1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, MARCH 29, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1941 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Meeting of Social Welfare and Education committee. Mr.

Speaker's ruling — 1941

Mrs. Jordan — 1942

Mr. Smith — 1942

Mr. Brousson — 1943

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1943

Mrs. Jordan — 1943

Mr. Speaker — 1943

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation estimates

Mr. Fraser — 1944

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1944

Mr. Chabot — 1945

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1945

Mr. McClelland — 1945

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1945

Mr. Chabot — 1945

Mr. Fraser — 1946

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1946

Mr. Chabot — 1946

Mr. Phillips — 1947

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1947

Mr. Chabot — 1947

Mr. Nicolson — 1948

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1948

Mr. Fraser — 1948

Mr. Smith — 1948

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1948

Mr. Smith — 1948

Mr. Radford — 1949

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1949

Mr. Chabot — 1949

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1950

Mr. Smith — 1950

Mr. Phillips — 1951

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1951

Mr. McClelland — 1952

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1952

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1953

Committee of supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates

Mr. Phillips — 1953

Privilege

Article in Vancouver Province . Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1968

Mr. Phillips — 1969

Mrs. Jordan — 1970

Mr. Speaker — 1970

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1970

Mr. Speaker — 1971

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1973

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the House adjourned I promised that I

would try to deal with the question raised by the Hon. Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in regard to a meeting held

this morning by members of a committee of the House.

I have examined the complaint on a point of privilege raised

by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that the Select Standing

Committee of Social Welfare and Education "held a committee

meeting" while the House was in session this morning after

leave to do so had not been granted by the House, although such

leave was sought at 10 o'clock a.m. by its presiding

member.

The complaint states:

"The committee went ahead and met. The committee used

the

special sign on the door. They not only used the Hansard

transcribing machine but summoned Hansard to appear. The

Press were in attendance and in effect reporting a meeting that

didn't exist."

Further on, the complaint was elaborated to include this

statement:

"Mr. Speaker, the complaint is that this House denied

the right of that committee to sit and the chairman went ahead and

invoked all the trappings, all the equipment and all the assistance of

a formal meeting," and, I emphasize these words, "and indicated to the

people appearing before that meeting that this was in fact a legally

constituted and formal meeting."

I obtained this from Hansard .

As Members know, the Speaker's office has jurisdiction over

the precincts, the committee rooms, security officers of the

Legislature and the Hansard facilities. Fortunately,

recordings of the events that took place this morning are

available. The chairman of the committee is shown by the record

to have stated at that meeting, "We did not get permission from

this House to sit, but the decision was made that since you had

made the trip over we would listen to what you have to say

anyway." As the administrator of the legislative precincts, I

have ascertained that members of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff,

without knowledge of events inside the chamber this morning,

followed their normal duties in placing the sign on each

committee door in compliance with the notices posted in the

Speaker's Corridor and on the order paper as to meetings of

committees.

The social welfare and education committee had been advertised for

some time as meeting at 11 o'clock Thursday in the Cedar Room. An

attendant should have removed the sign but was unaware that the

advertised notice had been overruled. Members have supplied me with a

notice distributed to committee Members which states:

"Official leave has been denied, so we cannot hold an

official meeting. But anyone interested in meeting with the Committee

on Social Welfare, which will be meeting with representatives from the

Association of Canadian Distillers, Winery Association and presentation

of Canadian Breweries, can do so in the Cedar Room at 11:00 a.m."

Signed, "Rosemary Brown."

Clearly there was a recognition by the members of the

committee that they could not conduct any business as a

committee; in view of the refusal of leave to hold a formal

meeting. This is borne out by the memorandum and the words of

the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) duly

transcribed by Hansard .

As Speaker, however, I have issued instructions to the

Hansard staff that they are not to service any group

informally without express authority from me. The rule relating

to committees is set out in May, 18th ed. , p.626. It must be

noted that British standing orders differ now from the previous

practice dating from 1693. May states:

"Formerly without leave of the House no committee of

the

Commons could sit whilst the House was sitting, but now by

standing order 88 all committees have leave to sit during the

sitting of the House and notwithstanding any adjournment of the

House on any day in which the House has sat."

Thus the British practice has changed; but we are not, with

respect, subject to the same change under our standing order 1

(see Speaker's decision in the Votes and Proceedings,

March 22, 1973).

The Hon. Member cites Beauchesne, 4th ed. , 1958, at

section

300, p.243 as to Canadian practice, but that no longer is

correct. The Canadian standing orders, adopted first in 1969

and amended in 1971, state in standing order 65, paragraph

"Standing committees shall be severally empowered to

examine

and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by

the House and to report from time to time and except when the

House otherwise to send for persons, papers and records to sit

while the House is sitting."

Although it is desirable, perhaps, to follow these recent

rule changes made in Ottawa and Westminster, our rule continues

to conform to the usage as it was formerly and as indicated in

the Commons Journals 1693-97, Vol. 126, p. 494. Thus our

committees must still seek leave to sit while the House is in

session.

In all the circumstances I do not think a prima facie breach

of the House rules was evidenced. It appears that the Members

concerned met on an informal basis and no report from such

gathering would be expected to be sent to the House. The House

should know, however, that I have taken steps to deny any

further unauthorized use of Hansard

[ Page 1942 ]

staff by Hon. Members, regardless of the possibly

useful

purposes which may have been contemplated.

That is my decision, Hon. Members.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of privilege,

Mr. Speaker. I would like — and I'm sure we'll have time to

study the ruling — to ask just one or two questions if I might

for clarification.

You cited, and I can't recall the actual incident of rulings

about select standing committees being able to meet during the

House. Does this overrule Beauchesne ?

MR. SPEAKER: Beauchesne is not the authority that

guides

this House. The citation that you gave me from Beauchesne is no

longer correct. That's an old edition, the 4th edition. It's

now out of date in terms of Canadian practice. In any event we

don't follow Beauchesne — we follow May , which is our

guide

under standing order I of our rules.

MRS. JORDAN: Just further, Mr. Speaker, when you're thinking

in terms of this in the future, could I bring to your attention

that the procedure of having committees sit in the first

instance while supply is being granted is a very reprehensible

move, because the traditional powers of parliament rest upon the

power of the purse, and that of all the powers of parliament

that the Speaker, I am sure, would wish to uphold, the power of

the purse and the significance of voting supply should override

all other considerations, because it's fundamental to the

parliamentary system itself.

MR. SPEAKER: I quite agree that this is so under our rules.

But I am pointing out to the Hon. Member that contrary to her

statement, Hansard does not bear her out. Her statement

was that they had indicated to the people appearing before the

meeting that this was in fact a legally constituted and formal

meeting. The facts do not bear out that statement that was made

to the House by the Hon. Member — quite the contrary,

according to Hansard .

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in light of what you said….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Really, I disposed of the evidence that was

before me in the investigations that I have made. I do not see

how you can claim that because Members are not in the House — they

could be in the dining room in a meeting with

constituents, but it would not thereby be a breach of the

privileges of the House, providing they do not set out that

they are acting as a duly constituted committee. And the

evidence does not bear out your statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, might I ask, in light of your

ruling and the fact that it was an informal meeting and there was

improper use of the facilities, that all matters transcribed at that

meeting be stricken from the record?

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that nothing that occurred at

that meeting is of any consequence to this House. It is not a

proceeding of this House under the authority of this House, and

consequently any individuals in this House can meet anywhere

they wish in these precincts without in any way violating the

rules of the House by so doing.

Now, I have another matter of privilege.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, if I may

speak to your decision, you've indicated, when you handed down

the decision, that the Hansard staff was present and

that they recorded the debate. All that the Hon. Member has

asked is this — that because of the decision that you have

handed down anything that was recorded within that committee

meeting be stricken from the record because it was not a legal

meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you it isn't a legal meeting. They

knew it wasn't a legal meeting, and they were not conducting a

legal meeting. Therefore there is no record that is of any

concern to this House whatsoever that is a part of any record

of this House. I think that should….

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Right.

Now on the second point that was raised today, I'd like to

deal with that too, because I'm sure the Hon. Member would not

want that lingering. The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) complains on grounds of breach of privilege at a

statement in Wednesday's Vancouver Province , p. 43, by a

columnist, Lorne Parton. The usual procedure in matters of such

a complaint is for the Hon. Member to characterize the nature

of the

article to the House; and it is for the House, if it

wishes, to consider what steps it proposes to take in regard to

the Hon. Member's complaint.

The Speaker has a duty, as you will note in May, 18th ed. ,

pp. 159-60, to ask the Clerk to read out the particular

article complained of. Then it is up to either the Member who

complains to make any motion that he feels characterizes his

complaint or the House Leader, if he chooses to do so, on

behalf of the Member. It's entirely up to those two individuals

or any Member of the House who wishes to make any motion in

regard to what appears to be an impugning of a Member — if

that's how you characterize it — by a newspaper, publisher,

printer or columnist.

[ Page 1943 ]

I would therefore ask the Clerk to read out the matter of which the

Hon. Member complained today, and then the Member can decide what he

wishes to do in light of the authorities. I don't see him present,

though. Perhaps I should adjourn the matter until he's here.

MRS. JORDAN: In light of the fact that the Member who spoke

on our behalf isn't present, could you reserve your decision

until he is present?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

didn't realize you were moving on so quickly to a second point.

I wonder if I could raise a point of privilege with respect to

your first point.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. BROUSSON: As a member of the committee which met

informally this morning, Mr. Speaker, I'm very disturbed at the

situation that has arisen. Attending at that meeting this

morning were a number of members of the business community, a

number of organizations who attended at the invitation of the

committee and therefore of this House. They presented prepared

briefs, and there was a useful and worthwhile discussion. I find

it very objectionable that we're following a rule that's — I

didn't do the arithmetic — something like 300 years old to have

their evidence stricken from the record. Mr. Speaker, I would

ask you to reconsider this matter and see if there isn't some

more practical, useful and modern way of doing business in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly take that into

consideration.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

While I may have sympathy with the Member's request….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know on what ground you're on your

feet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of us has the floor. I don't know

which one.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already recognized the House Leader on his

point of order, and I didn't know what you were rising on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not a male chauvinist. We're all equal

MLAs in this House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got the floor, thank you. Mr.

Speaker, on the point raised by the Member, I think it would be

a dangerous precedent if you were to consider at the Member's

request a change of rule. Changes of rule must come through the

House itself. While I may have sympathy with the Member's

request, I think it would be a dangerous precedent to even pass

judgment on the request. It is nothing more than an expression

of opinion, which I happen to have sympathy for. But if the

House wishes to refer the matter to committee, I'm sure that

the House itself would not object to reviewing it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think

it should be pointed out, and I did before — I won't read the

same statement again. I had worded it very carefully. But it's

a matter of considerable difference if the House is in

committee of supply or, in fact, if it's in the Committee of

the Whole. We are in the committee of supply. We were debating,

and in debating we are debating the fundamentals of parliament,

the fundamentals of the power of the democratic system, which

is the spending of the moneys in this province.

I am sure the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Brousson) is not aware of the vital interest of the province as

a whole in the five portfolios that we were debating this

afternoon — Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Recreation and

Conservation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've made a ruling, Hon. Member.

I just point out for your benefit that what you said in your

complaint was not borne out in the record. The second point I

have is this, that standing order 8 says, "Every Member is

bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of

absence has been given to him by the House." In this case

you're saying that every Member must be in the House at all

times. If that were true the House would break down, because

it's never happened before, and it'll never happen again.

MRS. JORDAN: That's the crux of the point, Mr. Speaker.

Those Members should have been in the House; Members should be

in the House most of the time. This is where our obligation is,

and the chairman of that committee….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Where was your

leader all last month?

[ Page 1944 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The only thing I can suggest is

that the Hon. Member put a substantive motion on the order

paper with regard to your complaints.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF

RECREATION AND CONSERVATION

(Continued)

On vote 224: environmental conservation, $337,892.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In

speaking to vote 224, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I

would like to ask. This is the car crushing programme which

started out very well in 1971, if I recall — crushing old cars,

getting them away from the landscape and then putting them

through a reclamation plant. But it has completely broken down,

as far as I am concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: The car's broken down?

MR. FRASER: Yes, the cars broke down and so did the

programme. I'll relate what happened in my riding of Cariboo.

The car crushing operation took place at several locations….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Oh, Mr. Chairman.

There's a Member leaving the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, how could that be? Oh, my

goodness! Let's write London!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What about the Member for

Skeena (Mr. Dent)? He's not here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let's get on with our business.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everybody seems to be

real excited after lunch.

Back to vote 224, Mr. Chairman — it's a good programme, but

it has completely broken down. I'll relate what has happened.

All the vehicles in the Cariboo riding were crushed by the unit

and stockpiled on individual private properties with their

permission, and they're still waiting there to be picked up. I'd

like to know what's happened. The last time I tried to get them

moved I got the weak excuse from the administration that

they're in the process of calling a tender for the freight haul

of these crushed vehicles. I guess they're still calling the

tender, because unless it's happened in the last two weeks, none

of these units have moved — around 2,000-odd done.

The reason I say that the programme has broken down is that

never again will the individual operators, who have allowed

these units to be crushed on their property and stockpiled,

let them come back. After all, they've been there 18 months, and

they need this property for other uses. I think this is

terrible — to have a well based programme break down this way.

I'd like to hear from the Minister as to what he's going to do

about it to get it cleared up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation

and Conservation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that the failures of the previous

administration didn't affect the electoral success of the Member for

Cariboo, because that's where the problem lies, really. The budget has

been increased for this particular programme by some $151,000 over the

former amount of $226,000. That's a significant increase.

The reason for the increase is to deal with the stockpiled

vehicles that have already been crushed. That's the reason.

Because the former administration would not provide the funds

for the transportation of the vehicles that had already been

crushed. So we're working to clean up the backlog even in this

small area that was left by the former administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: I must say that….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you have your Whips' meeting tomorrow

and quiet down a little?

MR. CHABOT: I'm being disturbed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Let's get on with our

business.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister castigated

[ Page 1945 ]

the former government for this programme. I want to

say that it's an enlightened programme that was initiated by

the former government to clean up the countryside in British

Columbia of the derelict cars. There's nothing wrong with that

programme, despite what you say, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Talk to the man from Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser). What does he say?

MR. CHABOT: It's a good start, and it's in its initial stage

at the moment. I want the Minister to tell me now….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Here it is, the leadership fight.

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I want the Minister to tell me specifically…. He hasn't given very many specific answers since his estimates

have been up. It's all been general, broad statements he's been

making. I want to tell me specifically what was spent during

the past fiscal year on this programme, environmental

conservation project SAM.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's another leadership candidate.

(Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, with respect I would like to ask the Minister

if there is a problem at this end of the programme as well,

because is it not true that they are having trouble getting rid

of, or at least processing, the car hulks at this end as well?

If that's true, is the Minister or is the department doing

anything to speed up that part of the programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to expenditures, we were

within the budget of last year, which was $226,260. In terms of

the accomplishments — and there have been accomplishments, of

course, as the Member suggests — there have been some 25,262

abandoned or derelict vehicles accumulated and delivered to the

shredding plant in the Vancouver area in Richmond — 18,876 tons

of material. Some 135 collection depots have been serviced, and

it is expected that 50 to 60 permanent depots will be set up

within some 20 regional districts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: The question was: is there a problem at the

Richmond plant in getting rid of the car hulks, and if there is, is

something being done to speed that up?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to our understanding at all. There's

no problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: I still would like to know when these vehicles

are going to be picked up that have been sitting there for 18

months on private property. You didn't answer that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We've added $150,000 for pickup purposes,

and I'm sure a fair amount of those in the Cariboo will be

picked up under the programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 224 pass?

Vote 224 approved.

On vote 225, Provincial Museum, $1,057,254.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I notice in vote 225 that we have a very large

increase in temporary assistance, and I'd like to find out if

that is also a part of vote 030.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There was a considerable amount of

temporary staff in the museum that was funded, in fact, by

federal grants. Now, we're picking up a fair amount of that

funding ourselves in federal grants that in the next fiscal

year are being used for other purposes, as I recall. So I think

that's part of the situation. It's a significant increase in

the museum budget, as you are aware — virtually a doubling of

the museum budget.

I'd like to take the opportunity of commending the museum

staff, who I think have done excellent work and are providing a

significant addition to the Victoria community, both for the

people who live here and for the tourists who come here. So, it

adds significantly to the capital precinct. I'd like to make it

clear to everyone that I regard the staff in the museum as

among the most active, bright and delightful people in the

provincial administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: That Provincial Museum vote and the Provincial

Museum building: I hope in view of the fact that this was the

centennial project cooperation between two levels of

government, that the government will never consider

establishing an entrance fee, or a fee for entering and seeing

the exhibits in that building.

[ Page 1946 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is certainly a terrible rumour, Mr.

Chairman. I don't know where it might come from. We have no

intention in the government to charge an entry fee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 225 pass?

Vote 225 approved.

On vote 226: Commercial Fisheries Branch, $125,579.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: In vote 226 there is a fair increase — almost a

50 per cent increase in the allocation of money. I am wondering

whether the government is giving consideration, because we've

heard the plea time and again in this House that there be a

Department of Commercial Fisheries. I'm wondering if

consideration is being given to that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We are significantly increasing the

budget again in order to have the kind of technical staff to

begin take-off in this important area.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has

advocated a separate Department of Commercial Fisheries. He's

anxious for a portfolio. Give it consideration. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 226 pass?

Vote 226 approved.

Vote 227: Fish and Wildlife Branch, $4,196,131 — approved.

Vote 228: Creston Valley Management Authority, $94,324 — approved.

On vote 229: Department of Recreation and Conservation,

Parks Branch, $4,342,578.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Vote 229: I'm going from memory here now, Mr.

Chairman, but I was wondering where the usual vote for the

restoration of Barkerville is. Is it in this vote, or is it

eliminated, or what is going to happen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That comes under the Department of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, could we have a detailed

breakdown of vote 029?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Of which? 029? Oh, motor vehicles and

accessories. The Member keeps raising these categories.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: In the Parks Branch is there any plan for a

provincial Class A park in the area of Williams Lake for this

fiscal year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the only one I'm familiar with is

the Second Century Fund proposal with respect to the site right

on the shoreline at Williams Lake. I'm not aware of any other

proposal at this stage.

Regarding the vote, the $200,000 vote, there are 33 vehicles

being replaced, but the maintenance problems have been

significant, and there haven't been funds in the past for

replacement of vehicles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering if the Minister would care to

comment on the Class A parks in my constituency, Hamber first

of all. There was a discussion some time ago for the possible

turnover of this park to link with the Jasper National Park.

It's a fairly isolated park, and I'm wondering whether it's

going to be retained. Probably there will be access, closer

access into Hamber now with the Mica Pondage up the Cross

River. There would be access by water towards Hamber Provincial

Park.

The other one: I understand there's a possibility, or it's

in the works now, of expansion in Assiniboine Provincial Park,

and I'm wondering whether the Minister would want to comment on

that. I would like to know whether there is anything being

considered at Bugaboo Class A provincial park.

We have in the Bugaboo recreational reserves the most

outstanding skiing found in the North American continent. It's

helicopter-lift skiing. It started out as a humble enterprise

by Mr. Hans Gmoser and, with a seasonal revenue of $3,000 in

1965, it's now grown to a $508,000 business.

It's a very exclusive, I have to admit, very costly form of

skiing. They had 514 bookings and of that 514 bookings, 439

were from the United States. George Hees of the Conservative

Party was there too.

[ Page 1947 ]

I'm not trying to give him a plug by any means. From Canada,

except B.C., 59 people. There were 12 skiers from British

Columbia and four from overseas.

The real point here is, I'm wondering whether the Minister

would listen very briefly to this recommendation put in by Mr.

Gmoser of Canadian Holiday regarding skiing and safety of

skiers in this recreational reserve. He's made some

recommendations: No. 1 was to establish a business license for

helicopter ski operation.

He suggests that there should be a business license for this

type of business and that the license should be contingent on: (

a) proof that the applicant has a contract with a qualified

helicopter firm and has enough qualified guides in his employ

to run such an operation; (

b) that the applicant develop

adequate facilities at his lodges and related service buildings

in good taste to fit in with the natural surroundings and to

have provision for garbage, sewage and refuse disposal of a

nature that will cause no damage or pollute the area under

development;

"(

c) that such a development is compatible with other

land uses such as mining or logging and will not work in conflict with

them." Of course in this particular area I don't think it would be

compatible with the designation of a portion of that area.

"(

d) such a licence should grant the whole or

exclusive rights to carry on the business of commercial helicopter skiing

as specified in a sufficiently large area of high mountain

country."

Why he says that, of course — and there are other points he

makes here for the length of the licence and so forth; he's

willing to pay a licence fee — I think there is a concern here

with the possibility of unauthorized skiers coming to the same area, but people are skiing with helicopter lifts and with

guides. You are skiing primarily in an avalanche country.

With every skiing party that's lifted to the top of these

glaciers to the 13,000 foot elevation — and these ski runs

sometimes take as much as six hours to come down — you have to

have someone that's experienced with the potential avalanches.

You're allowing the occasional helicopter to come in and land

and people to drop down and ski in the same area where there is

a well-established lodge and a substantial investment — I

believe Mr. Gmoser has helicopter skiing in three different

areas of British Columbia. He has an investment of

approximately $1 million.

His main concern really is not a matter of establishing an

exclusive preserve for himself; it's for the safety of the

skiers. Other skiers dropping in that do own a helicopter could

come in and trigger off an avalanche and endanger the lives of

those people that are coming there skiing with Canadian

Mountain Holidays.

I am wondering whether the Minister would entertain or give some

consideration to the possibility of licensing to control the safety

element in helicopter skiing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Yes, just one short

question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. Would the Minister

advise me if there are any plans for expenditures to upgrade

Swan Lake Park in my area and also the Pouce Coupe Community

Park which was taken over by the government last summer from

the Pouce Coupe village. It now should be titled with the

provincial government. Has the Minister any plans to upgrade

that part this summer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Hamber park question

raised by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). The

matter was discussed with the federal government. The federal

government to date has not chosen to follow up the matter.

Assiniboine will be expanded primarily to the north and west.

There's mineral potential to the south, and while that has a

high recreational value, it has not been included in the

expansion proposals.

The Bugaboo area I'm aware of. I haven't been able to afford

to visit it, either in time or money.

MR. PHILLIPS: When you get to be Prime Minister, you

will.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At any rate, I am familiar with it

because I read an

article about it in Playboy magazine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter).

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm aware of the real success that Gmoser

has made of his lodge. The various concerns that the Member has

raised that Gmoser has mentioned are well worth considering. We

realize there might be an element of competition involved, but

there is a need for standards to be established so the safety

of the people in the area is looked after.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: The Hamber Provincial Park. Apparently there has

been no exchange of property with the national government. I

was wondering, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would

consider really looking at it and looking at the water course

that will be established after Mica has reached its full level

to see whether there will be access to the Hamber Provincial

Park by water up the…I keep saying the Canoe River; that's

the wrong river.

[ Page 1948 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Wood River. That's right. If there is

access, I think it's worthy of consideration. We retain it as a

provincial class A park rather than exchange of property with

the national government. But it will have access by water.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's an interesting point. We'll keep

that in mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

ask the Minister two questions. Is there any consideration

being given to upgrading Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park from

class B to class A, as it was some years ago; and is there any

consideration being given to establishing a provincial park in

the Mulvey basin area in the Valhalla Range?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The beautiful little Kokanee Glacier Park

is so over-ridden with mining claims that I'm afraid it's a

little late for considering class A status. But it's just part

of the unfortunate tradition in some of the parks in the

province.

Regarding the Valhalla area, I think that's still being

looked at by the Parks Branch in terms of survey. They're

certainly considering the area as a potential site.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, thank you. To the Minister, in

view of the terrific success of the restoration of Barkerville,

there's been quite a strain put on accommodation there. The

Parks Branch has done a good job in expanding the facilities,

but I still think they're behind. Last year, 1972, there were

200,000 visitors to Barkerville. I was wondering if there are

any plans to further expand the accommodation for the public

there.

One other question — I am not sure if it's your department.

A couple of years ago, I think it was, the Clydesdale horses

from Essondale were taken from there and taken to Fort Steele.

I was wondering if you'd consider sending them to Barkerville

where they could have a better life than they no doubt have in

Fort Steele?

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

What do you mean? (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

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

Just a couple of quick questions to the Hon. Minister. One is

with respect to parks within the area adjacent to Fort Nelson.

I know that a number of requests have come into the Parks

Branch in recent years from the Fort Nelson area asking the

Minister to establish a park on reserves that they already have — this is in overnight camping grounds and whatnot — within the

area close to Fort Nelson.

The other request that I hear most frequently is with

respect to the area adjacent to Williston Lake. There's a

tremendous body of water there that has fantastic recreational

potential. The fishing is tremendous in that area, but yet there

is no park site or any development anywhere on Williston Lake

itself or immediately adjacent to it. I would hope that this is

one of the areas that the department is looking at, because a

large number of people would use that area. At the present time

they have to go either to a campsite at Moberley Lake or one at

Charlie Lake, which is a fair distance removed from the lake

itself.

So the two questions: what is being proposed in the Fort

Nelson area? The other question: what do you anticipate in the

way of development in or adjacent to Lake Williston?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think the point made is a valid one.

There hasn't been as much work done in the north as there

should be. That is going to change. The concentration last year

was in the north-west, and that's reflected in some of our

programmes.

The north-eastern part of the province, however, hasn't had

the kind of surveys that are necessary prior to establishing a

programme. This summer will see a greater concentration in

north-eastern British Columbia, so that the areas will be given

consideration.

MR. SMITH: Just one supplemental question. It's more a

matter of information than a question, and that is that there

is an increasing pressure to use Williston Lake as a

recreational area. It's a large lake subject to storms. I would

hope that if and when we develop sites for parks on the lake,

we also take into consideration some sort of patrol so that we

can keep small craft off, or at least warn small craft of the

dangers of that lake. They can get up 20 miles to one of the

streams that runs into the lake and get out into the lake, and a

storm hits them and they can capsize quite easily.

So I think a programme of not only park development but a

programme of at least partial control of the people that go in

there, checking them to see if the craft that they're operating

is sufficient in size and equipment to handle the waters that

we have.

We run into a lot of sudden storms in the area, and if it

could be taken into consideration it would certainly save a lot

of lives.

[ Page 1949 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. the First Member for

Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, regarding the

last speaker's remarks on Williston Lake, I would like to ask a

question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Is

there any plan on cleaning up Williston Lake? The previous

speaker mentioned that it was a beautiful recreation area, and I

happen to know that that area is ridden with logs and ridden

with snags. In the last three or four years approximately 10 or

11 people have been drowned in that lake due to the snags in

that lake and due to the tidal waves that have been caused by

the cave-ins on the side of that lake. It was not fit for

recreation after the last government got through with it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if there is any possible

way, or if any possible investigation has been made into trying

to clean up that lake after the previous administration had

dealt with it?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I know it is unusual for a

cabinet Minister to speak on a cabinet colleague's estimates,

but I want to say that I don't know what we can do about that

problem. I had never in my life seen anything quite like it

until I flew in by small plane into the town during the last

election campaign. I don't admit that it's been cleaned up, Mr.

Member. I think it is a horrible mess. I think it is going to

be a tragic legacy for any administration. Whether we get to it

or someone else, and I just hope to God and the future of this

province that that kind of mistake is never made again. Never

made again.

Mr. Member, you can yell across the floor at me and say what

you wish, and I know that we are the government and that we

are charged with the responsibility, but I will never in my

life forget the sight of coming in low over that town of Mackenzie and

seeing that mile after mile after mile of filth; that

disgraceful mess that was left by a government that was

committed to straight technocratic decisions rather than any concept of

preserving the beauty of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You may laugh and talk about "get out the

candles." But there were some reporters who were with me on that plane

at the same time. I ask anybody in this province not to take my word

for it — not to take my word for it — but to go over the area by plane

— we all stand condemned for that mess. All

of us.

But I hope to God, as I said before, never, never, no matter

what administration is in office, is that kind of legacy left

for any generation of the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Yes — on the question of parks. You know, the

Premier tries to make us all cry about what has happened on

Williston Lake, and I don't think it is as tragic as he tries

politically to portray it. As I have flown over the entire

length of that power reservoir….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You think it's all right?

MR. CHABOT: I say it's not bad. I say that there is a

continuing programme of clearing up there. When I did go up in

that particular country in the fall of 1971 I had expected to

see a shocking, disgraceful mess, and that's probably why I was

so impressed with the area, because it had been so politically

portrayed as a disaster, an ecological disaster, which is

really untrue. It's untrue. And you know it. You come around

here with your old tear-jerker speeches and try to lead us to

believe that there's been a disgraceful mess left behind that

is presently being cleaned up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you can justify it, go ahead.

MR. CHABOT: I would imagine that if they were clearing

reservoirs of power projects that they would have a fleet of

people or a group of people there with rakes raking it up. I

believe that debris rises with the raising of water — I don't

understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. We've allowed a certain

amount of latitude on both sides of the House….

MR. CHABOT: Are you trying to cut me down from speaking on a

point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask you to relate your comments….

MR. CHABOT: I'm relating it — the same as the Premier. You

allowed him a lot of latitude. How about allowing me the same

amount of latitude?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I repeat. We've allowed some latitude on both

sides of the House on this matter, and I think we should relate

our remarks to the development of parks.

[ Page 1950 ]

MR. RADFORD: Tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Would you have that Member withdraw that

statement? I am telling what my opinion is of the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I heard…. There was an Hon. Member on my

right who implied or imputed a motive to the Member who was

speaking that I think is not worthy of the House, and I would

ask that he withdraw it.

MR. RADFORD: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but I still think

he's a stranger from the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to withdraw the remark.

MR. RADFORD: I withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Now, I'm wondering. I've written a letter to the

Minister here; it's not too long ago, and it does take quite a

while, and I think this is the appropriate place to seek out a

reply. It's a letter that came from an individual in Marysville — dealing with a campsite. He writes as follows:

"For nearly two years I have been trying to get some

action

towards a camping area for Garbuts Lake. When Mr. Garbut was

alive everyone was welcome to wander around the whole shore of

the lake. There was also a campground. Now most of the

lakeshore is fenced off for the use of five or six families.

One of the owners told me that they are all paying taxes for 10

feet of the water shore edge. The only way for the public to

put their boats in the water is by single roadway as

marked.

"This is a very beautiful lake, and the Game and Fish

Department keep it well stocked. I've caught seven-pounders in

it, and the fish are good all year. The end of the lake where

the creek flows from Peckham's Lake is part of the public

Norbury Park, and if that end were cleared out so that we could

launch boats or camp, it would take a lot of pressure off

Peckham Lake's campground.

"I've tried during the summer to launch my boat at the

road

access, but with half a dozen vehicles parked there it is

impossible to get near the lake. A few years ago there would be

no problem for a camping spot. However, now that Alberta has

found out what a wonderful place the east Kootenay is for

fishing and camping, they come by the hundreds every weekend.

If the local folks don't get to the camping spots by early

Friday evening, they're out of luck.

"There is a saying here that the Albertans bring all

their

food and gas with them; grab our campsites, catch our fish and

leave their garbage in exchange.

"If this end of Garbuts Lake were opened, it would ease

things quite a lot. I'm enclosing a map and a letter from Mr.

Goddard. Would you please return them for my files?"

This was a letter to the Minister with a copy to me.

"I trust you will give this property your

consideration and

hope for an early reply."

And that was dated March 8, and I don't know whether the

Minister has replied.

In the meantime I have communicated with the Minister on it

and have suggested that he send me a copy of the reply. I am

wondering if the Minister has any information on Garbuts

Lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation

and Conservation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that

particular site, so I can't properly say whether it might be a

provincial park question or not. We will be pleased to pursue

the question. There is a case in many of the regions for the

establishment of regional park districts, or regional park

functions, and I don't think the east Kootenay or the west

Kootenay, for that matter….

AN HON. MEMBER: I think the east Kootenay has the function

of parks.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. There is a real case for taking

part in that programme, because I mentioned earlier, the two

main cities have actually absorbed most of the funds in the

regional parks budget. I think that is unfortunate for all the

province, but the initiative has to be taken by the regional

district themselves.

Regarding this specific site, I'm sure that we'll deal with

it shortly, in view of the fact that it has been referred to us

already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In view of the

statements by the Premier, I wish to comment very briefly on

Williston Lake and say that it is regrettable that the Premier,

at this time and on this evening, has tried to use cheap

political tricks.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: …tried to draw away from…. I am going to go on to

another matter.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1951 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member…. Order, please.

Order!

I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the words "cheap

political tricks," which is not worthy of this House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I'll say then that the Premier has used political

manoeuvres.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just asking you to withdraw the

words.

MR. SMITH: Can I not say "political manoeuvres"? There's

nothing wrong with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to withdraw the words….

MR. SMITH: …to draw away from what was actually being

recommended in….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be quiet, please.

I would ask you to withdraw the words "cheap political

tricks."

MR. SMITH: I withdraw the words "cheap political tricks," and

I replace it with the words "political manoeuvres." Is there

anything unparliamentary about that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll allow that. That is permissible.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: …to try to detract from what I was saying when

I suggested that time has approached when we should consider

some sort of recreational facilities on Williston Lake.

We can listen to the Premier in the background. He really doesn't

know what has gone on there, apparently. A tremendous job has taken

place since that area was first flooded. To my knowledge, over 150

million cubic feet of lumber which came up as drift logs has been taken

out of the reservoir and processed. Who got the benefit of that? The

provincial government. A few years ago I spoke to the then Minister of

Recreation and Conservation and said, "I do not think the time is right

to start developing Williston Lake because there are too many unsettled

problems." But the cleanup has progressed to the point where I, as a

person who lives in that area, believe that with some concern about the

type of craft that uses Williston Lake, we can now proceed with a parks

development programme in that area for the benefit of not only the

people who live there but all British Columbia.

At the present time, for those people who would like to go

out and fish, they're taking trout in that lake from three to

six pounds. Why shouldn't the people be allowed to benefit by

that? I think that with the programme that has gone on, we can

go out into the lake now on a proper basis; that we should have

a park adjacent to the lake for people to use. And that's all

that I was saying when I got on my feet to ask the Minister

that was going to happen with regard to parks development in

the Williston Lake area.

I got an answer from the Minister, which I appreciate. I got

a political ploy from the Premier of the province, who jumped

in to try to draw off and make a few political marks at the

expense of people in northern British Columbia — cheap

politics, Mr. Premier, cheap politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I recognize the Hon. Member for South

Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's one thing

about Williston Lake and that is this: that Government will

never create any situation because they'll have neither the

vision nor the courage to put anything together.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the whole Peace River power dam. If they

did have the vision and the courage to do it, they'd never be

able to put together the finance to finance such a project.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate

his remarks to the estimates before us, vote 229.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's very difficult. The Minister is

carrying such a fantastically heavy portfolio, being chairman

of Hydro and Minister of Recreation and Conservation, Lands,

Forests, Water Resources and you name it, and he's getting a

little tired, and he's getting a little forgetful. I asked a

couple of questions a moment ago about Swan Lake and Pouce

Coupe Park. No sooner did I sit down than he completely forgot

what I asked him about. So I must ask him again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation

and Conservation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no programme at the moment for

either Pouce Coupe or Swan Lake Park. If the Member would like

to correspond with us

[ Page 1952 ]

in that regard, we'd certainly take the matter up

further.

Regarding Williston Lake, even though it doesn't meet the

standards for naming that have been adopted across Canada, I

think it's been appropriately named. It's unfortunate that it

wasn't seen as an integrated project, in which there would have

been advantages beyond just power alone. That kind of precedent

was established in Tennessee some 35 to 40 years ago by the

United States administration of that day. But it does take us a

while to catch up with new ideas in British Columbia, just

during the last 20 years.

The question of recreational values in the northeast,

however, is a matter of concern and has been ignored in the

past. It will be one of the main areas we look at during the

summer season when survey crews are out. We're going to have to

look at the mess that's known as Williston Lake and look at,

belatedly, the recreation potential that exists on that lake.

That will be done. We have a programme now of only $1 million a

year for mop-up on that lake. At that rate, Lord knows how many

decades it will take.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no question that the Forest

Service has carried on an excellent job, and it had a massive

job to do. They've developed an expertise in this field like

nobody else in the world because the problems are like nowhere

else in the world. That says something….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I say that says something for the

native genius of the people — overcoming the kind of problems

that we've been left with by the previous administration.

But we'll look at the recreational values in the area. I

know that the lake is dangerous and that there is a need for

the kind of programme that the Member suggests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 229 pass?

Vote 229 approved.

On vote 230: grants made to regional parks, $3,000,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question with

regard to the grants, which I notice have been doubled from half a

million to $1 million for regional park development. I'm not familiar

with the regional park programme in the Capital Regional District, but I

know that in the Greater Vancouver Regional District at the moment

development is taking the back seat to purchasing. I'm just wondering

what that increase is for and whether it is for active development of

those kinds of regional parks or some other programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid the programme is still

essentially acquisition, in fact. There's a backlog in the

Greater Vancouver Regional District. We're trying to help get

over that. A $2 million bylaw was just signed in our office

within the last few days and, I believe, was finally approved

by the regional district as well.

So it's essentially an acquisition programme. There are some

modest amounts for development in areas where they're obviously

needed for just minimal facilities, such as washrooms and the

like.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just a supplementary, Mr. Chairman: the $1

million is earmarked for development, though. Am I to take it

that that's the provincial government's share of the total

programme of acquisition rather than development, or is it for

development? It's specifically earmarked for development in the

estimates.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm afraid it's for acquisition, all

right, in terms of the full programme. The regional districts

that are involved are Greater Vancouver, Alberni-Clayoquot, the

Capital Region, Central Kootenay, Columbia-Shuswap,

Comox-Strathcona, East Kootenays, Fraser–Fort George, Mt.

Waddington and Powell River.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just to further clarify it, then: the $1

million is the provincial government's share of the total

regional park programme, not development but just the

programme. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's correct. It may well be that

additional funds will be needed if the regional programmes are

beyond that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could the Minister tell me if Grey Rocks is

contemplated for purchase?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1953 ]

I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether any funds

in this vote are contained for purchase of any rights within

the Nitinat Triangle, whether there is any expenditure required

in putting this into the Pacific Rim National Park.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the funding with respect to the

national park, the amounts anticipated in the coming fiscal

year do not cover proposals with respect to the Triangle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 230 pass?

Vote 230 approved.

Vote 231: youth training programme, $400,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 167: Minister's office, $59,732.

MR, CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I think we should change this

Minister's title from Minister of Mines to Minister of

Undermines. That's about all that's happened to that department

since he took office — undermining the entire mining industry in

the Province to the detriment of everybody and the economy of

the whole province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up. I can't hear you.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a disaster, that's what it is. A

disaster! The man is trying to run a segment of our economy

that is responsible for generating about one-quarter of every

dollar in circulation. The Minister says that he's going to run

his department like a popcorn stand. That's what the Minister

says — like a popcorn stand. He even defends that position.

While the wheels of industry grind to a halt, the Minister

runs his department like a popcorn stand. Well, I guess lately

the people have sort of taken a dislike to popcorn. Either that

or they're full of hot air or the Minister's full of hot air or

something, because sales are dropping off. And employment in

the….

HON. MR. BARRETT: What sales are dropping off?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't mean sales are dropping off.

Exploration is dropping off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sales are not dropping off, is that what

you're saying?

MR. PHILLIPS: Unfortunately, in a department like the

Department of Mines, the true results of what is happening

today will not be felt for four, five or 10 years. It's

unfortunate for the people that this department is going to be

a complete disaster. It's unfortunate that the results of the

disaster that is taking place today will not be felt for such a

long time to come. He's going to run the mines like a popcorn

stand. "Pay for the corn before selling," the Minister

says.

When Leo Thomas Nimsick was 11 years old, he packed into

his first forest fire. Today, 53 years later, there's still a

bit of the look of boyish wonder about the man as he packs in a

different, but equally tricky, hot spot — the office of the

Minister of Mines for British Columbia, one of the most

important portfolios in this government. As I said before, it's

responsible for 25 per cent of every dollar that is generated

in British Columbia.

I think the Minister still thinks he's back there fighting

that forest fire because he's trying to put everything out.

He's trying to stop everything that was going. He's throwing

cold water on it. The Minister's got to realize now that he's

running a department, and he should be trying to lift things up

and create employment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to discuss giving things away

in just a moment, Mr. Premier. I hope you stay in the House to

enjoy this short little discourse with me. I hope that the

Minister, if he stays here, will be able to learn something

this evening. The way things are heading right now, none of us

will be around very long to learn anything.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Doom and gloom.

MR. PHILLIPS: Doom and gloom? No. You know, Mr. Premier,

through you Mr. Chairman, I honestly and sincerely wish that I

could stand in this House this evening and have somebody say

that I was preaching doom and gloom and have it been the truth.

But what I am saying are cold, hard facts, not doom and gloom at

all. Cold, hard facts, and it's very unfortunate.

The Premier can't stay and listen. He can't stand the

pressure; he can't stand the heat, so he has to get out of the

kitchen. One day this week the Minister stood behind his big

desk in the sizeable office that goes with a cabinet post,

rummaging through a maze of papers in a fruitless search for

some statistics, showing just a bit of the discomfort that a

robust outdoorsman might be expected to feel in such

surroundings.

[ Page 1954 ]

The Minister says, "I don't know if I'll ever catch up.

There are mountains of mail, and people are always wanting to

meet me." Too heavy a portfolio for the little boy from the

Kootenays.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: At the age when most men are preparing for

retirement, this dairy worker, diamond driller, hunter,

fisherman and veteran politician is just settling into the top

job of his long career. I think he's settled in long enough now,

and he should settle out and retire gracefully while he's

ahead.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are you looking for my job?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Minister of Mines, but you're going to

go down in history as the one man in British Columbia who put

the death knell on one of the most buoyant industries anywhere

in Canada, and that is the mining industry in British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit while you're behind.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'll go down in history as the man who used

a big club and knocked the props out from under the mines.

That's what you'll go down in history as, Mr. Minister.

I want the record to know the history of this man who is

going to knock the props out from under the mining industry.

His manner of speech is the plain talk of the mountain man in

pursuit of game or the hardrock miner or the man sent in to

beat back the flames of a forest fire, but the thoughts are

nevertheless those of a man who had some definite ideas about

the need for change where the harvesting of B.C.'s minerals is

concerned.

Yes, the Minister of Mines had some thoughts about some need

for change. He wants the minerals to stay in the ground, and he

wants the undiscovered minerals to stay in undiscovered. That's

the thought that our Minister had when he took over this

portfolio. I must say you're doing a fantastic job of

accomplishing just what you set out to do: to stop the mining

industry cold in its tracks.

That's difficult to do, Mr. Minister, because there are mines that

are producing. There is a lot of employment and there are a lot of

minerals being shipped out of British Columbia. But you're doing

everything in your power. If you could stop those mines, I'm sure that

you'd stop them, but they're a little bigger. But you can stop the

finding; you can stop the exploration; you can stop bringing new mines

under production, the ones that were about ready to go. This year will

probably go down in history as the one single year when there were no

new mines brought under production in British Columbia. So I say, like

some of the other Members, you should quit while you're behind.

Yes, he had some definite ideas about the need for changes

where the harvest of B.C. mineral resources is concerned. If

you want some of Leo's plain talk on the subject, possibly the

best example is this. And here it comes. I want everybody to

hear the Minister's business philosophy. Here it comes — plain

talk.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Read the whole thing now. Don't just read….

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to read the whole thing, oh yes, Mr.

Minister. I'll tell you I'm going to read the whole thing. Oh,

you better believe I'm going to read the whole thing.

"The business should be run like a popcorn stand.

You've got to pay first for the corn you're going to pop and sell."

You've got to pay for the corn. Mind you, that's after somebody else

has planted the corn and taken the risk of the weather and everything

else. You've got to pay for the corn. And certainly people who are

going to buy the minerals are going to have to pay for the minerals.

But who's going to farm the minerals and who's going to grow

the corn? That is the question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are the minerals lost?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but there's a lot of them that haven't

been found. That's typical of the thinking of the Minister.

"Are the minerals lost?" I believe that the Minister works on

the philosophy that there is nothing new under the sun. It's just that

it hasn't been

found yet. I think the Minister is going to go out and find

them himself. He's got some kind of a special Geiger counter.

The Minister's going to go out by himself, and he's going to find all

the minerals in British Columbia. Some man! Some popcorn stand!

AN HON. MEMBER: A mother lode of popcorn.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Mother lode of popcorn" is right. Well, I'll

tell you, you've got to pay for the popcorn before you're going

to pop and sell it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just go out to those great

vast resources? Here would be Leo: so many tons of unmined ore

for sale. And Leo's going to sell it to you at such-and-such a

price because that's the philosophy he has here in the popcorn.

I don't know. That's going to take a pretty big storehouse. I

think the Minister's quite well aware of how warehouses run and

so forth. So maybe that's the philosophy: the great big

warehouse out there is full of minerals, and all you've got to

do is go out and buy them. Right? Is that the philosophy of the

Minister? You just go out and buy them.

There's the Minister from the Kootenays with a

[ Page 1955 ]

big sign — "Minerals for Sale." They've all been found and

they've been ored….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's better than the great

give-away.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the "great give-away." Well, I'm going to

have a few words to say, Mr. Minister, about the great

give-away too in a few moments.

Anyway, we must establish that the Minister has all of these

found resources and he's got a big sign up. Now we go and buy

them, eh? You've got to pay for them, he says. Well that's

fine. The Minister's got a pretty big storehouse; he's got it

all inventoried; he's done all the assaying; he's done all the

drilling; he's spent all the millions and millions of dollars

in risk capital; he's gone down there where he thought there

were some minerals and found there weren't any, just like the

guy who planted the popcorn. It got rained out, or the kernels

didn't pop, or he didn't put enough fertilizer on.

This is the philosophy of the Minister. It isn't working.

The popcorn philosophy isn't working, Mr. Minister. Some of the

kernels aren't popping. I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, if you get

too much heat under that popcorn, a lot of it's going to burn.

It's not going to pop at all. You're going to have nothing to

sell but a bunch of old dead kernels. Now what are you going to

do? No one's going to buy that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're getting more worried all the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well, I could say something there, but

I'll reserve those few remarks that I would say about your

getting worried. You know, some people are very thick-skinned,

Mr. Minister. What we need to have here is a little compassion

for the unemployed in this province. That's what we need — a

little compassion for the unemployed and a little common sense

about economics, because this is a pretty big portfolio.

"This is the approach of Nimsick in the new NDP

Government,

something he sees as a direct opposite to the view held by the

former Social Credit government. 'They would say, 'If you don't

make a profit, you can have the corn for nothing. We say, 'If you treat

the mineral resource the same as you

would the corn, it should be a cost item in the process of

mining,' Nimsick explains."

You know, Mr. Minister, there's a vast difference. I

honestly wonder sometimes if you recognize the difference

between popcorn and minerals, between popcorn and natural gas

and between popcorn and oil. I sometimes wonder.

"Uppermost in his plans is the desire to see the

mining

companies pay royalties on the minerals they take from the

land.”

But that hasn't proven out. I know I'm not at liberty to

discuss legislation which is before the House this evening.

But, with the legislation that's before the House, this is not

your policy at all. Your policy, Mr. Minister — and I don't

know why you don't come right out and say it — is to

nationalize the entire mining industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you bring Kierans out here and just

give him the post and let him run it for you? You're going to

try to do it yourself. At least in Manitoba they had enough

guts to say, "This is the recommendation: nationalize the

entire mining industry of Manitoba." You're going to do it by

the back door, by legislation.

"Ironically, Nimsick takes on the mining portfolio 64

years

after being born in a mining camp at Rossland. His father, a

miner, later operated a dairy farm, and Leo worked for him. He

also worked later as a diamond driller in gold and copper

mines."

That's very commendable, Mr. Minister.

"At 11 he packed in his first forest fire with pack

horses.

He was to do it many times. He graduated from high school as

one of the top mathematics students in B.C. and entered

university at 16."

Mr. Minister, if you were one of the top mathematics

students in British Columbia, you should be able to see what's

going on. You should be able to realize….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's why I'm doing so good.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you're doing good? I want the House to

note that the Minister is doing good. You personally may be

doing good, but the mining industry isn't doing good. The mining

industry is on the downhill slide, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who said that — "Name names"? Yes, I'm going

to. Oh yes, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), I'm going to point out the facts. Oh, yes.

"Lack of funds cut his university education. Nimsick

has

represented the Kootenays since 1949 and where veteran Members

of the Legislature are concerned, is second only to Opposition

leader W.A.C. Bennett, whose Socred government fell in the NDP

sweep August 30 after 20 years in power. Bennett was elected in

1941."

A very commendable career, Mr. Minister. Too bad it has to

end on such a sour note.

[ Page 1956 ]

MR. NIMSICK: This isn't a sour note. I'm having a lot of

fun.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you're having a lot of fun. Well, we're

going to call you "Killer" Nimsick then, if you're having a lot

of fun, because you're sure having a lot of fun killing the

mining industry in this province. "Killer" Nimsick, Minister of

Undermining.

"As he spends time these days trying to familiarize

himself

with the office he has taken over, Nimsick does a little

reflecting on his long wait before his success at the

polls."

Well, I'm not going to read all that.

This is the rise and fall….

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone with the Wind?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's rise and fall of Leo. The formula is

the Nimsick Formula.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he would mind discussing the estimates, rather than the

Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, first of all I have to establish the

Minister's policies….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The proper procedure is to

discuss the estimates and to relate everything to the

administration of this particular department, not to the

characteristics of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, but

as I say, I was just trying to establish the Minister's policy.

It's very important that his policy in dealing with the

Department of Mines be established.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not merely offering my

opinions. I'm making a ruling and asking you to confine your

remarks to the estimates before us and to the administration of

this particular department, namely the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you agree that I could read this then?

"His immediate move includes the reviewing of the Mineral

Act ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's relevant to the administration of this

particular department. The Hon. Member is not to discuss any

legislation that is before the House, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, no. The Mineral

Act has been in

since — well, as he said, it's been in for 80 years. He said

that it hadn't been changed for 80 years. So I would say that

that would be relevant.

"His moves include the reviewing of the Mineral

Act —

'It's grown up like Topsy' — with a

view to streamlining it, the restructuring of his department,

and an inventory of B.C. mineral deposits. While he doesn't

spell it out as such, he seems to realize that it's one thing

to sit in Opposition attacking industry, and another to

encourage its cooperation while in power.

"We are attempting to bring the mining industry in as

far as making suggestions and recommendations

go, so that what we eventually do will be acceptable to all.'

That's another very important statement, Mr. Chairman — "So

that what we do will be acceptable to all." I wish the Minister

had been with me last Friday afternoon in the Hotel Vancouver.

The Minister would realize that what he is doing is not

acceptable to all. The Minister might wish that he had gotten

some input from some of the people whose lives he is

affecting.

However, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, all I wanted to do

was establish for the record the policies that the new Minister

of Mines has set in dealing with this very important segment of

the economy of British Columbia. A few short days after August

30, Mr. Chairman, several contracts for work on mining sites in

northern British Columbia were immediately cancelled. Several

contracts for clearing of mining sites and exploration sites

were immediately cancelled. This happened within a week after

August 30.

This was the beginning of the decline of mining in the

Province of British Columbia. It didn't take very long. Why did

this happen, Mr. Chairman? It happened because of the

uncertainty about the direction that the new socialist

government would move in nationalizing the mining industry in

British Columbia. That, Mr. Chairman, is what it's all about.

The fear of a Minister who, because he had once worked in a

mine, is now a specialist on mining and has all the answers. He

has all the answers now.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I haven't got any questions yet,

anyway.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to have a few questions, Mr.

Minister, but I fear what the answers will be.

Mr. Chairman, we now have a Minister who will be forced to

carry out the instructions of the Premier who subscribes to the

Waffle Manifesto. A Minister who believes in the doomsday

syndrome. That is the policy that mining in British Columbia is

taking. That is the direction in which we're heading. A

Minister who, like many of his colleagues, listens for input

from the industry with earplugs in his ears. A Minister who

knows little and cares less about the economy of British

Columbia, when he controls about 25 per cent of it. A Minister

whose party came to power to

[ Page 1957 ]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to dispel and

disprove alarmist charges that the United States faces a

doomsday situation. This is all tied to the North American

economy. Our policy seems to be that of following very closely

that of the United States. The United States today has fuel

resources that will last for 500 years. This new look at the

fuel resources in the United States is the result of statistics

gathered by the investor-owned U.S. energy industries and their

suppliers.

The purpose of putting these statistics forward is to set

the record straight and to get the United States government to

adopt a national energy policy. I want to read to you, Mr.

Chairman, from this report. I'd like once and for all to dispel

some of the alarmists that are very prevalent these days. "If

we're not going to starve to death, we're going to run out of

fuel, and if we're not going to run out of fuel, we're going to

run out of minerals."

"The investor-owned U.S. industries and their

suppliers have

gathered basketfuls of statistics to disprove alarmist charges

that the nation faces a doomsday situation. The apparent goal,

along with setting the record straight, is to influence the

government to adopt a realistic national energy policy.

"The presidents of five energy trade associations —

natural

gas, oil, nuclear, coal and electric utilities — issued a joint

statement in Washington, D.C. the other day challenging the

federal government to alter piecemeal and inconsistent

decisions based on narrow and short-run

interpretations of

conditions affecting particular fuels at a particular time.

They criticized rapid introduction of stringent environmental

standards which have constricted fuel supplies."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he is going to relate this to the administrative

responsibilities of this department. I believe that he is

possibly touching on matters which are under the direction of

the Minister of Finance rather than the mines Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, this is very relevant to the

Minister of Mines, who also controls petroleum, oil and coal

resources. It's very relevant. I'll finish a lot faster if

you'll just let me carry on, because I've prepared this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'm sorry, Mr. Member. The Chair is

bound to observe the rules, and I must ask you to relate what

you're going to say to the estimates before us — the

administrative responsibilities.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the administrative responsibility of the

Minister whose salary we are now discussing is to look after the future

of the mining and petroleum industries, right?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not begrudging your salary. I just want to

get a few things straightened out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Member that many of

these matters are canvassed in the throne debate and in the

budget debate and in the consideration of the estimates of the

Minister of Finance. Therefore I would ask him again to relate

these as tightly as possible to the administrative

responsibilities of this department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how this

subject would ever have been canvassed in the throne debate or

the budget debate, because the report didn't come out until

March 27.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The general subject matter has

been canvassed. The main thing is to deal specifically with

matters under this administrative responsibility. Would you

proceed, please?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"Officials of General Electric Company, a supplier of

electric equipment for almost a century, also have strongly

challenged the energy doomsday concept while conceding

impending short-time deficits.

"But the long-range programme looks good. Statistics

presented recently by Reginald H. Jones, GE's chief executive

officer, show that the U.S. fossil fuel reserves, the fuel

obtainable with today's economics and technology, are adequate

for 50 years. Fossil fuel reserves, which require progressively

higher fuel prices as they are developed, will be adequate for

500 years. 'Even with nuclear energy,' he said, 'we have

resources for a million years.' "

Now this is very relevant, Mr. Chairman, because we have

people running around today saying that we're going to run out

of this, we're going to run out of that, we're going to run out

of gas. What we need, Mr. Chairman, is the incentive to find

the resources that we have.

Unfortunately, under this Minister, these incentives are

being taken away. So there will be no more exploration. We will

never know what we've got in the way of fossil fuel,

hydrocarbons or minerals in this province. Once we stop

looking, we don't prove up any more resources. And that's the

way the doomsday syndrome generates itself.

" 'Regulation of the price of natural gas,' Jones

contended,

'and availability of low-cost foreign oil

[ Page 1958 ]

plus a major rise in concern for environmental protection

and a diversion of attention from coal technology by the

prospect of nuclear fuel have combined to cause the present

problem. This is the situation as we have it today.

" 'Yes, there is an energy shortage, and it will get

worse

before it is overcome. But it is not a doomsday crisis in the

view of most knowledgeable men in the energy industry. In other

words, there will be short-term crises.

" 'Certainly the nation and every state needs

realistic

energy policies to increase production, make production less

wasteful and more efficient, and stimulate greater efforts in

developing new sources such as solar and nuclear fission. These

goals must be accomplished with maximum protection of

environmental values.

"'Those who think it can't be done demonstrate a lack

of confidence in American technological development, or government and

industry responsibility, or both. It's time to quit crying and get to

work.' "

I think, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I that this

is a policy that we should adopt here in British Columbia. It's

time to quit crying and get to work. It's time to get out there

and provide the incentive to find what lies buried beneath the

earth's surface.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think you're probably looking for

skeletons. Maybe if you keep looking you'll find one. But I

think what we should be looking for are minerals. We should

provide the incentive to find minerals.

Mr. Chairman, if that is the situation in the United States,

it's got to be a far brighter situation in Canada because we

haven't been developing our minerals or our natural gas or our

fossil fuels as long as they have in the United States. The

other thing is that we have a far greater land mass to

explore.

And yet the Minister is determined to shove up the price of

petroleum products in British Columbia by bringing exploration

to a halt. The search for these products will stop. It is

practically stopped already.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to give you the situations in just a

moment. You know yourself, Mr. Minister, that there are no mines

presently under development in British Columbia this year for the first

time in a long time. And how much money is being spent this year by the

mining industry on exploration? You tell me, Mr. Minister. If you're

such a good mathematician, you'll find that it's going down, down, down

and that the search for minerals and oil in this province is grinding

to a halt.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: In my mind? I wish it were in my mind, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: But these are the cold, hard facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, these are

the cold, hard facts that the Minister refuses to recognize. He

sits there and sees the money rolling in his department and

thinks that everything is great. It's like the guy that goes

out and sells two cars. He says, "Gracious, I sold two cars!"

You have to look in terms of potential. You maybe should have

sold 10 cars. You've got money coming in, and I imagine it's

great.

You sit over there in the new department and you see

everything looks rosy and the mining industry which was built

up under the free enterprise system is still rolling along. You

haven't been able to bring it to a halt yet. You haven't been

able to stop the producing mines. You see a lot of employment

in the mining industry, and you think everything's great. It's

time you looked far beyond the doors of your office to find out

exactly what is going on in this province, Mr. Minister.

You know you can hide behind that smile all you want to, Mr.

Minister. Someday you're going to have to face the cold, hard

facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would remind the Hon. Member to

please address the Chair and not the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Through you, Mr. Chairman. You're going to

find out this summer, Mr. Minister, when approximately 500 or

600….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon. Member to

please address the Chair, not the Minister directly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. All right, Mr.

Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines is going to find

out this summer when about 500 to 600 young college students

who used to be employed in the mining exploration business….

I hope they all end up at your doorstep. Mr. Chairman, I hope

they all end up at the door of the Minister's office saying,

"Why haven't we got a job in the mining exploration this

summer? Why haven't we?" Then the Minister

[ Page 1959 ]

won't smile. He won't show up. He'll go out the back door

like he didn't show up the other day and face the people who

were concerned about the mining industry in this province. No,

he'll have to do more than smile, Mr. Chairman. He'll have to

do more than smile, I'll tell you.

Without the incentive to explore and find new mineral

resources, our known reserves will continue to dwindle. Our

known resources will continue to dwindle, and that's the way to

create the doomsday syndrome. That's the way to shove up

prices. Shortages will certainly shove up the prices; they

always do. As soon as there is a shortage of this, and a

shortage of that, the prices unfortunately are going to go up

for petroleum products because it's straight, simple

arithmetic.

As our resources and known resources dwindle, we create a

shortage situation — this is what happened in the United States —

and up go the prices. I don't care whether it's private

industry that puts the prices up or the government that forces

the prices up. This is what's happened. And who suffers? The

consumer suffers.

In a very roundabout way, you will be forcing the consumer

of petroleum produces in this province to pay higher prices.

You will force the consumer of natural gas in this province to

pay higher prices by creating a shortage situation — by not

continuing the exploration for new reserves. You are such a

good mathematician, you should be able to see that without

looking too hard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please state his point

of order with the Member from South Peace River?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Point of order on standing

order 43 — repetitious and tedious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat your point of order

please?

MR. LEA: On 43 of the standing orders — repetitious and

tedious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that the Hon Member has not yet

become tedious and repetitious, but I would caution him that he

could.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's a typical example, Mr. Chairman,

of a man who can't stand the pressure. He can't stand to hear the facts

of what is happening

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member not comment on the

rulings; would he just proceed on with the administrative

responsibilities of this department?

MR. PHILLIPS: What happens when the prices to up? The very

thing, Mr. Chairman, that we're trying to fight all over North

America, inflation. I want the Minister to realize, Mr.

Chairman, what a tremendous responsibility he has to the people

of British Columbia. If there are no new minerals found and no

new mines brought into production, there's a loss of revenue.

How, as I've said on the floor of this Legislature before, are

your other Ministers going to carry out their social welfare

policies when the money stops rolling in? You've got to look

ahead, Mr. Chairman. You can't just have — I won't call it

tunnel vision — but you can't look at the situation as it

exists today — you have to look at the situation as it's going

to be in 10 and 20 years from now because minerals aren't

found, and mines are not brought into production at the snap of

a finger, Mr. Chairman. We will become a have-not province.

I mentioned just a few moments ago about the situation in

the United States with regard to potential energy. What does

our own Hydro chief have to say, Mr. Chairman, about the energy

crisis? What does the man we just appointed to the top post in

the B.C. Hydro have to say about the energy crisis? "Hydro

Chief Sees No Energy Crisis." This is dated March 16.

"No energy crisis here in B.C., despite the alarm

signals

going up all over North America. This was the gist of a speech

by B.C. Hydro Chairman, David Cass-Beggs, in Vancouver

Thursday. While most of the industrialized countries in the

world are already turning urgently to nuclear power to bolster

their energy potential…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Member that there is a

bill on the order paper called the Energy Act , which I think he's

getting close to discussing. I would caution him to relate his remarks

to the administrative responsibilities of this department,

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I suppose everything I've been talking

about's been energy, I suppose you could consider a mine a potential

source of energy, and the petroleum resources are potential sources of

energy. I don't think that really, in all fairness…. I mean I'm not

dealing with the actual Act itself. In all fairness now, Mr. Chairman,

I would suggest that I be allowed some leeway in this very important

portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would also point out that the person

whom you are quoting is the Director of B.C. Hydro; therefore, I

would ask you to take his comments in relation to these

estimates.

[ Page 1960 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what I'm trying to establish…and if

I'm going to relay my case, Mr. Chairman, I have to establish…I'm trying to establish that there isn't a great energy

crisis in this province. If I can't use people who have done

the research, if I can't quote things to establish that, well, I

can't very well lay my case.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and then tomorrow somebody will say, "Well,

he just said that there was no crisis, and he had nothing to back it

up." You know, I mean, after all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"While most of the industrialized western world is

already turning to nuclear power to bolster their energy potential,

Cass-Beggs said that British Columbia need not utilize that source

until 1985."

Now that is from a man that we just hired. And he's supposed to be

official. He says there's no energy crisis here in British Columbia.

When the mining industry, which produces 25 cents out of

every dollar generated in British Columbia — not only in direct

revenue to the government, but through taxes, income tax,

purchases, 5 per cent tax, et cetera…. When the money stops

rolling in, then the government will be forced to go to a

deficit financing situation, and you won't be able to, Mr.

Chairman, have a budget like you had this year where the budget

is balanced.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I know you're not the finance Minister,

but you're in charge of a very important portfolio that, as

I've tried to establish, generates…. You know, it's a

revenue department. It's not a department that spends money.

It's a department that generates capital. It brings it in. Then

we're going to have to go and borrow money.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sure. Don't you work together as a team

over there, Mr. Chairman? Don't they work together as a team? I

would honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister of

Mines says is that they don't work together as a team. You

know, he goes his way, the Minister of Finance goes his

way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Member would

not respond to the comments that are made but rather would

continue with his speech in reference to these estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sometimes he brings up some good points

that would make you wonder what he's thinking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we're going to say in

a few years is that the wrecker from the Kootenays has struck.

He's struck. The province is full of confusion and dismay.

Does the Minister, Mr. Chairman, think that high-risk

capital comes to an industry that is headed by a man who can't

see where he's going? Mr. Chairman, I ask this question in all

sincerity. No wonder we call him an underminer.

"In a speech to the Canadian Electrical Association

meeting

in Vancouver, D.B. Furlong, Managing Director of the Canadian

Petroleum Association, criticized the B.C. government. He said

that the government has caused the cancellation of several

drilling operations by announcing a doubling of oil

royalties."

I realize there is legislation before us, but I just wanted

to read this. I am quoting a speech from Mr. D. B. Furlong, who

is the Managing Director of the Canadian Petroleum Association — a speech made in Vancouver on March 12.

Oh, I suppose that the man doesn't even know what he's

talking about. Oh come Mr. Chairman. I wish the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources would open his eyes and realize

what's going on in this province.

"He says there is a natural tendency for all

governments to

look around for new sources of revenue.

" 'There would seem to have developed in public and

government mines the idea that the oil and gas industry is a fat cat,

that it has not made a substantial contribution to Canada, and that it

can and should be milked to the last drop without damage to western and

Canadian development.

" 'This, in my opinion, is most unwise and wrong. Our

industry has made a very large contribution to western development and

to the health of the Canadian economy. It can make an even greater

contribution in the next 25 years. But it will not be able to do so if

it is faced by continual misrepresentations of its motives and by

punitive taxation, delay and interference.' "

And, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, punitive taxation,

misrepresentation, delay and interference is exactly what is

happening under this Minister's portfolio.

[ Page 1961 ]

Last year, Mr. Chairman, we heard continually from the

Opposition benches about the "giveaway Kaiser deal" and how

Kaiser was ripping off the coal and making millions of dollars.

We heard it when I was sitting in the backbench, 1966-67. What

is the situation on the Kaiser deal, Mr. Chairman? Kaiser

blundered on the coal deal; a financial disaster.

The point that I am making here, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Kaiser company is an international corporation with facilities

for research, with top management facilities, with research

facilities, with….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please

observe standing order 17(2) and not interrupt the Member when

he is speaking?

MR. PHILLIPS: What I am saying Mr. Chairman, is that we

heard all this flak about Kaiser and how many millions of

dollars they were going to make taking the coal out of British

Columbia.

What is the truth behind this situation? Kaiser is guided by

Henry J. Kaiser organization, and they grew from a tiny

Seattle-based paving company into an interlocking world-wide

complex of some 140 subsidiaries, affiliates and joint

ventures. It now encompasses aluminum, steel and cement

production, broadcasting, mining, aerospace technology,

shipping, chemicals, heavy engineering, shipbuilding, and real

estate — all to the tune of $2 billion yearly in revenues.

In addition, Kaiser pioneered a health plan — that is

irrelevant.

The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that here is a

company with management to do $2 billion worth of business — larger

than the entire budget — and they blundered on this

Kaiser deal.

Now the thing that worries me, Mr. Chairman, is that here is

the Minister of Mines, who is going to run that operation

himself. This is the policy, Mr. Chairman. He is going to run

this deal himself, or, under the present policy, Mr. Chairman,

he would at least have been a partner in it. And what is the

policy of this policy? Had the people been in business with

Kaiser, they would have lost their shirts. That's very well

put. They would have lost their shirts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the type of thing, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that this point that he has made is not within the

administrative competence of the department. They cannot be….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask him to try to

relate his remarks to the actual administrative

responsibilities of the department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I'm not discussing the administrative

responsibility of the Minister whose wages we are voting on,

then I don't know what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman. What

I'm saying is that this is exactly the situation, this is where

the Minister is headed, I'm trying to point out some of the

pitfalls that he could lead the people of this province into.

That's what I'm pointing out. And, Mr. Chairman, it is very

relevant. Very relevant indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You should not be discussing matters

involving legislation. I think that the matter you are

referring to would be more properly considered under the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce rather

than mining.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, the point is that if we are going to hire

civil servants to do this job, are they going to be able to do

it better than the management of Kaiser? This is the whole

question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not believe that this is a

matter which is under consideration by this department, nor is

it under their administrative competence. I would ask you to

ask questions related to their administrative competence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Unfortunately, it's under that Minister's

estimates, and it's….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm getting sick and tired of the yak,

yak, yak from the Liberal benches….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm making my speech, and you'll have your

opportunity when I'm done, and not until I am done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Now the mining industry, as

I have said, Mr. Chairman, generates a lot of money in British

Columbia. I'd like to relate some of the statistics with regard

to how

[ Page 1962 ]

much money this industry does generate, because it's all very

relevant, Mr. Chairman.

Welfare and community buildings, which includes schools,

hospitals and community facilities; these are expenditures by

the mining industry in the years 1967, '68, '69, '70 and '71. This

is what the mining industry has spent in the Province providing

these facilities….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just draw to the attention of the Hon.

Member that while it may seem relevant, it is not within the

competence or administrative responsibility of the department.

Therefore, I would ask him to confine his remarks to matters

that are within the administrative responsibility.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I will point out to the Chairman how it

is relevant, then. If the mining industry isn't prosperous and

if the mining industry doesn't continue to grow, and if there

aren't new mines, if there aren't new discoveries, then these

expenditures, this amount of money will not be spent. And it is

very relevant; very relevant indeed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not tired at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please

observe the courtesy of allowing this Member to speak?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to have

that Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) withdraw the

statement.

HON. MR. HALL: I would only be too delighted to withdraw the

statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Capital expenditures, Mr. Chairman, by the

mining industry….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out that if

you were discussing something which outlined the kind of

incentives, the kind of measures that this department could

take that would cause the industry to prosper, it might be more

relevant. But merely to discuss the fact that they are not

prospering is not necessarily relevant.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Chairman, that the

prosperity of the mining industry in British Columbia is not

relevant to the Minister's salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Come off that. Great Scott!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is, Mr. Member, that you must relate

this to the particular responsibilities of this department so

that you can indicate to them how they might….

MR. PHILLIPS: It is his responsibility to see that the

mining industry — that's his Ministry isn't it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to give up. This is very

"revelant." (Laughter). Relevant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that you are discussing the

expenditures by the industry, and we would like you to relate

these facts that you're presenting to the administrative

responsibilities of the department. This is the point that

we're trying to establish.

MR. McGEER: This is most unfair, Mr. Chairman. The Member is

making the Minister look good. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to relate to you

the taxes paid by the mining industry in British Columbia

during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971. Corporation

income tax, B.C. portion, paid by the mining industry: 1967,

$1,757,000; 1968, $1,464,000; 1969, $1,735,000; 1970,

$3,867,000; 1971, $1,583,000.

B.C. mining tax: 1967, $3,407,000; 1968, $4,350,000; 1969,

$7,499,000; 1970, $11,231,000; 1971, $6,317,000. Those are the

revenues from the mining industry, Mr. Chairman. If the mining

industry doesn't prosper, what'll happen to these revenues? Is

that "revelant"?

Social service tax: 1967, $3,868,000; 1968, $4,621,000;

1969, $6,981,000; 1970, $6,387,000; 1971, $9,877,000. Those are

the revenues that we're going to be missing in a few years, Mr.

Chairman, when the mining industry goes on the skids.

Property tax: 1967, $ 3,110,000; 1968, $3,299,000; 1969,

$3,187,000; 1970, $3,625,000; 1971, $4,378,000.

Gasoline tax paid by the mining industry: 1967, $137,000;

1968, $103,000; 1969, $166,000; 1970, $215,000; 1971,

$327,000.

Leases and rentals, et cetera: 1967, $162,000; 1968,

$185,000; 1969, $244,000; 1970, $435,000; 1971, $392,000.

For a grand total of those expenditures in taxes and leases

and Crown grants, the total in 1967, Mr.

[ Page 1963 ]

Chairman, was $13,249,000; 1968, $14,788,000; 1969,

$20,694,000; 1970, $26,888,000; 1971, $24,372,000.

I wonder what the figure's going to be for 1973, Mr.

Chairman?

I would go on, Mr. Chairman, and quote numerous other

statistics about the mining industry, all very "revelant", and

they should be read into the record, because when we stand in

this House in a couple of years, Mr. Chairman, it'll be the sad

situation that these figures will be much less than they have

been for the past 10 years. This is why, Mr. Chairman, all of

this is very "revelant."

I don't care how you look at it or how you talk about it.

Those who cannot see that the mining industry is on the decline

in British Columbia are not seeing what they're finding.

Because this is the case, Mr. Chairman. It's very unfortunate.

One of the things and one of the segments of society that's

going to be hurt first are the employees. I'd like to just

point out to you, Mr. Chairman, before I move off of

statistics. I want to read into the record some of the wages

and salaries that are paid out by the mining industry.

In 1967, wages and salaries were paid out in the province of

$85,075,000, total wages and benefits; in 1968, $91,763,000; in

1969, $106,923,000; in 1970, $140,024,000; in 1971, the last

year that I have the statistics for, $162,597,000 paid out in

wages and benefits by the mining industry in British Columbia.

That's a lot of money, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the reasons

that the mining industry is so very, very important to the

economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, in 1971, in your area alone, northwestern

British Columbia, $19,041,000 were paid out by the mining

industry in wages and benefits — that's in northwestern British

Columbia alone.

While the Liberal Members from Vancouver yak, yak, yak, it

is the mining industry in the northern part of the province — away from

Vancouver where they come from — that has made the

City of Vancouver the prosperous place it is today. I would

think that the Members from Vancouver would recognize this, but

evidently they're not interested either.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I just want to reiterate….

MR. PHILLIPS: I would ask you to have that Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey withdraw that, because I want him to know

that I made up my own….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: And the facts that I'm quoting….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just want to make a point

before you proceed. This is going to be a most difficult set of

estimates to consider because of the number of bills on the

order paper and also because of the fact that some of the

responsibility for the prosperity of the mining industry or

vice versa may lie with other departments, such as the finance

department. Therefore I would ask you when you are expressing

your concern, and I think it's a genuine and real concern, that

you relate it to the administrative capability or competence of

the department, so that they will have some guidance as to

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Chairman, is

that the Minister of Mines has got to change his policies, or

the mining industry is going to decline. I'm not going to

belabour the statistics but I want to point out to the Minister

of Mines if he realizes the other related industries in the

province that rely on the prosperity and the well-being of the

mining industry….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen! Maybe if we cut down the hours in this

Legislature a person wouldn't get so tired and he'd be able to

pronounce his words a little better. The last two days we've

sat here from 11 till 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: We're 12 hours behind, that's why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you proceed with your speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and you might be a lot more than 12 hours

behind, Mr. Provincial Secretary, if you keep bringing in

devastating legislation like you've been bringing.

AN HON. MEMBER: …in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

proceed?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you think you're going to let your

socialist legislation slip by without anyone noticing it, Mr.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request

[ Page 1964 ]

that Members on both sides of the House would observe the

simple rules of debate and discussion. Would the Hon. Member

continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's too bad when somebody in this Legislature

realizes the intent behind the legislation that you bring in,

isn't it, Mr. Provincial Secretary? It's too bad when somebody

sees what you're trying to do this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Member again,

please, if he would….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: A lot of people are seeing through you, too,

Mr. Provincial Secretary!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

for a moment? I would ask the Members who are not speaking if

they would refrain from interrupting the Member while he's

speaking. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would confine his

remarks to the estimates and if he would address the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the

circumstances it's sometimes difficult to keep to the subject

at hand, which is the office of the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

I want to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, some of

the allied industries which have their well-being based on the

well-being of the mining industry. What was that, Mr. Minister?

Yes, the relevant industries.

Fourteen per cent of the mining industry's purchases were

spent on production materials and supplies — 14 per cent. In

1971 it was a total of $79,371,000. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the

Minister to explore with me some of the purchases and supplies.

Explosives — $11 million in 1971. Now what's going to happen to

the explosive industry? Chemicals — $5 million. Drill bits and

steel — all very relevant.

Every one of these individual industries pays taxes and

hires employees. Lumber and timber — $1.5 million in 1971.

Petroleum products — $9 million in 1971. Milling supplies — $15

million. Engineering supplies….

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like a grocery list.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's all very relevant. I'll get to the

groceries a little later. No. It doesn't have groceries in

here.

Electrical supplies — $4,639,000. Electricity — $7,602,000.

Containers — $1,555,000. Coal and coke — $2,282,000. Other

miscellaneous production materials and supplies — these were so

numerous that they weren't mentioned — $18 million, Mr. Minister.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Madam Chairman. A total of $79 million.

Madam Chairman, here is where we get down to the individual

wages and salaries. This is more relevant to the individual.

This is the small guy I'm talking about, Mr. Minister.

Professional and technical services: legal and audit — over

$1.3 million. Management fees — $3,603,000. Engineering

consultants — over $3.75 million. Assay and metallurgical

supplies — $853,000. Exploration surveys — $358,000.

I wonder, Madam Chairman, how much money is going to be

spent on exploration surveys this summer. General consultants —

$370,000. These are figures for 1971. A total of $10,642,000.

This, Madam Chairman, is the magnitude of the industry that the

Minister controls.

I could go on — construction work, drilling, camp catering,

mine operation, other, Madam Chairman. Construction work — $185,548,000

in 1971. Drilling to find the ore, Madam Chairman;

exploratory drilling, risk capital — $7,359,000. Camp catering,

much of it by exploratory crews out there searching for the

minerals, the minerals that we need to find so we can have a

true look at the picture. Right, Mr. Minister?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Camp catering — $5,204,000. Others —

$9,522,000. Contract work totaled $214,403,000. Machinery and

equipment — I hope, Madam Chairman, that the Minister of Mines

is getting some idea of what a tremendously responsible

position he has to the people of this province. Machinery and

equipment — $93 million. Other services and supplies not

mentioned above — helicopter service, area travel, camp

supplies, communications, outward transportation — all very

relevant. All very relevant indeed, Mr. Minister of Health. A

total of $551,083,000. Madam Chairman, that's not mentioning

the taxes.

In 1971 direct employees in the mining industry in the

province — 14,800 people. That's direct employees, Madam

Chairman. In your own area alone, 3,138 employees in 1971. In

the Shuswap-Chilcotin area — 2,022.

There's one other thing, Madam Chairman, that I'd like to

point out. That is the net capital inflow to the mining

industry, 1962 to 1971. This is the money that comes into this

province to the mining industry. In 1962 it was $39 million. In

1971 it went to a high of $464,695,000. Madam Chairman, where

is our

[ Page 1965 ]

economy going to go when this money stops coming in?

I realize, Madam Chairman, that there's money in the kitty,

but not the kind of money needed to keep a viable mining

industry on the go. The total for 10 years — $1,928,437,000.

"The equity capital and net capital inflow amounts shown above

incorporate $166 million raised by the numerous exploration

companies, who are not members of the Mining Association of

British Columbia."

$166 million raised by the exploration companies — this is

the crux of the whole situation, Madam Chairman — the risk

capital that we require to go out there and maybe be spent with

no return because they didn't turn up anything worthwhile.

Madam Chairman, there are many things that have a bearing on

the mining industry in British Columbia. We cannot live as an

island unto ourselves regardless of how we may think we want

to. Unless we become a completely independent state or province — where

we don't have to worry about the outside influences — then

we're going to have to take into consideration the

economics of the world, the economics of Canada, and the

economics of the situation in which we live.

I'd like to quote to you, Madam Chairman, from a speech

recently made by E.A. Schultz, vice-president of exploration of

Placer Development. This was made, Madam Chairman, to a meeting

of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines on March 23, not very

long ago: "British Columbia produces no mineral substance,

whether oil, gas, coal, metallic or non-metallic, which is so unique to

this province that our

production controls the price of that substance." Madam

Chairman, what this man means is that we are not able to

control the price of a particular mineral in British Columbia,

because we don't control the market.

Our economic health depends upon our ability to market our

products in competition with other sources of supply in Canada

and internationally.

This, Madam Chairman, is something that the Minister of

Mines is going to have to take into consideration when he makes

the decisions in his department. It goes on to give one very

short example which I would like to relate to the House, Madam

Chairman. "Take copper, for example. Canada is more than

self-sufficient in copper without any coming from British Columbia."

This is just our own Canada.

"And despite the currently strong market for copper, and hence

the high price, copper consumers must certainly view the future

with confidence as they view the tremendous new copper

discoveries around the western world and plans and progress

being made for the development of these large reserves. These

discoveries by 1976 can add about 1.5 million tons of copper

metal per year, a 22 per cent increase over current world

production."

When the Minister, Madam Chairman, says that he is going to

tax copper as it comes out of the ground….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order. You are relating to a bill on the

order paper. That is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: When the Minister says that he's substantially

going to increase the revenue from the production of copper, he

must take into consideration the world situation.

I think, Madam Chairman, that I have given some excellent

reasons for encouraging exploration and development of our

mineral industry and rate it second to none for innovativeness

and efficiency. But why discourage the industry reserve

resources for the future, create unemployment, reduce the

standard of living and reserve British Columbia in all its

untouched, pristine grandeur?

We simply cannot afford the loss of jobs, Madam Chairman,

substantially lowered standard of living and lack of

opportunity for an ever-increasing number of people in British

Columbia.

These are the problems that face the Minister and the

problems that he is going to have to solve, Madam Chairman.

Let's take a quick look at where discretionary powers,

confiscatory taxes and failure of government to honour their

laws and obligations could lead. Examples are legion, but here

are a few. And I'd like to relate, Madam Chairman, for just a

few moments, some of the history of the mining industry in

British Columbia and elsewhere. And what will happen, Madam

Chairman, in British Columbia because of the existing attitudes

of the Minister of Mines will be the same thing that has

happened in other place in the world.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Here we go around the world

again.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going around the world. I'm just

going to give you a few examples, Madam Chairman.

From the days of Spanish exploitation beginning several

centuries ago, Mexico was a major producer of metals. Mexico

isn't that far away from here. It is a country blessed with

rich metal deposits of all kinds, Madam Chairman. Gold and

silver were of prime importance in earlier centuries, with base

metals becoming more important in the last few decades.

Madam Chairman, since the early part of this century, Mexico….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. Order, please. I do not

see the relevancy of the mining industry in Mexico to the

mining industry in British Columbia or to the Minister's

estimates.

[ Page 1966 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Madam Chairman, I think it is very

relevant because if you would just let me have said a few more

sentences I would have shown you how it was relevant.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I rule it out of order. If you wish to appeal

my ruling, you may.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll attack it a different way, Madam

Chairman. I will say that due to the policies of the Mexican

government, which are similar to the policies this Government

is adopting now, the mining industry in Mexico went down the

drain, resulting…well, you know what's happened, Madam

Chairman, to the economy of Mexico today. Mexico has a vast

resource of minerals.

The same thing, Madam Chairman, is happening in Australia

today. Take a look, Mr. Minister; take a look at what is

happening to the mining industry in Australia today because of

some of the policies of the government in Australia, the new

government in Australia.

Take a look, Madam Chairman, at what has happened to the

mining industry in Chile. It used to be a very prosperous

industry in Chile. This is all very relevant, Madam Chairman.

Very, very relevant.

Because of the decline of the copper industry in Chile, the

world price of copper has soared, and I suppose, Madam

Chairman, since we don't have any personal interest in Chile,

any investment, we should thank the Chilean government.

But this, Madam Chairman, is very relevant. Very, very

relevant, because that is what is going to happen in British

Columbia.

President Allende has a truly socialist government. The end

result is low mineral production, more poverty, lower wages,

Chile is experiencing a shortfall of some 200 tons of copper

per annum over previously scheduled production, an important

factor in preventing a more catastrophic drop in recent copper

prices and accelerating the current sharp price increase. Well,

if you'd like me to relate to you, Mr. Member, take a look at

Zambia. Take a look at Zambia. Nationalization, Madam Chairman,

of the copper industry in Zambia. Result, a shortfall

production as compared to that plan. Copper prices in other

parts of the world are again deeply appreciative of this

contribution towards the supply of higher prices.

And that's what's happening. And that's what I said at the

beginning of my talk, Madam Chairman. That's what I said.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sometimes it takes the Minister a long

time to get the point, and sometimes he never gets the point. But what

I'm saying is that — oh, you can throw all the insults at me you want;