1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4283 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Possible refunds on body

shop surcharges. Mr. Morrison — 4283

Indian land claims. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4283

Cridge Centre exempt from rent stabilization cost. Hon.

Mr. Nicolson answers — 4284

Ocean Falls-Gottesman contract. Mr. Gibson — 4284

Ocean Falls paper output reserved for B.C. market. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4284

Publication of environmental study on Saanich marina. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4284

Racially discriminatory terms in PNE correspondence.

Mrs.

Jordan — 4284

Replies to long-standing questions. Mr. Smith — 4285

Extent of BCTF teacher control. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4285

Energy Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 18).

Third reading — 4285

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Third reading.

Mr. Smith — 4285

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4285

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4286

Mr. Gibson — 4286

Mrs. Webster — 4287

Mrs. Jordan — 4287

Mr. Bennett — 4287

Mr. Richter — 4288

Mr. Phillips — 4288

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4289

Division on motion to postpone third reading — 4289

Division on third reading — 4289

Community Resources Act (Bill 84). Third reading.

Division on third reading — 4290

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105).

Third reading — 4290

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 119).

Third reading — 4290

Institute of Technology (British Columbia) Act. (Bill

134).

Third reading — 4290

Strata Titles Act (Bill 141).

Third reading — 4290

Assessment Act (Bill 151).

Third reading — 4290

Universities Act (Bill 157).

Third reading — 4290

Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159).

Third reading — 4290

Audit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 163). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4290

Committee, report and third reading — 4291

Mineral Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 48). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4291

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4291

Mr. Richter — 4291

section 8.

Mr. Gibson 4292

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4292

section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 4292

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4292

Mr. Richter — 4292

section 14.

Mr. Gibson — 4293

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4293

section 15.

Mr. Gibson — 4293

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4293

section 21.

Mr. Gibson — 4293

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4294

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4294

Third reading — 4294

Coal Act (Bill 92). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4294

section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 4294

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4295

section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 4295

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4295

section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 4295

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4295

section 26.

Mr. Gibson — 4296

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4296

section 29.

Mr. Gibson — 4296

Report and third reading — 4297

Prospectors Assistance Act (Bill 94). Committee stage.

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 4297

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4298

Mr. Gibson — 4298

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4298

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4298

section 6.

Mr. Richter — 4299

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4299

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4299

Mr. Fraser — 4300

Mr. Gibson — 4300

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4301

Mr. Gibson — 4301

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4302

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4302

Division on

section 6 — 4302

Report and third reading — 4304

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 132).

Committee stage.

section 10.

Mr. Smith — 4303

section 11a.

Mr. Smith — 4303

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4304

Report and third reading — 4305

Placer Mining Act (Bill 144). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 4305

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4305

section 2.

Mr. Richter — 4305

Mr. Gibson — 4305

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4306

Mr. Fraser — 4306

section 6.

Mr. Richter — 4306

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4307

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4307

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4307

section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 4307

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4307

section 12.

Mr. Gibson — 4307

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4308

section 16.

Mr. Gibson — 4308

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4308

section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 4308

section 23.

Mr. Gibson 4308

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4308

Report and third reading — 4309

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Committee

stage.

section 21.

Mr. McClelland — 4309

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4309

Mr. Bennett — 4310

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4310

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4311

Mr. Bennett — 4311

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4312

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4312

Mr. Phillips — 4312

Mr. Smith — 4313

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4315

Mr. Fraser — 4315

Division on

section 21 — 4316

section 25.

Mrs. Jordan — 4316

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4316

section 28.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 4316

section 29.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4317

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4317

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4317

section 35.

Mr. Smith 4318

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4318

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4319

section 40.

Mr. Richter — 4319

Hon. Mr. Radford — 4319

Report and third reading — 4320

Motions Motion 36 approved — 4320

Motion 37 approved — 4320

Motion 32 adjourned debate.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4320

Mr. Phillips — 4325

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4327

Mr. Bennett — 4328

Mr. Gibson — 4329

Mr. Fraser — 4329

Mrs. Jordan — 4330

Division on amendment to refer motion back — 4330

Mr. Bennett — 4330

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4330

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4333

Division on motion 32 — 4334

Royal assent to bills — 4335

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

POSSIBLE REFUNDS ON

BODY SHOP SURCHARGES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that

ICBC has made arrangements with most body shops in British

Columbia, on a bid basis, has ICBC established a policy yet

regarding those people who had to pay surcharges to the body

shops in order to have their cars repaired? Will they be able

to apply to ICBC for a refund?

I understand that those people who did in fact sign work

orders have no opportunity for a refund. But those people who

did not sign work orders in order to get their cars repaired,

will they have an area where they can apply for a refund?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I don't

know of any procedures that could be used to provide for refunds. The directors

have not considered it as yet.

MR. MORRISON: A supplemental. Would it be worthwhile for

some of those people to indicate to you the problems they have

had? Would you reconsider the possibility of a refund for those

few areas where it wasn't settled and is now arranged?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm familiar with what occurred, so I

know the details of what was happening. As you indicated, most

of the body shops had the individuals whom they were

overcharging sign a document in which they agreed to pay this

overcharge. We'll consider anything, but you know, I'm familiar

with the situation.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many

cars were repaired and the towing costs were absorbed by ICBC

in areas where they weren't settled, some of the people who

didn't demand that kind of settlement, and did in fact pay

overcharges, are anxious to know if they could have the same

kind of treatment as the people whose cars were towed, for

example to Duncan from Port Alberni, and the charges paid for

by ICBC.

INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the

Premier whether he'd replied to a letter from the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs, a letter dated June 14, 1974, which requested

that the government indicate whether or not there would be

meetings between the government, the Indian chiefs and the

federal government concerning land claims.

The Premier took the question as notice, but as the

appropriate Minister is not in the House, may I ask whether the

provincial government intends to meet with the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs and the federal authorities with respect to

Indian bands which have not signed treaties with the federal

government or the predecessor government?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I think that a statement of the government will be forthcoming in the very near

future regarding this question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is the expectation of

some Members at least that this session has perhaps not got

more than four or five weeks left. May I ask the Minister

whether we will see such a statement. prior to the termination

of this session, or whether or not we will simply have to wait

until some press release announces it in mid-summer?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, with the opposition fighting among

itself the way it is, Mr. Speaker, there may well be time to

present the data to the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I agree that the right wing seems

in total disarray. (Laughter.) I would like to, perhaps,

suggest to the Minister that that is no reason for the

government which holds such a large number of seats — and

according to its own claim, such an enormous amount of support

of the people of British Columbia — delaying a decision on a

matter of fairly vital interest.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is this a speech or is there going

to be a question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would just like to repeat the question.

Could we perhaps have some sort of calendar?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you had an answer on that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: July, August? When do you expect, Mr.

Minister, to present to either this Legislature or to the

people of B.C. a date and a policy regarding Indian land

claims, in particular with

[ Page 4284 ]

respect to bands that have not signed treaties with either

the federal government or the predecessor or imperial

government?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the question's been answered,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I can't see that you can press the same

question and get a different answer.

CRIDGE CENTRE EXEMPT

FROM RENT STABILIZATION COST

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the leader of the Conservative Party asked a question

concerning Bishop Cridge Centre. It does have, as I suspected, a

section 15 loan from Central Mortgage and Housing, and as a non-profit

society, they are exempt from the rent stabilization Act by

order-in-council 1905, June 6, 1974.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question for the Attorney-General: in

light of the fact that officials of the Attorney-General's

department suggested that the Act does apply and the way to

achieve some reduction in rent is by way of a public

prosecution, and I dealt with two ladies who were involved in

this just a short time ago — this is with respect to the Bishop

Cridge housing, Mr. Minister — may I ask the Attorney-General

whether he will consult with the Minister of Housing so that

misleading information regarding possible prosecutions is not

issued to the public due to the lack of communication between

these two departments?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I'll be

glad to consult because there's never been any misleading

information issued by this government. We certainly wouldn't

want anything like that to happen.

OCEAN FALLS-GOTTESMAN CONTRACT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, following up on a question I asked two or three

weeks ago. During his estimates he mentioned that there was a

contract being renegotiated between Ocean Falls and the

Gottesman company. I'd ask him if these negotiations are now

substantially complete.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They're in process, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker — would the Minister undertake

to advise the House, if it's sitting at the time or make a public announcement

if the House is not, when these negotiations are complete? Could he undertake

to do that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the reports of the corporation

will be made available in due course.

MR. GIBSON: But in a timely fashion, Mr. Speaker.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes.

OCEAN FALLS PAPER OUTPUT

RESERVED FOR B.C. MARKET

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the fact that many weekly

newspapers, in particular the Cowichan Leader, have to go to

the United States to buy Canadian newsprint to bring back to

Canada so that they can keep their struggling newspapers alive,

may I ask the Minister whether in the renegotiation of this

particular contract it will be made an exclusive contract to

deal with all output? Or will some of the Ocean Falls output be

reserved for the British Columbia market to deal with cases

such as the one I've just. described?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's not an exclusive contract at the

moment, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDY ON SAANICH MARINA

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further question to the same Minister.

May I ask the Minister whether the environmental impact

statements dealing with the new marina on the east coast of the

Saanich Peninsula adjacent to the east Saanich Indian reserve

will be made public so that the concern of the Indians in the

area, and the Members of this particular band regarding the

anti-fouling properties of 2,000 boats which will, in their

view, destroy entirely all shellfish and other marine life in

the area…? Will that study be made public in the near

future so we can judge whether or not this is indeed a good

idea?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, any reports

within my jurisdiction will be made available and public.

RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY

TERMS IN PNE CORRESPONDENCE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A further question to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. The other day I

asked him about the use of the racially discriminatory terms in

relation to the

[ Page

4285 ]

is suing of space and the letter related to the issuing of

space at the PNE. The Minister advised the House that he would

look into this particular incident on why this term was used in

the PNE under government jurisdiction — practising racial

discrimination in terminology, and also how the spaces were

being allotted. Would he report to the House today?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm sorry I haven't discussed that

matter with the management at the PNE. As I indicated on a

previous occasion, the board is an autonomous board and

includes representatives from the city council and the Parks

Board in the City of Vancouver.

I'm pleased at the turn of events and that the opposition is

most concerned about discriminatory statements being made.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean

that the Minister's going to condone racial discrimination and

bigotry in the PNE, which is under his jurisdiction?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, but I'm pleased that the official

opposition is repenting.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that

question period is reserved for matters under the jurisdiction

of the Minister? It's clear from the Act in question that it is

an autonomous board and therefore not subject to this

government — unless you want to change the statute.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your day, Bob.

REPLIES TO LONG-STANDING QUESTIONS

MR. SMITH: Mr. Minister, I have on the order paper questions

No. 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 170, which have been there for

approximately two months. Would the Minister indicate when I

might receive a reply to the questions I've asked?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would hope this evening, Mr.

Speaker.

EXTENT OF BCTF TEACHER CONTROL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education and Deputy Premier.

May I ask the Minister whether she is now in a position to report to the House

on a question raised fairly frequently over the last two months — namely, the

right or the desire of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation to censure

their own members in such a way that they would be barred from any possible

teaching in British Columbia schools despite the fact that the Department of

Education itself has no reason to object to their performance?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, I have had a

meeting with the B.C. Teachers' Federation over that particular

concern. They were not in a position to carry on with too long

a meeting because apparently they are at the present time

discussing with their lawyers the constitutionality and

legality of the actual motion passed. They will be in

consultation and meeting with me again once that area is

cleared up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister then, since we may

not have many opportunities to question her again, whether we

could have an assurance that the government will not permit

qualified teachers, with which the Department of Education has

no quarrel, to be barred from teaching in the Province of

British Columbia by a decision of the executive of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am not prepared to give that assurance

until I've had my meeting with the teachers' federation.

Orders of the day.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Public bills and orders. Report on Bill

18, Mr. Speaker.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 18 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I wish to

move an amendment to the motion to read Bill 31 now by striking

out the word "now" and substituting therefore "six months

hence."

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: It can be moved again in the third reading, as

you well know, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker,

nevertheless, this matter in substance has been decided by the

House. The vote in committee has been reported to you as

Speaker rejecting the notion that this bill should be hoisted

for six months.

[ Page 4286 ]

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Attorney-General

that he's faced with the situation that if a bill had not in

any sense been changed between the time that motion was made in

second reading to this time, then perhaps his point would be

valid. But there have been amendments to the bill in the

committee stage. Consequently I would have to say, with

respect, that I think the amendment is in order.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to the amendment, I'll be brief. I think that we

have thoroughly canvassed the reasons why this bill should be

hoisted for six months. We feel that it's probably the most

important piece of legislation to come before this House with

respect to. the actual impact it will have on many individuals

and people associated with the mining industry in the Province

of British Columbia, who are at this very time concerned enough

to be present in the capital on the legislative grounds

concerning their position on Bill 31.

Certainly I don't intend to canvass again all the arguments

and the reasons we have put forward, because debate has been

extensive. It's obvious that the Minister has not listened to

what we have had to say. It's regrettable.

I predict that the type of legislation you have introduced

and seem to be concerned to jam down the throats of the

industry in this province will result in not only a decline but

the elimination of any new mining exploration and prospecting

in the Province of British Columbia.

It is for that reason we think that this bill should go to

the hands of a committee that would circulate throughout the

province and get comments and criticisms and suggestions from

the people who are most concerned. They are the individuals who

will be directly affected by this legislation in the Province

of British Columbia.

For that reason I move that the bill be hoisted six

months.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the same point, Mr.

Speaker.

It is the belief of our party that a six-month hoist would

be desirable for this bill, particularly in the light of the

amendments moved by the Minister himself very shortly after the

bill was given second reading.

The bill has the potential for damaging the existing mining industry. But much

more important and, I think, much more damaging will be the effect that the

bill has upon mine exploration, mine development and all the ancillary trades

which are devoted not to actually mining, getting ore out of the ground, but

of finding mines, setting them up and getting them in operation. It is a bill

which evidence, as well as the reports we have received, indicates is an anti-conservationist

bill, a bill which encourages high-grading, a bill that will result in the mining

potential of this province being substantially reduced.

Finally, I'd like to say that the Minister himself so many

times has called for a royal commission to look into the whole

question of mining and mining taxation. His performance in this

House saying that no such commission is now needed, his

performance by way of constant amendments to, the bill which

were put in at the committee stage, has indicated that he is

not sure what the best course is. For these reasons I will be

supporting the motion to hoist this bill for six months to

allow for proper further study before damage is done to the

industry.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have to speak just briefly on this because it's another chance

to allow the government to repent on the great mistake they're

making, and another chance to advocate a six-month study to see

just what the results of this legislation would have been as we

see how the trend of exploration continues down in this

province, as we see how the trend of prices continues onward in

the world, and the general impact on the British Columbia

economy.

The figures that have been tabled in this House show very

clearly that the exploration industry is already effectively

ruined in this province, Mr. Speaker. Claim-staking has fallen

to less than 50 percent of year-ago levels, which were already

low, in spite of the fact that this is the time of the highest

metal prices in history.

Evidence has been introduced in this House in great detail

to indicate that this legislation will have the effect of

hurting the ordinary people of British Columbia.

The Minister stood on the steps of the Legislature just a

few minutes ago and said to some people outside the House that

Bill 31 was for the ordinary people of the province. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 31 is a direct attack on the ordinary people of

this province.

Bill 31 has already led to fewer jobs in this province. It

has led to a very substantial disastrous decline in jobs in the

exploration industry. It will lead to the high-grading of mines

as the costs of mining go up because of this bill. It will lead

to bad conservation practices as more and more ore is left in

the ground.

It won't hurt the big companies, Mr. Speaker. The big

companies will mine the high-grade ore, which is the only ore

left to be economic, take their profits, invest elsewhere, in

explorations going on in the Yukon and the Northwest

Territories right now.

The people it will hurt will be the people who would have

had those jobs if other mines had opened

[ Page 4287 ]

up. It hurts the ordinary people of this province, that's

what it does.

It will hurt regional development, which has been one of the

goals of this government. It will prolong for a lengthy period

the time when the northwestern corner of British Columbia,

which is the special concern of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). It will

prolong for a long time the time when that will be proper to

open up.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he has

canvassed these same arguments both in the principle debate and

in the previous motion made to the House. It would be

appreciated if we could really confine it to the immediate

question of why now again the same motion, after the amendments

that have been made.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will attempt to be

brief. The amendments that have been moved, unfortunately, in

no way cure the bad principle and the bad effect of this bill.

We had very much hoped that they would. This bill will lead to

less revenue in the end, I'm afraid.

Getting back to that six-month period, we still have the

case that the Minister, by this legislation, even as amended…I understand he believed that the amendments he introduced

would — solve the constitutional question of this kind of

taxation. I understand he said that to the press.

But I am afraid those amendments won't do that, Mr. Speaker.

We are still going to have a quite unnecessary constitutional

confrontation after the next federal election — a confrontation

which could be avoided by suspending the third reading of this

bill for six months and giving the Minister a chance to sit

down with federal counterparts and work out a shared taxation

in a reasonable way to the greater benefit of British

Columbia.

I am very worried about what the results of that

confrontation could be to British Columbia, to the people of

British Columbia, to the second industry of the province and

all of the people who work in it.

Finally, I will repeat one argument again because I very

strongly believe it. The other reason that this bill should be

suspended for six months is so that the government can have the

courage to call an election in the meantime on this issue. This

issue deserves it. This is the second industry in British

Columbia; every job in the mining industry supports about 20

British Columbians, and that government is afraid to call an

election on this issue. They should because it is the most

important economic legislation that has been before the

Legislature in this session. It is disgraceful and it should be

suspended.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would just like to

remind the Member who spoke last of the ads by the B.C.

Federation of Labour in the paper this morning: "Don't let the

mining companies fool you. Organized labour supports Bill 31."

Published by the B.C. Federation of Labour; 210,000 affiliated

members.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, in speaking

to the motion to hoist this bill for six months of further

study, I would just ask the Hon. Member who spoke previously

if, in fact, she has been out on the lawn and talked to many of

the union members who are out there and who are very concerned

with their future as it is affected by this bill.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: There are people from the constituency I

represent out there, and they are no big mining company.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion, I don't intend to

repeat in any way any of the arguments that have been presented

in all the debate of Bill 31. But I would add just one more

point that strengthens our conviction, and the conviction of

the people in British Columbia, that this bill must be set

aside and examined more fully for six months — that is the

performance of the Minister himself, on behalf of this

government, out on the steps of this Legislature less than one

hour ago when the Minister proved that he was so unsure of his

ground, so unsure of what was contained in his legislation and

so unsure in his convictions that he couldn't even speak

without a prepared statement.

At that time he gave, read, almost sang a statement that had

been prepared by someone else, we assume, which didn't deal in

any way with the details and the concerns around this bill. It

didn't deal with the issues; it didn't deal with the facts. It

proved to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Minister has

not listened, is not convinced, and he is not completely aware

of the effect this Act is going to have on the average family

in British Columbia. That in itself, along with all the other

arguments, should surely encourage the support of the

backbenchers of this government, in their concern for the

people of British Columbia, to support our amendment.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to this motion to delay this bill for six months, I

think we have to take a realistic look at the mining economy,

take a realistic look at what other jurisdictions are doing,

and take a look at what even NDP Manitoba has done in meeting

its responsibility to mining as a major part of their economic

base. They have suspended their new

[ Page 4288 ]

legislation for a year. The reasons given are the reasons we

have asked this Minister to take the same action today:

(1) so that the public has a full opportunity and chance to

participate in the discussion;

(2) so that the full economic impact and the chance for

expertise be part of that decision instead of, as the Minister

has said, based only on his own commitment to bring in these

royalties without study. He didn't need an independent

commission and he didn't need experts. He only needed his own

blind belief and his commitment to a vendetta against the

mining industry and the mining companies.

Mr. Speaker, what I say is….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Point

of order. I would like to have him withdraw that statement "a vendetta against

the mining companies."

MR. BENNETT: Well, I'll soften it — which words would you

rather have me use?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think personal motives should be

attributed to anyone in the House.

MR. BENNETT: The Minister has mentioned in this House in

opening debate that some big mining companies had been ripping

off the province and his commitment of long standing was to

bring in these royalties, and that he didn't need

commissions.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member realized that that

doesn't thereby necessitate believing that it is a

vendetta.

MR. BENNETT: His commitment is not a vendetta?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Member should withdraw that.

MR. BENNETT: I would withdraw on that basis. To meet his

long standing personal commitment — forget the big mining

companies…It was his own statement that they were ripping

off the province.

I believe that the public in B.C., just as the public in Manitoba, should have

the opportunity to have full and open discussion as part of a public royal commission

in which experts and all people would be invited to present their views and

to present their rationalizations as to how British Columbia, through its government,

can get maximum revenue while preserving the economy of the mineral industry

in this province, while preserving the right of that industry to flourish and,

indeed, continue to pay higher wages to the people who work within it, and to

continue what we have had in the past — the encouragement of exploration and

prospecting from the people of this province to search for new minerals, to

help our economy. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I support this motion

for suspension for six months.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, this

is a very, very sad day for the miners, the prospectors and

those people who want to try and develop a resource in this

province. This is the day in which we can look for a continuous

withdrawal from the development, exploration and discovery of

our mineral wealth.

There is no one who would undertake to develop a programme

to develop our mineral resource, one of our most important

resource industries in this province, under the legislation

contained in Bill 31.

There are other ways and means but, as I recall, the

Minister in his earlier days as an opposition Member harangued

me most unmercifully for my administration of the Mineral Act.

He has done this over the years to former Ministers before my

time, wishing to put a cost factor in some form on the mining

industry, in which he referred to getting a return on the

resource.

Now there are many ways in which this could have been done

in a much more palatable way. He's been advised of ways; he has

all kinds of legislation by way of licence and other factors

which don't conflict with the federal government. It would be

my contention that the Minister has deliberately followed his

political convictions, that he is going to operate the mining

industry in this province on a state-ownership basis. This is

the reason that this bill should be hoisted from second reading

for six months.

I have to support those people who have to make a living in

this, and who will find their jobs very rapidly sliding away to

the point that they will have to go outside of British Columbia

to get mining jobs.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this

motion to hoist this bill for six months I feel is the last

attempt we have to give the government a chance to take a

second look, a chance to fulfil the promises they made during

the election campaign for open government, to consult and to

listen to the people of this province. This is their last

chance.

Mr. Speaker, if they do not seize the opportunity to hoist

this bill today and to listen to the voices of the thousands

and thousands of concerned citizens

[ Page 4289 ]

throughout British Columbia, they will not only be derelict

in their duty….

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Where are they?

MR. BENNETT: They all can't afford to come. They can't go

get their way paid by your party in your demonstration.

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: They will not only be derelict in their duty,

but they will do damage to the economy of this province which

will take years and years to repair.

This government, Mr., Speaker, says they are a government

for people. I think it's time this government recognized where

the true natural resources of this province lie. The true and

the most important natural resource of this province is in the

initiative of the people, If this government puts this bill through, they will

effectively kill that initiative and they will have effectively

killed the greatest natural resource of not only this province

but of any country in the world.

We have witnessed during past history where legislation and

governments have killed the initiative of the people, and that

is why those people do not enjoy the same standard of living

that we enjoy here in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out respectfully to the Hon. Member

that we canvassed all this in general in the debate on

Principle of the bill. We've canvassed it in particular

sections and, really, the debate is supposed to be confined to

a very narrow point at this stage in third reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I realize, but it saddens my

heart to witness here this afternoon and see pass through this

Legislature a bill that will kill the greatest natural resource

that any country ever has, the initiative of its people.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to correct a

few items. I have never had any animosity toward the mining

industry. I have never said that the mining industry ripped us

off. The mining industry only did what the law allowed.

What the former Minister has stated was true — that for years

I had advocated that the people should receive something for

the resource that was being depleted and is non-replenishable.

Over those years I placed questions on the order paper time and

again asking how much royalty was paid on different minerals,

and it was usually, in all cases, nil. I advocated to the

Minister what to do, time and again. If he was so sure that

there were things which could have been done, he should have

done it at that time.

Now that I have brought in this bill, it is something that I think is a wonderful

day for the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that the word

"now" be struck out of the motion for third reading, and

substituting therefore the words "six months hence."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 11

Smith

Bennett

Jordan

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Phillips

NAYS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. SPEAKER: Now on the main question: those who support the

third reading of Bill 31?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone is

here from the previous division. Nobody has left. Perhaps we

might go ahead with this one.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the House that, although you

might all agree, it wouldn't be fair, in view of the fact that

there may be Members still out on the lawn. They're entitled to

their three minutes on this division. I wouldn't want them

coming in a minute after we called it and complaining.

Bill 31 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

[ Page

4290 ]

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 11

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES ACT

Bill 84 read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 10

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Bill 105 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 119, Mr. Speaker.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 119 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY : Report on Bill 134, Mr. Speaker.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 141, Mr. Speaker.

STRATA TITLES ACT

Bill 141 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 151, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT ACT

Bill 151 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY : Report on Bill 157, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITIES ACT

Bill 157 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Report on Bill 159, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 159 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 163, Mr.

Speaker.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in moving

second reading of Bill 163 I would explain the principle of

this bill to the House. It is that for the purposes of the

Audit Act special and emergency funds can be made available to

the government during adjournment beyond a certain period of

time. This fits in with the amendment to the Constitution Act

which has just received third reading. If there are any

questions I will be pleased to answer them in committee.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 163 to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 163 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House forthwith.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 163, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

4291 ]

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 163; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 163, Audit Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: I have a few questions of the Minister on the

definition section. I might say in passing that this is another

one of those bills referred to yesterday by the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that it would be

very handy indeed if the amendments could be printed in a way

overleaf from the existing sections so that Members could

easily refer to it without going through the many….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There are no amendments to this

bill.

MR. GIBSON: This is the Mineral Amendment Act, Mr. Chairman.

I'm saying the bill could be quickly printed in a way which

would allow one to compare it with the

section of the bill it

is amending — that's just a representation to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

I would ask the Minister two questions on the definition of

"mineral" in this Act. First of all, why has the definition

been changed? Secondly, why is it different from the mineral

definition in Bill 31?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We hope to be able to bring in structural

materials under the Department of Mines, even to the extent of

gravel and peat,

hopefully in the future, If we do that then it could cover

the whole works. If it was necessary we could use it.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, on

section 1, it is hoped by the

Minister that this type of regulation and the whole Act

amending the Mineral Act, Bill 48, is primarily regulatory.

However, it is hoped by this method of definition that they

will eliminate fractions that occurred previously under the

former method of staking. I wish the Minister every success but

I can't see that this is any solution to his real problem. I

think this can only be proven by trial and error and certainly

when this Act comes into effect there will probably be as many

disputes under

section 80 as there ever were before because of

the fact that the whole form of staking is going to create some

problem in what they hope to obtain by block-staking.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Hon. Member

that there will be overlapping of the former way of staking,

but this will eliminate any future fractions that happen in

between the mines because it is directly north, south, east and

west, and yet they give you an indication of how staking used

to take place.

It took place in all different directions, and then you

would get a little fraction in between. It created a lot of

litigation sometimes in order for somebody to operate. Somebody

would pick up a fraction and hold up a whole development. Now

it will be done in this form where it will be straight north,

south, east and west, and the person who stakes will be able to

put in one post and that will be the information post and they

can go in different directions from there.

They can put a stake in, but if the stake isn't directly

north and south by walking it, which they might not be able to

do, nevertheless, on the map it will be directly north and

south, and east and west.

MR. GIBSON: Still on

section 1, Mr. Chairman, there is a new

thing defined here called a "unit" which refers to a square

having the dimensions prescribed in the regulations. I wonder

if the Minister could tell us at this time how large is a

unit.

HON. MR, NIMSICK: It's 1,520 square feet.

MR. GIBSON: You mean 1,520 feet square.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, 1,520 feet square will be a unit.

These units formerly could have been passed as claims, but your

claim may include 40 units. That would be one claim. That's the

way it will be worked. You might even make it smaller if you

like. I mean you can have one unit which is a claim or you can

have 40 units in a claim.

[ Page 4292 ]

MR. GIBSON: The units in a claim, I presume, would have to

be contiguous.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, yes.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 8, I'm a bit confused on this matter

of fees, Mr. Chairman. The old system of fees, I believe, was

$2 per claim. Is that right, Mr. Minister? Two dollars per

claim, I believe. Under this new system, it's to be $20 per

claim or unit, not exceeding the maximum of $200. Now, what I'm

curious about…. Under the old system, let's say we're

talking about 1,000 claims, the fee for registering these

claims would have been $2,000. Under the new system, with 40

units in each claim, overlooking for a moment that the units

are smaller than the older claim, then that would be 25 claims

to be registered and that would come under the maximum of $200

apiece.

Let's see, that's $5,000 as opposed to $2,000. I'm just

trying to figure out this logic. The effective cost of

registering a claim, then, is being roughly doubled, 2.5 times

as a matter of fact, if you go to the largest number of units

possible per claim.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The unit itself…. "On completion of a

survey, the surveyor shall forward to the Surveyor-General a

copy of his original field notes and plan, verified by the

affidavit, and accompanied by a fee of $20 per claim, located

on or before February 28, 1975, or unit not exceeding a maximum

of $200."

MR. GIBSON: It would be also $20 per unit if there was only

one unit in a claim.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, after February of next year.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. GIBSON:

section 10 says: "No mineral claim or fractional

claim shall be located after February 28, 1975, unless located

in accordance with the regulations." I wonder if the Minister

could tell us at this time a little bit about what the

regulations might be. I have here a letter, and I'll just quote

a brief instance:

"Many safeguards will have to be built into it to make it

effective under cordillera and topographic conditions, such as witness-post

staking and priority of staking under rush conditions. Will the time of planting

even the first post rule, even if someone stakes in the middle of your group

before the perimeter staking is completed…?' — et cetera.

Could the Minister say just how the regulations are going to

provide for this kind of thing, specifically rush staking and

witness-post staking?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I haven't got all the regulations here

that go into the staking, but I would take it that once you've

set your location post in, and all the information is on that

post, if you haven't got the other stakes in and somebody else

has a stake in between, and you'd already recorded that claim,

his claim would be not legal.

MR. GIBSON: One other question for the Minister, under this

section. There are rumours among the prospecting fraternity

that there will be some kind of moratorium declared on staking

prior to the February, 1975, date when many of these

regulations take effect. Could the Minister advise the House

whether it is his intention to impose a moratorium?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is the intention of a moratorium in

the fall or in the wintertime. During that time they'll try and

change things over.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister say how long that moratorium

would be, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I couldn't say right now how long we will

need, but it will be during that slack period.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's reply to the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano regarding the event that

someone stakes before the peripheral boundary is surveyed — would this then, Mr. Minister, call for a filing of a claim,

under

section 80, of a dispute if someone did stake within the

peripheral boundary?

If, for instance, there was a previous staking, under the

existing legislation, of one claim, and a unit or unit of

claims was staked around that particular claim, what is the

position of the original claim? Do I make myself clear? This is

going to be a north-south staking, and there is a single

claim.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It would be excluded.

MR. RICHTER: It will be excluded. But will the fact that

there are two stakers at virtually the same time that the

original post has been planted, but the peripheral staking

hasn't taken place and someone stakes over — overstaking…?

Now, this will call for an investigation under

section 80. This

will still be the

[ Page

4293 ]

same case under this legislation we're discussing today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Certainly.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 14, once again I'm asking a question

of the Minister, seeking information.

section 51 as amended,

section 51(6), notes that a unit shall be deemed to be a

mineral claim located before February 28, 1975, and

section 7

provides that it's a mineral claim after February, 1975, and

notes that no unit within that claim shall be grouped

separately.

Now, in the past for the purposes of recording work it's

been possible to group claims in ways out from the centre which

have allowed the spreading of work concentrated in a relatively

small area over a relatively large number of claims. This would

be particularly important in, for example, a copper deposit

when you're working in what you thought might be the centre

but, nevertheless, because you thought it might be a large

porphyry type it would be important to retain the ground all

around. And

section 6 would appear — and I ask the Minister

about this — would appear that this kind of grouping can still

be retained on claims registered before February, 1975, but

section 7 would appear to say that after February, 1975, that

will no longer be allowed and a change of a grouping of the

units within a claim won't any longer be permitted on these new

claims and units. Could the Minister confirm whether that's a

correct

interpretation?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Once the new, modified system is put into

force, when you stake you group your claims, and you can group

both ways. If you put an identification post in or an

informational post in, you could go to the east and have a

group of claims, and you could go north and set a group of

claims. You could have them all grouped around that

informational post, but where they come together, then that

would be one claim for one person rather than half a dozen

claims all together.

MR. GIBSON: And the new claims could no longer be grouped

separately, but the old claims would continue.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The old claims would continue on.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. GIBSON:

section 15 kind of concerns me, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, of course, it has this very serious penalty, the

possibility of lifting a free-miners certificate. It would

appear to possibly be very costly — the word "affidavit" being

changed to the word "report." Could the Minister say what the

word "report" means to him? Does he mean a specially done

report, perhaps done by a professional engineer, a report on

the property after it's been abandoned? Or does he mean,

simply, the forwarding of all of the data already in the

possession of the claim holder, in which case there's much less

of a burden. But if a special report must be produced by an

outside engineer in respect of every claim being abandoned, it

would be a very, very costly thing for the individuals

concerned.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: At the present time a report has to be

done by a geologist, according to the old Act. I take it that

the special report would also have to be done in the same

way.

MR. GIBSON: It couldn't be simply the forwarding of field

notes and that kind of thing. I had understood that that was

the existing situation — that there wasn't a special report

required.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The report usually has to have a signature

of a geologist at the present time. Changing this to a

regulation, I suppose we could be more flexible in this if we

wanted to. But right now I would take it that these same

requirements would go on.

MR. GIBSON: But the general intention is not to make the

requirements any more stringent than they are presently.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No.

Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you proceed I would just ask the Hon.

Members, both the Minister and those others who may speak, not

to start speaking until they have actually got up to their feet

and are speaking into the microphone.

MR. GIBSON: The concern I have here is

section 21(

b) which

amends

section 80(5). It currently reads:

"If a complaint under this

section is proven to the

satisfaction of the Minister, the sum deposited under

subsection (3) shall be returned to the complainant."

This means that when someone makes a complaint and covers it

with a deposit to ensure that it is not a

[ Page 4294 ]

specious or ill-taken complaint, if his complaint is proved

correct, he is in effect charged for being a good citizen and

making a complaint in the first place.

It seems to me, if a complaint is made that a claim in some

way or other is not valid and it proves to be a good complaint,

that a person should not be penalized for making it. That

really does seem to me to be wrong.

We would be much better simply to leave the existing

section

5, which provides that all of the complainant's money and all

of his deposit will be returned to him if, in fact, his

complaint has proved valid. Therefore, I would simply move that

section 2 I (

b) be deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A motion to delete is out of order. The proper

procedure is to speak against the

section and vote against

it.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not proposing to delete the whole

section

but simply subsection (b).

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is in order.

MR. GIBSON: As I say, Mr. Minister, I hope you might accept

it. It seems to me to be reasonable that a person making a

proper complaint should not be penalized.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Wait. I'll see whether it is in order

first. Is it in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not ruling it out of order. If

the Hon. Minister wishes to raise a point of order….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The only point I would raise is that it

decreases the money to the Crown.

We discussed this very thoroughly. These

section 80 problems

are very costly to the department. We felt that $50 would be a

further way of assisting the cost. I don't think that anyone

who has a legitimate grievance….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On further examination of this

amendment it would appear that it would result in a reduction

if the amendment were accepted, or it could result in a

reduction of funds to the Crown. Therefore, I would rule it out

of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A quick point of procedure. The amendment

may well be out of order, but the intention was not to wipe out

the whole

section but only a subsection thereof.

I am sure that the Minister would agree, to simply delete one part of the section,

even though it might reduce the funds to the Crown. The Crown has all sorts

of money; the Premier keeps boasting about it. Surely you wouldn't mind a minor

amendment which would simply delete a subsection.

Therefore, would it not be possible to vote on it subsection

by subsection so that we would give the Minister the

opportunity to show his generosity to prospectors and, at the

same time, allow the very legitimate consideration about loss

of revenue to the Crown to be upheld?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The information I have is that this is in

accordance with the requirements of the survey or-general to

put this in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We cannot deal with the

section in parts; we

must deal with the whole section.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Mineral Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 92.

COAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 92; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Just a question of puzzlement. This Act is

called the Coal Act, yet there is no definition of coal in the

definition section. The Minister might have something to say

about that; I'm kind of puzzled.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There are "coal lands."

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. GIBSON: I won't repeat the debate on the corresponding

section of Bill 31, but would the Minister just for a moment

justify the tremendous power of cancelling a free miner's

certificate?

[ Page 4295 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is the same regulation which is in

the Mineral Act. If you notice, we will mail a notice by

registered mail and may require the free miner to forthwith

renew his free miner's certificate. He will be well notified

before anything is done. This is something in addition to what

was done before. You could have cancelled it without going to

that extent under the Mineral Act. This is similar to what is

in the Mineral Act now.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment in my name on the

order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

MR. GIBSON: I would ask the Minister why he wishes to have

the right to withhold consent on the transferal of leases. I

can understand why he would want the transferal of leases to be

registered in order that he would know who is the current

holder. But why does he wish the right to withhold consent?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: For the simple reason that it might be in

the best interest of the province to withhold consent.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister describe more particularly

the circumstances that might lead to this?

HON. MR, NIMSICK: If you let them be transferred without

them coming to the Minister, we would have no record of them to

know what was happening to the transfer of our coal leases. The

principal thing behind it is that.

MR. GIBSON: But surely that could be handled by requiring

registration of the transfer of any lease. The right to

withhold consent to the transfer of any lease is a much greater

power. I would once again ask the Minister how he proposes to

use it. Does he propose to use it, for example, to keep foreign

companies out of the coal industry in British Columbia perhaps,

or something of this kind? Does he have something in mind, or

is this just wanting power for its own sake?

I felt that when you transfer most of these coal leases or licences over very

large areas I think it is in the best interest of the province to know who they

are being transferred to — and the whole problem. I feel that we should have

the right to say that we don't want that lease transferred to so and so.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. GIBSON: This is a very interesting section. This

section

would give the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council the power to

authorize the Minister of Finance to make a loan to a licencee

or lessee or to enter into an equity interest in some

particular property. Could the Minister tell us if he

contemplates somewhere down the road the province going into

the coal business, or having to bail out any companies by way

of loan at the moment? What does he have in mind in providing

for this ability to take an equity interest?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Is this

section 12 you are talking

about?

MR. GIBSON:

section 10.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I thought we went past 10. This is the

same one you were speaking on a minute ago for assignment,

transfer or subletting of any licence, permit or lease.

MR. GIBSON: No,

section 10.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This authorizes the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to approve loans or acquire

interest and equity in property operations.

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That would be the cabinet. If we were to

use any money we would have to have the whole cabinet's

approval rather than just the Minister's. That shows you how I

am so affable about not having the discretionary powers all to

myself.

MR, GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it would have to

be the whole cabinet. I'm just asking the Minister what he

foresees as to how this power might be used. Does he have a

mine or two that he is thinking of taking an equity interest

in?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We have had several indications already

where they would like us to take an interest in developing a

coal mine. We want the authority to do it if it is in the best

interests of the public.

Sections 10 to 13 approved.

section 14.

[ Page 4296 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 14. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 19. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 23. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 25. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

section 26.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 25. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 26 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman,

section 26(3)(b)(ii) provides at its end that

the Minister shall issue a lease. There is no definition anywhere, Mr. Chairman,

in the Act that I am able to find as to what a lease means except that "lease"

means "a valid and subsisting lease issued under

section 26." I wonder if the

Minister could tell us a little bit more about what a lease looks like, how

many years it would cover and this sort of thing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is a production lease. Before they

can go into production they must apply for a production lease

similar to what they do under the Mineral Act. The regulations

would cover the length of time. In that

section there the

Minister, if they fulfil all the requirements, shall issue a

lease….

MR. GIBSON: But for how long?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I believe that we had discussed it, and

the regulations were for 15 years.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Sections 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

MR. GIBSON: You're just going so fast, Mr. Chairman. I

simply want to register my complete and utter opposition to the

discretion contained in

section 29 which, once again, is the

order-in-council ability to set taxation at any level

whatsoever.

Sections 31 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 37. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 37 as amended approved.

Sections 38 to 42 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Bill 92 reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

[ Page 4297 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: With leave of the House now, Mr.

Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 92 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR, HALL: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 94.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 94; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I just want to say, Mr. Chairman,

that we are certainly opposed to this, because this will make

civil servants out of the prospectors.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper to

section 2. (See appendix.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't see any amendments to

Bill 94 on the order paper.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They've made the wrong number there under

144. They've got another 144. That should have been 94. In

section 2, line 2, we are adding after the word "mineral" the

words "other than by hand-panning."

Amendment approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Wait a minute. I'm afraid that I missed

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, according to the Minister, it is listed

on the order paper as Bill 144; is that Placer Mining Act, or…?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Placer Mining Act, right. So it should be

Bill 94?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would refer the Hon. Minister to Bill 94,

Prospectors Assistance Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay. So is the amendment that is listed on the

order paper as an amendment to Bill 144: "The Hon. L.T. Nimsick to move in Committee

of the Whole on Bill 144, intituled Placer Mining Act, the amendments as follows:"

…? Is that meant to be…?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, pardon me. That is the Placer Mining

Act.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm still lost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are no amendments to this bill?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, there are no amendments to the

Prospectors Assistance Act; pardon me.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's the point I am trying to make, Mr.

Chairman. We happily went on and passed an amendment to a bill

that doesn't exist, and we passed an amendment to the title

when apparently the bill doesn't exist. Now the whole thing is

a mistake. I would like to know what we passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You said we passed something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no amendment at the table. Shall

section 2 pass?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've told us that we passed an

amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be no amendment shown.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. GIBSON: The

section gives authority to the Minister to

issue certain grants. I think he has in the estimates something

like $400,000 for these grants.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, $100,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister rise

before he answers so that the microphone will pick it up?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, it is $100,000 in the

estimates.

MR. GIBSON: That makes my question even more pertinent, Mr.

Chairman. It would seem then that he can only issue grants of

this kind to a maximum of 25

[ Page 4298 ]

prospectors if he gives the maximum grant to each. There are

going to be far many more prospectors than that out of work

this summer because of Bill 31. They are sure going to be

hammering on his door, some of them, saying that they've got to

get work somewhere.

I would ask the Minister how many prospectors he thinks he

can accommodate under this section. I would ask him as well

what he is going to do to police these grants.

I have heard fear expressed in some circles that there may

be people come along and ask for a $4,000 grant and then go up

and sit by the side of the lake, and have a nice summer, and

dig up some old mineral reports out of the files somewhere,

because there are mineral reports on most sections of the

province, amend them as seems necessary, walk around the lake a

couple of times and come back. No legitimate prospector would

do this, Mr. Minister, so how are you going to make sure that

someone who might want to rip off this grant won't be able to

do it?

That's the second question. The first question is, how many

genuine prospectors do you think you are going to be able to

accommodate?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, previously they had a

grubstake Act, and they had $20,000 in it, I believe. I jumped

it to $100,000, and let me tell you that if there are more

legitimate prospectors that apply I will be knocking at the

door of the Finance Minister for more money to accommodate

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: As far as policing it goes, I told you the

other day that I'm very careful with the public's money and I'm

going to make sure, before any money is granted, that it is a

legitimate prospector and the prospect is of some value and has

some opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: Again to the Minister, I just point out to him,

as he well knows, that there is really more help needed than

under the terms of the legislation he now has, because if a

team should go up under one of these grants and stake out

perhaps 40 claims per man, they've got to do $200 work just to

maintain those claims. So the Minister has no ongoing help on

that once he has given them this initial help, and that is

perhaps what he has in mind with

section 6. He's really forcing

them to do business with him once they have taken this initial

seek money under

section 4.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, we can extend that $4,000 if we

find that it is going to be of benefit to the prospector to go ahead and develop

the claim further to prove what he has got. This is the point of that subsection

(2) of

section 4.

You've got to have some parameter by which to work to, and

I'm certain that this is of great assistance to many

prospectors. Our geologists are going to assist them in

estimating their finds and claims.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I'm just going to tell the Minister that

because of Bill 31 he's going to need a lot more money under

this

section than he figured on.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I hope so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just a question to the Minister, Mr.

Chairman. I was discussing this very Bill 94 with some

prospectors who are presently not far away, namely outside on

the lawn, and they were saying the whole thing is pretty

fraudulent anyway, because as soon as they get the $4,000 they

are required to do work which sops up the $4,000. I wonder

whether the Minister would comment upon that.

They say there is no way that a legitimate prospector will

be able to use this effectively because the amount is not

particularly great, and just as soon as they take advantage of

it, they are going to have to do that $200 work per claim. It

struck me that this was a fairly reasonable statement by these

two prospectors I was speaking to who gave me this

information.

Now perhaps the Minister would like to comment on it. The

prospectors themselves feel that this bill really isn't all

that valuable. Perhaps he would comment on why the government

feels it is so valuable.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Chairman, there have always been

work requirements under the old Act. This is the assistance

Act, and under the grubstake Act all that the previous

government would give them was a bite to eat to go out and they

would still have to do work requirement on the claim. Now they

can add their prospecting to the work requirement as well and

all the costs that go toward doing the work requirement on the

claim.

The purpose of this larger amount is to give them an

opportunity to prove up on their claim. All many prospectors

have is a showing, and then they've got to go to the companies

and ask them to contribute in order that the claim could be

developed further. But before a company or an individual will

contribute, they immediately want to know what's in it for them

and they will take a share of the claim.

Now we say that with the government doing this and giving

them this opportunity, it will give them a lot better

opportunity to know what is in the claim so that they can make

a better deal and better

[ Page

4299 ]

negotiations and then maybe with the assistance of the

government geologists see that they get a fair deal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's words.

Certainly he's correct about the previous legislation. The two

people I was speaking to were quite adamant about the poor

previous legislation, and indeed one of them had previously

been an executive member of the NDP in his area and had

contributed money for the election of this government. He's not

going to do it again. He now dislikes both the previous

government and the present one.

The question still looks like one that is a pretty good one,

namely under

section 6. The government virtually has got the

first right to purchase, lease or take an option and they feel

that the actual grubstaking isn't all that realistic in view of

the fact that once they start staking the money goes anyway. So

they are still behind the eight-ball, and they are not really

getting the type of assistance which will make them in any way

independent, and that's their gripe. They are not saying that

this legislation is worse than the previous legislation. The

previous legislation was not good, and the Minister is right

there. But the bad previous legislation doesn't justify the

fact that this legislation apparently will not do what the

Minister thinks it is going to do, and I wonder whether the

Minister's put his mind to it.

These men were quite adamant that this bill simply would not

make the independent, small prospector anything but virtually a

servant of the state. And they were pretty worried about that.

They felt this was a bit of a fraudulent bill from their point

of view.

I think the Minister's comments are perfectly correct as far

as they go.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Just to make a comment on that, I

appreciate the Hon. Member's remarks in this regard. I have had

many letters from prospectors who endorse this bill and think

it is a good idea because at any time that an individual

prospector comes to a businessman for a grubstake, the

businessman usually makes arrangements that if he finds

anything he gets a percentage of it, and companies do the same,

if they are going to make a contribution of money. Now we don't

intend to subsidize big companies via the prospector. We intend

that the prospector is going to get a better deal out of this

Act through the government assisting him in every way

possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's a laudable objective. There is no, question

that the businessman who stakes may well ask for a percentage, but there's a

difference between a percentage of what is found and the right to purchase,

lease or take an option on any mineral property referred to in clause (a), which

is what we find in clause 6 of this bill.

The fact is that the prospectors feel that this is not

something which makes them more independent, and it simply

substitutes the shackles of the companies with the shackles of

the government, and they're not all that sure they're much

better off. What I would like the Minister to comment upon is

how really they become more independent under this bill than

they previously were.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I think they can become far more

independent because they've got a friendly government to deal

with, and a friendly Minister to deal with, and we are going to

assist them in every way possible because I have been led to

believe that the prospectors are the backbone of the mining

industry of this province, and I believe this. Those are the

people that we should be assisting and up until now they have

been at the mercy of the industry without any consultation or

any input from the government at all.

Now if we thought a claim was in some out-of-the-way place

and it's going to cost socially a lot of money to put it into

production, we may purchase that claim from the prospector, if

it's a good claim, for the time being. Later on when the

development of that claim is warranted, then we could negotiate

with somebody to develop it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How much would you pay for it?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That would be under negotiation.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, this

section is a very, very

disturbing

section in that it is the

section which gives

leverage to the government to evaluate and to acquire the

mineral claim because of the fact that it is the conditioner of

the grant or assistance to the prospector. On the basis of this

section alone we in this party must oppose the conditions set

forth.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm rather surprised, Mr. Chairman, that

that attitude is taken — that a government elected by the

people, that is the people, haven't got the same rights as the

private sector in dealing with the prospectors. I'm sure that

the intention of this is to assist the prospector in every

way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's remarks, Mr.

Chairman, but the fact is that legitimate

[ Page 4300 ]

prospectors are unlikely to use this bill. It's going to be

the hippies who want a summer out there with a hammer in their

hand. They are going to enjoy that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They won't get away with that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know. It looks that way to

me because the serious prospectors, many of whom are on the

lawn, many of whom have spent 25 years in the business and know

nothing else and that's why they're out there and they're so

concerned, feel that

section 6 is the type of thing which in

connection with

section 4 makes the thing quite impossible for

them to take advantage of.

Anyway, I'd just like to know whether this first right to

purchase means that a prospector can go to the private sector,

can go to a foreign company, and arrange a deal for, say,

whatever it might be worth — $50,000, $100,000, maybe a great

deal less, maybe a great deal more — and the government will

meet the best price that prospector can find on the private

market. Or are you going to use this

section 6 to make sure

that he doesn't have the right to go out and get the best

price, then in turn if you want it, to match that best

price?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We're not going to allow a government to

get boxed into a position where I would commit the government

to say we'll pay any price that a private company will pay

because then that wouldn't be a good situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why not?

HON. MR, NIMSICK: Any negotiation that goes on with a

prospector has got to be in agreement with the prospector.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The government is not going to dictate

anything to the prospector; we're going to negotiate with the

prospector if we feel that we want to purchase that claim.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, those are stirring words

and we appreciate hearing them. The fact is, of course, you're

probably going to be dealing with a lucky hippy because

prospectors won't be using this Act. But, say, one of these

hippies is lucky and he finds something which is worthwhile. In

other words, if he manages to find a private buyer, and the

government thinks the price is too high, the government won't

exercise any of these options and he will be at full liberty to

sell to the private buyer and make the maximum amount that he

can.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you believe it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, if the government feels that the

prospect isn't worth purchasing, certainly he would be free to

go ahead. But the regulations and the agreement when they

receive the money will be negotiated with the prospector, and

the prospector will have full knowledge of what he is expected

to live up to and what the government is expected to live up to

under the agreements made between the prospector and the

government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Here's the critical point, Mr. Minister:

The agreement is clearly going to be the thing that determines

whether this bill be used, and I rather doubt it, and whether

it will be used at all by legitimate prospectors. The statement

you've made indicates that despite this legislation, or under

this legislation and regulation, you are going to come to

agreements whereby it might be that the prospector could not

take advantage of the highest market value of his particular

claim if he eventually goes out and tries to sell it in the

private sector. You will be making regulations and agreements

with prospectors prior to giving them the $4,000 which will

indeed tie their hands in the case of any future sale.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If the private sector loans $4,000 or more

to an individual prospector, they make these agreements; they

tie them to a certain percentage. I don't see why the

government can't operate on a business-like basis with the

prospectors. I'm sure the prospectors are going to get a better

deal than they would otherwise.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in spite of what the Minister

says, under this

section 6 any prospector might find places to

prospect under the total domination of the provincial

government. He may be forced to sell, he may be forced to join

a partnership with a Crown agency, but whatever choice is made,

he is no longer in a free-finder's position. This bill

represents another link in the takeover machinery of this

government. That's the reason we are opposed to this.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is by far the most odious

section of the bill; it's clearly a takeover section. The

Minister talked about all the letters he has received from

prospectors — I'd like to see a few of those letters. I haven't

received a single letter from any prospector in favour of this

prospectors Act, just as I didn't receive a single letter in

favour of Bill 31.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Have you received any against it?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I've received letters against it.

[ Page 4301 ]

Let me read one of them now:

"On general principle, I'm strongly opposed to see the

government becoming involved with mining. I'm sorry to see the

government demanding a first refusal on a prospector's

discovery. After all, if a mine is developed, the government

would get a fair share in tax revenues.

"The plan of first refusal suggests that if it's any good,

the government will take it over; if it's not, then the

prospector will be faced with trying to sell it to some other

company after it's been turned down by government

geologists."

The Minister talks about this great big benevolent

government, and how well it's going to deal with the

prospectors and these terrible companies. Mr. Chairman, there's

just one government and that government is a monopoly.

If it chooses to exercise its right, it's the only one that

the prospector can deal with. As contrasted to the current

situation, let me quote Mr. Tommy Elliot, manager of the B.C.

and Yukon Chamber of Mines:

"There are about 1,000 prospectors in B.C., and they're all

rugged individualists. The problem is that this bill is giving

the province the first right to deal."

Now listen to this, Mr. Minister:

"In the past, the prospector could negotiate any deal and he

had 90 major companies and he had 300 smaller stock companies

to choose from. Any prospector accepting this new grubstake

could be trapped in the bureaucracy and domination of the

government. It's fundamentally wrong."

And so it is, Mr. Minister. You're trying to make yourself

the only game in town. You're talking about big companies

making rough deals with the prospector — that's going to be

nothing compared to the kind of power you're going to have over

them.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: That's for sure. Then, Mr. Minister, let me ask

you, and I hope you can answer this: suppose you exercise your

right of first refusal on some claims, because you didn't put

that power in there just for fun, you're going to exercise your

right of first refusal on some claims. Then what are you going

to do? Is it going to be the government that will map it and

drill it and then put it into production and build the mill and

so on? Is it going to be the government that will do that? Are

you going to form an exploration or development arm of the

government — any part of the government, not necessarily your

department, anywhere in the government? Are you going to set

something like that up? Is that your idea?

If it's not, why else would you have

section 6? Could you

answer that?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't give me any ideas because they might

be good ones and I might adopt them. But definitely, the

prospector, if he doesn't want to take the money that the

government is offering, there are no ties; he can do what he

likes with his claims. But if he takes the money, the same as

he takes it from a private business concern, then he must have

some agreement with the government. And you'd be surprised how

many prospectors already have come to me wanting the government

to participate in his claim.

Now I'm not one who falls for every claim, you know, but

there are plenty of them who would like the government to

participate right now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, without the private sector. There are

many of them who think about the Province of British Columbia;

they're good citizens and they feel that the government can

give the maximum help to them.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister knows perfectly well, Mr. Chairman,

that those prospectors can't sell those claims anywhere else

with the mining climate that this government's created in this

province. What absolute nonsense.

Now, something else here. The government seem to have two

rights of first refusal under this section. The first is an

option on any mineral property.

Now, let's say it doesn't exercise that option and the

prospector takes it along to somebody else and forms an

agreement with somebody else, drills some holes and spends

quite a bit of money in proving up that property. Now the

government has another option, so it would appear, has the

first right — subsection (c) — has the first right to negotiate

an agreement with the prospector whereby the Crown, or an

agency designated by the Crown, agrees to develop or bring the

mineral properties referred to in clause (

a) into

production.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, as I read it, the government

is giving itself two kicks at the cat. That makes it absolutely

impossible for anybody to get any support at that first stage.

Why would anybody go in and help prove up that ground at the

first stage if the government can come along as soon as

something useful has been proved up and say, "Ah, ah, ah! We've

got first rights here." That is what

section (

c) seems to say

to me. It is just going to stop everything at the first stage

unless the prospector will make the right deal with the

government.

[ Page 4302 ]

Therefore, these two rights of first refusal in sequence

seem to me to be that proverbial offer-you-can't-refuse. I

would like the Minister to explain that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think you are manoeuvering a lot of

words into this

section 6. We feel that the government have

their geologists who can assist the prospector in negotiating.

The government and the prospectors can be sort of partners in

negotiations with somebody else who wants to develop the claim.

We are not going to see the prospector get left out in the cold

in regard to any claims. If we think that the claim is not

worthy of the government taking any action in this regard, then

he can go to a private company. But we will assist him to see

that he gets a proper deal.

MR. GIBSON: But do you have one or two rights of first

refusal? That's what I am getting at.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I would say we only have one right of

first refusal.

MR. GIBSON: So it is recorded that there is only one right

of first refusal, just at one point in time. Is that right, Mr.

Minister? The Minister nods.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Clause 6(

c) talks about an agency

designated by the Crown to develop and bring mineral properties

into production. As apparently we have no such agency at the

present time, what is the reference in this section?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Several provinces now have agencies to

develop mineral claims. There is every possibility that, if the

demand is there, you might have a bill at some future session

which will set up an exploration and development agency of the

government.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is interesting. It seems most

interesting in light of the fact that the Minister and I have

exchanged comments on this over the last 18 months quite

frequently.

The agency is now right there in black and white; it is now

at least in one Act even if it hasn't been set up in another.

It is in anticipation of setting up such an agency and in

anticipation of other legislation that we would like to know

how far along the road the Minister is in setting up such an

exploration and development agency such as the one in Manitoba,

which is presumably the one he has in mind, the one Mr.

Kiernans played such an influential

part in establishing.

After all, if the agency is here in this bill, surely the bill to establish

it and set it up cannot be far behind. Perhaps you would like to indicate just

how far behind the government mineral development corporation actually is. How

many months: six, three, two, tomorrow?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I have no answer to that because that

hasn't been discussed. The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is the one who gave me the idea

to think about.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I sure can't be the one who gave him the idea

about an agency because it is referred to right here in his

bill: "…whereby the Crown, or an agency designated by the

Crown, agrees to develop…." He has had that idea in his

mind for quite a while. I think he should tell us where it

stands because that is who these prospectors are going to be

working for under this bill. I think he should tell us.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There are agencies of the government today

which we could designate for that purpose if we wished to. As I

said before, the time and the need may come for a government

exploration and development company to go into these things,

the same as they have in Manitoba and Quebec. Quebec, they tell

me, is quite successful with it.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 11

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

MR, SMITH: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the House would

you indicate that a division took place and ask leave to record

it?

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 4303 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 94, Prospectors' Assistance Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted to record the division

in committee?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 132.

PETROLEUM AND

NATURAL GAS AMENDMENT

The House in committee on Bill 132; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 10 as amended.

MR. SMITH: I just want to say that I think the industry will

be happier with the Minister's approach with these amendments,

saying that he has listened to what they had to say with

respect to the fact that if he was going to increase the amount

of rental charge per acre he should also increase the credit

they may receive against the leases they have under their

control.

You have increased the rentals and you have also increased

the credit, not in this

section but in another one. I think

this is certainly acceptable to the industry. Before, you had

increased the rentals but given no increase in the credit that

they would have against them.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 11.

HON. MR, NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 11 as amended.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is a new

section 11(a). I move the

amendment entitled

section 11(

a) standing on the order paper

in my name. (See appendix).

section 11(

a) MR. SMITH: Here again there has been a change that was

certainly one, I think, the companies themselves through the

Canadian Petroleum Association were originally quite opposed

to. There was too much discretionary power in the hands of the

Minister. They did not know, with respect to new leases and old

leases, exactly what attitude the Minister would take with

respect to the idea of committing them to a drilling programme

in advance of the time that they would have been prepared to

drill, particularly when you take into consideration that most

of the companies require lead time to line up seismic crews to

do the seismic work, to contract drilling rigs and bid into the

areas where they may have to drill.

This was a detriment to the drilling companies and the

companies which controlled the leases. The new

section now, as

I understand it, really applies to new leased lands only. There

will be in these leases a guarantee that they will have three

years lead time before the Minister can exercise his

discretionary powers to require the company to drill. Certainly

this is an acceptable amendment.

But there is a question still in the minds with

[ Page 4304 ]

respect to the older leases presently in existence or in

force. When the companies bid competitively to the Department

of Mines and Petroleum Resources for the right to explore, they

paid substantial bonus bids to acquire those lease rights in

the Province of British Columbia. I am talking about leases

already in existence.

Since the time they paid that substantial amount of bonus

money to the government, you have changed the rules. You now

say that under those leases you may require them to drill at

your option. They are still concerned how stringent you are

going to be in the application of this discretionary power

which is in your hands. They feel — and I think they have every

right to feel — you have changed the goalposts after they have

paid money to the government in good faith and intent to

perform.

The process of setting up to drill is not something they can

do overnight. The Minister knows that most of the area where we

get our most productive potential for oil and natural gas is

now out in the muskeg area. They are limited to

three-and-a-half to four months of activity every year when the

weather conditions are proper. After that, they can't even get

into those areas.

They are, therefore, quite concerned. I think it would be

wise for the Minister to spell out in some detail to the

industry generally in the province under what circumstances the

Minister intends to exercise the discretion that he has with

respect to those leases which are already in force. Will he,

for instance, step into one of the major companies or mining

companies — it doesn't matter — three months down the road and

say: "We deem that you must drill on certain given acreage that

you have under lease by next June or a year from now"?

Certainly you could put them into a very difficult position.

It may well be impossible for them to meet those terms. Under

that situation, as I read the Act, that lease would then go

back to the Crown. It would exhaust all their rights.

I submit that they have paid substantial money in the form

of bonus bids to the Crown in good faith. I would think the

areas under lease; he should take into consideration the

potential of success in that area as compared to other areas.

He should also take into consideration the availability of

pipelines or gas lines, as the case may be, in the area or

adjacent to it. If they are successful in drilling, will they

be able to tie in or will they have to put a tree on the well

and cap it off for the time being?

I think he must realize that most of the seismic work and drilling is not done

by the companies who originally purchased the rights from the government to

explore; they bid that work out to private companies which are experts in that

field. If the crews are committed, particularly in the seismic and drilling

fields, then there is just no way they can fulfil the Minister's request if

they can't get either seismic crews or drilling rigs for a specified time.

It is a matter of major concern to the companies. I think

the Minister would be well advised to spell out in detail to

the companies how he intends to handle this discretionary power

with respect to old leases. They are quite happy with the idea

of three years' lead time on new leases but they are concerned

about some of the older ones.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is no intention of the government to

be a dog in the manger or take a dog-in-the-manger attitude

in this regard. It would only be where there were flagrant

abuses of holding on to leases for long terms without drilling

where this would be used. I am sure you will find the

government will be leaning over backwards to cooperate with

them as long as they are willing to cooperate as well.

Section 11(

a) approved.

section 12.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 20.(See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

section 21.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper to

section 21. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

section 22.

HON. MR. NIMSICK:

section 22(

a) is a new

[ Page 4305 ]

section. I move that amendment standing in my name on the

order paper. (See appendix.)

Proposed

section 22(

a) approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Section 23 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, aren't there more

amendments?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we dealt with all we could find.

MR. SMITH: What other amendments did the Hon. Minister have

in mind?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I just….

MR. SMITH: If he would like, I could suggest some.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 132 reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as

reported?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: With leave of the House now, Mr.

Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 132 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 144, Mr. Speaker.

PLACER MINING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 144; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, under

section 1 at the end of the definition

of "work" it is specified that work does not include the construction of buildings.

I would ask the Minister why not, since the construction of buildings may well

be work ancillary to the development of the placer lease.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: On a placer lease there is a ruling that

you have to have a permit to put up any buildings.

MR. GIBSON: But why shouldn't it be counted as work?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why shouldn't it? Well, it might be a log

cabin to live in on the lease. I'll agree that it is work but

the work requirement on the lease does not include the

construction of buildings — the work requirement on the

lease.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to say that I think that is

wrong.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper for

section 2. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. RICHTER: The particular amendment has certainly made

this

section more palatable as far as the person who is panning

for gold not on a commercial basis. I can just imagine what

would have happened had that amendment not gone in there. There

would not only be those who are doing it for recreational

purposes but others…. Let me tell you that if I found a

nugget I know where it would go. Mr. Minister, you wouldn't

know anything about that.

I would say that the provisions within this

section and the

whole atmosphere of pot encouraging more placer mining and the

difficulties they are going to have…. I see a great deal of

hesitancy on the part of the people wanting to do placer mining

today. It is going to be very difficult.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman,

section 2(3) provides that "a free

miner may enter and acquire location on wasteland within

designated placer land." Presumably the Minister is going to

designate placer land throughout the province on the basis of

historical production areas; yet there may well be land that

has placer potential, whether for gold or for other minerals,

which hasn't historically been placer mined. There may well be

land outside of such

[ Page 4306 ]

designated areas which could, in fact, be a good placer

lease prospect.

I would ask the Minister…unless I have misread this

section, there doesn't seem to be any way that a person could

acquire a lease in such an area. Could the Minister tell us the

procedure that a person might follow in such a case which would

protect him? If he has simply to go to the Minister and ask the

Minister to kindly designate the area, even if the Minister was

prepared to do so, the free miner has no protection in that

interim.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Actually, the reason that we have

designated areas is that there are certain areas of the

province where you don't want any placer mining at all.

MR. GIBSON: I can appreciate that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Placer mining, as far as the province

goes, is not a very big item. In some places they disallow

placer mining altogether.

MR. GIBSON: I know that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We feel that there are still areas in

British Columbia that can be placer mined. Of course, they've

got to come under the regulations. It is difficult now to get a

placer lease when you have to go through all the departments

that you have to go through in order to get a placer lease if

you want to work.

I don't know what protection you would give somebody if they

thought there was "gold in them thar hills" and wanted it

designated. I would suggest that they would have to apply to

have another area designated. If we thought it was possible to

designate it, we would. But if it was in an area in which we

didn't want any placer mining, we would not allow it.

MR. GIBSON: If that were an area that you were prepared to

consider, then, would the House have your undertaking that such

an application would be held in strictest confidence? The

secrecy would be the only protection the finder would have if

there is no provision within the legislation.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: As far as I am concerned it would be in

strictest secrecy. But in order to designate these you have got

to go to different departments and have their okay as to

whether they would allow placer mining in those areas.

I think that you could find a loophole in any law in this

regard. To say that you can go and stake a claim on

undesignated areas would not be correct either. If anybody

finds any gold he had better cover it up and then apply to have

it designated and see if it will be designated.

MR. FRASER: Just a short question to the Minister, Mr.

Chairman. Who is going to be the boss here? The Minister of

Mines hasn't been the boss over pollution problems with miners.

Are you now saying that you will finally be the boss on

granting placer permits and so on? Or are you going to let the

Minister of Recreation be boss one day and Lands, Forests and

Water Resources the next?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We are in hopes of channelling the

applications from our department through the other departments.

If it gets knocked down by one of the departments, it wouldn't

be allowed. Pollution control has got to come under the

pollution control department; the fisheries have a say in it;

the parks department has a say in it, and Lands and Forests

have a say in it.

MR. FRASER: Environmental land use?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's one of those problems where you've

got to go through a lot of channels. But rather than have the

individuals go to each one of these departments and get

clearance, we hope that to make it easier for him he can make

the application to the Department of Mines and then we will

channel the application through the other departments.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Of course, that won't

speed up anything at all. It will just mean that he deals with

one office and not six or seven. But it really means that you

haven't got much control over the issuing of placer permits.

The Minister of Recreation can stop it or the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources and so on.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That might be a good idea.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. RICHTER: In

section 6(3): "No free miner shall be issued

more than two placer leases during a calendar year." This is a

provision which could curtail a placer miner to a great

degree.

For instance, in January of the year two placer leases are

granted; by the end of February or the first part of March he

finds out that one of those leases is not a producer. He has

discovered through exploration that there is another area which

may be more productive. Will the lessee then be able to

relinquish one and take up another within that period of time

while he may have been issued two leases? One would be revoked

and the other one would be supplemented in its place.

I don't know whether the Minister is following me or not.

But in the event that I had two valid placer

[ Page 4307 ]

claims or placer leases and I found that one of those was

not a producer, but I do know of another area, can I substitute

the lease on the first one to the area on the second one,

providing everything is in order? I could go back and by

relinquishing the one I still would just only have two. But can

this be done?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's rather a hypothetical case. I'm

sure that it would take him probably six months before he could

prove the one was no good, and in the other six months he could

work on the first one. But I would say, according to the law,

he would only be allowed the two placer leases in one calendar

year.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, he could have a very substantial

crew of men working on both leases at the one time. It would

seem rather unfortunate that he would not be able to supplement

one lease with the other with the consent of the Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The law reads that it's only two placer

leases in any one calendar year. The purpose of this is that a

person wouldn't be able to control miles and miles along one

creek. Other people would have an opportunity of placer mining

as well. This is the idea to restrict as much as possible so

that more people could get involved. To me, placer mining is

more of a recreational value than it is monetary — except maybe

in the odd case.

MR. GIBSON: I fully support the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen in his contention. This limit should be

raised, in my opinion. Not only for the circumstances set

forward by the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen but also in

the circumstance where the same set of deposits along a stream

runs for longer than the distance that could be covered by two

leases. That should be worked as a single operation. Therefore,

I believe that the limit of two should definitely be

raised.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He can hold two or more than two. But you

can only stake two in the one calendar year. Only two can be

issued in the one calendar year to the one person. But if he

had one and got two the next year, he could have three.

MR. GIBSON: He could hold any number then, as long as he

accumulates them at two a year.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's not going to be that easy to get

leases, I don't imagine, to work when you go through all the

departments. It usually takes about six months to get through

the departments to get a lease at all.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. GIBSON: In

section 7 it kind of bothers me that the

Minister simply "may" issue a lease after all the regulations

are complied with rather than "shall" issue a lease. Could the

Minister explain why the wording should be thus? I mean, once

everything's complied with, it seems to me….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What

section was that?

MR. GIBSON:

Section 7, line 2. It seems to me that you

should be required to issue that lease.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We go through all the other departments.

But there is no intent, if he passes all the requirements, that

the lease will not be allowed.

MR. GIBSON: So this is basically to provide for other

departments then?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: One other question then under this section. The

maximum term of the lease has been shortened from about 20

years down to 10 years. Could the Minister explain why? In some

cases deposits might last for more than 10 years.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In the case of placer mining this is just

a matter of timing. I think that after 10 years they can get

renewal. It gives a chance to look over the situation.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. GIBSON:

section 10(2) line 3, provides that work can't in

effect be spread over more than three years. Could the Minister say why

this should be the case when the lease is issuable for up to 10 years?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If they've got a lease, we'd like to see

them doing something with it. We'll give them three years, and

we figure that that is a sufficient work requirement. Now they

might do in the first year enough work for the whole 10 years

and then leave the lease idle for all that time. We don't think

that that's correct.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. GIBSON: Under

section 12(3)(

b) why does the Minister

wish the right to approve the construction of the building, Mr.

Chairman?

[ Page 4308 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If it's built for some other purpose than

for placer mining, we wouldn't allow it. Somebody might want to

build a summer home on a placer lease, and this wouldn't be

allowed.

MR. GIBSON: Would there be a requirement that plans be first

submitted and that sort of thing? How will you draw a line

between a bunkhouse and then a very nice bunkhouse and then a

modest cottage?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, there's always somebody who would

try and get around the regulations, I know. But this is trying

to protect us from these people.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. GIBSON: This is similar to the Coal Act question. I

would ask the Minister why he wants to be able to have the

consent on the transferal of leases, why he isn't simply

satisfied with just registration of the transfer. Why does he

want to have the right to withhold consent?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We don't want trafficking in leases. The

second point is that we want to keep a record of where these

leases go and to whom they go. Maybe the individual that he's

going to transfer the lease to — maybe we just think that it's

not the proper thing to do.

MR. GIBSON: What kind of an individual would that be, Mr.

Minister, that you wouldn't just think it the proper thing to

do? What kind of guidelines would those be?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He may not even have a free miner's

certificate.

MR. GIBSON: But in that case it would be natural. Look at

the case where a lease might pass through an estate. The

Minister could render that lease totally valueless by

arbitrarily withholding his consent. That seems to me to be

wrong.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is in practically all the Acts where

to transfer leases, claims and all these things must go through

the department. I don't feel as though these transfers should

be exercised out in some office back in some other place. I

think that the main office should know what's going on. They

should be the ones that sign the transfer of the lease. I don't

think there will be too much of a problem there. If anybody

runs into difficulty, we could soon get that corrected,

MR. GIBSON: I will just say one more thing, Mr. Chairman. In

what you might call the outside world that almost always says:

"which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." I think

that that should be in here too.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to, as I have on each of these bills

that have come before the House on minerals this session,

register my strong opposition to the complete discretionary

authority of the Minister to set the rate of taxation not

governed by this House.

Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. GIBSON:

section 23 provides for renewal of leases under

the previous Placer-mining Act. I'm a little confused by the

wording, Mr. Chairman. Is this a guarantee that a lease under

the old Act will be renewed under the new Act, or will it be

renewed under the terms of the old Act?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It will be renewed under the new Act, but

it would carry on under the old Act right to the expiry

date.

MR. GIBSON: I see. Then we have a guaranteed renewal, do

we?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Subject to the new Act.

MR. GIBSON: Subject to the renewal terms of the new Act we

have a guaranteed renewal.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports Bill 144

complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When shall the bill be

considered as reported?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: With leave of the House,

[ Page 4309 ]

now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 144, Placer Mining Act, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 162.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 162; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 14 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very

brief on this section. We spoke at some length in the House

earlier about the provisions of this section. What it provides

for is simply a blatant subsidy for the Insurance Corporation

of British Columbia through gasoline taxes.

I just want to remind this House of the kind of comments

that the Minister of Transport and Communications made in this

House on second reading of the bill to provide for the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, He was very

insistent at that time that never, never, never would one penny

of tax money be used to shore up the ICBC. He said that only

insurance costs and experience would be charged against the

plan; the plan will be self-sustaining. All services rendered

by any department of government or otherwise will be paid for

from moneys belonging to the plan.

I wonder what is happening now with the services. And there

are many services, Mr. Chairman, being provided to ICBC by the

Motor Vehicle Branch, for instance. Are those services being

charged for against the insurance corporation plan? What about

all the other departments of government which are providing

services for that plan — are they being charged against the

plan on March 5, 1973 as the Minister said they would be?

On that same occasion the Minister said that there would be

no hiding the costs of automobile insurance. Yet this is what

we're doing now. From the consolidated revenue of the Province

of British Columbia we are taking gasoline tax money and

effectively hiding the cost of the automobile insurance.

I said in a debate earlier this session that the Minister hasn't got all the

confidence that he professes to have in the structure of ICBC. I said that a

company, a fledgling company set up as a Crown corporation by this government,

which needs shoring up so early has to be an indication of the failure of this

government to provide good sound business management to ICBC.

Later on, Mr. Chairman, on March 8, during the closing of

second reading, in answer to some interjections by Members of

this House with regard to the hiding of the true costs of the

operation of ICBC, the Minister said that it's right in the

legislation, nothing hidden, everything on top of the

table.

Well, it might have been on top of the table in those days,

but today that Minister has shoved the finances of ICBC

underneath the table, and he's asking the people of British

Columbia to subsidize that company, which is obviously

faltering, with taxpayers' money. And the question to be asked

is, what next?

What kind of tax subsidy will be going into ICBC next? I

think it's fair to say now that this government has not

honoured its commitment to the people of British Columbia to

keep the finances of ICBC honest and above board at all

times.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman,

I reject out of hand the statements made by the Member. I agree I made those

statements, but the Member ignored completely the statement that was made by

the Premier that this is essentially to try and eliminate the many areas of

discrimination which were built up as part of the private enterprise operation

of insurance in the Province of British Columbia.

We adopted exactly the same territories and the same ratio

between territories as was in operation by the private

insurance companies. After a year's experience it's obvious to

me that the people who are being discriminated against don't

like it. And while they may have been willing to accept it from

a private insurance company with headquarters somewhere else,

they expect the government to accept the responsibility of

removing discrimination wherever they can.

I notice in The Calgary Herald of April 30, 1974, an

editorial which talks about the kind of discrimination that was

part of the private insurance field. This same editorial from

The Calgary Herald , of April 30, 1974, an editorial which talks

about the kind of discrimination that was part of the private

insurance field. This same editorial from The Calgary Herald

talks about the government of that province. It says:

"That government is, for example, considering a

proposition made by the Insurance Board of Canada to the seven

non-socialist provinces. It calls for a form of no-fault insurance and

poses a number of other changes.

"Although both sides have chosen to

[ Page 4310 ]

exclude the public from their deliberations so far, the proposal

would seem to perpetuate the practice of setting rates for Calgary by underwriters

in Toronto according to principles apparently established in the U.S."

This is The Calgary Herald in an editorial of April 30.

"The legislation calls for the tabling of financial reports."

I have already tabled the first annual report. You will

notice that this same

section allows for a widening of the

basis on which financial reports are made. Until now it was

limited to the questions that the superintendent of insurance

required. But this allows for the widening of the financial

report.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would further like to mention

that we are surprised that we can have suc