to make one point and one point alone. That in a developing area

like that, when you're building instant towns, when you have to do

today what some communities have had 10 and 15 and 20 years to

accomplish, when you have to build the hospitals immediately, the

schools immediately, the water system immediately, the road system

immediately, everything is telescoped into a very short period of time.

We said to Mr. Marchand and his officials: "This is the kind of area

where a sensible government would place capital in terms of making it

possible for that area to help the rest of Canada and the rest of

British Columbia in terms of employment."

We at no time, when those officials were there, described this area

as a depressed area. We at no time suggested that it needed some kind

of special attention in the name of it being a poor area. We did it to

suggest that it makes a lot of sense if you're going to put federal

money anywhere, instead of putting it into some kitten club in Prince

Edward Island — where the Canadian taxpayer is paying $1,400,000 in the

Liberal Government's money which is the Canadian taxpayer's money — so

that a bunch of Liberals down in Prince Edward Island can run around

and have parties. We suggested that it made a lot of sense to put some

of that kind of money if it was available in a productive area of

British Columbia.

And we made very clear that this was not just in the name of the

British Columbia situation or the people of the north end of Vancouver

Island. We simply said it made good economic sense to at least put some

of your money where your strength is. What happened? The Hon. Member

for Comox-Alberni, the great federal NDP Member for Comox-Alberni, who

I refer to as silent Tom, did he get up in the House of Commons and try

to support the position of the government of this province? No way, no

way! What did he do?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: He stood up in the House of Commons and ridiculed

the suggestion that the north end of Vancouver Island needed any special attention,

ridiculed it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: And what did the Liberal Members for British Columbia do? Would you believe they did…

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: With the number of members, would you

believe that they helped British Columbia by making 20 speeches in the

House of Commons? Fourteen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Two? You know how many speeches they made

in the House of Commons on behalf of British Columbia when that

position was being expressed, which makes some sense? Ziltch! Ziltch!

Zero! But I must say, having said those nasty things about the federal

Liberals — and they need help, they need help. They need a sense of

direction…

AN HON. MEMBER: Help!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: They need to be given some good ideas.

Even if they don't take them. But I want to be fair because I'm always

fair. There's another matter affecting my constituency, and I know the

Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) will be very pleased to hear this.

The Minister, Mr. Jean Chretien — that's pretty good French — took a

look at the Cape Mudge situation and other communities in British

Columbia, because we had never established from the Minister that he

was willing to extend the proposition that we had offered to Cape Mudge

to other communities in British Columbia. We simply had established

that it was to be a model and you all know the results and I must

express my public disappointment again at those results.

But the business is not over yet, I'm pleased to say.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Those are pretty good percentages, though.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Very good percentages, Mr. Premier. But

Mr. Chretien this morning sent this wire and I've been in touch with

him and he suggested I read it to you in the Legislature this afternoon

and I'm very pleased to do that:

RE: YOUR TELEGRAM OF JANUARY 18, I HAVE NOTED THAT

YOUR MUNICIPAL ACT CONTAINS DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE VOTING REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NON-INDIAN MUNICIPALITIES TO THE PER CENTAGE

REQUIRED FOR INDIAN MUNICIPALITIES. I SHARE YOUR VIEWPOINT THAT THE

VOTING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE THE SAME. HOWEVER YOU MAY WISH TO OBTAIN

THE GENERAL OPINION OF THE INDIAN PEOPLE. PERHAPS THROUGH THE UNION OF

B.C. CHIEFS. LIKE YOU, I AM ALSO WILLING TO USE THE BASIC MODEL WHICH

HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO FOR ANY OTHER INDIAN COMMUNITY IN YOUR

PROVINCE. SIGNED, JEAN CHRETIEN, MINISTER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT.

[ Page 95 ]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, when this whole process of

negotiations was going on, I have nothing but the highest regard for

the cooperation received from Mr. Chretien.

I know this House would be disappointed if I didn't make a report to

them about the state of municipal governments in the province. Because

I know from time to time although you haven't seen fit to mention

municipalities in this debate yet they are an important part of the

government process in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't listening.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I was listening, I was…

AN HON. MEMBER: I reported on the…

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I was listening. I'm going to report on what they said this afternoon. I'm glad you mentioned it.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I can report and I want Hon. Members to

have this information so that their debate in the future course of this

debate and in the budget debate can be based on an intelligent

understanding of the facts.

Never before, Mr. Speaker, in the history of this province have the

relations between the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Union of

B.C. Municipalities been on a higher plane. The Hon. Member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggested that that was not the case. Now, I

wouldn't like to suggest that he is not telling this House the truth,

but I do not want to be so immodest.

I could use my own description of those relationships. That would be

unfair. So I will use the U.B.C.M. Newsletter to describe the relations

between the government of this province and the Union of B.C.

Municipalities.

… and of course, Municipal Affairs Minister,

Mr. Dan Campbell. (In my remarks at the convention I pointed out the

close relationship which now exists between the U.B.C.M. and the

Municipal Affairs Department.) It was not always this way and much of

the credit for this improved relationship must go to Mr. Campbell.

Now, I am almost blushing, I'm almost blushing to read this, it's so

good. I could have written it myself. Mr. Speaker, they go on to say in

another addition after expressing the general appreciation of local

government in B.C.,

the Municipal Affairs Minister, Dan Campbell,

his door's open to us at all reasonable times and we get a lot of help

from him and members of his department.

I certainly appreciate, Mr. Speaker, these kind remarks which I am

forced to read into the records. (Laughter). They go on to say, he goes

on to say — this is the president talking…

AN HON. MEMBER: President?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The president of the U.B.C.M. (Laughter).

We have been getting fantastic cooperation (laughter) from the

Minister, Dan Campbell and his officials of the Department of Municipal

Affairs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you can't really knock it when you are three for

three. (Laughter). But, Mr. Speaker, that's not the whole story, of

course.

Chapter two is even better. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: This year once again Members of this

Legislature will be discussing municipal affairs and the problems, and

obviously problems do arise from time to time. But once again I don't

know of any area in the free world that would be able to make some of

the statements I'm going to make this afternoon. Because in financial

terms, this is a record of management which was established by my

friend, the then Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Member for

Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Black), when the objective was to start to put

municipalities on a forwardplanning basis in terms of finance. They

were to as large an extent possible to finance their water utilities

and their sewer utilities on the basis of self-liquidation. They were

encouraged by my friends to start a programme of forwardlooking capital

management in terms of capital budgeting. They were encouraged to take

as much as they do today and it was small in those days, relatively in

The amount that they do take from revenue surpluses, from surplus

accounts, from cash reserves, for capital projects again this year is

unexcelled anywhere in Canada or the world as far as I can discover.

But I will stand on Canada and once again I'll make my annual offer to

resign.

I know Hon. Members opposite have been working diligently, Mr.

Speaker, as they do every. year. They work diligently from one session

to the next to try and discover where the Minister of Municipal Affairs

is giving false information to the House about the financial position

of the municipalities in British Columbia. And they haven't found it

yet.

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because I don't use the figures that are produced

by the Department of Municipal Affairs. I don't use the figures that

are produced by the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's enough of that …

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I use the figures that are produced by the municipalities themselves, and there they are, Mr. Speaker, there they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you tell they are right?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: By all the yardsticks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose yardsticks?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: This year, by all the yardsticks of anyone

who knows how to read municipal financial statistics — and the Hon.

Member obviously doesn't — current tax collection, 1970, is 96 per cent

for districts, 95 per cent for villages, 94 per cent for towns. Not

excelled anywhere in Canada. Period.

With school taxation, $152 million represents that portion of the

municipalities' total tax picture. $52 million of that comes from the

home-owner grant. And, Mr. Speaker of the remainder of that $100

million, 94 per cent, or very close, comes from the assessment on

commercial and industrial property in British Columbia. Depending on

the year you are looking at, between 6 and 8 per cent only comes from

the residential property owner. No other province in Canada can even

come close to making a statement like that.

Point number two. This year, I have taken only the totally liquid

reserves. The statutory reserves, the operating reserves, the

surpluses, totalled last year $104,954,000 —

[ Page 96 ]

$105 million. Up $10 million in that year alone.

Mr. Speaker, the incredible thing about this is that that represents

27 per cent of the general revenues of the municipalities. Now, I'm not

going to suggest that the municipalities are in such good shape that 27

per cent is too low or too high. I'm not going to suggest that the

municipalities are over-taxing the people. I'm not going to suggest

that they in certain problem areas do not require money for certain

types of priority projects. But I am going to say this.

When any group of municipalities together can have a revenue surplus

position of 27 per cent, and those Hon. Members a little later on talk

about a budget of the Province of British Columbia and bounce up and

down around the Province of British Columbia and talk about the

overburdened surpluses of the province that should be going here, there

and everywhere and suggest that that's a bad thing, are they suggesting

that it's a bad thing that municipalities are in such financial

position that they can have that kind of reserve?

I don't think so. I don't think so. I find it incredible that some

people in the municipal world keep knocking on a purely political basis

the financial picture.

Why do they do it? It interferes with their credit position. They

are knocking their own products. If they go to the bond market why

don't they paint the big picture? Well, Mr. Speaker, last year they

did. They did go to the bond market and in New York, for the first

time, on a first-time issue, got a double A rating, pooling the credits

of all the municipalities in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose rating?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Standard and Poor. I'm glad you asked that question. You should never ask a question to which you don't know the answer.

Mr. Speaker, first-time issue, a coupon was issued at 8 3/8 per cent

at par in the U.S. dollars. The following day there was a provincial

issue of $75 million which was issued with a coupon rate sold in the

same market 8 1/2 per cent, a provincial issue with a full provincial

guarantee. It happened to be the Quebec issue and obviously, putting

the two together, one right after the other, the municipal finance

authority proved what the Liberal leader said it could not prove, what

the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said it could not prove.

As a matter of fact, they voted against the establishment of the

idea of pooling all the credits of the municipalities of the Province

of British Columbia and I warned them then, and this House will

remember. I warned them then: "You are making a mistake." They were not

taking a correct reading of what should be done for municipal financing

in British Columbia and they ignored that advice and they will pay for

that within a very short period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: When, when?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Next year or the year after.

But, Mr. Speaker, that same financing authority went to the Canadian

market for the first time and no Canadian issue has been better — $1,250,000 Canadian 25-year issue was issued at 7.8 per cent. Which was

a prediction I made as well when this was announced — that in the 70's

there would be 7 per cent interest for the municipal financing

authorities. Seven per cent in the '70's, and it's going to go lower

than that if they follow some more advice.

Point number three. The municipal financing in British Columbia last

year took $44 million of their capital requirement without going to the

marketplace for long-term debt at all.

Out of surplus accounts, out of cash in the bank $44 million.

Nowhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker, was that picture painted as it was in

the Province of British Columbia. Nowhere. And I'll offer to resign on

that one too, as I'm doing on all of these. Do those Hon. Members want

to take me up on it?

Mr. Speaker, what is past is prologue. Because just assuming the

present situation in the Province of British Columbia, and the present

resources of the municipality, we've projected this through to 1975. By

1975 the municipalities in British Columbia will require on an annual

basis approximately $597 million, for various capital programmes.

Mr. Speaker, they will finance approximately 50 per cent of that

$597 million requirement from general revenue, from reserved funds, or

from surplus. In no other place in Canada can anyone say that

municipalities will finance approximately 50 per cent of their capital

requirements without going into long-term debt. No way.

Mr. Speaker, point number six. What is the current debt position of

the municipalities in British Columbia? Mr. Speaker, I'm reporting

about the finances of the Department of Municipal Affairs. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

doesn't like this story, but that doesn't worry me at all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Go and buy yourself another island so we

can make this municipal picture even better, increase the assessments — or another apartment.

Mr. Speaker, the average debt of the municipalities is: cities, 6.4 per cent;

Vancouver, 9.1 per cent; districts, 6.4 per cent; towns, 7.4 per cent (this

is a percentage of their current revenue); villages, 5.6 per cent.

What's the picture in the province that's in the heart of Canada?

Almost all of the municipalities in that great Province of Ontario are

in excess of 9 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt in any one's mind that the

municipalities of British Columbia have once again shown sound

financial management. Because I am taking their own figures, I am using

their own position as reported to the department, and I say without

fear of contradiction that these municipalities with that kind of a

record should consider taking step number two.

Why go to the external market of other provinces or the rest of the

world at all? Why not offer the people of the Province of British

Columbia an opportunity to buy bonds with backup such as that? Why

don't they this year, 1972, offer to the people of the Province of

British Columbia the opportunity to invest in the growth of that kind

of a corporation, or group of corporations?

AN HON. MEMBER: Will the government accept those bonds as deposit?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that in the future, and I'll predict this, the

[ Page 97 ]

municipalities with that record as it is will not

only one day be able to produce bonds which they can sell across the

counter, but if they could resolve their position in terms of pooling

their credit — why don't they pool their reserves? — will approach the

time when they may even be able to duplicate the amazing feats of the

Minister of Finance of the Province of British Columbia.

I wish to move to the situation which I think is quite serious in

the Province of British Columbia, and I indicate this in terms of

policy comment. As the world has become more complicated, so the

concern for environment has become so pronounced. If there's a threat

running through the Speech from the Throne it has to be that there is a

tremendous posture on the part of this government to answer the

problems of growth with controlled growth.

The issue in British Columbia is not as some would have it — "stop

the world, I want to get off." The issue in British Columbia is not

that we're not going to face growth in the future as we have in the

past. The issue in British Columbia in terms of the problems of

municipalities and how we regulate and so on is on whose terms and

under what condition we are going to accept growth.

Now, when you put that proposition there you're starting to talk in a positive way.

Unfortunately Mr. Speaker, it's my opinion, and I say it now, that

many municipalities in seeking to cope with that problem in a very

complex world have ringed themselves around with a whole series of

negative regulations — bylaws, professional planners, bureaucrats in

regional districts, in municipalities — with completely unnecessary

rules and regulations. These, Mr. Speaker, do not meet the test of

common sense.

I had occasion to write to municipalities this year about this

particular problem. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is the job of political

people and not the job of bureaucrats to chart the direction in which

the community is going to grow — just as it is the job of a provincial

parliament to chart the course the way a province is going to go.

But when you ring development proposals around with a whole series

of negatives instead of talking about positive proposals for

development and how to do things best, instead of not doing it all,

then you come up with this kind of thing. And this was a quote from a

letter I sent.

The drafting of some regulatory bylaws leaves the implication that

the Municipal Act without qualification is the basis for the bylaw. I

think the public are entitled to know that most municipal bylaws today

are permissive. And perhaps a specific example here would illustrate

the nature of the public concern, and I get it every day from

developers — from individuals who are not able to meet some very

foolish regulations, some very foolish planning ideas, some very

foolish zoning bylaws.

I serve notice that where those regional areas have not met the test

of public acceptance for their bylaw (and the Hon. Member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) knows very well what I'm talking about)

I will not sign the bylaw, because it was not borne along in the spirit

of participation of the public which has to live with it. They were not

brought along in the spirit that a zoning bylaw or a building

regulation or any other kind of bureaucratic regulation is no good

unless the public are part and parcel of the process which brought it

into existance in the first place.

I'm going to give Hon. Members some pretty specific examples here

this afternoon. But here's one. The wording of this bylaw had to do

with the regulating of animals I guess.

The bylaw said this: "Animals must make no offensive odour or noise or any other nuisance."

Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to attach this to is the whole

question which happens to be one of the very large areas of concern in

the Department of Municipal Affairs. And that is in the provision of

housing for. people. Because there are examples after examples of good

and proper housing proposals which bureaucratic planners, uninformed

building inspectors, and very foolish municipal councils have turned

down sometimes simply because the regulation was there. Sometimes, I

suspect, because of an element of snobbery.

Everybody can't live in Shaughnessy, everybody is not going to live

on the West shore, everybody's not going to live in the University

Endowment Land, everybody's not going to live in the Uplands in

Victoria.

But I'll tell Hon. Members this, Mr. Speaker. It is foolish in the

extreme to think that all those young people who are coming along today

are not going to want exactly the same thing which the people before

them had an opportunity to have. And that is the ownership of their

home.

If there is anything that this government has said loud and clear

throughout the years, it is that the most fundamental way to hang a

community or a province together is to make it possible for a family to

live in their own home.

The home acquisition grant, with the home-owner grant, the proposals

for senior citizens housing — all these have been directed to that very

fundamental principle. And as Minister of this department I served

notice with the U.B.C.M. at the last convention, and with the

municipalities in regional districts that I don't intend to permit

stupidity and the lack of common sense to interfere with that. No way.

Here's a classic example in the constituency of my friend the Hon.

Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett). Because any time anybody talks

about good developments and bad developments they keep throwing this

horrible word "speculator" around — especially the Hon. Member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) who doesn't normally know what he's

talking about — or developers, and rip-off artists and all that sort of

thing.

I'm talking about 250 individual people in the Municipality of

Coquitlam. Who formed a cooperative, who had an idea. It was

innovative, it was a good thing for them at their point in time that

they happened to live in a run-down rental trailer park. They want to

do something about it, and they think this is step number one.

They perhaps don't intend to live in this particular unit all their

lives. But they do want an opportunity to do it. This is the kind of

thing that should be accommodated.

What do they want to do? I'll pass this around. And there's 200 of

them. They want to lay out.a specific

section of the municipality. They

want to landscape it, they want to properly terrace the road system,

they want to put in sidewalks, street lights, they want to put in their

own sewer system, they want to put in their own water system, they want

to put in their own ornamental lighting, they want to lay out a

recreational area, they want to have a joint ownership of certain

facilities for day care within this proposal.

I'll tell you Mr. Speaker there is a land use contract proposal in

the Municipal Act which applies to regional districts where the

Minister may determine that this kind of thing is in the public

interest, in the unorganised areas of British Columbia, if it is felt

proper to do so, if municipalities are not willing to examine this kind

of thing.

I do not want in British Columbia a system like they have

[ Page 98 ]

anywhere in Canada with all these municipal boards,

and appeal procedures that take years and years to move something from

A to B, like they have in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and

in Quebec.

But Mr. Speaker, I'm asking now, in the name of housing and in the

name of common sense that municipalities look at the

section of the

Municipal Act that was provided for them last year under "land use

contract," and give this kind of project a chance.

I purposely used this one because I didn't want that friend of mine

over there from Vancouver East to get up and talk about rip-off

artists, developers, and speculators, who are behind all these schemes.

This is 200 people who wish to do something sensible. And planners get

in the way. They think that they're planning for Forest Lawn Cemetery

instead of for living people. That's their problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about housing in the

budget debate. But, I wanted to bring that specific situation to the

attention of the House because it's typical of what's going on all over

the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I know the kind of attitude my friend. I

never expected the Hon. Member for New Westminster, my home city, to

have such a snobbish attitude about housing. When I grew up as a boy in

New Westminster we helped to look after one another. We helped look

after one another. Where did that feeling in New Westminster go? How

did you destroy that feeling? How did you destroy that feeling in New

Westminster?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to go back to my own home town of New

Westminster and tell them that the Hon. Member for New Westminster

doesn't care about people; he doesn't care about housing people anymore.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, the other kind of

situation that affects the whole planning procedure: I think it is the

responsibility of government to lay out what public policy happens to

be.

Over the course of the last couple of years, it has been pretty

clear that this government has been on a course of co-ordinating

activity — the introduction of the environmental land use committee,

the proposition of emphasising the control of environment. Planners all

over the province have started a process which is not bringing the

people into any kind of a process of understanding of what planning

should be. It is bringing them into a process where they are ridiculing

what should be sound and sensible planning. I will give you a good

example. It has been pretty clearly stated that the suggestion that we

start on the Gulf Islands and bridge all those little islands out there

is not part of public policy. It's like this old business that my

friend from North Vancouver was playing around with yesterday. A

Liberal plot. I'll answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: A liberal plot?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: You know, they have been bouncing all over

British Columbia, building up straw men so that they can knock them

down. That's the only exercise they've been engaged in. And if they

want to know the answer to Moran dam, read the tape. They're experts on

the tape machine — read it. But here we have a document that's going

out to residents of the Gulf Islands by the Capital Regional Planning

Board. It's got a bridge across Active Pass, if you please. It's got a

bridge and a freeway running through Portland Island. Apart from

anything else, my colleague the Hon. Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) might get a little upset if they were

to build a freeway through Princess Margaret's Park.

When the government of this province enunciates public policy with

respect to the multiple use of forest lands, when the government

enunciates policy with respect to the Gulf Islands, do you think, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs put a 10-acre freeze — which was a difficult thing to do — on the Gulf Islands to try and

bring some sensible planning to that area? Do you think he put a

10-acre freeze on the Gulf Islands in expectation that we were going to

have about 15 bridges over there. One across Active Pass?

No way, Mr. Speaker. But when these airy-fairy, dreamy-planners get

up in the air with these schemes, and then present them to the public,

they destroy, in British Columbia, what they're trying to prove is a

necessity. I agree it's a necessity. But these way-out super-planners,

like the Hon. Member for Vancouver-East — he doesn't nod his head in

agreement, he's not part of the solution, he's part of the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about all the parks he's planned for the island? Think of those. He's responsible.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is

this, that if we're going to have sensible control of the environment

in British Columbia, if we are going to meet the challenges of growth

in a very complex and not a simple-answer world, we are only going to

get it in terms of establishing a public posture — in meeting with the

people it affects.

Whether you are talking about a municipality or a regional district

or whatever, I just would suggest to the planning fraternity of British

Columbia: "Get down out of the clouds, plan for people and not for

Forest Lawn Cemetery. Don't sit in your smokey rooms and come up with

the plan and then like chickens just having hatched an egg, cackle

about it, when the people never even knew you were sitting on the

nest." (Laughter).

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the last point I want to make with respect to

urban affairs. I want to talk for a moment about the new development in

Canada having to do with the establishment of an urban affairs

department for Canada at the federal level.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe in the Jeffersonian theory of

democracy — that a federal system happens to be an excellent system for

the collection of taxes but it's an extremely poor system for the

distribution of services directly to communities.

The best money that is spent, is spent as close to the project where

has indicated that it wishes to establish an urban affairs department.

It is theoretically supposed to deliver nothing except this key word

today — "co-ordination."

They will produce nothing. Nothing. Zero.

We have had a number of conferences with respect to this question

and the suggestion has been made that the government of the Province of

British Columbia is opposed to the idea of tri-level consultations.

That is simply not true.

[ Page 99 ]

Secondly, the suggestion has been made that British Columbia has

scuttled the activities of that particular department. Mr. Speaker,

that is simply not true. What British Columbia's position was can be

spelled out in two points.

One, we asked the Department of Urban Affairs for Canada for a

simple definition of what they were going to do. Mr. Speaker, I tell

you now, that we haven't got that definition yet. It's a department,

Mr. Speaker, that's running around looking for a role. Mr. Speaker is

there anything wrong…

AN HON. MEMBER: Have they got an office?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: They not only have an office, my friend, they're already put 300 super-planners in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like they have some businessmen.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, is there anything wrong with

asking a government department that is charting a new course, the

simple question, "what are you going to do?" and getting a relatively

simple answer? I don't think so.

Secondly, we suggested that there are a number of government

departments in Ottawa — something like 150 that have programmes of one

kind or another that financially have some bearing on activities at the

municipal level. The Department of Transport, Public Works, all of

these departments are delivering money, in a variety of kinds, to the

municipalities through the provincial government for sewer projects,

and so on. Somebody asked another simple question. We suggested we

wanted to know in what way would the new department co-ordinate the

capital expenditures that were perhaps in a variety of other

departments. Now that's a simple question.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have the answer yet. Now I want to make it

perfectly clear that the government of this province is not opposed to

meeting with the municipalities, the federal government and the other

provinces, to talk about the answers to those questions and the very

real responsibilities which I have spelled out to that Minister in no

uncertain terms.

There are three major urban problems in Canada — one I've mentioned

already, housing. Two, is the cost for the capital construction of

pollution abatement procedures of one kind or another. And the third,

is the question of providing urban transit in the metropolis areas of

Canada.

Those are the three number one problems. And they are being tackled,

Mr. Speaker, in every other part of the world, including the country to

the south of us, with direct federal moneys going to urban transit,

pollution abatement and housing.

Now, I'm not going to question the involvement of the federal

government in terms of the credit position they hold. Who can dispute

that it is the parliament of Canada that controls credit? We don't

dispute that.

answering these questions. How do you provide the mass of sums of capital to

solve modern problems? It's no good standing around at cocktail parties and

cocktail lounges and coffee klatches and talking about the problem and defining

the problems — that we need urban transit, and we need housing and we

need pollution abatement — when

the key to the bank, through the Bank of Canada, happens to rest with the parliament

of Canada.

It should be, that's where it should be. We have no quarrel with

that. But, Mr. Speaker, you can't talk about the federal government's

involvement in urban affairs and make any sense out of it, if you've

just got a bunch of super-planners fiddling around in the country,

trying to put together a nothing, and wrapping it around with words and

then doing nothing about these urgent problems that everybody

recognises. That's the issue.

I said that I was not prepared to go to a conference if all we were

going to be doing at the conference was throwing a bunch of confetti up

in the air and putting some streamers out so that the public would

think that provincially, municipally and federally, we were really

seriously doing something about housing, urban transit and pollution

abatement, on a proper basis.

Mr. Speaker, is there any one in this House, who would quarrel with

the position taken here this afternoon on that question? Why do they

keep talking about these problems in Canada, about pollution abatement?

It's a good thing, let's have some. Urban transit is a good thing,

let's have some.

The government that controls all the credit in Canada sits on its

duff, Mr. Speaker, and does nothing at a time when they could be

getting on with these problems, deliberately put this country into an

unemployment tail-spin. That's what they did.

If a little bit of unemployment was a good thing, a little bit more was better …

AN HON. MEMBER: You helped, you helped.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: During the budget debate, I'll have quite a bit to say about unemployment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand in hand you did it.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed this

afternoon. I want my good friend, the Hon. Member for Atlin, (Mr.

Calder) to have some time in the debate and I know my friend from Atlin

is a lot smarter than all the other members on the N.D.P. benches. I'll

tell you why, Mr. Speaker. He agrees all the time with the Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an honour, once again, to take my place in this debate, on behalf of the Atlin constituency.

Before going into my contribution this afternoon, I would just like

to make two remarks before the previous speaker leaves the chamber,

because I know he is a busy man, and he may just be going back to his

office. But before he does that I would like to make a comment on his

remarks about the drugs.

Now we all know in this House that this is a very serious situation

that it is much involved in this province and elsewhere in the world.

We had our first lobby just prior to the opening of the Legislature

when the narcotic-addiction foundation representatives came to present

its brief to our N.D.P. caucus — a very interesting one.

This isn't the first time I have listened to this organisation and

the presentation that they made certainly reached me and from that I

know that there is a serious problem.

The government knows this is a serious problem and I am

[ Page 100 ]

just wondering what they are trying to do about it.

The previous speaker said that he's against it. We all know that we are

all against it and we are trying to do something about it. What is the

government plan on this, Mr. Speaker, what is the government policy?

What is the treatment plan of the government?

This is such a serious situation that this is one problem that

should have been stressed in the throne speech. We certainly hope that

before the prorogation of the House, that the government will come out

with something that we can work on in helping to solve this serious

problem.

Secondly, the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Campbell) made remarks about Cape Mudge and I would just like to make

my remarks about this most interesting development.

This is not the first time that I have come up with this municipal

status. As you know Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members that have been here

for quite a number of years, as long as I have, know that I have

advocated municipal status. Perhaps what Hon. Members don't know is

that I and the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs have had

correspondence over this Cape Mudge situation — not so much on Cape

Mudge but on the municipal status itself.

In 1967, we thought it was quite an appropriate time to come forward

with some form of a resolution and this we did in the centennial

celebration of Canada.

We thought this was a very appropriate time, that in its 100th

birthday we should come out with something that would help solve the

reservation problems. I would like to read the resolution to Hon.

Members. This actually in my estimation was one of the first times that

I corresponded with the Hon. Minister and he agreed with perhaps most

of what we had placed before him. This was not done on the floor of the

House, it was done by correspondence as I have mentioned. I will read

you the resolution. By the way, this came out of an Indian convention

which is my own convention in the Nass River. This is a Niska

resolution.

Whereas the Niska people advocate

self-government on Indian reserves and

whereas the Niska people

advocate provincial jurisdiction of Indian affairs and

whereas the

Niska Tribal Council on behalf of its members believe that the

application of certain aspects and principles of the municipal affairs

would assist greatly self-government on reserves, and

whereas the

Minister of Municipal Affairs of the Province of British Columbia and

indicated by public announcements their support of municipal status for

reserves in British Columbia,

be it resolved that the Government of the

Province of British Columbia consider the advisability of introducing

at its 1968 spring session of the Legislature an enabling bill to

establish municipal status on reserves, with the following stipulations:

(

A) Optional plebiscite on reserves with

respect to municipal status. (B) 75 per cent basic acceptance vote. (

C) No sale of properties from Indian municipalities to non-Indians. (

D) Complete detailed government policies and regulations with respect to

municipal status. (

E) A government guidance towards complete

self-government on reserves that accept municipal status.

Indian village councils and others concerned

present their briefs relative to their proposed amendments, additions

or deletions to the bill to a select standing committee on municipal

status and self-government for Indian bands in the Province of British

Columbia.

We thought this was a very good resolution. It was passed

unanimously in the convention in the north, following which we

presented the motion to the Hon. Minister and we had a very good

correspondence over this and I think it was in the 1968 session that

the Hon. Minister amended the Municipal Act.

We're most thankful for this. I think this was a victory in itself

when it was introduced into the statute books of the province of B.C.

Again to enlighten the members about this resolution, we, the Indian

people, are very much concerned about this self-government. They

certainly would like to administer their own affairs and they would

like to have their own money.

I still couldn't see why, if we're going to talk about

self-government, the Indians still have to go to Ottawa and perhaps to

B.C. and beg for money. So we thought that it was best to provide

another definition than the word "reserves" and this is where the

municipal status definition came in to the picture. The Act itself will

have provided an avenue for the return of the Indian's tax dollar so

that he could use his own funds to administer and provide

selfgovernment on the reserves. This is the whole key behind our fight

to establish municipal status in this province.

Certainly we didn't have to fight on the floor of the House because

the government did accept it without any debate and this is very good.

We thought of the 5 per cent sales tax, of which a percentage which

goes to every municipality in the province but not to the reserves. I

think if the vote at Cape Mudge had been favourable the 5 per cent

sales tax would have gone back into this by this avenue provided.

Now the reason why we suggested the 75 per cent was because we

wanted a real majority. We had quite a debate before we accepted this

motion in our convention, as a matter of fact we had considered 60 even

50 per cent then with this absolutely new development concerning

reserves anywhere in this country we thought that a big majority would

be wise and therefore we arrived at this 75 per cent.

I think in this respect — and I think the Hon. Minister will agree

with me that I feel partly responsible for this as well — we were all

disappointed. I must say that there was great attention focused on this

vote from right across the country. I know this. When I was in Ottawa

before Christmas I met with many Indian leaders and they were much

concerned over this and I know they had their eyes focused on this. I

know that there was a big disappointment. I was very disappointed in

this.

But it has been proven to us that that 75 per cent is a bit too high

and I would support the Hon. Minister if he goes along with what's in

the municipal plebiscites. If they go for 60, we'll go for 60, with no

differences when it comes to Indians voting for municipal status. Let

it be the same and whatever you decide on — and I believe it is going

to be 60 per cent — I and the members of my group will support this if

the amendment comes in. I hope the amendment comes in this session so

that Cape Mudge may be given another chance.

I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the chief

counsellor Lawrence Lewis, a school chum of mine, and congratulate the

people of Cape Mudge because actually it was a victory. It was a large

vote.

I'm also thankful that my friend Lawrence did not resign because he

has put a lot of effort into this and I'm quite sure that any other

village will be putting a lot of effort into it.

We set this motion in the beginning in the hope that one

[ Page 101 ]

of my villages in the Nass would have started, but

of course Lawrence and Cape Mudge beat us to the punch. So, we stepped

aside to see what happened.

Even Nass River, we believe we are ready for municipal status and a great many other villages are ready for it.

Like I say, it was a victory in itself when this was introduced and

it was a victory for Cape Mudge and the people when they decided to

step into this field. I'm sure that it will be favourable in the next

vote and no doubt it won't be too long before other villages will take

part in this.

While I'm on the Indian affairs, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to

make a few remarks about the Quilt case in Williams Lake. I just pose

this as a question to the people of the province.

It's a simple question. Does the mafia justice towards Indians

actually exist in this province and throughout Canada? Many terms have

been applied and I think it's high time that we have found out just

what exists with respect to justice to the Indian people.

Many Indian leaders, Mr. Speaker, believe that there is much

injustice towards Indians. The now and then publicity of brutality and

injustices in other parts of the province and throughout Canada, I

believe, leads the public to believe so. I know that the Indian

organisations are presently moving.

May I direct my remarks to the Hon. Attorney General? I heard not

too long ago that the Indian organisations throughout Canada are going

to press that something be done about this Quilt case and many other

cases which I understand exist but have never been brought before the

attention of the authorities or especially the public. I think that

this leads to sort of a bad court image in our land. The Indian people

are now being provided with equal laws all over the country, in Alaska

and the United States, Mexico. There are other instances such as this.

This certainly doesn't provide an image along the way to a equality and

to progress for the Indian people.

Just the other day I received a letter from the Department of

Justice requesting that I be one on those that become a member of a

committee on Indians and the law. From what I have heard prior to this

about injustice I think I'm going to accept to be a member on this

committee because I am most interested.

I think this is going to be heard in the near future, that the

Indian organisations throughout Canada now are going to really approach

the federal and the province for a full inquiry into this case because

I noticed there was a case just recently that involved an R.C.M.P. in a

car crash which caused the death of several occupants of a car in which

because there was further evidence to be heard that the Attorney

General's department actually reopened the case.

From what I have read — and I too have not read the transcript — if

there are further witnesses to be heard I think in the same token that

this Quilt case be reopened. As a matter of fact, if we're going to

assist in the development of our people and especially with the matter

of justice I think a whole public inquiry should be established in this

Quilt case.

Certainly it would ease the tension because there is a tension over

this and I'd even heard yesterday that there were many cases involved

right in this same area in which the Quilt case hit the papers. And

this is all I have to remark about on the Indian case. I do hope that

the Honourable Attorney General will do something forthwith.

During the past year, Mr. Speaker, I spent two months touring my

62,000 square miles constituency of Atlin, visiting and interviewing

officials of industries, officials of the local communities, and of

course the same with the transient and local residents. It was a real

fact-finding mission, I'm quite sure that this is what all of the

M.L.A.'s do. I certainly did that in this past year. It is a duty of an

M.L.A. to do this.

On immediate problems naturally there is correspondence and during

the session we present some of the issues either on the floor of the

House or by interview with the Ministers and their deputies.

I make these introductory remarks because I read with interest prior

to the opening or just after the opening about the wasteful two weeks.

The writer, I believe, should direct his attention — and of course this

is what he did — to the Cabinet when he wrote this.

I quite agree with him, after all it's a destitute piece of document

and if the writer agreed that this is so then at least as a member of

one constituency I can say that these two weeks are not wasteful as far

as I'm concerned because I have done quite a bit this past year and I

know the other M.L.A.'s have done the same.

I'm just so far behind now in my interviews, it just isn't funny. I

require these two weeks, although I will be bringing up a lot of these

constituency problems during the course of this session. I'm

nevertheless privileged to say other things other than what's involved

with my riding, one or two of which I will be speaking about this

afternoon.

I'd like to give Hon. Members my views on Brinco. There was a

development in my riding. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we read so much

about the isolation of my constituency and yet I must tell the

Legislature here that I have got a very active riding. I was most

thankful about this because I think very few people know about the

mineral exploration in the area, about the road construction which has

provided work for people in my riding. After I got through travelling

throughout this territory I actually believe that if a person was not

working it was because of a complete isolation and there was no

employment because of a lack of development — that's one. Two, is

because maybe he doesn't want to work. But other than that there was a

lot of activity and employment in my riding and this has been very good

for the local people this year.

During the course of my trip up there — and prior to going up there

I read about the income of the British Newfoundland Corporation Ltd.

which would explore the power potential on the Stikine — after this hit

the papers I was just wondering what part the government was playing in

this matter.

I more or less pose this as a question on whether these people were

working on any guide lines at all. This is the criticism that I have

with respect to the government.

Naturally, I'm not against development. I have been advocating

development in this riding for many years. Nevertheless, being in the

House here I also believe that the government must provide guidelines

and should not allow any company, no matter how large, to roam freely

in an area and perhaps destroy it during its period of exploration.

I'm not saying that this company actually did destroy forests by

creating roads and everywhere else digging holes, drilling and then,

finding that there is poor power potential, deciding to move on to

another and do likewise. I note by a recent publicity that they have

examined seven areas and if they go into an area where there is no

guidelines I would suggest that the government consider having someone

representing the government and actually observe what has been done.

If it wasn't for publicity this summer, nobody would have

[ Page 102 ]

known about what Brinco was doing in the north.

Actually, it smartened the company up, according to the local people,

when this publicity came out, that reporter Larson of the Vancouver Sun had written.

I am also wondering why B.C. Hydro has not provided information. For

years we have had reports on the power potential of practically every

river and stream in the area but these are, I would say, very poor

estimates because I don't think they have actually done any real work

to find out the potential of these waters in North-West B.C. B.C. Hydro

does not want to participate in the development. I think B.C. Hydro

should be providing information, provide a bible of power potential for

every stream or river in British Columbia so that if any company was to

become interested and engage themselves in development then they've at

least got a guideline and know much more about power before proceeding

with their activities.

Such is not the case up there. It almost indicates to me that the

government may not be interested in assisting development in the north

and this I'm very highly critical of. I think they should take a full

part in the development of the north.

Brinco was also a mineral explorer and if the company finds that

there is little to work on, and knowing that maybe adjacent companies

got nothing to work on, you're certainly not going to end up with any

development of power in the area.

There has been much talk, Mr. Speaker, about the Moran dam and

because I spend most of my life in the fishing industry, I too am going

to say a few words about the Moran dam.

I've been one of the fortunate ones to be appointed by the federal

government to be an official delegate for Canada in all the discussions

of the salmon industry. In the last three years, we have met two major

nations. A year-and-a-half ago, we met Russia for the first time in the

history of Canada and last June we spent quite a bit of a time in

Seattle, meeting the United States.

You will note that I was absent the first two days. That's because I

was attending the second phase of our Canada–United States

deliberations on the protection of salmon in this province. We met in

camera and therefore I'm not going to discuss any of the points.

The conference I think was concluded yesterday but I will speak on

some of the issues that concerns the conference. It has concerned the

two nations — United States and Canada — and certainly will concern

them until we are assured that nothing will be done about this

particular river system.

The commercial fishing industry is so concerned about this dam, Mr.

Speaker, that it has actually done a lot of investigating. I might as

well give you the people who went to investigate this whole issue. I'm

speaking of this report issued last August, August 1971, on the fishery

problems related to the Moran dam on the Fraser river. It is prepared

by the technical fisheries service and the International Pacific Salmon

Fisheries Commission.

It is quite a volume, I don't know if any of you have completed

reading it. Maybe on account of the thickness of the book and the so

many words issued, the committee decided to condense it into a smaller

book and then it is even condensed a little more by the industry.

I'm going to read the very important points which the industry, not

only the commercial industries but people engaged in it like the

fishermen, pin-point — the very things that are very much concerned

about this.

Up to now, the speakers have just said: "Well, don't build the Moran

dam." But nobody has actually said: "Well, what do the fishermen, and

people engaged in the industry actually think about this whole

proposal?" So if you will bear with me, I will remark about several

excerpts from this book, and because it is about three pages, I will

get right into it.

A dam at Moran Canyon would wipe out salmon stocks

that spawn above the site and cut commercial and Indian food fishery

catches below the dam by 50 per cent.

I'd just like to say there, Mr. Speaker, that the reservoir that's

going to be created, especially from a very high dam — over 700 feet we

were told in the report — a reservoir from this would stretch for

almost 170 miles, almost right to Quesnel. This certainly is a

reservoir that really worries the industry.

Salmon species include sockeye, the major run, pinks, coho, chum and chinook.

And these are the very species that provide one of

the greatest names in the name for British Columbia in the whole

fishing world.

This loss would cost $24 million annually, based on

present wholesale values. Recreational fishery losses are estimated at

$22 million annually — a

two year study of this aspect is not yet completed.

There are the highlights of the federal fisheries

service and International pacific Fisheries Commission report on

problems related to the Moran dam released to date. Prepared by

technical staff the 200 page report covers flood control, salmon

production, environmental changes, migration and'upstream passage, cost

of fish facilities and comparison of hydro-electric and thermo-nuclear

power costs.

Moran dam is not necessary for flood control of Fraser

Valley. Dykes can provide this protection as they have in the densely

populated area below in New Westminster. This was recommended by the

Federal-Provincial Fraser River Board in 1963.

Now don't forget, this is the actual, the province did agree on that.

The two senior governments agreed on a 10-year

programme of dykes and drainage improvements in 1969. It would cost $40

million. Annual loss of salmon stocks above and below Moran would be 24

million, 10 million for total loss above and 13 million for 50 per cent

loss below the reservoirs. Annual loss of potential salmon production

would be 71 million.

My own remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned last year. I will

repeat again, this whole development of Moran dam — and no doubt, I

believe they are going to try to develop it — this is the reason why I

think the pressure is on by politicians. Soon you'll be hearing from

all over the country that this may just actually lead to the

destruction of the salmon industry in this province.

At any rate this is going, including the permission of the federal

government to allow passage of oil tankers in our inland waters, the

immediate coast, and with the sewage, the pulp, and the damming of such

great places as the Skeena — tributaries to the Skeena which we just

read the other day — and also this, I would say give it 50 years and

this province will have destroyed another industry.

I am just wondering whether if fisheries came under the jurisdiction

of the province all this discussion would have been taking place. But

because it is a federal — and in my term of office here, I know that

there has been a lot of infighting between this government and the

federal government, sometimes almost to the extent that I just couldn't

[ Page 103 ]

describe how when the two governments do not

cooperate — then we're victimised. For instance, the fishing industry

would be victimised in this respect, if there is no cooperation between

both government. To continue with the quote:

Fraser River sockeye provided 46 per cent of total

B.C. sockeye packed during the period of 1952-1969. About 44 per cent

of Fraser River sockeye catch originated from races that spawned above

Moran. About 15 per cent of total B.C. Chinook salmon catch are

produced in the Fraser River system with 1/3 of this total originating

above Moran.

Hatcheries and artificial spawning channels could not

compensate for salmon losses. Sockeye spend one year in a lake adjacent

to spawning areas before returning to sea. Nursery lakes in the

water-shed below Moran are needed to handle the present stock. About 66

per cent of sockeye reared in capacity of Fraser's system is in the

large lakes on tributaries up stream from Moran Canyon. Most of these

lakes are only partly utilised. Thus potential for increase of sockeye

stock is all above Moran. Anticipated loss of up to 85 per cent of

downstream migrants.

and this is an important quote…

anticipated loss of up to 85 per cent of

downstream migrants in the reservoir could only be overcome by

capturing the fish before they enter the dam and transporting them by

trucks or pipelines to the river below. The costly operation would not

be feasible. There is precedent where salmon have been successfully

passed over a dam as high as Moran.

The Fraser dumps over 10 million tons of sediment into

the Strait of Georgia every year. The bulk of this deposits at the

delta. Removal of this changes the delta eco system. Not only the salt

marshes and mud flats where water fowl live cease to be maintained but

the delta will undergo erosion.

Preliminary analysis shows cost of Moran power at

distribution centre would be 12.2 to 13.6 mils per kilowatt hour. This

cost includes expected loss of stocks above Moran, 50 per cent of stock

originating below potential production, and recreational fisheries loss

and fish facilities. This last cost is estimated at 214 million for

fish passage and temperature control installations. Thermo-nuclear

power studies in Pacific-North-West estimate cost at 3 mils per

kilowatt hour. Thermal power plants need not have adverse effect on

Fraser River salmon fisheries if properly designed and located. There

would be little effect on environment and full development of fisheries

resource of the Fraser System would be possible.

Just a last few paragraphs, and this is more of a history …

First proposal for the dam came from a private company in 1955. Plans to build

a 700-foot, concrete gravity dam with auxilary power storage and diversion

dams on the Fraser River and its tributaries and on the Babine and Peace Rivers.

Fisheries problems were studied for two years and the

conclusion was it would destroy a large segment of the Fraser River

salmon fishery.

The policy of the provincial government at that time

was that no dams would be permitted on major salmon streams unless fish

could be protected and the proposals were turned down. The

Federal-Provincial Fraser River Board has made studies of flood control

of the river system and possible hydro-electric development. The board

considered both a high and low dam at the site in the final report

released in 1963. This report recommended reconstruction of dykes as a

primary requirement from floods. With a series of flood storage

hydro-electric projects at locations that would avoid major

interference with salmon.

This proposal would provide complete flood protection

without requiring any dams on the main stem of the Fraser River

downstream from the Grand Canyon above Prince George. In 1969 the

federal and provincial governments agreed on a 10-year $40 million

programme of dyke and drainage improvements. Dykes are being built two

feet high and so on.

Any of you that have the time to read this report, I would advise

that you do so. These and many others are concern of the industry and

as I have stated, I think this construction at the Moran dam if it

comes about will certainly destroy the industry. It will have taken the

real heart of of the industry in this province and lead to the industry

being not an industry any more.

I would suggest, for what it is worth, that in this province I think

this government should take the lead in setting up a committee or

commission — some form of a tribunal. It will be comprised of the

federal and provincial governments, municipalities, the ecology groups

and all concerned, so that before major constructions ever take place — such as the proposed construction, if it comes about, of the Moran dam

— all phases of our whole economic structure should be considered

before they allow any construction which of course in this case would

include the construction of the Moran dam.

This is all I have to say about this particular subject, Mr. Speaker.

Lastly, another issue I had hoped to see included in the throne

debate, but which did not happen and that has to do with the automobile

insurance. In my travels throughout my riding I have had many talks on

this although I did not bring the subject up. There were people in my

riding that were very much concerned about the provision at cost to

them of this important insurance.

One interesting aspect too is that some of my own people are much

concerned about this because they have difficulty in securing insurance

in this respect, so I would prefer that Hon. Members consider this very

important issue and having said that I would like to move a motion.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I had interviews with quite a number of

interested parties and individuals about this insurance. I happen to

come from an isolated area, the districts that I represent are mostly

unorganised territories and we have much automobile and vehicle

problems in my riding.

I am going to mention some of these later on during the course of

this session, but because I would like to hear the views of Hon.

Members in the House I am going to move 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."

This Motion is seconded by the Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley). And I so present it to the Speaker.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and second the motion made by the Hon.

[ Page 104 ]

Member for Atlin, the amendment to the throne speech.

I'd like to use the first part of my time to take up some local

matters. And I prefer to conclude my remarks on the matter of

automobile insurance.

I would like to first offer best wishes for a speedy and full

recovery of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. And I am pleased to

note that all Hon. Members from the 55 seats throughout the province

have returned in good health, including the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr.

Little).

Hon. Members over in this corner of the House have had a very good

year, under the energetic leadership of the Hon. Member for Coquitlam

(Mr. Barrett). He's not only given good ideas, but good leadership, and

through that we've had some good positive experiences.

While down in Olympia I had the privilege of meeting with some of

the representatives and senators for the border communities. I had

lunch with Senator Wilson and he requested to have lunch, because he

said that as a member for the Okanagan in Washington he was very, very

much concerned what we were doing with the Okanagan Lakes and the

Okanagan watershed by way of pollution, and I assured him that this

party felt very much the same way.

I said I only regretted that the Premier, and the Hon. Member from

North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) had said there is no pollution in the

North Okanagan Lakes.

Fortunately, I had received a copy of the W.C. Bennett report — not

the W.A.C. Bennett report, but the W.C. Bennett report — on the

pollution of the Okanagan waters and Okanagan lakes and they mention

that there are some two billions of gallons of effluent being dumped

into the Okanagan lakes yearly. Two billion gallons!

So this not only affects our water ways, but it certainly affects

theirs, and I believe these are some of the problems that we must work

out together.

It's really a shocking situation when we have to be pushed into

giving a little more support for our municipalities, a little more

financial help for our municipalities, a little more direct leadership

in the unorganised area by this government, and a little more action in

cleaning up pollution.

I would like to commend the members of the staff of B.C. Hydro,

particularly our outside crews. For the past several days they have

been working night and day in both hazardous and miserable conditions

in trying to provide power throughout this province.

I believe this is a good time to take the management of B.C. Hydro

to task for wasting so much electricity, and encouraging the misuse of

electricity: you have but to fly into Vancouver, or drive into

Vancouver and you see that great B.C. Hydro tower lit up like long

great neon tubes.

I say that if that's all you're going to do with the power when you

flood some of our finest valleys we're better not to put on that type

of display. We have much more worthwhile purposes, Mr. Speaker, for

hydroelectricity than that sort of cheap advertising, that this

government under their agency the B.C. Hydro is doing.

Here's an advertisement from the Victoria Times

of a few weeks ago, urging the people of this city to use electricity

for heat. They urge the businessman to put up more and more neon signs.

If nothing else this goes to add to the cost of consumer products,

to say nothing of forcing the B.C. Hydro and this government to build

more dams and flood more valleys without any particular worthwhile

effects.

But I do commend the Hydro employees particularly the linemen. They're up those poles in high winds and sub-zero weather.

I would also like to commend the outside crews of the Department of

Highways. In the Yale-Lillooet district we have a major portion of

trans-provincial Highway 3 between Hope and Princeton, and a major

portion of the trans-Canada highway between Rosedale and Cache Creek.

Now both of these highways are the most difficult to keep ploughed

clear of snow, and to keep in operation at this time of year, and I

believe a great deal of credit goes to our employees on the Department

of Highways and B.C. Hydro.

It is very well for the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to

sit back and smirk, but when the Hydro boys come up asking for a raise

in pay I hope that we will remember that when the chips are down they

work all hours, under all conditions and do a yeoman's job.

With regard to Hydro, Mr. Speaker, this is a suggestion that I have

made in other years. And it's with regard to completing the great

system between the interior and the lower mainland. We've had several

power failures in the last few days and weeks, in the canyon area — you

read in the papers where the dairy farmers are milking their cows by

hand.

One of the reasons is that B.C. Hydro has no way to back feed

electricity into the Fraser Valley. But by building as little as 15

miles of power line completing the gap between Lillooet and Lytton, and

the gap between Lytton and Boston Bar — we have lines most of the way

but there is about a seven-mile break in both these areas that would

have to be completed — by building 15 miles of hydro power transmission

lines we could at least have a 60,000 volt circuit supplying Hope and a

part of the Chilliwack area now. I say now because one of the phenomena

of these ice storms is that they affect the Fraser Valley much more

than they do the interior. The interior is dry and you just don't get

enough ice to effect an icing condition on the hydro lines.

So I submit Mr. Speaker — and I'm pleased to see that the two Hydro

directors are in their place — that this is a project that we should

consider. One for the further development of the interior, but two and

possibly more important, to guarantee a higher quality of

hydro-electric service to the consumers in the Fraser Valley.

On the trans-Canada highway, we have many car accidents. And this is

not necessarily the fault of the drivers but it is because of the icy

and snowy slippery conditions on the trans-Canada highway. And if you

or I happen to slide over the bank and we survive, who will take us to

the nearest hospital at Lytton, Hope or Chilliwack?

There is a very gallant little group of men and women that staff the

Boston Bar and North Bend search and rescue group. The police will call

them out. They'll come out any hour or day, and this is a voluntary

group. While you may say yes, the provincial government pays $1 per

capita for ambulance services, you don't pay one penny to the Boston

Bar and North Bend group. Because they reside in an unorganised

territory. Only the organised communities receive this support.

So I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a special grant be

given to the North Bend and Boston Bar search and rescue and ambulance

crew because of the great public service that they are paying to anyone

that should meet up with an accident on the trans-Canada highway.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that starting this year we

have a fall session of the Legislature. Each year the budget grows, the

work load of bills grows and instead of trying to have all-night

sessions and ram this through in a

[ Page 105 ]

great hurry like ramming meat into a sausage

machine, we should give the bills first reading, put some of them into

committee and that would allow us to go out and discuss the bills

related to hospitals with hospital boards, discuss the bills related to

municipal affairs with the municipal government. Then we could come

back to the fall session, and where necessary amend this legislation

and get it a final reading and have it proclaimed. I think that this

would be a much better way of doing business than what we have done in

the past.

I would like to once again remind the government of the millions of

dollars of copper that is being mined in British Columbia. British

Columbia is one of the leading copper mining areas of America and the

world, yet not one ounce is being smeltered and refined in this

province. When I was first elected in 1963 I said I would work for a

clean copper smelter in the western interior. Many mines have been

proven up since then. The need is far greater, and until we have this

we're going to have ever-increasing numbers of unemployed,

ever-increasing numbers of able people on welfare. Now, part of the New

Democratic Party programmes for work and wages will be to build a clean

copper smelter in the western interior.

I would like to say this through you Mr. Speaker, to the Hon.

Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Richter) who doesn't happen to be here. But

when a contract is signed by a mining corporation to export copper, to

export minerals outside Canada, there should be a mandatory clause that

a goodly percentage of that raw mineral must be processed in B.C., in

Canada, if and when our smelter and refinery is available.

If we don't start writing that clause in now, all our copper

reserves will be committed and we won't be able to operate a smelter

because of our previous commitments to the mining corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter with regard to the

difference in the rates that the Department of Lands charges for Crown

land. It seems that if you happen to be a mining corporation you can

get Crown land for a townsite for a song. But if you are a legitimate

community, like the town of Merritt it's a different story. A few years

ago Merritt was bankrupt and it picked itself up by its boot-straps and

because of the far-sightedness of the city fathers — they had bought up

Crown land to any resident at a very nominal rate. The lots that we

bought to build our homes were bought at $10 a frontage foot for a

fully-serviced lot, $750 for a 75-foot lot. Now, all of these lots have

been taken up.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long ago was this?

MR. HARTLEY: During the Craigmont Boom, in the '60's, the

early '60's. Eight, 10 years ago, since 1960. Now all these lots had

been used up, Mr. Speaker, the town requested the reserve on land north

of Merritt in the hill running over into the Highland Valley. They

received a letter back when they asked if they could buy it. They

received a letter back saying yes, they could buy it — but the price

that was asked by the Department of Lands was better than eight times

as much as the Department of Lands by an order-in-council issued on

August 19, 1971, last summer to Lornex Mining and Smelting. They

allowed the mining corporation Crown land and in the exact same

locality for one-eighth of the price that we're now going to charge

Merritt. And I think this is very unfair because in the same locality…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Do I get this correct? I appreciate the

Minister's comment. If the Town of Merritt will agree to the same

commitment in this order-in-council then they could buy it at $10 an

acre as did Lornex Mining and Smelting?

Well, Merritt did subsidise their original land and with the Hon.

Minister's permission, I would be pleased to carry that message back to

the town council of Merritt. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with the death of Fred Quilt, up in the Williams Lake Area.

I see by the paper that there is a headline "Inquest Absolution of

Police Angers Indians in the Cariboo." Now I think they should be

rightfully indignant. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong but

from what has been released in the papers, from the Press stories,

there appears to have been either a gross miscarriage of justice or a

gross misinterpretation by the Press of what has gone on.

I'm not just raising this from an individual point of view. Various

native organisations have contacted me and I notice that the United

Church's committee on Indian affairs is very much concerned about this.

I believe they have contacted the Hon. Mr. Attorney General.

Now in the first couple of hundred years of the history of this

province and the earlier history of Canada, we have given the native

Indians a great deal to question our values of justice and our

standards. We've given them that. But I think it is time that we turned

a new page 1n the book of justice to all people and make it abundantly

clear that all Canadians will stand equal before the law.

Because of the economic position of many of our native people they

just do not have the price to hire a lawyer. So one of the

recommendations I would like to suggest is that the Department of the

Attorney General provide full time Indian court workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Legal aids, province-wide legal aids. Go the whole.way, go the whole way.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I have nothing against legal aid, but this

is something that we've been asking for a long time, this is an

immediate step that with the snap of his fingers, the Hon. Attorney

General could rise as did the Hon. Minister of Lands and Forests and

say: "Yes, I am prepared to do something about the situation among our

native people, to give the R.C.M.P. a better chance to keep their good

name." Read the record.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I am advised that the air strike is over.

MR. HARTLEY: The Premier says the air strike is over.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am advised…

MR. HARTLEY: Oh, the Premier is advised.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't tell Gaglardi, don't tell Gaglardi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARTLEY: I guess we should have known the air strike was

over when we saw that the Hon. Member from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi)

was absent. We should have known before he came in.

[ Page 106 ]

Now with regard to the matter of Indian justice, one of the first

stories that I read of the Nicola Valley was the story of the hanging

of the two George brothers. This came about because of the fact a

policeman went in looking for a suspect. He went into this home and

took the sheets and blankets off a bed where a woman was sleeping. At

least she was in bed. This raised the wrath of the Indians and they

reacted and I think they reacted as any man worth his salt would react.

I met the Anglican priest who represented that area at the time of this

happening. It was his first church after he left college.

He said to me that what happened to those George brothers was the

greatest miscarriage of justice that he had seen at any time. Now these

are blots that are on our history, and we cannot do anything to remove

those blots but I say, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney General, and I

plead with him to appoint some court workers now and let it be known to

all our native people that whenever an Indian gets into trouble that he

doesn't appear in court without the assistance of a court worker paid

by this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer, answer!

MR. HARTLEY: I would like to ask the Hon. Attorney General if

he is considering ordering an investigation into the circumstances

surrounding Fred Quilt's death on November 30, 1971.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that. Is the Hon. Attorney General

considering ordering an investigation into the circumstances

surrounding the death of Fred Quilt on November 30, 1971? Will he order

the chief coroner to review this and hold a further investigation? I

think this is a fair question and it's something the Attorney General

could stand up and be prepared to deal with now — not six months from

now when all the damage of innuendo and rumour has gone on through the

media for weeks and weeks.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made a speech yesterday why didn't you say something yesterday?

MR. HARTLEY: If the Hon. Minister would like to answer the question this is his opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARTLEY: The Premier stood up …

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please proceed with his speech and please address the Chair?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): The Premier stood up and was able to continue, you can do the same.

MR. SPEAKER: I want order,

please. I don't think the Chair is going to accept that type of remark.

The Hon. the Premier is entitled to speak in this debate, the same as

any other member of this Legislature and hasn't exercised that

opportunity as yet. He asked leave to make a statement — the House

apparently consented — to say he had been advised that the airline

strike was over. Now these sort of remarks from Hon. Members sitting in

their places are not appreciated by the Chair at all and I think are

really very unfair. Would the Member please proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I noticed…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. If the Hon. Member is going

to continue these remarks he is going to force the Chair into a very

undesirable position. I don't want to exercise the authorities that are

invested in these orders, but at the same time I don't have to sit here

and take those type of remarks, whether they are from your place or

standing on your feet. Would the Hon. Member continue.

MR. HARTLEY: Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I didn't take your remarks to be directed to me.

MR. SPEAKER: No, they weren't directed to you at all.

MR. HARTLEY: The way it would sound in the tape, it might look otherwise.

Now, on this matter of morality that the Attorney General seems to

have made a great deal to do with, I thought I'd better just take and

look it up in the book.

What does Webster's Dictionary say? "Pertaining to or concerned with

right conduct." I think we can probably accept that with a fair enough

meaning. But if that is the meaning we accept, do we not accept it to

our whole life? Do we not accept it to the business world? Does it not

apply to the rape of a beautiful trout stream by pollution and the

flooding of those clear waters — say such as up in the Skagit Valley?

Isn't this just as wrong morally as if the Attorney General thinks for

a beautiful young lady to go about with a bare bosom? And many…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, you can look up here at the sculpturing

above us. This was considered as a work of art. It's the old saying:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." But, if the Hon. Attorney

General would apply his thinking right across the board, okay. But just

to be so parsimonious and sactimonious and figure that you can get all

the nice old ladies to vote for you, you're not going to do it. If Hon.

Members saw a little C.B.C. news item two weeks ago you saw where some

of our senior citizens had gone on a bus trip down to California and

they went to one of these topless shows. They were interviewed and this

dear old lady said: "Oh, that was wonderful, I enjoyed it. It was

pretty." An old gentlemen, he blushed a little, but he enjoyed it too.

Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Mr. Speaker, I say that it is morally wrong to allow the rape of our

beautiful trout streams. To allow the forests, the hills, to be denuded

of their forests with a clear-cut pattern that washes the silt down and

kills the steel-head and the salmon in the streams.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with logging?

MR. HARTLEY: Well, that's the bottom of the river. Take the

rape of Powder Mountain, after the Hon. Minister of Lands and Forests

said it wouldn't happen again. After it happened, there was Cypress

Bowl and when this matter was raised through the media to him, he said.

"That's a lot of snot." Now if that's all the concern and intelligence

[ Page 107 ]

we can have displayed on these matters then this

tired old government had better roll over and let a new government with

ideas and character and morality for all things take over.

It was very interesting to meet Governor Dan Evans because Governor

Dan Evans backed the director of the Department of Ecology, John Biggs,

right down the line.

John Biggs was very critical of Seattle Power for wanting to flood the Skagit Valley.

What's our Hon. Minister of Water Rights say? He says "get on with

it," as late as December. Why can't we get on with the job? Now, I've

got the clipping right here — it was in an issue of the Vancouver Sun of December. Now what Dan Evans said was this, and I'll send the clipping over to the Hon. Minister if he would like it.

Governor Evans said that Seattle Power was an opportunistic company

with no environmental programme. Mr. Speaker, I submit that this

applies to this government. This is a fast-buck, opportunistic

government with no environmental department or programme.

I wrote to Mr. John Biggs after our visit, after having attended the

hearing on our environment and I commended Mr. Biggs and the Department

of Ecology of the State of Washington for the very reasonable and

forthright position that they had taken in opposition to the raising of

the Ross Dam and the flooding of Skagit Valley.

Now, I would like to say a few words on the Skagit Valley and I

should state right at the outset that of the many, many letters I have

received from my constituents and people throughout different parts of

the province I have received only one letter supporting the flooding.

All other letters have opposed the flooding, but the whole board of

trade have written to me and stated that they support the flooding of

the Skagit Valley.

I felt it only right that I bring their message to you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, of all the hearings I have attended in Seattle, in the past

three years, and of all the people that have written to me the one

letter that came up supporting the flooding really gave no basic

reasons, brought forward no new evidence.

If there is new evidence in favour of flooding, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to have it. Maybe the government benchers can provide it.

But I believe that one of our greatest recreational assets in the

lower mainland is the unflooded Skagit Valley. The Skagit River is one

of the finest fly-fishing streams in all of British Columbia and we are

very fortunate to have it located so close by in the lower mainland, so

that a fisherman, a camper, a picnicker can drive up there in a few

hours from Vancouver and have a very enjoyable day or weekend. So we in

this group are opposed to the flooding and we ask the Hon. Minister of

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston) to re-negotiate this treaty.

We have other assets. Washington is interested in our natural gas.

We could develop thermal power in the Upper Hat creek. Without any open

pit mining, we could drill down into those great coal fields, set them

afire and develop thermal power and sell electricity to Washington and

to the world.

This to me would be much more progressive, it would be much better

for both United States and Canada. Because once the Skagit Valley is

flooded, we're not only robbing ourselves, but we are removing the

spawning beds that keep Ross Lake supplied with a fresh supply of fish

each year.

The trout go out of Ross Lake and up into the meandering waters on

the Skagit River. In those fine gravel beds, they lay their eggs, the

eggs hatch and then the fingerling go back down and Ross Lake is one of

the few lakes that quite ably, naturally stocks itself by natural

means. So we are not only doing ourselves great harm, we are doing harm

to their beautiful lake.

The U.S. government, through their department of ecology in

Washington, are aware of this and other mistakes that Seattle City

Light would be making if that dam was built another 123 feet and the

lake flooded.

I have noticed also in this newspaper quote, that the Minister said

that we have a great debt to Seattle City Light, because they have put

in great footings. Those footings, if they are there, have not been put

in since January 10, 1967. That's when this amendment was endorsed. If

they were put in, they were put in many, many years ago. If they were

put in many, many years ago, they knew that they would have to appeal

and re-negotiate this treaty and they weren't sure they would get it.

So this was a business gambling chance they took. We're not

responsible for it and I don't think you are doing the right thing for

the citizens of British Columbia, Mr. Minister of Lands, to try and

hold that over our heads.

I read a very interesting

article with regard to the summit

committee on poverty and it was entitled, "Poverty in Canada." This is

a quote from the story of the minority report by the four authors of

"The Real Poverty Report" — Ian Adams, Bill Cameron, Brian Hill and

Peter Pins. They resigned from the senate committee in April, 1971,

because they felt Senator Crow was politically motivated in not

attacking the real cause of poverty — our economic system.

The two reports are very similar. However, they agree that poverty

is extensive in Canada, that it is the result of the economic system

and that welfare and social welfare systems are a failure. They also

agree on the need for a guaranteed annual income — that's one.

Two, universal health care, without premiums that supplies medical, dental, and drug requirements.

Three, full employment, with a minumum wage of $2.50 and $3.00 an hour, Mr. Minister of Labour.

Four, a new public, organisational approach to supply social services.

Five, more and better low-income housing. I might add, humane housing.

The most damaging myth, the comment says, the most damaging myth to

the poor is the one that says they are poor through their own fault.

The Crow report shows that 60 per cent of the poor are working full

time. They found only 2% of the people on welfare who preferred being

on welfare to working. They also found that thousands of working poor

would be better off financially on welfare.

It is interesting to note that the working poor get no help from the

annual expenditure of $6 billion on social security. If Canadian poor

people are lazy, unmotivated and no good, then Canadian women must be

exceptionally lazy, no good and unmotivated, because in 1967, 38 per

cent of all Canadian women raising children on their own were poor.

This fact dispels the assumption that society only punishes shiftless

burns, with low welfare rates, while helpless widows and children are

properly cared for.

Why is there so much ignorance, apathy, callousness, even cruelty,

in treatment of most Canadians, given to their fellow Canadians in

need? For over 200 years there has been a cultural acceptance, part of

the puritan ethic of the idea that people who succeed do so because

they work hard, and are morally strong, while people who need

government help do

[ Page 108 ]

not work hard and are morally weak.

This work ethic has been accompanied by the Christian good samaritan

approach to poverty — fine for personal character, but useless for

obtaining social justice for the poor.

What possible answers are there to problems of poverty? Political

action is required to change Canada's economic system so that the

people who want to work will have jobs that are satisfying and pay good

wages.

The social service system must supply a high standard of living in the areas of basic needs.

To bring about political changes required, the poor and the

near-poor must organise and train themselves so that they can bargain

with government from a position of power. The power will probably have

to come from the use of civil disobedience and violence against things.

The Crow report offers moral justification for this action.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when senators and other top men in the Canadian

government make statements like that I think we can indeed recognise

that our economy, our social structure, our way of life, is in very

serious trouble. I didn't say that; men with far greater depth of

understanding the problem and possibly any of us in here have said that.

But what is going on nationally is going on in British Columbia.

What did the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) say when he moved

the adoption of the throne speech? He said the people of British

Columbia are without hope. This was one of the government's own

members, Mr. Speaker. A B.C. lottery was urged to give people hope. The

throne speech, Mr. Speaker, was so empty that the member for Richmond

said, B.C. needs a provincial lottery to give the average citizen

reason for hope.

Now isn't that a condemnation of the way we live, the way the vast

majority of working people live? Isn't that a shocking indictment of

our economy? This is after 20 years of the so-called Social Credit good

life.

Now before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I should say a few words about

car insurance and to do that I would like to reflect back to March,

1969. We had a special committee on automobile insurance and I have a

clipping that the Hon. Attorney General can have if he wishes. It's a

clipping of the Vancouver Sun , March 29 — and remember that was

before the 1969 election: "L.R. Peterson said Friday that a reduction

in automobile premiums will be coming and they will range from 15-35

per cent, he said. Opposition M.L.A.'s charged that this statement was

made by Peterson to gain votes in the coming election."

Now about that time, Mr. Burns came all the way out from Eastern

Canada representing the insurance industry and said that the laws that

Mr. Peterson and his government just passed were the best insurance

laws in the world.

The Opposition said yes — the best insurance laws in the world for

the automobile insurance companies. Of course that was back in March,

1969, before the election.

We had an election, this little government was returned with the

greatest majority it has ever received. And I think it is only right

that it should, because no doubt it received the greatest amount of

campaign funds from the car insurance industry that it has ever

received before. Believe me, if they don't do something about these

good laws for the car insurance corporations, but poor laws for the

people, they're going to need a lot more campaign funds from those same

vested car insurance industries next time.

I know Hon. Members can't do anything about it. I know they'd like

to. I've seen some of the Hon. Members speak out about it, but they're

in the bag of the car insurance industry.

The government accepted their bribe, they accepted their campaign

funds and the Hon. Members can do nothing. They've got to sit back and

be quiet.

And furthermore the Hon. Attorney General can do very little. He would like

to give that B.C. auto-insurance board a free hand so that they could do what

would be the right thing, but he knows that the man who pays the piper calls

the tune. He knows the man that put up the campaign funds, says: "Oh no, take it easy on that B.C. Insurance commission."

So, Mr. Speaker, on January 1, 1970, no-fault accident benefits took

place in B.C. And we'll remember that when these accident benefits

first took effect, the industry provided that coverage the first year.

If your insurance came due on February 1, you got one month of

accident benefits without charge; March 1, two months. In my case my

insurance comes due on November 24, so I got almost 11 months of

no-fault benefit, without any charge the first year. So that I think

it's fair to agree that in the first year, 1970, the car insurance

industry collected something considerably less than a full year's

premium income.

Now, these were the figures, the 1960 figures, that the insurance

board studied. These were the ones they set up for comparison and yet

even though the B.C. car insurance industry had considerably less than

a full year's premium income, they only used 41 per cent of that to pay

claims. Almost 60 per cent — 59 per cent — was in gravy and

administration to the insurance industry.

So I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, that while the Hon.

Attorney-General said rates would come down, and while the industry,

which for a change during the first year took in a considerable less

portion of a full year's premium, they only used 40 cents of the

premium dollar that they did collect.

Now, I don't know how many Hon. Members have seen a copy of the

he suggested the board is of the opinion that the maximum annual

premium should not exceed $13.79.

He winds up: "If you are prepared to reduce the premiums, please let

us know the date on which you will implement the change. We believe

that it would not be later than January, 1972."

Now, the chairman's a dear old gentleman, but he's either misguided

or instructed because — believe me, Mr. Speaker — any time that you're

dealing with the fat cats of the insurance industry, you don't say

"please would you." You say: "The Legislature of British Columbia

passed a law empowering us to do this. You've had two years to do the

right thing. You failed — we're ordering you to roll back the premiums."

This insurance board that's supposed to represent the people of

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, invited the insurance industry to give

reasons why they didn't have to reduce their rates. But did they invite

the public to come out and give reasons why the rate should be reduced?

Did they invite representatives of the public to come out and say why

they would like to see the rates reduced?

No. That's why I say that board is being instructed, Mr. Speaker.

That board is being instructed by representatives of the government

that was elected by campaign funds of the insurance industry and that's

why they are so instructed to take it easy on the car insurance

industry in this province.

Now there are two or three points that commission

[ Page 109 ]

should have considered. I placed a series of questions…

HON. MR. BENNETT: This government has never received…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier categorically

stand and deny that his Social Credit party in this province have ever

received campaign funds from anyone in the car insurance industry? Will

you stand and categorically deny that Mr. Premier? You'll stand up and

make your statement.

Mr. Speaker, I want the Press and all to recognise that the Premier

declines to categorically deny that they received campaign funds from

the insurance industry. I have the floor and if he wishes to make a

statement, he can make a statement.

Now, that's quite an admission, gentlemen.

Now, there was no allowance for the fact that the money that had

been paid in advance — you pay your car insurance in advance. If you

pay an annual premium you pay 12 months and in the bookkeeping of

insurance they withdraw a month's premium so that when you renew your

premium there's eleven months unearned premium. This money is invested,

it's invested at high rates of interest.

The industry was never asked about crediting this to the car driver

— the person that buys car insurance. What the insurance industry

argued is simply this. They said: "Well look, by having no-fault

benefits and also limited liability we have to have a separate column

of figures. We have to have a separate column of figures now in our

ledgers and this has made it more expensive for us. The fact that we've

got to figure liability and no-fault and then unlimited liability makes

it much more expensive for us to operate." This was the song that they

played.

In my opinion they didn't have a good argument at all. They were

arguing that we had helped make their operation more efficient. But,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you just how much more inefficient can

we make it?

According to the Superintendent of Insurance report that was filed

here earlier in the week there are 185 companies doing business in this

province and they choose not to flat rate the province. They break the

province down into various districts — Victoria one district, Vancouver

another — in all about eight districts throughout the province. Then

they have different categories of vehicles and'different qualifications

of drivers, so you work this all out and multiply it by 185 times.

How much more inefficient, how much more complicated can they make

it? But this is their way of doing business and this is the

government's way of doing business — 185 companies. That's right, 185

companies and they all have to have a president, they all have to have

a well-paid board of directors, they all have to have a fancy head

office building. Inefficient.

They concluded, Mr. Speaker, that they were losing money. My heart

really bled for them and I told them. I said: "You know, in reading

history I find government went into the railway business because

railroads were losing money and when they were losing money they went

to the government and the government took them over. We went into the

ferry business. We went into the airplane business and the radio and

T.V. business. But this is the first time that I've seen an industry

come cap-in-hand to the government and say: "We're losing money, but we

like it that way and we laugh all the way to the bank."

Now, Mr. Speaker I'd just like to give you a few figures of how this

government has allowed the people of this province to be bilked by the

car insurance industry. Bilked… milked… The first year, the car

insurance industry had a limited amount of premium income. Of that

limited amount only 40 per cent was used for claims, and with that

there was a surplus of close to $4 million. Now in 1971, the year we

just completed, they had a full year's premium income under the surplus

of close to $7 million. Now this year with the roll-back in premiums,

there'll possibly be between $3 and $4 million surplus.

Now that's a total of $14 million that the people of this province

have doled out in $22 a year for the first two years, $15 a year for

the third year. That works out, at $14 million for something less than

700,000 motor vehicles, at a $20 bill from each car owner in the

province.

Now what is the Hon. Attorney General going to do about it? Saying

nothing about the money that the people are being milked or bilked for

the collision insurance for their full legal liability.

There was a clipping in the paper that said that insurance rates

throughout B.C. were going to go up 5.9 per cent — 5.9 per cent boost

due in car insurance rates in eight of 10 provinces across Canada.

What two aren't going to have higher rates? The two provinces,

Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the members of that government and the

parties of that government didn't accept the moneys from the insurance

industry. The people of this province…

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. I thought I missed a word

earlier during the Honourable Member's speech where I wasn't sure

whether or not he said that the government was accepting bribes. He's

now imputing an improper motive by saying that it's accepting money.

First of all, did the Hon. Member make the statement that the

government was accepting bribes?

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I earlier said that the Social Credit party of this province has accepted the bribe of the car insurance industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is using a very highly improper remark. Would he withdraw that statement please?

MR. HARTLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly on this.

MR. SPEAKER: I feel rather strongly about the use of language in this Legislature and suggest you withdraw it.

MR. HARTLEY: Would you allow me to use the term "slush funds"? I'll leave it at "campaigning."

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the Honourable Member to withdraw the expression.

MR. HARTLEY: I'll withdraw the word, "bribe."

MR. SPEAKER: Carry

on if you wish.

MR. HARTLEY: Now following this announcement that

[ Page 110 ]

there would be a 5.9 per cent boost due in car

insurance in B.C., and that this increase was going to go across Canada

with the exception of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, you know one reason

why the rates have to go up here. Because the people of this province

are being taxed by the insurance industry so that the insurance

industry can lower their rates in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to compete

with government insurance.

Now the Hon. Attorney General said that he was going to empower the

board to see that when they roll back the $22 to $15 they wouldn't

increase the rate on collision and public liability. Now I have a photo

copy here of a car insurance premium where for 1972 the driver has a

class A rating. His car is in group five and the company that is

selling that insurance has increased their group five rate by 65 per

cent on their collision. I photostatted this. I'll be happy to turn the

papers over to the Hon. Attorney General. I would like to see him order

that company — don't call them in and have a little tea party — to turn

this over to the insurance board. Certainly when they say in the Press

we're going to have 5.9 per cent increase and they start handing out 65

per cent rate increases, that's a little bit much. I have this

documented. The Hon. Minister can have the car insurance policy and the

number of the policy and so on.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, there's a morality in the business world.

There's a morality in dealing with people. It's all very well, you can

cast askance about the topless dancers. That was just a smoke screen,

that was just a sham to try and get the people away from thinking or

knowing how they really were bilked.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HARTLEY: There's a letter that I received very recently,

Mr. Speaker and it shows that no-fault and pink-slip insurance is not

working in British Columbia, it's not working to the advantage of a

great many people.

This was written to me by a lady whose brother was killed in a car

accident and he didn't have insurance, and in the car with him was

another woman and another man so they weren't covered. He was involved

in an accident with a car owned by a Mr. Weir from Sardis. So, until we

supply car insurance with licence plates and drivers' licences, a great

many people are going to be killed and a great many families are going

to be maimed and will suffer because of the failure of the car

insurance laws of this province.

Now there is a better way. There's very definitely a better way to

do this. I'll send one up to the Press too so they have one — I'll give

the Hon. Minister the figures on that photostat Mr. Minister. The rate

for collision a year ago was $23, the rate this year is $38 — an

increase of $15, $15 over $23 is 65 per cent. Now there is a better way.

In 1946 the people in the province of Saskatchewan had come through

a very tough, hard time, through a tough Depression. Their Treasury

Board put up $12,000 and they set up Saskatchewan Government Insurance

Offices and they started supplying car insurance with every licence

plate. At the end of the first year they had set up enough reserve so

they could return this $12,000 and pay the Treasury Board full interest.

Today, the assets controlled by Saskatchewan Government Insurance are something

in the neighbourhood of $60 million.

That $60 million isn't invested in other parts of the world. Every

penny is invested in the pipelines, in the railways, in the power dams,

in industry, in the hospitals, in the schools, in the public buildings

in the province of Saskatchewan.

So this is a two-fold benefit. Not only will the people get better

insurance coverage, they have the use of using those reserve dollars

for the people in their native province.

Now the original car insurance legislation licence plate insurance

legislation is such that they cannot make a profit. If there is a

surplus at the end of the year, then the compulsory insurance benefits

have either to be increased or their premiums reduced.

On the casualty and fire government insurance office they can make a

profit. But by the virtue of the fact that the government is in

business in the insurance business in Saskatchewan fire and casualty

rates on farm buildings that were heretofore prohibited have been

reduced anywhere from 50 per cent to a tenth of their former rate

before the government was in business.

So there were also dividends paid to the home-owners, even though

they didn't drive cars, by having lower rates. And today the farm rates

there are the lowest anywhere in Canada.

And what is the difference, Mr. Speaker? The Social Democrats

believe in service to people. This is our philosophy. When we develop

an industry, when we go into an enterprise we do it with no malicious

intent to anyone. We do it to better serve the public.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask through you the Press and the

galleries and the members of government if they know what S.C. stand

for? Yes, Social Credit.

And what does Social Credit do? When they change the insurance laws

they say: "Yes, S.C. means service to corporations." And this is the

situation with this government. There is the mine corporation, the

lumber baron, the beer baron, or the car insurance industry. The Social

Credit stands for service to corporations, the Social Democrats for

service to and for people.

So, with that Mr. Speaker, we put B.C. first, we think that this

government should have a first-class programme of government insurance

for all people and that they would invest those reserves here where it

would be putting the people of B.C. before Bay Street and Wall Street.

The first step, possibly the most simple and easiest step for you to

take, would merely to be expand your present programme of government

car insurance — the programme that you have for the 6,500 government

vehicles, the vehicles that are out bucking the snow drifts, driving

under the most hazardous conditions night and day at this time of the

year.

You know that the highways report that was filed on January 20 on

page 14B gives a report on the government's own car insurance and you

know what it costs for the average vehicle this year — $23.85.

We insure all our publicly-owned vehicles that are operated by the

government in various government departments for approximately from an

eighth to a tenth of what it would have cost if you had insured them

through private industry.

The total cost for the 6,000 vehicles is $125,000. If we had insured

these through the private car insurance corporations it would have cost

$1 million more than that. Through this good business insuring your

cars the government saved the taxpayer $1 million.

[ Page 111 ]

Now if they can save $1 million on 6,500 vehicles what could they do with 650,000 vehicles?

Certainly they could do 1,000 times as much, and we're challenging

them to do that. This is the challenge that we are holding out today.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, this has gone on long enough? If this little

government doesn't accept the challenge that we're offering, then the

people will recognise that it is no longer a government of little

people, they'll recognise it is a government of big business — a

government of a great car insurance. They will believe me that when I

go up to Yale-Lillooet and follow the Premier. They'll say: "Little

people, this is no longer the leader, little people. Social Credit

stands for service to corporations."

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, the House is now discussing

an amendment to the