[ Page 35 ]

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

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

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the experiment is still proceeding. The results thus far are satisfactory, and we are recording at a very low rate of speed, 15/16th of an inch per second, and feel that this is adequate fidelity for the purposes for which it is being used.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as you know the House has given its consent for the experiment but we have not yet seen a resolution dealing with how these experiments or how the tapes will be used. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say at this point that our side of the House feels there is a great difference between a Hansard and being bugged. We'd like to know more about what the Government's plans are with these tapes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General.

HON. LESLIE R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'm rather relieved to see so many members in their seats today after the hockey game last night. As you perhaps are aware, Mr. Speaker, about fourteen of the members of this Assembly participated in a charity match last evening in the Memorial Arena, against the news media, and before we were introduced to the ice a letter was read from the N.D.P. Caucus suggesting that they hoped a good many of the Government members would come and none of theirs because of the risk of injury; but, I want to say that one of their stalwarts turned out, the new member in their party, the honourable member for New Westminster. (Applause) We also had the participation of the Liberal Members in the House in the person of their Leader and the very outstanding goalkeeper, Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano. (Applause) I must say the Leader had a little difficulty, he spoke at some length here yesterday in this Chamber and appeared a little tired. He was being wheeled out in one of the shopping baskets (laughter) but even at that he only made a foot on the ice before he was warming the ice, but he recovered later on.

On the Government side, Mr. Speaker, we had the member for Saanich and the Islands — you should watch him on skates, my friend, the member for Fort George, my colleague the Minister of Lands and Forests, who I think would have been awarded the first star for outstanding playing on our team, as he scored the first goal. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan also was there, and the first member for Vancouver Centre. Perhaps he hasn't recovered. He was the only one, I might say, on the ice to receive a penalty in that game, and he deserved it. The second member for Vancouver Centre as well, the first member from Vancouver Burrard, the member for Richmond, and the member for Alberni, who scored the second goal. (Applause) He went down the ice and stepped over those bodies just as though they were logs on a beach, Mr. Speaker, (laughter) and with all the rest of us on the ice or down at the other end he scored that goal.

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

MR. PETERSON: I'm afraid so, Mr. Premier. And then British Columbia's answer to Rocket Richard, the member from Columbia. Not only, Mr. Speaker, were all of these members doing their bit for us, a very worthwhile cause last night, but in my mind at least they demonstrated a real need for this $10,000,000. amateur sports and physical fitness fund, in terms of upgrading the quality of performance of this game in the future.

I do want today to say a few words in support of the Motion that's before us that we express our thanks to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for the opening speech delivered at this first Session of the 29th Parliament, and because of a certain happening last August, I would want as well to acknowledge the privilege that I have, together with my colleague the Honourable Minister without Portfolio, to represent the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain again in this riding. In expressing my gratitude this year, unlike all previous elections, Mr. Speaker, I can extend that gratitude not only to the Social Crediters in the riding but the many others who crossed party lines, the Liberals, the Tories and even some supporters of the N.D.P. in the last election who voted this time for good government.

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

MR. PETERSON: I join the previous speaker in welcoming the new members to the House — happy that all but one are seated in support of the Government, but I'm sure whatever party they represent they come here to do a job for their riding and to make some contribution as well to the public life of this Province and I want to join, I'm sure, with everyone in wishing them well in that endeavour.

I think a special word of praise and a word of tribute is due to the mover and the seconder of the Motion that's before us for the outstanding job they did last Friday. They got us off to an excellent start, enabled us to withstand yesterday. You know, as I listened and as I looked at the Member for Delta and the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan…

AN HON. MEMBER: You were sad.

MR. PETERSON: I was sad? I was the most happy fellow in this Province, I tell you, and you know why, Mr. Speaker? You know why? Because as I looked at those men I realized just how far the N.D.P. and the Liberals in this House were straying from reality — straying from reality. Because before the election they tried to sell the public of this Province a bill of goods that we were a tired old Government, that we only had little old ladies and little old men coming out to our meetings, Mr. Speaker. That was the message, that was the bill of goods they were trying to sell, and just in the person of those two gentlemen I think they disproved that allegation. You know, Mr. Speaker, not only did they demonstrate the aggressiveness of and initiative of youth, but they also had some good constructive thoughts, criticism and positive ideas to put before this House, and this Government always welcomes that kind of criticism. That's why, with this transfusion, that we had last August, we attracted men and women from all walks of life, different age groups, to support this Government, that's why you're not going to be able to sell your current objective and that is to give the false image of an overpowering, of an arrogant Government not

[ Page 36 ]

concerned with the needs of the people. We know what you're about and you won't succeed. That effort, Mr. Speaker, was obvious on opening day when we saw the leader of the Liberal Party and the official leader of the Opposition on television following the opening speech and the remarks they had to make on that particular day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wasn't that something?

MR. PETERSON: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we expect to receive some criticism from the Members of the N.D.P. and the Liberal Party — that's their duty — and I think both we and the public understand that. We understand, too, that on occasion that criticism represents not necessarily the facts of the situation but also reflects their own political aspirations in the Province, and we have come to expect that.

But we had some matters dealt with yesterday, for instance the Leader of the Opposition spent most of his time on Cypress Bowl. I'm somewhat reluctant to deal with this matter, but I propose to do so, not in any detail, because the investigations that are under way by my Department have not been concluded and I do not have the benefit of any reports at this time. But I can't avoid commenting on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition built up his case yesterday. He built it up I thought very well and very carefully up to the point where he made us feel at least was the missing link in the whole pattern, and then he calmly announced that he, as Leader of the Opposition, had discovered what that missing link was — it was a certain letter dated June the 17th, and out over the news services last night here was the news that the Minister had suppressed information, and that was the impression conveyed to this Assembly and to the news media. What are the facts? Where did the Leader of the Opposition get this letter? He didn't tell us. Right from the Minister's Department. Why didn't he tell us that? He did tell us this, he did tell us this, but it was written right on the letter so he could hardly avoid it, and that is that this wasn't any confidential letter at all — no secrecy at all. Copies of it were forwarded to the District Forester, Vancouver,

MR. BARRETT: I read that.

MR. PETERSON: I said you did — and to the Corporation of the District of West Vancouver. Why all the secrecy, why all the suppression? Referred as well, Mr. Speaker, indirectly in this memorandum of November the 26th of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — in the summary, Item 22 refers to that — and again the letter of June the 20th directed to the District of West Vancouver incorporates many of the same matters that are included in this letter of June the 17th. You know, I'm at a loss to understand why the Leader of the Opposition left this impression, and I'm sure much more will be said on this subject before this House rises, but I do hope that the statements made will not leave the wrong impressions in this Chamber or the wrong impressions in the public mind as the statements of the Leader of the Opposition left when he spoke yesterday. Then the Leader of the Liberal Party, some criticism as well. I think he spent most of his time, at least in the early part of his speech, on the subject of advertising,

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

MR. PETERSON: …and you know, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat annoyed when he criticized our advertisement on the Human Rights Commission, because if he thinks back, and the members of this House reflect, you will recall that members of all parties asked that this new legislation be advertised, that it be brought to the attention of the people of this Province or it wouldn't be any good. It only came into effect last year, introduced at the last Session, and what we did, we invited submissions from six advertising agencies in the Province. We had a committee of civil service select what would be the best advertisements. We didn't go as high in the expenditure as the submissions recommended, but nevertheless we did advertise in the Vancouver papers and in the weekly papers in the Province, and we placed ads during election and after the election. And after the election. (Applause)

I surprise you, we, even put them in French, La prochaine de fois. Do you object to that? The Leader of the Liberal Party who has so much to say on Constitutional change, do you object to that? Do you object to that ad? I probably might, too, but we also advertised in Chinese and German, Italian as well, Chinese as well. This was intended for the reading public of the Province.

Now the other thing that surprised me about the Liberal Leader's criticism after his own party had asked us to advertise just last year, and we did it as quickly as we could after the Act came into force and after we got the submissions, for here is an advertisement in the paper yesterday. While he was talking in this Legislature, his party — the Liberal Party — what were they doing? Copying our ads, Mr. Speaker. That's what they were doing. The same principle — if you can see five different reasons there is only one word for you — Bigot, bigot. But he didn't criticize that, that appeared by the Liberal Party yesterday. Then, Mr. Speaker, he also criticized the ad on consumer affairs, and here it is. I ask him specifically what he can find wrong with this ad that appeared, he said, in the election campaign — he's wrong — he's wrong. It appeared before the election campaign and the legislation only came into effect July the 1st. It is the same type of advertisement that was done in 1968, and he didn't complain about it then. How petty can you get? How petty can you get? But his major point, Mr. Speaker, his major point, and I don't want to miss that, was that through our advertising and the amount spent on advertising that we had bought the news media. That was his statement — that we had bought the news media — which I think is a terrible allegation, and you know, while he was saying this his very good friend, Stu Keate, appeared in the Vancouver Sun last night — what did he say when he was making a statement?

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

MR. PETERSON: I hope he did, because we want to see a prosperous press. (Applause) But what did Stuart Keate say in the submission that he made in Ottawa? And this is Ottawa, Canadian Press, reported in the Vancouver Sun January 26th, 1970. You remember now what the Liberal Member said, that advertising bought the news media? This is what Stuart Keate said: "The notion that major advertisers can influence the news was, in his experience, a myth. The fact is that most consistent pressures on the press originate not with businesses but with friends." Not with businesses, but with friends. So the secret is out. Now we know why, when Liberal candidates went down and had a hamburger or

[ Page 37 ]

a swim in that election campaign, that it made the front page in the Vancouver Sun. But really, and I say this seriously, I have never heard the leader of any political party in this Province insult the intelligence of the voters the way the Leader of the Liberal Party did yesterday when he said the people got sucked in by this advertising. Those were his very words. That people got sucked in by this advertising. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province were aware of our achievements. They were aware of our policies that are reflected in the Speech from the Throne.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PETERSON: …and they endorse them, and they endorse them. Not only that, but at the same time they told the world that this Province of British Columbia was not about to flirt with Socialism. That was the message of that campaign. That was the message and that was the key issue in that campaign. Yesterday, in the first twenty minutes of the speech of the new Leader of the Opposition, what did he do? He knocked private enterprise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he did.

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

MR. BARRETT: Is that what I said…

MR. PETERSON: That's what you said, that's what you said, and I think you were exercising restraint when you said it. You know, the honourable Leader of the Opposition has in the past had a lot to say about filing reports; he wanted this report filed, that report filed. I call upon him now to file the Watkins report in this House,….the one, according to the news media, he is purported to have signed. Did he sign it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Stand up, stand up.

MR. PETERSON: Here, Mr. Speaker, is a report that, according to all interpretations, marks a sharp turn left for the N.D.P. — a sharp turn left. So sharp was that turn left that the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Berger, wouldn't sign it, so we'd like to hear a little more on this subject.

I, for one, and I'm sure the vast majority of the citizens of this Province, are grateful that Socialism was rejected. (Applause) They recognize that the free enterprise system can bring greater benefit to all the people of this Province than any other system yet devised, and our responsibility as Government must be to encourage this kind of expansion and this kind of development to continue in the Province through the free enterprise system, through increased employment, to give higher payrolls and a higher standard of living to all the people of the Province. I, for one — and I am sure this sentiment is shared by others in this House — in reading the Speech from the Throne, reciting as it does some of the achievements of the people of this Province, I can't help but have a certain pride in those accomplishments, and I don't think you can read that Speech from the Throne either without a sense of confidence in the future development of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any more people on welfare…

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

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a welfare government…

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

I don't want to dwell on the past, but more to the future. The astrologists, Mr. Speaker, call this the age of Aquarius, the dawn of a new era. While it is not, as far as this Government is concerned, the dawn of a new era, it is a continuation of the age of challenge that we have experienced in this past decade, and as well as in the fifties, and certainly we have in this Province of British Columbia in the past few years forged ahead in almost every field of endeavour. No one can deny that, no one can deny that we have moved from a debt-ridden, have-not Province, to a debt-free have Province of today. (Applause) No one can deny that we have now become the number one growth area in Canada and numbered among the three growth areas in North America, and much of this, Mr. Speaker, is due to the kind of leadership that we have received from the gentleman on my right. We recognize that, and now that we look to the future and a continuation of this kind of expansion, these policies and these programmes are on a sound foundation, reflected again in the Speech from the Throne, such as opening up that great north country by extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and by many other things as well, which I am sure will be developed during the course of this and subsequent debates.

I think, too, that much of the kind of progress that we make in the future, in this decade of the seventies, will depend in some measure, and I think in large measure, on the actions of labour and management in the Province of British Columbia. The common topic now in talking about labour and management and their actions, of course, relates to restraint in the field of inflation, whether it's to do with wages or profits or prices, and certainly this is important and will be discussed, I am sure, further during the course of the next debates. But I think we have to recognize, if we are going to continue our prosperity, that we will still be primarily an exporting Province, that we cannot change overnight. With about 30 per cent of our labour force employed directly or indirectly in foreign trade, then these areas and the joint actions of labour and management have all the more significance, whether it refers to being competitive, the quality of the goods, the promptness of delivery, or the many other things that are important when one competes on the export market.

I would suggest today that one of the most important goals for this decade should be the continued improvement in labour-management relations in this Province, that labour and management must extend or show or demonstrate greater responsibilities to the well-being of all of the residents of the Province. There must be a willingness on both sides to see that extreme action by either party can cripple the economic growth process and the social benefits that this growth generates. I think this area is so important that the elimination of wasteful work stoppages should be an objective during this decade, and we should start to make that a reality.

[ Page 38 ]

Now, we have heard some criticism from time to time, Mr. Speaker, about some of our legislation in this field of labour management relations. In particular at the moment it is concentrated on what is commonly called Bill 33, the Mediation Commission Act. I am not going through in detail the changes in that legislation today, but certainly it did speed up the collective bargaining process and eliminated Conciliation Boards, gave the freest possible relationship in this respect between labour and management in the Province. When the legislation was introduced, I indicated then that the compulsory features which are the subject of most criticism — that these compulsory features would be used most sparingly, and this has been the case. As a matter of fact they have only been used twice since the Act came into effect. There have been four hearings before the Mediation Commission in this context. In two cases the parties of their own volition agreed that the findings of the Mediation Commission should be binding. No order from government at all. In two other cases we did direct that they be made binding.

There was, of course, the other hearing in the private sector before this Mediation Commission in the oil refining and distribution industry in which there was a lengthy strike, not only in British Columbia but a national dispute across Canada, and in that case I directed the Commission, under section 39 of the Act, to hold an inquiry into the background of the strike and the matters in dispute, and then I subsequently directed the Commission to appoint a Mediation Officer to assist the parties in resolving the dispute. But, the fact is, that in that particular dispute where the strike was on at the time of the hearing, that the settlement arrived at across Canada was substantially the same as the recommendations in terms of money that was given by the Mediation Commission, so I think it is fair to say that the decision of the Mediation Commission had a great influence in settling that particular dispute, not only in British Columbia, but across Canada. In the two cases where we ordered that the findings of the Mediation Commission be made binding, it is interesting that in neither case did they have to proceed with the hearing. In both of these cases the parties, in that interim period, were able to get together and settle their own differences.

Now we have a situation in the Province today that's of concern to many people, and especially the residents in the Vancouver area, and that is a situation where I feel we should not have to tolerate a continuation of a work stoppage in the Vancouver school system. Some 220 janitors and engineers have a dispute with the Vancouver School Board. They declared a strike. It's a legal strike — legal, not illegal, and they are picketing the premises with the result, I'm told, that some 70,000 students or more are not able to attend classes, are prevented from attending classes. The Vancouver school system employs some 2,960 teachers, paid by the taxpayers, needless to say, at a daily cost of approximately $155,000. Of course during the strike while the schools are closed, they are not able to do their job.

We talk a lot about education in this Chamber in each and every Session. I think it's important that we do, because it is an area where we must give a great deal of priority and a great deal of attention. For we regard education in the labour-management sense sufficiently important that when it comes to the teachers, and these are the great number of people who are employed in the school system, we say that in those cases, rather than tolerate strikes and lockouts, we will have their negotiations, their wage demands subject to binding arbitration, final and binding awards, and that has been a provision of the Public Schools Act now for a long while. I find it difficult to justify this procedure if, on the other hand, we are going to allow a smaller group of people to shut down the whole school plant, and that is the situation in the strike which commenced on Friday last.

A preliminary enquiry into the dispute was commenced by the Mediation Commission yesterday. My information is that the union have boycotted these hearings before the Commission. They did not appear for this preliminary discussion held by the Mediation Commission yesterday, and I have a telegram from the B.C. Federation of Labour saying that they support the action of the union in boycotting the Mediation Commission. Nevertheless the Commission has arranged for a formal hearing on January the 28th, that's this Wednesday at 10 a.m. I haven't had any formal request from either the union or the employer, the Vancouver School Board, to intervene in this dispute, to invoke the provisions of the Mediation Commission Act, but I am going to announce to them and to the public today, Mr. Speaker, that unless the parties are prepared to get together and settle their differences and settle them quickly, there will be government intervention, there will be government intervention. This, of course, would be an action of Executive Council, of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Our next meeting is on Friday, and if by that time this dispute is not settled I will recommend to Executive Council that the hearings be on a compulsory basis before the Mediation Commission, and that any decision that may be reached by the Mediation Commission be made final and binding on both parties.

This still means that the parties can carry on direct negotiations or commence direct negotiations again. They can still resolve their own differences now, before the hearing or even during the hearing. But the fact is that I think we would be remiss in our duty if we allowed this disruption of the school system to continue beyond this week, and by intervening on Friday, the schools will be open on Monday. (Applause) I have no qualms in the matter at all, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there can be any doubt in this age, that Government has to accept the responsibility of protecting the public interest, and this is the principle and the whole principle of the Mediation Commission Act, and it is, I think a correct principle that we have established.

If you look at some of the studies that have been conducted elsewhere in Canada, if you look at events that have occurred here recently at home, I think there is all the justification in the world for this kind of legislation that we have on the statute books in this Province in terms of the Mediation Commission Act. You may not be aware of the Royal Commission that was undertaken in Ontario by Mr. Justice Rand. His recommendation as it relates to the subject I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, was this: He commended that the Government be empowered to designate any industry, business or service as essential, and to ban a strike or order a resumption of work. A declaration by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could be made before or after a strike, and if the dispute is not settled by negotiation it would have to be referred for arbitration to an industrial tribunal which the Commission proposed. So that is the recommendation of the Royal Commission in the Province of Ontario.

Then we had a very extensive and a very costly study by the Federal Government. In this report, the Federal Task Force on Labour Relations had a different approach, but they recognized the importance of protecting the public interest in those cases where the collective bargaining process

[ Page 39 ]

so operates as to create intolerable public hardship and recommended the creation of a Public Interest Disputes Commission, which would have responsibility for determining special procedures for resolving industrial disputes in industries under federal jurisdiction, and for handling actual disputes where the public interest is threatened.

Then I said there have been instances closer to home which demonstrate the need for this kind of legislation, not only provincially but I think federally as well. The dispute that I refer to was the longshoreman's strike, which comes under federal jurisdiction. A dispute where it seemed to me that they went out of their way to assist the Prairie Provinces to keep the port facilities open for grain, but showed utter disregard for the Province of British Columbia and the welfare of its economy. Surely a point must come, where the rights of the majority must supersede the rights of a segment of society, particularly where hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of workers not involved in the dispute, and this was true in this case, are deprived of the means of making a livelihood, and as well the whole economy takes a downturn as a consequence. Some means of arriving at a fair and just settlement must be achieved without calling, as is the only course of action open to the federal people now, a Session of Parliament to deal with it, and I think the Mediation Commission Act, so-called Bill 33, is the most realistic approach to this problem that I am aware of anywhere.

Some of our people in the Province say that it is anti-labour, but it certainly hasn't proved to be that way in terms of the settlements that have been made in the Province. The average wage in manufacturing increased oxer six per cent I think wages of all trade union members increased substantially. We've had an increase, as well, in trade union membership, so that this kind of irresponsible allegation just doesn't hold water.

Now those of you who recommend boycotting the Commission and, as I interpreted it, the recent convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour adopted a more flexible attitude, at least, of using the services of the Commission up to the point of the hearings. But yet, those who oppose it really don't have any viable alternative to suggest. They say, in effect, that any group should have the power to hold the safety, well-being and the best interests of the entire Province at ransom until they gain their ends. It's not only unions in this respect, there are culprits on the employers' side as well who take an uncompromising and unrealistic attitude and don't recognize that the workers have a legitimate demand for increases, so it's not a one-sided affair.

But when an irresistible force meets an immovable object what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to let the entire community suffer until one or the other gives in? Are we to allow a few people to jeopardize the rights of many people, because that's what results in this area. That is why I want to emphasize today, at least as far as I am concerned, the importance of adopting this as one of our objectives as we move into this new decade. I think any civilization that's been able to send men to the moon and back and accomplish these fantastic things in scientific and technological area, should be able to come to some kind of machinery that would resolve these types of disputes, the amount of pay that a workman is going to receive, without the kind of disruptions we have to put up with at the present time.

One other matter I want to discuss this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, was also referred to in the Speech from the Throne. One of the important announcements, I think, is that further considerations will be given to certain aspects of the Automobile Insurance Plan, which came into effect only on the first of this month, with a view to improving that plan. But I think when we talk about improving this plan, and sending it to a Special Committee of this House to have a look at certain aspects of it, the first thing I feel we must recognize is that right now, with the provisions that have been proclaimed and are in force and have been in force since the first of January, this new Automobile Insurance Plan is the best in Canada and probably the best in the world. If you don't want to take my word for it, let me quote an authority, a person who is a much greater authority than I on this subject. I don't consider myself an authority. They have an authority in the Province of Ontario attached to the Osgoode Hall Law School, which I'm sure is held in very high regard by the first member from Vancouver-East, Professor Allen M. Linden of Osgoode Hall Law School, who is an acknowledged North American authority on this subject. He was invited by the Toronto Telegram to give his year-end review of Automobile Insurance, how he would rate the three plans operating in Canada, the Saskatchewan Plan, the British Columbian Plan and the plan operating in Ontario and the other provinces in Canada.

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

"Perhaps the best system of auto insurance in the common law world is coming into operation in British Columbia on January 1st, 1970. It is a peaceful co-existence plan that provides non-fault coverage without losing the right to sue for personal injuries.

"First, this coverage, which is to be written by private insurance companies, is a mandatory part of all auto policies sold in B.C. In addition, auto insurance is made compulsory in that province.

"Second, the new coverage protects not only all drivers and occupants of motor vehicles, whether at fault or not, it compensates all pedestrians injured by an insured vehicle.

"Third, the benefits are much more realistic than those provided in the other Provinces. All medical and hospital expenses in excess of those looked after by the present government schemes are covered.

"In case of death, $50 per week (plus $10 for each child) is paid to the survivors for 104 weeks. As in Ontario, disability benefits are not paid for the first week, but thereafter the amount is $50 per week (rather than $35 as in Ontario). More importantly, these payments do not cease; in cases of permanent and total disability, these $50 weekly payments continue until age 65, when they are reduced by the value of the receipts from old age pensions that are payable at that age in Canada.

"While the B.C. plan is now best in Canada, it will be even better when another idea, presently shelved for further study, is implemented. Not yet proclaimed in force are the provisions that no action shall be brought for damages to property exceeding $250." And then he goes on, he says, "The second best plan in Canada is that run by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office, a government owned corporation." Second best, happy to have second place any time — I don't blame you, Mr. Member.

Now there has been some discussion about the costs of this new insurance plan, both here in this Chamber and elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, as far as the cost of the no fault benefits are concerned, it is the accident benefits that are paid automatically for those whose policies have not expired.

[ Page 40 ]

There has, of course, been no change in the premiums. In other words, the insurance companies have co-operated to the extent that these benefits are being added free of charge until the policies expire during the course of the year. For the policies issued in 1970, I understand that the average net increase varies from $11 to $13, around $13 is my information.

As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, when I introduced this legislation last year at the last Session, I did anticipate a reduction in insurance premiums, and I said so, and I based that anticipation as everyone also is fully aware, on the savings that would accrue by removing the right of a person to sue for damages for their automobiles over $250. That was the area where the great savings would come into effect. In other words, a motor vehicle owner would be the self-insurer of his own motor vehicle above that $250. You could sue for the first $250 only, and even if your house was demolished by an automobile, you could still only sue for the first $250 of damage to your house. These are some of the problems that come up, and this is included in the legislation under section 14 of the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act last year. This is one of the provisions that have not yet been proclaimed. The possibility still exists. There is valid argument on both sides. Certainly as an impetus for better defensive driving, this type of a provision has some merit. The big question, and this is only one of them that have been put to me during the course of the year, is whether the savings in insurance premiums are worth-while, when you consider the additional risks that the individual has to assume, so, as I say, this may still come into effect. What we propose to do is enable those who have views to express them on this matter, to appear before a Special Committee of this House on this particular aspect.

I think, too, we have to recognize one of the principal contributing factors — and this is an area that I hope will be fully explored by the Special Committee — one of the principal factors in automobile insurance costs is in the property damage repair bill. The prices for repairing your motor vehicle have been increasing rather rapidly, and if there are going to be significant savings in insurance premiums, then this is the area in which the savings must take place. I think from a philosophical point of view it still is more important to mend broken bodies than it is to provide insurance to mend busted or bent fenders — that's a matter in all of its implications that the Committee we had at the last Session admitted they didn't have an opportunity to fully explore. This will give the Committee of this Legislature the opportunities to fully explore this aspect.

The best way, of course, to reduce insurance costs, to reduce insurance premiums, is to eliminate the accidents on the highways. It's not possible, of course, to eliminate all highways tragedies. I think that there is a chilling inevitability in this area that must be faced, and there still has to be a lot of time and a lot of money spent both in minimizing the number of occurrences of these tragedies on our highways, as well as minimizing the costs associated with them. I think we are making some headway in this battle, in terms of safety on our roads and our battle against careless drivers and dangerous vehicles. The number of fatal accidents this past year, for the first time for a number of years, had declined. Less in number than either 1968 or 1967, and that's so even though there is a lot more traffic on the road, a lot more vehicles in use on the road.

There are several programmes in this area that we have been giving priority to, and one of those, referred to in the Speech from the Throne, is the driver demerit system, which has been gradually extended. It started here in the county of Victoria and now, as of the ist of April, will cover the whole Province, the county of Vancouver, the largest centre, being the last to come under the umbrella of this new provision. The basic principle being that a greater deterrent to bad practices on our highway is the loss of your license, rather than the payment of a fine and, during the course of this experiment — which started as an experiment — we have been evaluating the number of penalties to be attached to each specific offence. Some changes were made just within this past month or so in reductions in some areas of the number of points for different offences and, of course, we've added points for other offences. For instance, for refusing to take a breathalizer test under the new Criminal Code amendment which has just come into effect, will cost you ten points. If you take the test and you flunk it, if you get a reading of .08 or higher, you still get the ten points. That doesn't end the matter either, there is only one way to win, and that's not to mix liquor with driving. That's still not the end of the matter, because when you get 10 points you get a special assessment of $25 penalty fee, which goes into a fund to promote driver safety programmes and some research projects on discovering why, not how, motor vehicle accidents occur.

Another area that is covered, of course, is the vehicle itself that is driven on the highway, where we are spending considerable time meeting with other Provincial Ministers and the Federal Government on safety standards for new vehicles as well as, of course, extending our own motor vehicle inspection programme in the Province. You'll find extensions in that respect both in Richmond, where it is already in effect as of December, and the Burnaby station which is underway, so at least in the Vancouver-Victoria area and the lower mainland area we will have fully covered that particular aspect. In a general way we are trying to stress and place more emphasis on education, trying to up-grade driving habits through defensive driving courses, and there has been a tremendous increase in these defensive driving courses. Rather than having a suspension of a licence when you get to that 9-point level, you're called in, and in many cases you have to take the defensive driving course, and the Government as of last year has made a grant to additional defensive driving courses in the Province.

These are some of the tools, Mr. Speaker, that have been used to promote highway safety and to lessen the cost of traffic accidents. At the same time, I think we must make it clear that as far as this Government is concerned, we are going to ensure that the citizens of this Province receive good value for their insurance dollar. We think that this objective can be accomplished without resorting to the doctrinaire socialist approach — an approach that was repudiated last August 27th in this Province. The compulsory package will be one of the areas that this Special Committee will look into and I feel that it is imperative that they have the authority to consider whether the automobile insurance premiums that are presently being charged are commensurate with the risks that the insurance companies are assuming under the new Iegislation.

There are other announcements from the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, which promise a busy, and I think, interesting session. For example, the proposition that individuals will be given more protection in relation to rental housing, and this is important. With the increase in urbanization, with the increase in apartment living, as the first member from Vancouver-Centre pointed out in past Sessions,

[ Page 41 ]

the relationship that presently exists between landlord and tenant is increasingly important. We have and intend to put forward a new concept in law in this respect which we think will resolve some of the difficulties, at least, that exist in the tenancy agreements now in effect. It's not my prerogative to discuss legislation today, but there will be remedial legislation proposed and there will be some other non-controversial legislation, like how to classify moving pictures and censure them, but I won't go into those either.

But before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I think I should remind the House that in future Sessions I hope we will have greater assistance in terms of legislative proposals, assistance from the new Law Reform Commission which is now being established and is in operation in the Province. I think we have been fortunate to assemble some of the top legal brains in Canada to serve on this Commission. It is under the chairmanship of the former Minister of Justice, the Honourable Davie Fulton. The other members of the Commission include Dr. Gosse, who was the senior full-time counsel to the Law Reform Commission in the Province of Ontario which has an enviable record already in this field; Mr. Frank Collier, the gold medalist in the law class of 1950, and a practising member of the Bar, will serve the Commission on a part-time basis; Mr. William Getz, who is a professor of law at the University of British Columbia, is coming on a full-time basis. I don't have all of their recommendations, Mr. Speaker, but I think their names, among lawyers in this Province at least, speak for themselves. Those who know Mr. Getz, for example, I think will agree. The Federal Government thought he was good enough to serve on their Task Force in 1967 and he will be the full-time Commission counsel, taking over his duties this year. So this Commission is now at work, and I hope will be of assistance to us, not at this Session, but in the future. I think even without their help, Mr. Speaker, when the full legislative programme of this Government is unveiled during the course of this Session, we can acknowledge again that British Columbia is moving ahead both in the economic and in the social sense.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. FRANK A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again to represent the constituency of Atlin in this Throne Debate. In so doing I wish first of all to commend the other Atlin candidate in the recent election for the continuance of a clean, just, and constructive campaign. That's number one. Secondly, for all the candidates in Atlin to continue to focus the attention on the needs of the North, and this I have noted ever since I entered politics in 1949, and I am very grateful. I don't know what happens in the other ridings, but I do know that we have had a very good campaign in the constituency of Atlin.

We are not the only ones who are gratified in this respect, Mr. Speaker. Being in the House this length of time, and knowing practically everyone in my constituency, I can truthfully say that the people I have met in my riding are also gratified that we have stuck to these two points, because the northern people, as you know, Mr. Speaker — you are a northerner yourself — I mean we're almost a different breed. We like development, we like to talk development and we like to see development. This Government has more or less changed that breed because the northern development, as far as I'm concerned, has been at a total walk, it has been so slow.

I believe that our people throughout the North, north of the Prince George — Prince Rupert belt, are getting a little annoyed at the laxity of a defining as to just what has to be done for the North. In this respect I would say that northern development is a concern of everyone, and particularly those who are resident in the North and those people who wish to become resident in the North. People who would like to carve out something for themselves, bring their families to the North and they would like to have some form of security. At the rate of northern development, I am quite sure, and I think I speak for quite a number of people who have gone up North, they find that there is not too much up there, and then they come wheeling back to the metropolitan areas. I don't think this is good. I think the Government should have a little bit more policy initiated so these people could be encouraged to go to the North and stay there and develop it.

I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder, the Honourable Member for Delta and the Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan respectively for their contribution to the debate when they took their places last Friday. I would like to say that it is a high honour to be selected by the Cabinet to reply as mover and seconder to the Speech from the Throne, and I sat here listening very carefully, and I can say that both members contributed and fulfilled their duties well and effectively.

I would like to say a word or two about the remarks of the member for Delta. He had some interesting remarks to make. He said something about a possible Government control and administration of the B.C. compulsory automobile insurance in the event that the automobile insurance industry increases its insurance rates. I would like to advise the Honourable Member for Delta — I am sorry he is not in his seat — to be a little more careful of his remarks that the Government would move in to control and administer the automobile insurance, in case the Honourable the Premier may dub him a Marxist Socialist. I would remind him that on occasion when we on this side of the House call for more Government control on electrical distribution or on ferries, schools and hospitals, liquor, the B.C. Telephone or car insurance, the Premier or someone on that side of the House would immediately classify the New Democrats as Marxist Socialists.

Now it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province have enjoyed the benefits of these Government controlled programmes. It is also common knowledge throughout the country that the former C.C.F. and presently the N.D.P. has advocated, as its manifesto and policy, these and other Government controls for Democratic Socialist measures. If, on account of our party position, Mr. Speaker, in these matters we are termed Marxist Socialists, then I can only conclude that the Premier of this Province, who has done a fair job since his term of office as Premier in controlling these public services, is the best Marxist Socialisti in the business. But, apparently the public just wouldn't buy this in the last election. The Premier himself knows that we have always been and will remain as such as Democratic Socialists. But, he insisted on giving us another name and perhaps by his machinery, by terming us Marxist Socialists he won out, but I just hope that one day the people are going to wake up and learn.

I would like to make one or two observations on what the mover had to say. He made some extraordinary proposals to secure funds for pollution control. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that every citizen in British Columbia is concerned about pollution control, and I am quite sure that they are

[ Page 42 ]

concerned about the source from which to secure funds to do something about controlling pollution. I also believe that the public will not buy the member's suggestion to increase the sales tax from 5 to 6 per cent, the result of which he hopes may cover the cost of controlling pollution. It was reported about four months ago that British Columbians pay the second highest per capita provincial tax in Canada and, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the people in British Columbia wish to be burdened with further tax increases, whether they be hydro rates, car insurance rates or Social Services Tax. Furthermore, I do not think that this Government should take advantage of its increased mandate to increase taxes. Now I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a hopeless statement, because I predict that this Province within this decade of the seventies will far surpass the Province of Quebec as having the highest per capita provincial tax-payers, thanks to this Government and its theories.

I wish also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the newly elected members to this Legislative Assembly. I do hope that they will soon recognize the amount of work that is involved, and problems unsolved, in looking after their respective constituencies, even though such a riding may have been under Social Credit government for years. I think I can safely say that in my term of office I have seen all of the ridings, travelled throughout the Province, and have seen ridings that have been held by Government members as not just up to scratch. They are certainly in need of a lot of improvement and I do wish that the new members will recognize this very fact, particularly those members who are representing the interior ridings, the west coast of Vancouver Island and the northern part of this Province, and I do hope that they win also be bold enough to bring these matters before the House.

I am mindful of the contributions made in this House of the two previous members of South Peace, and I note that my good friend is going to follow me in this debate, but I would just like to say that his two predecessors certainly did well in presenting the problems of the North. We also believe that they were pastured because they dared to speak on the problems of their constituency. But I say this to the new Honourable Member for South Peace, being a northern member, those two gentlemen certainly gained my respect because I have terrific problems in my riding, and I also have travelled time and time again through the riding of yours, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Minister of Agriculture and the two Peace River areas, and I know that you are certainly in need of some adjustments in your areas, I am going to tell you, I may be speaking for myself, but I respect those two boys from South Peace, the two honourable members who are not here any more, for speaking out. The member for North Peace, as well…I'm sorry I left you out….but I can predict that you are going to speak out this year. I hope you do, because I think you are one of the young clerks, aren't you? (Laughter)

But I am very serious about this, and I do hope the new members, particularly those from the North, remain bold. I may have made a nasty remark that certain people were pastured, maybe that's wrong, but for gosh sakes speak up for the North. It's tremendous. I'm going to speak a little later about northern development, about certain people wanting to take over certain areas north of our boundaries. This, I think, is where those of us who are northern members will have to say something, because the Government hasn't proven itself yet in developing northern British Columbia. But in any event, I can say this, don't ever think that just because you may be a backbencher for the Government that you have to keep quiet about the conditions in the North. I am going to tell you, you are going to earn your money.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you in the House to take it from me that I do not wish to examine or make observations respecting the result of the last election. All I can say is that the best campaigner won…and that was all that stood. I'm not going to debate that point. I don't care how they did it. This is a brand new ball game in existence now and we have to look ahead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. CALDER: I say no matter how they did it, they produced a deal and the public bought it, that was it. We lost, and we're certainly not going to spend our time making any excuses. We're making plans for the next election.

I do wish, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the attention of the Government the many interviews that I have had with the youth of the Province, and I must say that there were quite a number of them that moved northwards looking for employment. These interviews certainly revealed the desire of these young people to take part in the last election, and I find that quite a number of these people that I talked to, or people who came to my office in your city, Mr. Speaker, were in the area of 17 and 18 years of age. I'm quite sure that in practically every riding, during the campaigns, you all witnessed the number of young people that came to assist you. It was quite a concern in my area and in Prince Rupert and Skeena, the three areas in which I participated in the campaigns, where these people not only wished to assist in campaigning but they certainly wanted to take part in the voting. I note elsewhere where the Governments are insisting on the 18-year voting age, and I think this Government should consider that as the voting age in the Province. (Applause)

Mr. Speaker, during the last two days of October I made a trip up to the Nass River, which is the southern part of my constituency. We have a convention of people who live in the Nass Valley and we decided this year to hold the convention at a community of Kincolith, which is located at the mouth of the Nass River. The Nass River, as you know, flows into Portland Inlet, and prior to that time l had been notified by fishermen and people who travel up and down that inlet of the danger of floating logs. I phoned one of the fishing companies — delegates to the convention also came from this particular company — so we had quite a load on this large seine boat that had to go to Kincolith.

I suggested to the Captain that we start off quite early in the day in order to see for ourselves the source from which this criticism had arisen that logs are endangering boat traffic. Well, just about 25 miles north of your city, Mr. Speaker, we proceeded into this inlet. At the very southern end of this inlet, as you know, there is a place known as China Hat, and from there it's about 35 miles to the entrance of the Nass River. I suggested to the Captain and the people on the deck that we count logs floating out of the Nass River as a result of the operation of the Columbia Cellulose Company. You're very familiar with this inlet, Mr. Speaker. From China Hat to what is known as Sandy Beach is just about five miles. The width of Portland Inlet is from five to eight miles, and we were just hitting a straight course, and in a distance of five miles we gave up counting. We counted as high as 60, and that was that, and we still had another 35 miles to go before we reached the mouth of the Nass River. A lot of these floating logs were bound, so they must be escaping some-

[ Page 43 ]

where.

When we had the representative of Columbia Cellulose speak at our convention he told us they had strict rules and it's almost impossible for logs to escape but Mr. Speaker, I was the witness to this — by the time we got halfway to Kincolith it was dark and we had to slow that boat down because we were just hitting too many logs. This was just a straight line travelling in a five to eight mile width of that Inlet, so you can just imagine how many logs were going down that Inlet that we couldn't even see to the right of us or to the left of us. I think this is a very serious situation. We do have people who salvage — I've met some of these people who salvage the logs — and they tell us that they're just making a living. So where are all these floating logs going to? They could be going on back tides into the southern part of the Alaska Panhandle, they could be going anywhere. This is the one thing that I would like to point out to you and to the Minister who is in his seat, the Minister of Forests.

During the campaigns I took time to travel through the Nass from the mouth of the Nass up to about a twenty-mile point, and that condition prevailed. When you get into the Nass you're getting into very shallow water. We are told by the Fisheries Department — this is the Federal Department — we are told that they are keeping very strict rules. About two years ago, you will recall, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, we gave you a certain Federal Bill which states that the company may do such and such if permission was granted by the Federal Fisheries, and you indicated to us in your office that you didn't know that such a Bill existed for the Nass River. Now this is two years ago, and log dumping, dynamiting on the Nass River, which is a fishery bed, still continues, and I think this Government is very lax, to put it truthfully, in not refereeing what goes on in the Nass or in some of the rivers that are considered spawning rivers. The Fraser River and the Skeena are in the same boat, and we would like to see this Government take a little bit more action in this respect, Mr. Speaker, because it's getting quite serious.

We have food in the Nass River — salmon and another known as an oolican, sometimes known as candle fish. We are told that slash which becomes waterlogged and then gets imbedded in the shallow water does not interfere with spawning. Now I'm not a fishery biologist. The Federal people indicate to us that there is no problem there. I don't believe it, I just don't believe it. Last September I met a number of people during my trip to Montreal and I was told there, when we were talking about lake pollution, that slash that was produced in these lakes from logging has practically eliminated trout spawning in quite a number of lakes in Quebec, and I'm quite sure that this eventually is going to happen in the Nass River and elsewhere in which slash now has become embedded on the river bed. I don't quite buy biological statements, for some reason I just don't buy. I will come to this a little later, about the salmon in this Province, but I don't think that this Government should just sit and watch industries that are under this Government's jurisdiction destroying another industry that does not come under the Province. I'm talking about fishing which comes under Federal jurisdiction, and just because it's Federal it seems to me that this Government turns its back to it.

We speak so much about food supply, on account of one of the biggest problems which now is under discussion the world over, and that's population explosion, and pertinent to that we must talk about food supply. It's well known that here in this Province we are the suppliers of one of the greatest salmon productions in the world, and I think that this Government should take some action in assisting the Federal Fisheries Department. Ever since this Government has come into this House and taken over the reins of government in this Province I have noticed, I don't know about the other members, but I have noticed that there's always some kind of a fight against the Federal, and in this respect it's clear to me that this Government is spiting the Federal just because they don't have anything to do with fishery rules. I don't appreciate one bit when we witness one industry destroying another form of industry, and I think this Government should take cognizance of this fact and should play a major role in the protection of fish. (Applause)

Let's look at something else that may be destroying our fish. In addition to the logging effluent, there's been so much discussion about the pulp mill effluent that I'm not going to enlarge on it. All I can say is that the Speaker of the House will verify this. I'm talking about pulp at Port Edward. We have a very narrow entrance into the community of Port Edward in which the new pulp mills are located, and we are told time and time again by people I know and I take their word for it, that when they go to work in the morning to do booming at the mouth of that Port Edward entrance, they see hundreds of sockeyes come belly up at that entrance. Honestly, this is a real serious situation and nobody is doing anything about it.

Now Prince Rupert, as you know, is located on an island. I don't think anything has been done with the effluent of that new pulp mill there because there's the back and forward flow behind that island. It's little wonder that one of the top people who are engaged in this northern corridor made a remark to McLean's which Prince Rupert people have been most critical of. He had a reason for giving that. He knew. A very prominent person, and I think the Minister has read about that person's remark.

Do you know, I'm a real eater of seafood, Mr. Speaker. I do a lot of work for people who don't belong to my riding. People come to my office because my office just happens to be in Prince Rupert. They are on unemployment insurance, welfare, what have you, and whether or not I accomplish anything they usually say "Well, how much is this going to cost me." I say, "This is my M.L.A. work — forget it." But they don't forget it. They usually come to me maybe two or three days later, or maybe a week or two later and say "Frank, come on down to the boat, I've got a load of crabs, or clams" and they say "come and help yourself". This is their way of thanking me for the work I do for them. But, Mr. Speaker, I usually say "Where did you get it? Where did you get this stuff?" If it comes out from the islands just outside Port Edward I usually refuse to take it, because clams, cockles and any of the seafood from outside that area is just completely yellow — maybe from sulphur coming out of that plant. If anybody comes down from my territory, which is a virgin territory, Nass River, and they say "Well, I got it in the Portland Canal", I say, "For gosh sakes I'll be down to Cull Bay" which is where all the boats tie up, and I help myself to all these different seafoods. But even there I don't any more, because now the B.C. Molly is spitting effluence into Observatory Inlet, that's in the Alice Arm district. Now I'm pretty careful as to where I'm going to accept and eat this food.

We have a monthly mail delivered to us of toxic reports by the Federal Government and I really read it carefully because I'm pretty careful where I accept clams and cockles, salmon or anything else. This is how serious it is, Mr.

[ Page 44 ]

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

I spent a little time up at Prince George, and went through the plant and witnessed what they are trying to do to stop the killing or the destructive effluents that may destroy our salmon in the Fraser, one of the world's major fish rivers.

But now we've got something else coming up, and it's the talk of today, whether or not we're going to allow oil drilling offshore, and this is very serious. I just read the other day — I think all of you have read it — in the state of Louisiana you saw a person holding up dead birds. We saw what happened a year ago in Santa Barbara. You know, again it's useless for me to say anything, because here again there's this fighting going on between this Government and the Federal Government. This Government is going to allow oil drilling here. Gosh, no matter how much we fight, you'll see oil drills in the Strait of Georgia, offshore here and on the island — you'll see it, and we'll see the same pictures that have been produced by Louisiana and Santa Barbara. We will see the same thing. Because this is part of the spite that they have with the Federal Government. The Federal says we don't allow it, the Mines Department says yes we will allow it, and the battle keeps going on. You'll see it, you'll see drills in the Strait of Georgia. It's just too bad, and I'll be wasting my time standing up here and pleading with the Government to stop any oil drilling in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to deal with one subject. Actually I should deal with this under the Highways Department, but this has become such a major issue in my riding that I feel I should bring it up at this time, and that has to do with just one bridge that would connect the communities of Terrace, the Nass River and the community of Stewart. This has been quite an issue for the last three years, ever since the road has been completed from the Stewart end to the south end of Watson Lake. I am very sorry that the Minister isn't in, he is quite conversant with this, but I would just like to tell the members that we recognize the value of logging roads, we recognize the amount of money the companies pay to this, we recognize the faults of the members of the public that result in fires and theft. We recognize all that — I think we've thrashed this out in the Forestry Committees year after year, and particularly with Columbia Cellulose. I'm not actually against Columbia Cellulose — they have become one of the builders of the North, but there are just not enough guidelines by this Government — that is my criticism.

But I will say this, that as far as this bridge is concerned, if it's going to be built over the Nass River, it will not only connect the two villages, then everyone can sit back and be happy, but there are a lot of other things involved. Stewart has become part of the Regional District of Terrace. Terrace has become a centre for the airways, and flights are quite free and are away from the coast weather and accessible to Stewart. The schools and the hospitals have come under the Regional District of Terrace, and the microwaves are through there, practically everything is through there, but there is still no connection between Stewart and Terrace. This is an old story to some of the older members here. I've brought this up several times before, this is a new Parliament, and I would like to bring it up again. I am not the only one who has been stressing the need of this link, I'm just a small voice in it. The Chambers of Commerce, for the last two years, have really come up with this, and I think you were present, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, in the recent northern Economic Conference when this came up. I'm sorry I wasn't there — I was pretty busy — I was invited to it. I think you and the Minister of Forests know what this is all about, and you've been told why it is required, and I do hope some action will be taken this year to do something about it.

A few minutes ago, I said something about northern development being at a turtle walk. You know, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a lot of money spent up in that northern part, right from the west to the Peace River, there's been a tremendous amount of money spent, particularly by mining exploration people. It just seems fantastic. I can name you a lot of companies that have gone broke by this exploratory work. I'm not going to delve into incentives, this may come up under the Department of Finance, when the Estimates come up, we may have something to say about the taxation. These people, Mr. Speaker, may talk a lot about taxation, but I think most of the talk in the board rooms have to do with access, the accessibility. Quite a number of these mining teams are on the west side of the northern part of our Province and happen to be in my constituency, and for years and years they've been looking forward to the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar Road.

Knowing what's going on on this Stewart-Cassiar Road, I think this Government should step in and see what is going on up in this cost-plus area. The Ginter people on the north end have been so slow, that this is what I term northern development at a turtle walk. 1963 was the year that the road was supposed to have been completed, and I have been extending the completion date year after year, and Ginter is still up there in this wonderful contract. I go up there sometimes and sneak in to see what's going on, and it's so slow. You know, I think the Department will tell the members of the House that it's only gone here an average of about four miles a year, and this is not good. In this last four miles it hasn't been that difficult for a modern contractor to do the work, and I doubt if they will complete it until next year. I'm not going to say that about the contractor on the south end, he's a good one, and he's doing some travelling. You talk about a good contractor. People are sitting back waiting for this access, so if you're sincere about northern development, why don't you put on a crash programme — it's only about 30 miles to go — and then you will see some mining action up in that area. Quite a number of these mining companies are getting a little fed up at the lack of progress. Here again it's because there's no guide-lines by this Province, by this Government.

I woke up during the Speech from the Throne, there was one place where I woke up, and that was when they mentioned about the P.G.E. going through Dease lake. This is a good deal and there should be some action going on. The PNR was supposed to have a map reserve done right from Prince George to Whitehorse, and then after the Wennergren debate when that sort of fizzled out, they quietly removed that reserve and, I found out later, they quietly put it on as the PGE right-of-way. That was good, and now they have a second phase from Takla Lake over to Dease Lake, and I'm going to tell you that this is tremendous — a tremendous deal. Speaking for the North, this is good. I think people in the western part of the North will really appreciate this. But how about the Stewart-Cassiar Road? That was an old story years ago, and it's walking, you know it's being developed so slowly. I'm trying to say, for gosh sakes why doesn't this Government prove that they can develop the northern part of British Columbia?

The Premier has come up with such statements as let's take over Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Look, let's

[ Page 45 ]

forget about that. The natural resources now are just cropping up all over that North, I'm going to tell you, and I think one day in the very near future, those two areas just may combine and develop into the 11th province. I can see that they're just liable to. But I think we should just keep out of it, because we haven't proven ourselves in this Province. This is the message I'm trying to produce here, we just haven't proven ourselves. You know, there's a great story about the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. That may be good for the Province, but other than that it is just routine Government public service all through that area, and actually you cannot say that this Government is a fighter and developer of the North, it's quite slow. I'm just ending my subject, Mr. Premier, I'm sorry you weren't sitting there, so…

AN HON. MEMBER: He was out building a railroad again…

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a bit to say about Indian Affairs, and I don't want to just touch on it and then forget it. I would like to leave it until the Budget, because this Government and the Federal Government and all the provinces are negotiating very seriously on what's to be done on the White Paper that's been produced in Ottawa. I do have some remarks to make on that, and I would like to major on just that one in the Budget Debate.

I would like to go back to the automobile insurance, very briefly. This party has for years and years advocated for a Government-controlled one, and just about an hour ago the Attorney-General said that they have the best car insurance in the world, and do you know, I don't buy that. It will never be the best until the Government controls and administers the car insurance. I think this is a pretty well-known fact, at least to our people here, and it will never be the best for the people, as long as the car industry people have one motive, the profit motive. I think this Government should really consider taking it out of the hands of industry and controlling the cost this way. If you don't, you're going to be forever seeing insurance rates increase and I think that this Government should really consider this.

Mr. Chairman, on the basis of these two points, I now move, and seconded by the Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet, this motion: "That the motion in reply to the Opening Speech of His Honour be amended by adding the words: 'but this House regrets that the Speech fails to disclose any proposals for implementing a universal Government automobile insurance plan whereby automobile insurance would be provided at cost to the public'."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet on the amendment.

MR. WILLIAM L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I would like to rise, Mr. Speaker, and second that motion, the amendment to the Speech from the Throne and in so doing, take my place in the Throne Speech in this new Parliament, in the first Session of the 29th Parliament.

I would like to congratulate all the new members who have been elected to the House, and the old ones who have been re-elected. I am very pleased to have been re-elected to represent the district of Yale-Lillooet and I will do my utmost to take up any and all problems from any and all people regardless, period. Like the rest of the Province, we had an election up in Yale-Lillooet. Unlike some parts of the Province, not only did we have most of the Cabinet, but we had the Premier, and you know, Mr. Speaker…

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Point of Order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your Point of Order?

MR. CAPOZZI: The question is, is the member at this stage speaking to the motion, or is he at this stage speaking in the Throne Debate?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The mover and the seconder are allowed some latitude in this particular situation. However…

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, his opening comments…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment please. You asked for some advice, let me give it.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, I asked for the status of the present speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well if the member will just wait a moment, I was giving it to him. The mover and the seconder are allowed latitude. However, any succeeding speakers on the amendment must stick to the amendment itself…

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to his opening comment, when he stated that it was with a great deal of pleasure he was rising to speak in the Throne Debate…. Is he speaking in the Throne Debate as he stated, or is he speaking on the amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mover and seconder are allowed latitude to speak in the Throne Debate as well as on the amendment, however, any succeeding speakers must stick to the amendment itself…

AN HON. MEMBER: Do I have the floor, Mr. Speaker or does the member for Yale-Lillooet have the floor…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please be seated. I gave your member the answer. If he wishes to challenge the chair on it, that is his privilege.

MR. HARTLEY: The member from Vancouver Centre is in his usual state of confusion. The rookies have done a much better job to date than he is doing after three years…

Now as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Premier once again came to Yale-Lillooet. That's very interesting, so long as they had a Government member in Yale-Lillooet right from year one, a Social Crediter, the Premier never once showed his face in that riding, but the minute we elected a member in the Opposition, he came up and held meetings here and there. Three years ago he held three meetings and went out and mainstreeted, sent out engraved invitations. This year, he held a big meeting in Merritt and he even sent invitations to the people over in the member for Kamloops' riding, trying to fill the hall, but he just got half the turnout this time that he did three years ago. The novelty is wearing off. This time he didn't bother making any promises, because three years ago, he came up and he took the headlines in the local paper. Bennett says "Yale, Lillooet to get highway projects." They haven't done anything about it. It's still a good promise so

[ Page 46 ]

you didn't make any more promises.

Now the Attorney-General had quite a bit to say about them placing advertisements in the papers. Now this is one little local paper, and I count seven political advertisements in one issue, and most of them full page ads. Here's one "The Proven Way for British Columbia to Build a Sound Financial Future, Buy 6 1/2 per cent B.C. Parity Bonds." Paid for by B.C. Hydro, and we wonder why the rates are going up. Here we are, the Human Rights Commission. Another full page. Pulp Mill Effluent, a third full page. Another one for the candidate, and one on the back page here with the Premier's picture announcing his public meeting in Merritt. Now, there was at least $200 worth of advertising spent in that paper. You see this ad, in the almost 200 rural papers in this Province there is something like $400,000, and that is just for one week, Mr. Speaker. What kind of money did they spend, and I wonder where they got it from. Apparently, the people of the Province fell for this advertising, but how much longer are they going to fall for it. How much longer are they going to accept the bait of invested interests?

I believe the motion that we are speaking on is a very good example of just what has happened. I believe that in this new decade and in this new Parliament we should use a different approach. I believe the people of the seventies are going to want something more than just the rags to riches stories, so long as when they are listening to those stories they see right out here in the James Bay area high-rise apartments, would-be sky scrapers and slums side by side. In many parts of the Province this is the case. I believe the people of the seventies are going to ask for answers with regard to pollution. We don't need pollution. We don't need discrimination, we don't need the war in Vietnam. Do we need wars, period. Mr. Speaker, it's not just the University crowd that is asking these questions, but it is the young businessman and the suburban housewife. They are demanding answers and demanding leadership, and if this Government doesn't give that leadership then we will.

Mr. Speaker, about the good life. Just last week I clipped a picture from the Vancouver Province that shows a Mrs. Catherine Pritchard looking very, very sad entitled "Golden Years Tarnished. Commonwealth Fall Hits Investors. Life's Savings Swallowed Up". Some 6,000 citizens in the Province lost, some all their life's savings, many of them a good bit, and when this happens to a person in their retired years they have no way of replacing that lost money. This particular lady, Mrs. Pritchard, when she can, she goes out and scrubs floors. She says she has a TV set that her husband bought her before he died but she doesn't know what she is going to do to repair that set if it ever breaks down. Is this the good life, Mr. Speaker? There's an old clipping that was from the Victoria Times and it says costs rising faster in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. That the cost of living has risen faster in Vancouver and Victoria than in any other city in Canada. Is that more of the good life since the election?

Now I would like to thank, through you, Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the Hydro Commission for the many electrical extensions that have been completed in Yale-Lillooet last year, and other major extensions completed down the Fraser Canyon from Lytton to Kanaka Bar. But I would also like to point out that there is a great need for an extension up over the Hope-Princeton Highway so that the Manning Park Lodge, the Department of Highways equipment barns, and the residences of all the people and the employees that live there can be provided with electricity. The community of Princeton last year was without hydro-electricity for about a week and while this was a responsibility of West Kootenay Hydro, I believe that it's time the B.C. Hydro and West Kootenay were tied in. I believe the next step, and we've said this before, but I believe for us to have an effective and efficient hydro grid system throughout this Province, it should be all under the B.C. Hydro. I hope in the new Budget, and I am mentioning this now before the Budget is drawn up, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the rural electrification subsidy will be continued at least at the two million dollar mark as it was last year. I am pleased to hear that we have support from the Peace River.

As I mentioned yesterday when we were trying to maintain respectable working hours in the Session, I mentioned that I felt, and I would like to repeat, that we should have two Sessions a year, a Spring session and a Fall session. After all, this is a billion dollar Budget, and I believe this Legislature spends less time in Session for any Province in Canada with a comparable Budget related to its population.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. HARTLEY: We know, Mr. Speaker, that some members have very little respect for this institution. We hear them speak out. This Government prefers to rule by Order-in-Council, Mr. Speaker, that even when the Legislature is in Session they'll go behind the green doors and pass Orders-in-Council. They prefer to rule by all night sessions, they show great arrogance and really complete disregard for many of the democratic processes. I think it is much better that we give much of our Legislation first, sometimes second, reading at a Spring session, and then in a Fall session after we have had time to study it and discuss it with our constituents and the various School Boards and Town Councils, we assemble in the Fall and give it third and final reading.

Last year in the Budget we had an extra dollar per capita grant for hospital services. This grant was made to the various city governments. But, the Social Credit have mucked this up just as they have mucked up medi-care, hospitalization, and many other institutions that they have gone about in a most half-hearted fashion. Now there are communities in British Columbia that provide ambulance service to you and to everyone that travels in their area, and I am thinking of the community of North Bend and Boston Bar. They had a volunteer ambulance service, as anyone who drives off the Trans-Canada Highway from the black ice, goes over the bank and is injured, this little group of individuals will rush you to the nearest hospital. But being as this is an unorganized community they in no way qualify for this dollar per capita grant and they receive no assistance, and yet there are much larger communities that accept the money and have no ambulance service. I think our ambulance grant should be extended to include unorganized areas as well as organized areas, and this ambulance service should be a definite part of B.C.H.I.S. It has to do with sick people, it has to do with hospitals, and it should be part of a co-ordinated plan.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see on page 4 of the Throne Speech that the Government, through the Lieutenant-Governor, was giving recognition to the first single ore body of sufficient size and grade quality to support the copper smelter. This is up in Highland Valley. I've raised the matter of a copper smelter to be built in the western interior of British Columbia since I was first elected to this body, and I

[ Page 47 ]

am raising it again. I think it is absolutely wrong for us to be exporting, last year, over $90,000,000. worth of copper in the raw. I think this copper should be smeltered and refined, and then around this would develop secondary industry. I think this is much better than keeping people on unemployment insurance and welfare, Now, just where this smelter is built is something for the engineers to decide, but I believe there is something that we can decide through the Department of Mines, that each time we let a contract to Japan or anywhere else, that that contract to export high grade copper will have a clause in it stating that when we have a smelter and we are ready to smelter our own copper ore, that at least a substantial percentage of all copper mined in this Province will be smeltered in this Province. I think this is the very least we can do to provide jobs and employment in this Province. Yes, last year the so-called free enterprise Government of Ontario passed this type of legislation. In South America, one of the little countries there, said that those who wish to mine our copper, unless you are prepared to build a smelter you will get no licence to export. If they can do it in the best interests of their people, I believe we should do it in the best interests of full employment for our people.

There is the matter of a new townsite, an instant townsite, to be built at Logan Lake in the Highland Valley. I hope that we will see no more company towns built in British Columbia. I hope that the Department of Lands and the Department of Municipal Affairs will not give the go-ahead to Logan Lake Townsite until the health facilities and the educational facilities in Merritt and Ashcroft are expanded to their most maximum efficiency. Then when that is done and the mine, and I hope the smelter, are ready to operate, if it's in the opinion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs the town is needed, O.K., but at this stage I feel there is no need to develop a Logan Lake Townsite. I am glad the Minister agrees, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to raise the matter of the raising of the level of Ross Lake in Skagit Valley and the flooding of some 6,000 acres in Skagit Valley. This was agreed to by this Government in January 10th, 1967. We placed questions on the order paper that month in 1967 enquiring into the proposed development of this dam. Since that time I have had the pleasure of a trip up into the beautiful Skagit Valley and it really is a most beautiful valley, and possibly you have to see it to appreciate in a small way the tragedy that will befall this beautiful valley if we allow it to be flooded.

This area lies up on top of the Coast Mountains south of Hope, and you drive for some 30 odd miles through a rain forest, up through the giant firs and the cedars, and then when you break over the horizon and fall away in the eastern slope of the Coast Mountains you find an entirely different ecology. There you break into rolling range land with great Ponderosa Pine, and down at the lakeshore you'll see birch trees the like of which I have never seen before. Birch trees three feet through, and this is going to be flooded. In this area the deer spend their spring and summer, it's a spring and summer pasture. The game department have a corral where they catch deer and tag them and keep record of them. It is also a wonderful place for the trapper. The last time that I was up with my son, we went up with a trapper, and he picked up his traps as he went in and he caught quite a good sized bob-cat, two otter and two beaver. There is also mink and ermine and all other fur-bearing species that inhabit that area, and I think it would be a terrible shame to flood this valley. It's about the last open valley with first-class fly fishing, first-class sports recreational area. I think it would be an absolute shame to flood this when we have such a great need for recreational areas close to Vancouver, and this is within easy driving distance of Vancouver.

I notice in the Sun on December the 11th that the Minister of Recreation says they are having preliminary studies for an 880 acre Class A park. Now I have looked at this valley first hand and I have looked at the maps, and if they are going to have an 880 acre park there, it is going to be up on the hillside, it's not going to be in that great valley bottom. I have no objection to having parks on the hillsides, but I think if it is important to have a hillside park it is more important to have a park in that great valley bottom, and I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Government initiate a meeting of the International Joint Commission to renegotiate the treaty that was signed by Minister of Water Resources on behalf of this Government in 1967. I think by initiating this meeting and calling in the Federal Government, the State of Washington, and the City of Seattle, that I'm not suggesting that we break our word but I believe we can offer them something that is better for them and better for us.

I feel a few miles further west in Yale-Lillooet are the Upper Hat Creek Coal Fields where there's what is close to one-half a billion tons of proven up coal. The modern way, they tell me, to make power out of coal is to gasify that mine section by section, for the B.C. Hydro to build a thermo unit on the top of the mine — and let us sell Seattle the peak load power that they need, rather than flooding one of our finest recreational areas in the lower mainland. This would be less expensive for them and it would be better business for us. They would get low-cost power and we would hang on to one of our best recreational resources in this area.

Now, during the last Session of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, we passed Bill No. 74. We heard the Attorney-General make reference to this legislation this afternoon. We heard the member for Delta call for a special committee and a Prices Review Board to try and control the ever-increasing cost of car insurance. Now when this legislation was brought in we stated that the price of car insurance would go up. The Attorney-General said no, it will go down by about 25 per cent, and I have the quotes from the paper here, but we won't go on with that now — I think the record speaks for itself. We also said that the way this legislation would be used, would be that the Premier and the Attorney-General and the Cabinet would roar around the country during the election, that it was election propaganda, they'd go out and say "Look, you don't have to vote N.D.P. for Government car insurance. We could bring it in under this legislation." Oh no, you said you wouldn't do that, but that's exactly what you did.

Now we're calling on you, Mr. Speaker, to implement Section 250, sub-section 4, and bring in licence plate car insurance. We have very many reasons for making this request, and one of them is this piece of paper that every householder in the Province received — yes, and I'm going to show you — "New Car Insurance Law for British Columbians". This is made out just as though it were an official Government document, but who paid for it? The car driving, the car buying public of this Province. It cost approximately $25,000 for every householder to receive a copy of this. It was put out as though it was an official document from this Government. It states, "No-fault accident benefits coverage: drivers operating without this compulsory insurance are subject to fine or imprisonment".

[ Page 48 ]

The insurance companies put this out through their Insurance Bureau of Canada and they tried to scare everyone that didn't have insurance into buying high-priced car insurance, and I know as an insurance agent there has been the greatest run for car insurance — people have gone in and bought car insurance that haven't had it for years.

Now I'm not saying that this is wrong — I believe everyone should have car insurance, and I believe that car insurance should be compulsory, but I believe this Government and the leader of the Social Credit party that heads up the Department under which car insurance falls are bankrupt. They are morally bankrupt when they would pass legislation and force people to go out and buy to make profits, and fabulous profits, for the great insurance corporations.

Here is another ad that appeared in the Weekend Paper this weekend, in the magazine section. How much it would cost I don't know, but it says in this, "In spite of the new B.C. legislation on car insurance" in spite of that legislation — insinuating that the legislation had forced the cost of the car insurance up — in spite of that legislation "Wesco Insurance Company gives you an opportunity to save as much as 20, 30, 40, or 50 dollars or more on car insurance this year". We checked with this outfit and you can't save 20, 30, 40, or 50 dollars. This is a false advertising, and these are the people that helped put up the campaign-funds for this Government, and this is the sort of tripe that they're handing out, trying to hoodwink the public today, and this Government is sitting back and allowing this to happen.

I'd also like to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, just what the Attorney-General is doing to see that the monies that are being collected for the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund are being used for that purpose. Every dollar that is paid in an insurance premium for third-party liability, two cents goes towards the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. Out of every hundred dollars, $2 goes, so that at December 31st, 1965 there was $1,451,000 that hadn't been used in that Fund. That was five years ago. How much is there today? Could there be five million dollars? And what is this Government doing about it?

The way the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund operates is like this. They make a levy on every insurance premium that is collected. The insurance companies hold this, these premiums. They hang on to them and they invest them, they invest them through their finance companies at 18 and 24 per cent. Then at the end of the year, or year and a half, if the Fund needs money, they make a levy on the various insurance companies. If the Fund needs money before they get this levy then they operate on bank overdrafts, so that in the same year that I quoted, the year ending December 31st, 1965, the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund paid close to $50,000 for bank overdraft and bank charges. Rather than using the money that had been collected on the premiums of the citizens of this Province, they used overdrafts and the insurance companies used the money that was collected to invest. They kept the earnings and charged the costs of those overdrafts against the Fund. There was a surplus of over a million dollars in '65. I'm asking the Attorney-General just what he's doing about that ever-increasing surplus, how much is there today and what's he going to do about it?

The member for Delta asked that we set up a Price Review Board for insurance. That is not necessary. It won't work. It's mentioned that we're going to have a Committee. That's not necessary. We had a Committee last year and we told you exactly what would happen, and it has happened, so why go through that waste of time again? We believe in committees, but those that were on the Committee sat silent when we gave them the answer to the problem of automobile insurance in this Province.

We in the New Democratic Party feel that public automobile insurance is a natural for public enterprise and this is why. The B.C. Government Motor Vehicle Branch keeps a record of all the motor vehicles registered in B.C., it keeps a record of all the drivers, and these records are programmed into the computers in Mr. Hadfield's office just across the street. We say it is a natural — insurance is a natural — because all we have to do is to programme those computers with an insurance formula and then when you receive your licence registration form and go in prior to the 28th of February, you'll pay the additional sum and you'll be automatically insured, you will be insured and every other vehicle on the road will be automatically insured, and all you will need is a little slip like that. This is what is used in the Province of Saskatchewan — that's all you need — that's your guarantee that not only are you insured, that every pedestrian, every passenger in the Province is insured.

There's no need for a Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund and there's no need for 188 insurance corporations. There's no need for 188 boards of directors, there's no need for 188 general managers, there's no need for 188 sets of computers, there's no need for 188 salesmen scattered over this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the greatest corporate bureaucracies ever forced on any people anywhere in the world, and forced by this Attorney-General in the name of private enterprise. Didn't you hear him get up and say this afternoon he believed in private enterprise? Yes, that means private enterprise for the corporations to gouge the little people. That's who he stands for. That's who elected him, and that's who he represents.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this was never more clearly shown than in the issue of January l7th of the Victoria Daily Times. There was a headline there "Freedom a Joy for David Jones", and I think it is a credit to John Mica and to the Times that they took up the battle for this young, 18-year old husband who was thrown in gaol because he did not have car insurance. That was his only guilt. He was thrown in gaol and he was given absolutely no time to pay that fine. I think it's very good that the press did force attention on this most iniquitous Social Credit insurance law.

It is rather ironic that in the same issue, Mr. Speaker, on Page 9 there's another article "B.C. Auto Plan claimed Best in the World" but, by the Attorney-General, speaking in Nanaimo. Now here we are, Mr. Speaker, he says "the best plan in the world" for who? For the insurance corporations. But the poorest plan in the world for the people. We throw the people in gaol.

The Attorney-General said the prices wouldn't go up — they went up $22 per person. Close to a million drivers' licences in the Province — that's $22,000,000 the insurance corporations are making this year that they didn't make last year. They're going to have an overall increase of 6 per cent. The Attorney-General says this is the best legislation in the world. I add, "for the insurance corporations". Who does he represent? Throwing the kids in gaol. So, I commend the press, I commend the people on this side of the House and all those that voted for car insurance and I'll make a prophesy that before this decade, the seventies, are out if this Government doesn't bring in car insurance, we will.

MR. GARDE B. GARDOM (2nd-Vancouver–Point Grey):

[ Page 49 ]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the suggestion of the New Democratic Party would be putting the driving motorists in British Columbia right from the frying-pan into the fire and I think the only thing that we would be doing in B.C. would be compounding the bureaucratic syndrome. In my view, Mr. Speaker, we're not after more government, but we're after better government, and the Socialists' suggestion, with all respect to the government that we have, that this more government would mean better government, I think is nonsense.

We always hear a lot of talk about the direct cost of insurance in the Province of Saskatchewan and it is true that the direct cost of automobile insurance in the Province of Saskatchewan seems to be lower, but you also have to look, Mr. Speaker, at the indirect charges, and the indirect charges there are a burgeoning bureaucracy and that, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is no way to either most effectively, or most economically, or most efficiently, reduce the cost of car insurance to the B.C. motorist.

Now, there have been three overall focal points of criticism that the insurance industry has faced, and I think the insurance industry deserves the criticism that it has faced. Wootton certainly criticized the industry. The results of the Wootton Commission, they particularly criticized the lack of competition within the industry and they criticized the operative methods of the industry.

Secondly, last year's Bill was in itself, I suppose, an indication of the Government's side of criticism of the industry, because they put a Sword of Damocles over the head of the industry, and maybe industry deserves it, and the Government has the power at this time, as we all know, of having Government control and having Government operation of the car insurance industry.

Thirdly, earlier this afternoon the Honourable the Attorney-General indicated to this House that the Government has wakened up and appreciated the fact that the insurance was coming in at pretty darned high cost and it's decided that it wants to take another look at the cost. Well, we think they're a little slow in coming to that conclusion — it was pretty obvious to this side of the House that that was going to be the case last year — but be it slow, Mr. Speaker, it's certainly better than nothing, and it's suggested that this Committee investigate the thing.

I'd like to make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that there are two paths to savings in the insurance industry. One of them, I think, would be to tender this no-fault package to the industry — have Government tender it to the private carriers. Because it seems to me to be a bit patently unfair to go ahead and enrich one side of the community with a compulsory measure, and then not being able to ensure to the driving motorists that they are definitely receiving the best value for their dollar and the best coverage for their dollar. Now, I think that might be one way, Mr. Speaker, to arrive at better competition. The methods that we've been following to date in the industry don't seem to have done it, but I can assure you I don't think this big fat step into more and more socialism is the right answer at all.

A second measure of savings would be this, Mr. Speaker. Insurance, as we all know, is essentially a prepaid trust. You have to pay your premiums before you get your policy, on the whole, and the insurance industry likes people to believe that out of the cost of your premiums they have to cover claims, operational charges, expenses, and so forth, and have something for profit. Well I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, I don't begrudge anyone in our society a fair profit — absolutely no one, be it the insurance industry or anyone else, but for the industry to say that they sort of have a divine right to seek prepaid insurance, I don't think is correct, and if they wish to ask for prepaid insurance I think that they should say to the driving motorists in British Columbia, "If you wish to pre-pay your insurance, my friends, I am going to give you a discount at the rate of bank interest for one year", and then we would find about a 10 per cent saving there alone. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is premature.

I would very much like to hear the deliberations of this Committee. As the Attorney-General did mention, last year there was not furnished to the Committee, as you perhaps well remember, pretty well any evidence of cost, and it's my understanding of what you were discussing this afternoon that the cost feature is the thing that is going to be emphasized in front of this Committee. This is surely something that the insurance industry knows itself, too, and I would like to see their response to this Committee during its deliberations and afterwards.

Now finally, Mr. Speaker, I think this is just another rip-roaring step towards complete state socialism and we anticipate it from these people over here, and we'd end up with Big Brother everything. We've got a Government majority, in my view, Mr. Speaker, that should be very carefully watched in this House, and I think its powers are awesome enough at the present time and they should certainly not be increased by the measure that's been suggested by the Socialists over here. We don't need an injection of more socialism, we need better free enterprise and competition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FRANK J. NEY (Nanaimo): Well, I have always believed that economic justice can best be won by free men to free enterprise. This idea of training another bureaucratic group in Government, is not only going to cost the Province more money, but it's going to give the public worse or poorer service. I'd hate to have to go up to our Court House on only five days a week, closed between 12 and 1:30, and expect to get good service when I buy my insurance. The thing that gives people good service is competition.

You're talking now about the huge profit in the insurance industry, and you're talking rubbish. If you want to talk the facts and check out the type of money that is being made, then you'll see that what you're talking is absolute rubbish, and the reason rates have been going up during the past few years, the reason for the high cost, is that two-thirds of the cost of insurance is in auto repairs and the other third is litigation. Very soon, the way you're going, we're going to have Government paint shops, Government auto body repair shops and right down the line, in fact you can go on all the way until in the end we'll all be working for the Government.

I've never known anyone to be able to sue the Government yet, (laughter) but at least you can sue your insurance company if they don't give you a fair settlement. You're going to put the people of British Columbia in a position where they will have to accept any decision that's made by the Government and, last but not least, if the government insurance is so good why has not your good friend Mr. Schreyer in Manitoba accepted government insurance?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

[ Page 50 ]

MR. DENNIS G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, it seems that there is some confusion in this House with regard to how we are going. I've heard different talks from both sides saying different things. However, the thing that I think is probably most significant that has come out this afternoon was enunciated both by the Liberals and the honourable member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Attorney-General. The best and the best for whom, and I think they both agreed that it was best for the car insurance companies.

You know the tears that flow down Bay Street, and Howe Street, when the insurance rates are being discussed and reviewed, are like a flood — they create a flood — a flood of great despair, it would seem. However, they're laughing and they're laughing loud because of the fact that they know perfectly well that the losses are underwriting losses. Direct underwriting losses, but many of us in this Chamber know that premiums placed in unearned premium reserves attract a tremendous rate of interest, and as a matter of fact today they are attracting fantastic rates of interest. Invested at today's rates, at anything from 10 per cent upwards, I am sure that these profits do not readily show when they are discussing things with the Government officials. These are the areas where they want to stay in the business, and that's why they are still in the business. If they weren't making a profit, if they weren't making a profit, Mr. Speaker, they would be out of the business, and these profits are re-invested, Mr. Speaker, in buildings, and more of the same, and what have you.

Eventually, premiums are used to pay claims, the same premiums you know that were in the unearned premium reserves that made some money. Now they are out there to pay claims, but they are not paid immediately, Mr. Speaker, so once again they are invested, and oftentimes it's up to two years prior to a claim being settled. There is another immense fund that is invested and kept and making large profits which do not reveal themselves in this matter of premiums versus claims situation that seems to be so cut and dried to some of the members here.

Now, there is one other significant factor, I believe, and that is the way we show our profits and losses. We show our profits and losses on a very direct situation, we show an earned premium for income. Let's figure, for an example, take a premium of $120, the earned premium the first month is $10. That's the premium income for that month. The expenses, however, are in cash. The first month, therefore, all commissions, all of the other expenses that insurance attracts, are charged off. Now, this is not significant, I recognize, if you take a whole year into account, but if you would think about it just for a moment, you could see that a company that is growing, that is writing more insurance this year than they did last year, would show a significant loss in this regard. So therefore the company that is growing shows the greatest loss.

Now I am not in favour of welfare and charity for the great corporations, neither do they need it, Mr. Speaker, nor do I think it is incumbent upon us, no matter our persuasion politically, to force people to do business with a cartel which has not shown signs of good corporate citizenship, and I believe that everyone on the Government side of the House knows it as well as I do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ALEXANDER B. MACDONALD (1st-Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, today the Government announced an important change of direction. Through the Attorney-General they made it very plain to the people of this Province that they would not, in spite of the window-dressing in that Bill 74 of last Session, that they would not go in the direction of public auto insurance. I think that's perfectly plain. He wants the committee set up to tinker with the present Act and to try to save him from the egg on his face, because he brought in Bill 74 last year and he announced that there would be great reduction, 25 per cent reduction, and when the election was over, when he had misrepresented auto insurance to the people of the Province of British Columbia, he refused to proclaim Bill 74, he shaved part 14 off it, section 14 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Your own child, you refused to give it a name. You brought this brave new plan into existence for the benefit of election purposes, and then refused to christen your own child. So the issue is joined, and I say this very frankly, that you people will either bring in public auto insurance in this term of office or you will be swept out of office on this issue. I say you will, I say that on this rock you will flounder, Mr. Premier. This is a real issue.

Yes I know, you've tried to ride two horses. You said, "Oh we're thinking of the public," but the Attorney-General made it very plain today that he was… How much did you get in campaign funds from Wesco Insurance in the last election? The Attorney-General said he didn't get campaign funds from Wesco, and the interesting thing about that is that he did know where he did get his campaign funds, and he did get them from the insurance companies, and he says….oh this great law, this great law, we have legislation with a lot of teeth in it. False! False teeth!

Because when the Insurance Bureau of Canada announces rigged prices, no competition, as was suggested by the member for Nanaimo and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who thinks it should be put out — there's no competition in this field. The Insurance Bureau of Canada announced a flat increase, right across the Dominion of Canada of $13 net, $13 net cost and the Attorney-General gets up and he says just right — just right, plus 6 per cent. There's no competition in this field. There is no combine perhaps in writing, but it's the old business of the gentleman's agreement. The gentleman's agreement is the best of all devices to stabilize our dividends, our profits, and our prices and that's the kind of competition you have in the insurance industry. Sharpen your pencils, says the Attorney-General, they should sharpen their pin heads on that side of the House…. (laughter) ….and the Attorney-General has found a professor to support his plan — from the law school of Osgoode Hall, he says, although Osgoode Hall is no longer a law school, and that professor is ready to go down the line with you and defend the right to sue, he is ready to defend the lawyer's right to sue.

One member talked about the Saskatchewan plan. I don't want to go into it in detail, but I want to give you the net public benefits to the Province of Saskatchewan of their public plan, very briefly. In 1968 they made a profit of $1,020,000, over a million dollars, and they make — I'm coming to the investment part — well below anything we have in British Columbia…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MACDONALD: …They have in the Province of

[ Page 51 ]

Saskatchewan, a premium tax of 3 per cent on their premiums — you have no premium tax in this Province. You have on life insurance, none in this Province. Another public benefit. They have in Saskatchewan a 1 per cent tax on premiums for driver training, something badly needed in this Province. Not under-financed, they financed it through their insurance system, and still make a profit, as I said, in 1968 of over $1,000,000. Then as the member for New Westminster has pointed out, in Saskatchewan the investment income brought into the Treasury $421,000.

Now I say to the member for Nanaimo, who said that the insurance companies were not making money, that they should look at the stark figures of what has been happening in the Province of British Columbia. Here they are, from 1964 to '68, premium income went up from $43,000,000 to $80,000,000. Losses rose, though, only by $34,000,000 to $55,000,000, and the result of that is simply this, that while the income of the auto insurance companies in that period went up by 84 per cent, the loss payouts went up by only 58 per cent. Now who can tell me, with those figures in front of you, that the insurance companies are losing money? They are losing money all the way to the bank. They are making money, and they are making money on a scale which certainly doesn't justify the increase at the present time.

The real problem, Mr. Speaker, that the Government benches are faced with — and why I said this will be an election issue in times to come if they don't go public — is simply this, that in the case of the private insurance companies, 188 of them, of the premium dollar, they give back to the public 65 cents, and 35 cents goes for overhead, commissions, profits, sales, bureaucracy, private bureaucracy. For 35 cents of the premium dollar is lost, so far as the public is concerned, whereas under a public plan, the figure is 10 per cent. That is why we say you can tinker with the present legislation all you like, but we say there is a saving to the public that alone is at least 25 per cent, which you by your votes could make available to the public right now, in this Legislature.

We point out, as the member from New Westminster did, that there is a tremendous profit also on the investment reserves of the insurance companies. Each year, at the present time, the people of British Columbia contribute $80,000,000 in insurance premiums, of which the payout is less. But the point is that the insurance companies have the control and investment of that sum in their hands and this should interest the Premier. Somebody has said that there is a dangerous radical about, a well-known Marxist-Lennonist called Professor Mel Watkins, who said that Canada and British Columbia should retain control where they can of their investment capital, and here you see the insurance companies, largely American-owned, having at their disposal a huge investment fund which they invest not in beautiful British Columbia, but across the line, and we say, Mr. Speaker, that on these investment reserves of the insurance companies, the investment income should remain in the Province of British Columbia. We say that the investment of those reserves in terms of jobs and industry and development should be in the Province of British Columbia. (Applause) Invest in beautiful British Columbia our own dollars. Keep our greenbacks in British Columbia for British Columbia. You can say that's anti-American if you like, Mr. Speaker, but I say it's pro-Canadian.

When I said that the insurance rates could be reduced just on these overhead figures I have given by at least 25 per cent at the present time within a few days of this Legislature acting, I did not include the profits on this investment income, because don't forget you're dealing here with profits never disclosed by the insurance companies. You're dealing with the investment income that the real beneficiaries of high interest rates make. The beneficiaries of the high interest rates are not the little people…but the real beneficiaries of high interest rates in the last two or three years have not been the little people of Canada, but they have been the auto insurance companies.

We say that that money, added to what I suggested was the immediate saving that could be made, should be returned to the Province of British Columbia, saved for the people of British Columbia, used for the development of jobs for our own people. Keep the greenbacks that we ourselves pony up in this Province for the benefit of the Province of B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. ERNEST HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note this afternoon that the deep abiding interest of the Attorney-General in the public interest seemed to disappear so quickly when he put his real Attorney-General's hat on. He talked about the public interest in labour-management disputes and then immediately abandoned them when he spoke as Attorney-General.

I think it's well today to reflect in this amendment on a simple principle that's involved — a principle that the Attorney-General grabbed in the first part of his speech and threw away in the second part — and that is that the purpose of any kind of insurance, including the one we're talking about today, is to enable people to get together to pay a small amount to cover themselves against what could be catastrophic losses, particularly in the form of an automobile accident. We recognize the principle over and over again in this Government, in many Legislatures, in fact the majority of Legislatures, that the purpose of hospital insurance, of medicare insurance, has got to be, based on experience, a public matter. But here we've introduced the principle of compulsion and yet we don't have the real interest of the public at heart by forcing them to go, by literally forcing them to go to private companies.

If you started down this track, Mr. Speaker, you've got to go the whole way. The principle is absolutely clear cut. The principle that has been taken in every other field of endeavour this Government has half-heartedly been thrown into must be continued on this one, and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's absolutely and completely wrong to compel people to purchase insurance from private, profit-making companies. An essential service that we have made this automobile insurance must be administered by a body that's responsible to the public and not by a body that's responsible only to its shareholders and the profit motive. I urge everybody in the House to support this amendment. The principle is well taken and cannot be argued by anybody on the government side.

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

MR. DAVID BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a number of statements were made at the time this new legislation was introduced in the House. One of the more curious was the financial prediction of the Attorney-General that the premiums would be reduced, but that wasn't the reaction of a Mr. E. Burns of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. After the

[ Page 52 ]

legislation was introduced in this House Mr. Burns said about this Government, and I quote, "God bless the Government". (Laughter) Now we know who they were plugged in with, Mr. Speaker, now we know what God they were talking about. Where did those campaign funds come from and where does this commitment go? "God bless the Government", says Mr. Burns of the Insurance Bureau, and of course, who am I to question someone like the Attorney-General and Mr. Burns of the Insurance Bureau? Until it was announced well after the election how much more it would cost for our insurance after we deducted the Attorney-General's deduction — we still ended up across the board at about $22.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. BARRETT: Then we heard that it was too much. It was too much, said the Attorney-General, and they came up with this figure of thirteen. Thirteen. I say, Mr. Speaker, in this House as I said on television, there is a tacit approval to fix prices on the increase of automobile insurance in this Province, and that $13 figure proves it.

Last year the Combines Investigation Department of the Federal Government wrote about the insurance industry in British Columbia and the Insurance Bureau, in their annual report…. The Insurance Bureau, which has been national since 1964, is the group that placed the ads in the newspaper for all the insurance companies here in British Columbia explaining the Government's policy. They, in concert, placed an ad dealing with prices in the newspapers in this Province.

I refer you to a section of the report from the Director of the Combines Enquiry, and he said "Prior to and since the formation of the Bureau counsel for and representatives of the Bureau have on a number of occasions discussed the operations of the Bureau with the Director. Arising out of these discussions and information available to him the Director is of the view that the present situation is not such as to warrant formal enquiry under the Combines Act yet. In his discussions with counsel for the Bureau, however, he has emphasized that if any element of collusion should be present he would have to institute an enquiry and he therefore proposes to keep this situation under close observation."

When I made my statement to the newspaper Mr. Henry, the author of this report and a Director of the Combines Investigation Act, wrote me in Victoria and asked me to send him copies of the ad and any further information I could provide to show that there was a case for collusion, because he was very concerned. I have all of the correspondence here, but I won't take the time in the House to read it — I'll file it all if you want — but some of the interesting things…(interruptions)…

Once Mr. Henry wrote me, then the Hon. Mr. Basford, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, got involved — Mr. Basford, that great Liberal fighter. Some of you may have difficulty, I know that some of you have difficulty in pronouncing his name — Mr. Basford, he wrote back, and he too wanted to know what was happening in British Columbia in the car insurance. I wrote him a couple of letters, in terms of the specific information that I presented Mr. Basford and Mr. Henry asking for an enquiry. I also gave him the results of a study conducted by my research assistant through a number of companies to see how much insurance would cost on the same automobile with the same driver from different companies, and this is the information we forwarded to Mr. Henry. B.C. auto insurance rates effective the 1st of January, 1970, compulsory $50,000 liability and accident benefit on a 1969 Mini 1000 Austin used for travel to office and pleasure, City of Victoria, B.C., two drivers, husband and wife, both over 25, no accidents or convictions. All by telephone — the Harbord Insurance Agency, that great fighter for the car owners in Victoria, the Harbord Insurance liability will cost $39, accident $22 — total $61. The Ennenberg Insurance Agency, by telephone — the liability will cost $39, the accident will cost $22 — the total $61.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a coincidence.

MR. BARRETT: Safeco Insurance Company in Victoria, by telephone — liability will be $39, the accident will be $22 — the total will be $61. Free enterprise at its best. Northwest Mutual through the Gardner Agency in Victoria — liability $39, accident $22 — total $61. I want to tell you that's the kind of free enterprise that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and this Government wants to fight to preserve.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the prices in Nanaimo?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, then we go on to a couple of others. The variance out of the other three is no more than $4, and these prices have been fixed, Mr. Speaker, these have been accepted by this Government, and Mr. Henry is so concerned that he has written me the following letter, dated January the 14th, and I want you to amend your whole approach to this… (interruption) …

Don't be upset Mr. Member. I want you to get up and vote for this amendment after hearing this evidence, because you know that the people in Point Grey would be disappointed in you if you voted against what Mr. Basford is trying to do and what his Deputy from his Department is trying to do.

"Dear Mr. Barrett, Thank you for your letter of December the 29th concerning automobile insurance rates and for the photostats you sent with it. A copy of your letter of December 17th, 1969 to the Honourable Ron Basford, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has also been referred to me for my attention. A thorough review is being made of the information we have on this matter and your request for a formal enquiry under the Combines Investigation Act will be carefully considered in light of the provisions of the Act."

I've since sent more material, Mr. Speaker, and there is no doubt in my mind that after a year of reviewing by Mr. Henry, that this whole insurance price-fixing situation in British Columbia will be investigated.

I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that you now have an opportunity to stand up in this House and vote for the little people of British Columbia versus the large corporations dominated in New York. Now's your chance. Now's your chance. Now's your chance, Mr. Speaker, to test your mettle and see who you're really fighting for as you sit in this House. I tell you and I say it proudly, our record has always been to fight for the people of British Columbia. We'll never vote for New York. British Columbia over anyone at any time, Mr. Speaker. Now you prove it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS (2nd-Vancouver East): Mr.

[ Page 53 ]

Speaker, what we've seen with this Government's stand on automobile insurance and the situation with the Attorney General with egg on his face again on this issue — what we've seen really is a kind of flim-flam — we've got the big story about free enterprise versus socialism. It's the old bogey-man hauled out again when they're in trouble. That's the situation we have.

What we really got under the scheme with this Government is compulsion for the million drivers of British Columbia and compulsory profit for the 188 agencies in British Columbia — that's what we got with this Government. All the commissions that these individual companies will get at the hands of this Government, the generosity, the welfare that you're willing to dole out to the well-to-do is part of the pattern.

Let's compare it with Saskatchewan. What kind of commissions are paid on compulsory insurance in Saskatchewan when they're handled by a private insurance agency? The amount that's paid for the compulsory no-fault insurance in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, is fifteen cents — fifteen cents commission is the commission that's paid under the compulsory legislation in Saskatchewan. No more should be paid in British Columbia.

We shouldn't be paying commissions to these 188 agencies. We shouldn't be building up the kind of bureaucracy that the second member from Vancouver–Point Grey is so disturbed about. We should be concerned, Mr. Speaker, as the member from New Westminster is, about the fact that the insurance companies keep two sets of books. The Honourable the Premier should be familiar with that kind of thing. Two sets of books are kept by the insurance companies in British Columbia and in Canada.

The honourable member from New Westminster referred to the funds they have on hand that they invest and get the profit from, and the profit isn't considered in the total package. The investment returns on their money they keep, and investment returns these days are very high — 10 per cent, 12 per cent on the drivers' money. Even 18 per cent to 22 per cent at Household Finance. Those kinds of returns are being kept by these companies, and the people that are paying the insurance aren't getting the benefit.

The difference in Saskatchewan is that the people that pay get the benefit. It's a pretty simple principle. People that pay get the benefit. Eighty-five per cent of everything paid for premiums in Saskatchewan goes back to the people that paid the premiums. That's the system in Saskatchewan. That leaves the Government of Saskatchewan, the Crown agency, 15 per cent to operate on. Out of that 15 per cent, Mr. Speaker, let's consider this. The Saskatchewan Insurance Scheme is one of the great success stories of North America. That scheme, Mr. Speaker, was funded with only a $12,000 loan from the Government of Saskatchewan in 1946. $12,000 started that Crown insurance organization in Saskatchewan. It was paid back in a year with interest by the Crown organization and the assets now, Mr. Speaker, out of that little 15 per cent the assets of this Crown corporation in Saskatchewan are now almost $50,000,000. Out of the 15 per cent they have assets in buildings and various items and cash of nearly $50,000,000.

It has another side, there's another side, Mr. Speaker. It's bad enough that this money should go out of British Columbia, that our own people's savings should go out of British Columbia, but we could be putting them to work for our municipalities, for our hospitals. Our municipalities right now are unable to borrow, or if they are able to borrow they have to pay extortionate rates, and these funds that the insurance companies now have, these funds could be working on hospital bonds, on municipal bonds and building our own communities in British Columbia. We have a "B.C. First" policy on this side of the House. It's not a Bay Street policy and it's not a Wall Street policy, it's a policy for the people of British Columbia.

The Saskatchewan Crown Agency, Mr. Speaker, had an ad on television in Saskatchewan. It was a pretty simple one and a pretty effective one. They had two dollar bills shown on the TV, screen, and the ad said, "These dollar bills look much the same but one of them got up and flew away." That was the dollar that went into the private insurance scheme, but the dollar in the Government insurance scheme stayed at home and built hospitals and improved municipalities. With these two sets of books that the insurance industry keeps, Mr. Speaker, they have got $768,000,000 across Canada that they invest, $768,000,000 that they have to work with annually, of our money, and that's money that should be working for us.

We've got a system here now in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that penalizes people unreasonably. We've got a system that penalizes the young. How many young drivers with accident-free records are paying extortionate rates for insurance in British Columbia? All of them, all of them, Mr. Speaker. What's the situation in Saskatchewan? What does a driver under 25 pay in terms of extra levies in Saskatchewan? You know what he pays? Under the previous government in Saskatchewan he pays the same as anybody else. Under the Liberal government he pays $2 more. Two dollars more is all the people under 25 in Saskatchewan pay for insurance. They use the demerit system. It's a fair system for the young and the old, but we have a system that is unfair to the young, that robs from the young people of this Province for the benefit of Bay Street and Wall Street.

The honourable second member for Vancouver–Point Grey can be concerned about bureaucracy, but you know there is a Liberal Government in Saskatchewan. It's not going to be a Government there for long, my friend. What does the Honourable Minister of Highways in Saskatchewan say? He's happy with S.D.I.O., he's happy with the Crown Agency, and what has he announced in his little booklet that goes out to every driver in Saskatchewan? He says in his latest booklet "We are pleased that again there will be no increase in premium rates for private passenger cars or farm trucks." No increase in rates. There has been no increase in rates in Saskatchewan for the past three years, and they're moving into a fourth year this time and there will be no increase in rates in Saskatchewan this year either. That's the situation.

The real problem, and what this Government is really giving to private industry in British Columbia, what you are really giving them is the power to tax. You're giving a private cartel a power to tax the people. Taxation without representation. You're giving them the power to tax. But, beyond that you let them use your point system, and I think the point system is a reasonable idea. It has been proven in Saskatchewan. It's evolved in British Columbia since then. But what you are allowing is a surcharge to be levied against people with points, to be levied by the private industry. You're giving them additional rights to tax the citizens of British Columbia. That is what you are giving the private monopoly in British Columbia. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that there are influence peddlers on the edge of Government in British Columbia. There are influence peddlers that don't want some of the legislation that was brought about enacted,

[ Page 54 ]

that don't want public automobile insurance, and these people seem to have the ear of Government. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the real test is how the Government handles it's own insurance problems. It's not a case of — how do you handle your own insurance problems? You don't go out for bids from the private industry. You know what kind of a cartel it is. You don't insure any Government vehicles here in British Columbia. You've got your own public insurance scheme for all the publically-owned vehicles in British Columbia, the Forest Service cars and trucks. You insure them yourselves because you know it's a better deal. All of the civil servants' vehicles, your own vehicles, those are insured by yourselves because you know it's cheaper. You know you'll get robbed by the cartel, and so you don't go along with it, and the most recent example is an interesting one which maybe some of your members may not be aware of. The second mortgage scheme in British Columbia is insured and you insure it yourself with public insurance, you don't go to the private insurance cartels. There's a real test, Mr. Speaker, you know that the private system isn't satisfactory. You know that you'll lose money if you deal with the private insurance cartels that operate in British Columbia, so you don't want to be gouged at this level. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government is willing to let the public be gouged in British Columbia, and the public won't take it for long. The public will want a scheme like Saskatchewan, a scheme that gives them a reasonable deal and serves their needs and keeps their own money at home. Just as we want it here in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. LEO T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): The other day my hopes had risen that the Government had seen the light. Year after year I noticed even the Social Credit convention endorses the Government operated insurance plan, and the other day I listened to the mover of the reply to the Speech from the Throne, the member from Delta, and he said that if the private insurance companies are going to increase the rates that we may have to go to a Government operated plan, and I thought here it is, this is the kite. But, it didn't take many days for this to be shot down by the Attorney-General, and I am sure probably the Attorney-General has had many telegrams in the last couple of days from the insurance companies after the member from Delta had spoken, because I am sure that the insurance companies just shimmered right away because they figured with the majority that the Government has got at the present time that they could even override the insurance companies and the big business. But it definitely shows you where this Government stands and where the Liberals stand in regard to the privileged few in the Province of British Columbia and throughout the country. They stand together, they stand together when it comes to anything that jeopardizes the privileged few. They don't stand with the people. They stand with the privileged few. I will be very interested in knowing how the member for Delta votes when this motion is put before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forget it.

MR. NIMSICK: I remember how you talked in 1952 and '53 when we had Hospital Insurance in its infancy, and how the members of the Social Credit condemned compulsory of anything. Never compel the people to do anything, and here you've done it in the worst possible fashion that you could think of. We find now that you are forcing the millions of car drivers in the Province of British Columbia to run around the country and to take insurance out whether they like it or not, and this is one of the things, one of principles that Social Credit used to decry about the previous Government and about our policies. Now what are you doing, you are doing exactly the same thing.

When we talk of Saskatchewan, they say it costs them 15 per cent of the premium dollar for administration costs. Fifteen per cent of the premium dollar, that's far more than the premium dollar of the private insurance company, so it would make it far worse when the private company charges 35 per cent for administration of a higher premium dollar. We feel that the Saskatchewan plan has proven itself throughout this country, and I think that this Government would adopt it, except that they think they're playing politics all the time, and they are not thinking of the people and thinking of the benefits of the people in B.C. We have the Premier going around the country talking about restraint, talking about trying to put a brake on inflation. Now here is a way you can do it. Not only stop the increase, but reduce the rate to the people of British Columbia, and you can stop this continual inflationary trend that is going on at the present time, and the confusion that the present system caused.

The first of January, 1970, the people of British Columbia didn't know where they were at. Some of them had insurance. They didn't know whether they were covered under the new scheme or whether the old scheme wasn't sufficient. Many of them didn't have insurance at all. So, they had to go find out what they had to do to get insurance. What a simplified way it would be for the police. Now the police have to run up to a car and say "let me see your drivers licence, let me see your insurance". If you sold your insurance with your licence plates this wouldn't be necessary. The police force wouldn't have to go to all this trouble. I was reading over the point system that they got and all the chintzey things that you got down here. You got 2 points for this and 3 points for that and this is going to drive the police crazy, and the drivers too, and on top of this the department in trying to put all of these one points and two points and three points together. For things that are of no value to our society at all, many of the things that you got in there. Here is a place where you could relieve the police of a great problem, relieve the department of a great problem because no car would be licensed without insurance, and you wouldn't have to worry when you stopped a car that is licensed in British Columbia, you'd know that it was insured right then and there, and you wouldn't have this bother.

When anybody says a Government-operated plan, and when the member for Vancouver–Point Grey stated that we should tender out our insurance, I wonder what a game the insurance companies would have. This year this insurance company would get us, and the next year that one, and they'd have it all arranged, and you'd have a fine set-up when it came to paying the price. I don't think that that would work at all, in a policy that is dominated by a monopoly or by a cartel, as they say. There is no competition. The honourable member for Nanaimo tried to let on that we've got competition in insurance. We have no competition in the automobile insurance and for that matter in many of the other insurances as well. We've got 188 companies, 188 companies. The Province of Saskatchewan didn't change the policies that were adopted by the C.C.F. Government before

[ Page 55 ]

them, because they knew it was a great saving to the public of Saskatchewan.

At the present time the people don't know exactly where they're at. No wonder somebody got picked up without insurance, but if the insurance went with the car licence there would be no problem. There would be a great saving to the people, and not only stopping the inflationary trend in this instance, but we would retard it and indirectly we could drive it back down again, and it would be a great benefit for all the people of British Columbia. I say to this Government, do as your Social Credit convention wants you to do. Live up to what the little people in your party are asking you to do, and then you will be doing something. Don't just live up to the people that have paid the campaign funds that you spend millions of dollars on an election. Don't try and cater to them, cater to the people that really support you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, just a small point but perhaps of some significance. The second member from Vancouver East took great pride in the fact that the Saskatchewan Insurance Commission started off with $12,000 and today have in assets $50,000,000 in Saskatchewan. I would just like to say this, that it seems a rather interesting thing that what we are talking about here really isn't insurance, it's just another form of taxation that the Saskatchewan Government is levelling on the people who drive cars to subsidize the people who don't drive cars. It's just as simple as that. If the Government of Saskatchewan were doing the right thing by the motorist, who's the guy who is paying the shot, then they would make this thing go just at a level whereby they could pay their premiums, so that they weren't getting a great big nest egg to try and subsidize other forms of endeavour that the Government were doing. But, it is a pretty obvious thing to the average person that when you start from $12,000 and end up w with $50,000,000 in a very short space of time that the motorist is paying the shot, that he is being overcharged, and you think that that's a great idea. Well it's not my idea of automobile insurance, and I think I'd just as soon have the B.C. plan as that sort of jiggery pokery.

It's a rather interesting thing also that here we have the Leader of the Opposition…who gets up and makes a great song and dance about the premiums being flat-rated and being exactly the same, which they are presumably on an actuarial basis, and he doesn't object to the fact that in the Government plan it is exactly the same way. I am sure you don't find in the Government plan that there are five different prices.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. BARRIE A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I know there are members of the House waiting with anticipation as to how I am going to vote on this particular issue. I just said some, not all members. Quite often in this Assembly I have found myself in the position of agreeing with the motion until people started speaking on it, but I wish to reassure those who have been waiting, that despite what I have heard from the people on my right, I intend to vote in favour of the forward-thinking policies of the Liberal government in Saskatchewan and support the tremendous…

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

The question is, that the motion in reply to the Opening Speech 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."

The amendment was negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Messieurs

NAYS — 39

Messieurs

The debate resumed on the main motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. DONALD A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this latest move by the members of the Opposition ranks, judging by their inconsistency, seems to be endeavouring to point out that our Government doesn't take first place for perfection. This I might agree with, but I would hasten to point out that it's a long way ahead of whatever comes in second place.

Mr. Speaker, today as I stand for the first time in this House, and take my place in this Legislative Assembly, I find it a humbling experience indeed, and I do so with a great deal of honour. To represent that great northern constituency of South Peace River places before me a tremendous responsibility, of which I fully realize, in presenting to this Assembly the needs of the North and at the same time explaining the tremendous great benefits to be derived from the North. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity of congratulating you on your being chosen Speaker. Since my election, and indeed many times since then, I have heard numerous good comments on your ability and the sense of fairness in the discharge of your duties.

At this time, I would like to state also that I am acutely

[ Page 56 ]

aware of the way this Government has brought to the people of British Columbia, security, prosperity and a sense of real pride in the management of their affairs. I look on our leader, the member from South Okanagan, and all the members of his Cabinet with great admiration and I hold in respect all the members in this House who have served in previous parliaments and have had a part in the forward planning and legislation that has set this Province as a leader in all of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope and prayer that I may prove to be a worthy member, and carry on the heritage that has been placed before me. I would also like to congratulate the new members, who the same as I, take their plate for the first time in this House.

There has been much said in this House before about the development of the North. Being a member from the North and being fully aware of the potential and resultant benefits to the rest of the Province and to the country as a whole, I would like to make a few remarks in that regard myself. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that this Government has really been the leader in all of Canada in developing the northern part of the Province it governs. The most amazing thing about this great operation is the utter lack of interest and the immature thinking displayed by the general population from the south part of the Province. Perhaps I should qualify this remark further, and say that I am amazed at the press media and the Opposition parties who are, or seem to be, against development of the North. I suppose I can't really say that the population are against the development of the North because they are definitely aware of the great benefits. This fact, Mr. Speaker, was eloquent proof beyond all doubt when the people went to the polls last August 27th. The resounding majority given this Government was a complete endorsation of its policies, and one of the most outstanding policies this Government has had in the past 18 years has been the development of the North to the benefit of the South — contrary to comments from the member from Atlin.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make that point perfectly clear. This Government has the mandate from the people to carry on the work in the northern part of this Province — the people of this Province have asked this Government to carry on with its policy of northern development. The voters in the north, the south, the central areas, and the voters in the Islands have all endorsed this policy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility rests on this Parliament to carry on this policy and enlarge and speed up the work. The people have spoken, let's proceed with all our resources to carry on their wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I am not at this time going to go back over all the great history-making events that have taken place in the North in the last 17 years. All that has been said in this House many times before, but I do want to recall a few of the happenings of the last year. Discovery of oil in the north slope of Alaska, the subsequent study proving the competitiveness with foreign oil, and the routes presently being studied of moving crude to U.S. markets, should be of immense interest to the developers of the North and to our Province and to our country as a whole. We should be acutely interested in developing a pipeline route from the north slope across Canada, which is presently under study. For if this pipeline ties into existing lines of Inter-Provincial and Trans-Mountain, this pipeline would have the additional advantage of being able to draw on oil supplies from a vastly greater potential oil-producing area within our Province. Mr. Speaker, in stating that this Government should endorse a Canadian pipeline route as opposed to tanker shipments, it is not stated politically in opposing the economics of the route, but we should bear in mind trade relations with the United States, remove trade barriers and more closely integrate our economies.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a few years ago that I was involved in the petroleum industry, and so-called experts stated that we had unlimited supplies of natural gas. The United States now has a far more urgent need for natural gas than crude oil, and I am sure that we will see a north-south gas pipeline across Canada for, unlike oil, the only economically feasible way of moving Alaskan north slope gas to U.S. markets will be by pipeline. The only feasible way to construct this pipeline is to draw once again from vast gas-producing areas within our Province and country. Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see our trade relations affected to the point where we have a preferential marketing position for Alaskan oil, and one-sided demands for our natural gas. Gas requirements in the United States are critical, as has been proven, and I cannot help but express some concern over man utilizing natural gas as a remedy to environmental pollution problems only to create another, in creating excess requirements for this energy source. This Alaskan development is an asset to the mighty Peace River, in that it spurs activity in the service industries and creates employment. We have heard of tug and barge sea-lifts of some 100,000 tons of supplies being shipped from Seattle to the Alaskan Arctic coast, and additional supplies moving from Canada down the MacKenzie River. This year, estimated tonnage to be shipped will be in excess of some 300,000 tons.

It is here, Mr. Speaker, where I must mention the necessity of paving the Alaska Highway. This has all been said before, but the Federal Government has stated that if we in British Columbia are interested in the paving of this highway, a commitment must be made from our Government. Federal Government can find many excuses for not realizing the potential in developing the North, and they allege that this Province has made no firm commitments in suggesting a cost-sharing programme. It will be most interesting to hear of some of the suggestions that are put forth by the people researching the monies realized from the Alaskan off sales as it might apply to this communication link, the kind of communication link that is so essential to the economic development of our northern regions. Quoting from the Great Falls Leader Newspaper, Monday, September 15, 1969: "We do not wish to seem presumptuous, but an excellent way for Alaska to spend some of the $900,000,000 realized from the sale of oil leases on State-owned land, would be to help finish paving the Alaska Highway. The investment would be returned many times. The oil industry, which is responsible for this financial windfall to the 49th State, would be one of the greatest users of the highway, if its full length were paved. Regardless of the complexities, we believe Alaskan leaders would do well to consider the possibility of using the oil money or part of the oil money to finish the highway." end of quote.

Mr. Speaker, it has been shown by the Pattel Report and many others, that the paving of the Alaska Highway is economically sound. Surely in view of the most recent developments, any doubts that have been expressed should be quickly set aside. All Chambers of Commerce have been advocating this paving project for many years. The Dawson Creek Chamber in particular, who has given this project much attention, work and support, only to have their efforts fall on deaf ears. Since 1963, when the Dawson Creek Chamber took

[ Page 57 ]

upon itself to promote this highway, an aggressive continuing programme has been under way and all the facts, data, and feasibility studies have been presented many times. Mr. Speaker, Arthur Laing has stated recently that at the present time the paving of the Alaska Highway is not considered one of the Federal Government's priority programmes. He further states that should the United States Government indicate, through official channels, an interest in the highway, they would certainly be prepared to enter into discussion. The same comment was made that if British Columbia is willing to share in the construction costs or the maintenance costs, the Federal Government would have to be notified through official channels.

Mr. Speaker, let British Columbia again take the lead and actively promote this vital communication link so necessary to our North. Once again, as a leader in Canada, it behooves us to take on the responsibility of seeing this project through to its finalization. It is interesting to note at this point Mr. Speaker, that it has come to my attention that Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator for the State of Alaska, is now proposing for U.S. Congress a cost-sharing plan for joint paving of the Alaska Highway. The U.S. share in paving 80 per cent, and the Canadian share in paving 20 per cent, providing Canada to assume the responsibility of maintenance for all the Canadian sections. Surely when we consider the present maintenance cost of this highway, this Bill, if passed, should give the Federal Government the incentive it needs.

When we look back ten years we find how good this past decade has been, and as we discuss communication links and natural resources, I would not like it said of this Government that it took for granted another natural resource, or one that I feel should be requalified as a natural resource, and that is our agricultural industry. An industry that has not enjoyed all the amenities and planning provided others in the 60's. Agriculture generally, and anyone engaged in food production is facing a time of crisis. Mr. Speaker, I have some very definite thoughts in this regard. Historically, Canada has been developed on a basis of agricultural expansion. It is this statement that prompts me to point out that I do not feel that the agricultural problem is one solely isolated unto itself.

In order to elaborate on this point, Mr. Speaker, we must look at the development of Canada from 1867 to 1949 as the Provinces entered Confederation. The development of the West was done to the financial gain of the East. It has always been so. Separatist ideas are growing in the West. Statements that there has been enough East take and West give. When we hear that more than half of Saskatchewan's residents could now be seriously in favour of considering the separation of the Western Provinces from the rest of Canada, and resolutions submitted at farm organizations to provide assistance to groups organizing a programme for secession of the four Western Provinces, this feeling of alienation, which is a fact of life, would be foolish to ignore. We have an economic situation in our agricultural industry that is so disastrous.

Coming from the bread basket of British Columbia to this very industrious area and seeing everyone, I am pleased to say, so well fed, the people generally here have no idea how really bad it is. The member from Omineca, our Minister of Agriculture, is cognizant of all the problems. He has called an emergency meeting for early in February, and I'm surprised that he has had such poor support to this suggestion, even from the farmers, and I'm critizing the farmers in not supporting him strongly on his proposals. I am pleased to read that these same resolutions however, professing secession, were defeated, for I'm a Canadian first and believe that the future can best be realized under a Federal system of Government predicated upon the equal and fair treatment of all Canadian citizens irrespective of their racial origin, culture, religion or economic status…. This, however, Mr. Speaker, is an inherited political structure, and there is nothing to substantiate or any reason for us to think that the Constitution is immortal.

Federally, Canada is too large a nation to serve such social needs as transportation, pollution and land use controls, a fact in which the Canadian Wheat Board could be used as a classic example. The Federal Government's approach to farmers' problems is to form committee upon committee, resolving nothing. Otto Lang, the head of the Canadian Wheat Board, is not a man of action, and one who appears not to care or is reluctant to do anything about it. The farmers' expectations and investment decisions have been legitimately based, particularly during the past five years, on optimistic Government forecasts of markets. Why then did not Otto Lang have salesmen flooding out of Canada, particularly to areas such as Brazil where they want to buy wheat from Canada instead of from the United States.

Back in 1967, with a carry-over of 577,000,000 bushels and the expected 1967 wheat crop estimated at 100,000,000 bushels, Canada knew that we would have 1.2 billion bushels available for export. Despite this knowledge, that same year we were running about 100,000,000 bushels below that of 1966 export. They had further knowledge that Eastern Europe was staging a come-back and so-called underdeveloped countries were increasing grain production greatly. What was the Canadian farmer told, Mr. Speaker? He was told to be prepared to feed the world's starving millions, to become more efficient and produce more. This they did, Mr. Speaker, with the fastest increase in efficiency of any industry in the world, and they produced themselves right out of a market. It remains still the only industry that places a commodity on the market, holds out their hands and asks what will you give me.

I hasten to add though, Mr. Speaker, that there is a clear responsibility on the part of the food producer himself, a responsibility that he has bought and paid for dearly. Farmers themselves have lost sight of true business management, and they have lost sight of having something to say about prices and their mode of life.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I would like to ask leave of the House to sit after 6 o'clock to let the member finish his speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? So ordered.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you very much. I beg your indulgence for not too long a time.

Farmers who want to manage their business must know properly and accurately, with absolute precision, marketing trends, productivity, quality, location and condition, and they must adopt at some point in their marketing transaction an "or else" attitude.

This brings me back, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we inherited the present political system and we shouldn't consider that our Constitution is immortal and that there is absolutely no room for improvement. In December, 1968, proposals of the Province of British Columbia on the Constitution of Canada pointed out that the time has come to recognize that in the interest of economic realities the

[ Page 58 ]

boundaries of some of the Provinces will have to be altered and the separate existence of some other Provinces will have to be abolished so as to provide five viable and economic political units. It also calls for the Federal Government to extend by legislation the boundaries of each of the applicable Provinces northward to the northern limits of continental Canada. How wonderfully well these changes would have affected agriculture.

I now feel that we must take charge provincially of this basic industry, and not only provide the farmers the opportunity afforded to other businesses in Canada to operate on a reasonable prediction of market, but to be more meaningful in forming a part of the farmers' production decision, relating as directly as possible all sales opportunities. This can only be done by taking charge of all sales opportunities, transportation, marketing, and all grain handling equipment by the establishment of a Crown Corporation. This can be done within the confines of Canada's Confederation, with the Canadian Wheat Board having first call on grain as it applies to export demands. But, Mr. Speaker, our beef producers want their feed requirements at a price that is competitive to their counterparts in other Provinces, but they also desire and must have a continuity of supply.

We in British Columbia should undoubtedly do all possible to assist in the establishment of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area, but we should also be mindful of the similar exciting possibilities which exist in the Pacific Trade Area. The Pacific Rim is seen as a vast new food market. Changing food habits in Japan and the Pacific Rim could provide vast new markets for the commodities produced by our farmers. For example, there are 100,000,000 people in Japan alone, with food imports rising at an average of 15 per cent. The demand for processed food increased by 30 per cent as a result of a dramatic increase in the Japanese standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that British Columbia, as a leader in Canada, in establishing a Crown Corporation would not only provide the farmer with the marketing information he must have, but would provide a system allowing the farmer to trade for commodities affecting his input. If we take the five economic regions of Canada, and perhaps shift the type of production to areas more particularly suited, I am confident with a reorganized Canadian Wheat Board or a Canadian Agricultural Export Council made up of representatives of all levels of government, producers, and private agencies, we can do a much better selling job than the Federal Government. We will be able to provide the necessary marketing information, provide far more suitable protection eliminating the boot-legging of grain, and with area orientation in each economic region providing a more stringent enforced law to prevent the exploitation we hear so much about today, we can have a more equitable pricing system situation between producers and consumers. Within this system we can redirect present funds under the Land Clearing Assistance Act, said funds which are not being presently utilized with an economical reasoning.

By legislation, we must establish a feeder association to assist our farmers to diversify, with a similar association to provide guaranteed funds for the farmer to diversify to a cow-calf operation under planned — and I repeat, planned — production. These associations have worked well in our sister Province of Alberta, much to the benefit of their agricultural industry. Food production, Mr. Speaker, is a basic industry, and one that must be supported by this field of endeavour. I am most surprised that our Department of Agriculture has not put forth sufficient data in the past to convince members of the absolute necessity of establishing a satisfactory method to assist our producer to diversify in order to provide him with a more viable economic farm unit.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, the people engaged in agricultural activities, particularly grain producers, do find themselves in an economic situation so drastic that they will soon be akin to Saskatchewan, where we hear there are as many as 1,800 farm people leaving a month during the past three months. They have their backs to the wall, and it is up to this Government to provide an answer to this complex agricultural problem. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that these are the people who toiled and sweated to first develop our Province.

Our Federal Government sits on its hands while all other countries probe rising costs of foods. From October '68 to October '69 we had 11.5 per cent increase in food costs, while in the same period farm profits dropped by approximately 20 per cent in the overall industry. This leads to the question of who gets the increase, the marketing agencies, the processors or, Mr. Speaker, the middle man. Now that the selling prices of grains are at below cost of production, Otto Lang supports curtailing boot-legging of grain. He did nothing when our producers were getting $1.60 per bushel. I personally appealed, as did many others in British Columbia, to Canadian Wheat Board inspectors and to the Federal Government two years ago to enforce regulations covering this illegal movement, but now when farmers must sell at other than Wheat Board prices in order to retain their farms, he says they are stealing from each other but provides no other answer for their continued existence.

Aggressive marketing and accurate marketing information are the agricultural industry's most urgent needs, not blanket loaning of money, as proposed by various other Governments, as we know that without planned production we will produce another commodity surplus. The Federal Government advocates that we take ten to twenty million acres out of wheat production and produce barley and other livestock feed. This, also, is no answer — to produce efficient additional feeds which, when consumed, will cause an approximate 300 per cent increase in the production of eggs, beef, hogs, sheep, and poultry.

As it has been pointed out, the grain problem will take nearly 500,000,000 from the gross national product of Canada. Let our dynamic Province be the leader in showing to the nation the solution to this problem, as it is this Government's responsibility to show and lead Canada the way out of not only the depression effect of this basic industry, but all inflationary effects with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to point out measures of alleviating the grain problem, and I have endeavoured to point out that the key to British Columbia reaping the benefits from its northern development rather than losing them to Alberta, or having them sail by our beautiful west coast, is in the Alaska Highway and subsequent communication links, such as an all-weather road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. As men, supplies and equipment move out of our area to Alaska, transportation, supply and service industries should enjoy an economic upsurge in supplying the new oil industry. It has been pointed out to this Government many times that we must plan and have orderly development of the North. Dawson Creek, the famed Mile 0 of the Alaska Highway with its rail and road facilities, is the obvious location for service industries for the great

[ Page 59 ]

northern area. I want to repeat that we do not want to lose out to Alberta with supplies moving out the MacKenzie Highway from Fort Simpson instead of from Fort Nelson, particularly when the Alaska Highway is of utmost concern to both Alberta and British Columbia.

Quoting from answers in Hansard by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, dated October 30, 1969, the first portion of the Fort Simpson and Fort Leard Highway, Mile 296 to Mile 258, is now under construction, and there has been no communication between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of British Columbia requesting participation in the construction of an all-weather highway between Fort Nelson and Fort Simpson. I would suggest that we now give firm commitment to constructing the balance of this road from Fort Nelson to the British Columbia border, as the Federal Government will be calling tenders by the end of January for a further 60 miles of the Fort Leard Highway.

Communication links, resources, power and water were the prerequisites which prompted the construction on a $100,000,000 complex on the mighty Peace. More industry will follow that which already exists as industrialists realize the great benefits the North offers. More exploration, bigger markets, bigger profits with more jobs created will contribute greatly to the financial revenues of this Province.

But again, Mr. Speaker, let us not take our resources for granted for a gain in the United States. A 33-State Commission that serves as a forum on oil and gas conservation matters has said that a gas supply shortage can be expected unless new reserves are increased sharply, and they are now reporting that only nuclear explosion to stimulate production holds the potential of increasing the U.S. proved reserves of natural gas. The U.S. is looking to our North for additional reserves.

Once again, I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that we do have a sense of alienation from the south part of this Province in development of the North. This fact we cannot ignore. Richard Rohmer's Mid-Canada Development Corridor group came face to face with this problem on their most recent trip. Let's rid ourselves of this feeling of alienation. We have the people, the industrialists, the businessmen, the educationalists, the needs, the markets and the Government. Let's proceed with all dispatch to meet the will of the people. I thank you.

On the motion of the Hon. P.A. Gaglardi, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.