1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 695 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

On the motion of Mr. R.A. Williams, Bill (No. 84) intituled

An Act

Respecting Conflicts of Interest was introduced, read a first time, and

Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker two Messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, the following Bills were

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 82) intituled

An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act.

Bill (No. 83) intituled

An Act to Amend and Repeal Certain Provisions of the Statute Law.

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Hon. R.G. Williston, it

was Ordered that there be substituted in lieu of Bill (No. 27)

intituled Land Act, the Bill in revised form for consideration in

Committee of the Whole House.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources)

The Committee reported Resolutions 185 to 193, inclusive.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill No. 34. (An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is an error. The honourable member from Burnaby North adjourned on behalf of the member from Yale-Lillooet.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I am very sorry. The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: As far as we can see, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to support this amendment to the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 38, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill

No. 38, the British Columbia Professional Foresters Act. The Honourable

Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I discussed this Bill to some

extent. I think that this Bill here is another case, Mr. Speaker, of a

Bill where they are setting up another little tighter empire than we

had previously. The foresters had

an Act which was a little bit more

wide open, and men could even work their way up into being admitted as

members of this organization, now we have put a lot of teeth into it,

and we've given the professional foresters privileges in the same way

as we have given privileges to other groups in the Province. I noticed

that the old Act made a limit on the amount of assessment that was for

entry fee to the organization and this one here is wide open, and also

the offences, that if one is found guilty of any infraction of the Act.

It seems to me that we are allowing a group to govern almost within a

government, they are almost a government to themselves, and I think it

is about time that we stop this thing of setting up these empires

throughout our Province, giving groups of people almost absolute

autonomy, and a closed shop among themselves.

Our duty as Government should be to operate in the interests of all

the people, and whether it is doctors, lawyers, foresters, real estate

men, or what have you, any time that you set them up into closed little

groups, you are not benefiting the people of British Columbia, and to

me this is wrong. The first thing we should remember, as I said, we are

operating in the interests of the people of British Columbia, and these

little empires that we set up, we set them up with all the authority

that a government has almost got. A man has got to go hat-in-hand to

them to become a member, he's got very little option, and if they find

anything wrong with him, they can deprive him of carrying on.

Closed shops probably in many things are not good. This is a closed

shop. No closed shop union has got the same privileges as you have got

in these Acts, and I think it is time that we decided that we are going

to go back the other way, because we are getting so many of these

little empires set up through the Province that it is almost

unbelievable when you realize it. I know that they all come with the

same story, that they are setting up their organization for the benefit

of the people of British Columbia, but in the final analysis, it is a

self-interested group building it up for their own self-interest, and I

oppose the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out

that this Act, to me, seems to be doing what has been attempted to be

done through the Private Bills Committee. It's a group of people in the

profession getting together to get some special rights or privileges

through

an Act of the Legislature. It would seem to me that if the

foresters of the Province are desirous of receiving some Bill to

protect their interest, then the appropriate thing should be to bring

the Bill before the Private Bills Committee and dispose of the matter

through that channel, and as a result I think that this is the wrong

way of proceeding with this particular Bill and, likewise, we will

oppose it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill 38, and I

believe that this is something we should give very serious

consideration to, particularly when we realize that forestry is one of

the major if not the major industry in the

[ Page 696 ]

Province, and this Government, through the B.C.

Forestry Service, has trained many able, many capable men. While I

realize there is a grandfather clause in this legislation that would

look after the men that are already trained, and would apply to come in

at this time, but because of the nature of the forestry industry, and

because of the great need for technical people and professional people,

I think it is a mistake to have the technical people doing the work and

not being able to collect the pay unless they have a degree behind

their name. I have been approached by people in this position, that is

the technical people, and they fear this legislation. So I think in the

best interests of the greatest numbers of the people engaged in the

Forestry Service and in the forestry industry, we feel that we must

vote against this.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 36

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Skillings

Ney

Bruch

Chant

Merilees

McCarthy, Mrs.

Loffmark

Marshall

Dawson, Mrs.

Gaglardi

Wenman

Williston

Campbell, D.R.J.

Kripps, Mrs.

Bennett

Brothers

Mussallem

Peterson

Shelford

Price

Black

Richter

Vogel

Campbell, B.

Williams, L. A.

LeCours

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Smith

Clark

Little

Capozzi

Gardom

NAYS — 12

Messieurs

Cocke

Williams, R. A.

Dowding

Hartley

Calder

Nimsick

Lorimer

Macdonald

Barrett

Hall

Strachan

Dailly, Mrs

PAIR:

Kiernan

Brousson

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 40, Mr. Speaker. (Mineral Processing Act)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, we support this Bill. I referred

to it earlier today in my talk, about the necessity of setting up

copper smelters and secondary industries, and this is nothing new as

far as our side of the House is concerned. For a great many years we

have been advocating for such a possibility and we are glad that this

has been brought in. I only hope that it isn't a mere lip service in

our Statutes and that the Government is really sincere in initiating

such a programme, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: I would like to echo the sentiments of the

member from Atlin but in speaking to this Bill, quite frankly, I was

surprised when it was placed before us. I am pleased that it has been

placed before us because on different occasions I have stood in my

place, as late as a year ago, and asked that a certain portion of all

copper contracted in future years, that there would be written into the

contracts that a certain portion of the copper would be held available

for a smelter. Now I think this is a general intent here.

When the Minister spoke, I believe in the Budget debate, when the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources spoke, he used pretty much

the same verbiage, the same intonations in his voice as the Mining

Association in some of the panels they have held throughout this

Province, talking down the need for a smelter. The Minister just didn't

use the word that if we wanted it for a reason of prestige and so on we

could have it, but these words have been used by the Mining

Association, trying to point out that really a smelter in itself didn't

create too many jobs. If we wanted it, we could have it. Now I

certainly hope that this is not the case of the Government, I hope this

is not the case of this legislation, and I hope that I am wrong in

suspecting anything of that nature.

I hope that with this legislation now that we can move forward,

select a good location somewhere in the Province, possibly in the

western interior, have a copper smelter built, a refinery built in

conjunction to the smelter, and then encourage secondary industry to

develop around this smelter and refinery, so that we will be providing

many, many jobs in manufacturing, everything from electrical equipment

such as the transformers, generators and switch gear that we have been

importing, many millions of dollars worth from foreign lands that are

using our copper. We export our copper and we buy it back after much

labour has been involved in consumer and manufactured goods. Now I

think it is a good step and I am very pleased to see it. I hope that we

can all support it, and move forward rapidly to having this industrial

development in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I think we're all in agreement

in this House that it's desirable that we establish some means of

processing the raw material in the field of ore within the Province.

One notable attempt to encourage that by this Government failed rather

miserably in 1957, when the legislation passed at that time was

declared to be invalid by the Supreme Court of this Province, and

confirmed finally in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1960.

Now, although we are all in favour of the principle of encouraging

the smelting and refining of ores within the Province, the methods that

are advocated in the Bill before us are, to say the least, rather

unique. One of those in that the Minister is able, under the powers to

be granted, to direct at least 50 per cent or at least up to 50 per

cent of the minerals produced by any mining operation be directed to a

[ Page 697 ]

processing plant within the Province where such

plant exists, despite any agreements that may exist between the

producer and anyone else. That's an interesting idea, to say the least.

It's certainly a novel approach to the appeal to private enterprise.

The other interesting approach is that the Minister may determine

and direct any refinery to accept the minerals from any producing mine

in British Columbia, and may determine the cost of the refining, and so

on. It seems to me that this proposal is causing an economic

intervention into the private enterprise affairs of the mining industry

in British Columbia. Of course, we for a long time advocated the public

interest in what has heretofore been a private preserve of those who

have acquired the mineral wealth of British Columbia, and it's rather

refreshing to see the Government accepting that basic proposition, that

this Government has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of

mining companies and in the processing companies in the public interest.

Well, we've argued that in larger economic matters than in mining,

that the public interest should be paramount despite the private

arrangements, despite the private privilege of those who have a vested

control over the economy, and it rather heartens me to see the members

of this House asked to vote on this important principle. It's a

departure from the rigid positions adopted by those exponents of

private enterprise who sit across from the Opposition, from the

Official Opposition, and I don't know whether this is a death bed

conversion, but it sounds like it, and it's rather interesting. I want

to see all the members vote on this on the principle involved.

It may be there will be difficulties, it may be there will be

difficulties in carrying this legislation, so far as the particulars

are concerned, into valid operation and no doubt this will lead to

contests in the Courts as to whether the Government has the power to,

in effect, determine what happens to the ore after it comes out of the

mine shaft. So it will be very interesting in the next few years if the

Government goes ahead with this legislation, to see how well it does in

the Courts….

Well, I'm very glad that you've adopted this principle, but it runs at variance with your philosophy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. DOWDING: Oh yes, it does. You

are going to intervene in the private affairs of companies for the

interest of the people of B.C., and we certainly support that principle

if it means the refining within the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly

endorse the principle involved in this piece of legislation. In

previous debates I pointed out that the forecast for this Province

showed that only 10 per cent of a work force will be able to find

employment in the primary industries, so we must take whatever steps

are necessary to make sure that jobs are created for the work force of

this Province. We know from any economic study that the more labour

that is applied to raw materials, the increase in the wealth production

increases with a multiplied factor.

When we examine the Annual Report of the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources, we get some idea of why we must, we must move into

this field in the Province, because we find on examination of the

figures in this document, that in some areas our production of

concentrates has been going down. In two areas the production of

concentrates has been going up. One of them has been in iron ore

concentrates, and most of this is exported. The other is in the field

of copper concentrates, and we find that since 1951 the production of

copper concentrates has increased four times. The value of that

production has been up eight times, but the vast majority of this, too,

has been exported in this semi-raw state as concentrates.

When we look at the figures here as to the number of men employed in

the mineral industry, despite this vast increase in the mineral wealth

production, then we see that these economic forecasts of reduced number

of people working in the basic industries are true, because we find

that in 1951 there were 13,000 people employed in the mineral

industries of this Province but in the last figure given here in 1968

it is down to 10,000 people. From 13,000 down to 10,000, despite the

tremendous increase in the volume and value of the mineral production,

so we are going to have to find more ways of putting our people to work

in this Province and retaining within the Province more of the

wealth-creating potential of these natural resources, so we welcome

this legislation. But at the same time I question the attitude of the

Minister, because the Minister seems to blow hot and cold in this

issue, and I refer to….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's wrong.

MR. STRACHAN: No he does, because if you are for something you are for it, and you don't try and throw cold water on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Belly-aching….

MR. STRACHAN: I'm not belly-aching….

Well I'm not prepared to let legislation just go through without

drawing the attention of the members of the House and the public to the

situation. Now, if I'm going to get a running barrage from a member who

hasn't read the Bill, Mr. Speaker, then that's all right, I don't mind.

The Minister, you see, has introduced this Bill, and as I say, I'm

all for it because his own figures indicate we must move into this

field, but at the same time, the Minister, when he makes a speech tries

to create a fear in the minds of the people of this Province that the

creation of a copper smelter will have some concomitant disastrous

effects. Because, he says, "Provincial Mines Minister Frank Richter

warns Tuesday in the Legislature that if the Government decides to

establish a copper smelter, people must accept that pollution will be

one of its products." That is what he says. This is in his speech in

the Legislature this year, as reported in the Colonist of January 30th.

So that, as I say, you know you can't blow hot and cold on it, and I'm

not sure that the creation of a smelter in this Province will, of

necessity, bring pollution. And here I asked the Minister, I asked the

Minister to….

AN HON. MEMBER: Cowichan Bay area?

MR. STRACHAN: The Cowichan Bay area is not a suitable place

for a copper smelter (laughter) for a very good reason, for the very

good reason they…

[ Page 698 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: …don't want it.

MR. STRACHAN: No, no, no no, the copper concentrates, the

major copper concentrates are not on Vancouver Island. A straight

economic question, straight question of economics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member, with

respect, is deviating from the principle of the Bill and I think has

been allowed reasonable latitude to make his point.

MR. STRACHAN: If you think so, Mr. Chairman. But you see, the

Bill has to do with preparing material,

section 5. I don't want to

refer to sections except

section 5 says, "The delivery of minerals

under directive of the Minister shall not in itself constitute a sale

of the minerals,….the payment of processing or refining," and

then over this page here it says, "Notwithstanding any agreement to the

contrary, the Minister may, by notice in writing, direct…." that

they be sent to a plant, smelter or refinery in the Province to accept

delivery of.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I've read the Bill very carefully. It says

very little, if anything, about the pollution that you were discussing

a moment ago.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh, oh, oh. Well, the Minister's speech was referring to the creation of a smelter.

MR. SPEAKER: But we are not referring to the Minister's speech now. We are referring to the principle of this Bill.

MR. STRACHAN: Anyway, I would certainly remind the Minister

that the experience in Trail shows that pollution could be controlled,

and I think the pictures that are shown of the valley of the Columbia

there when pollution was allowed, and when they finally were ordered to

control it.

The difference in the foliage, the growth, the trees indicate that

we don't have to have pollution. I suggest the Minister should, if he

hasn't already done so, and he intends to implement this Bill, as part

of any agreement or any proposal there must be complete control of

pollution from such a smelter.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker I, too, support this Bill. I am

a little bit dubious sometimes as to whether the Minister will have all

the powers that he's got in there when it comes to dealing with

previous agreements, but I think there should be a little more teeth in

it to try and give a greater incentive. Maybe we should have a….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against incentives.

MR. NIMSICK: No, but I'm talking about a high royalty on

export of the raw material higher than what would be if you smelted it

and had the refined product, and I think this would be an incentive.

It's not paying any money out. I know you were ready to jump right away

that I was just trying to say that you should give them some money, but

you already got a Bill in here to give them some money if they would

start a smelter. But nevertheless, I think that there should be — if

you are ever going to encourage them, let's put a little pressure on

and I think this is the way to put the pressure on by any raw

concentrates that's exported should have a higher royalty. There is no

royalty on copper right now, but you should have a royalty on it, a

high royalty compared to what if they smelted it in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in this Bill the Minister is

given a very wide and powerful discretion to exercise, and there is no

question that the establishment of a smelting industry in this Province

has been delayed these many years because of inadequate supply of ore,

particularly of copper.

Now the power that this Bill gives to the Minister is one which

might encourage people to approach him or the Government to exercise

the power so that a copper smelter could be produced, and I trust that

the Minister will realize that, as he has said in this House, the

present technology in the smelting of copper is one which, the member

from Cowichan-Malahat should appreciate, cannot be done without

polluting. Vast quantities of sulphuric acid are produced as waste

product and you get sulphuric acid rain in these areas. I say to every

member of this House who might encourage the Minister to exercise this

discretion easily, they should consider whether or not they would want

such a smelter in their constituency, and I am sure that they would

have second thoughts about the matter. I trust that the discretion

which is given here will be exercised when the construction of a

smelter is possible with anti-pollution devices which will ensure that

the sulphuric acid rain now associated with them is completely removed,

and the encouragement there might be to exercise the discretion should

be resisted until the Minister is satisfied with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 43, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 43. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly pleased to

endorse the Bill. It might be interesting if the Bill didn't pass, to

see what repercussions might arise.

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

MR. B.A. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, every time this Bill comes

before us, the four years I have been in this House I've approached it

with some amusement, because I think we could probably discuss every

subject conceivable without being found out of order, Mr. Speaker,

because this Bill in principle, I am sure, through every by-law that it

involves, covers every possible subject we'd like to debate. So how one

determines the principle really escapes me a little. But I would like

to suggest, Mr. Speaker, one thing in all seriousness. I doubt if any

member of this House, perhaps other than the Minister, is really

familiar with the items in

[ Page 699 ]

detail in this Bill. One

section alone, without

referring to it specifically, Mr. Speaker, covers dozens of municipal

by-laws which I am sure none of us here have read.

The point I wish to make is that once again the Municipal Committee

in this House has not met, and I think this is a job it could do every

year. If the Minister brought in his Municipalities Enabling Act

earlier and sent it to Committee, the Committee could report back to

this House, giving members some reassurance as to exactly what they

were doing in this Bill. Because let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker,

the only way any member in this House would ever find out if there is

something in this Bill offensive to his own riding would be if people

at home who have seen the Bill and are involved in the municipal field

bring it to our attention, because there is no way we could analyse

this Bill ourselves.

So, I make that suggestion in all sincerity, next year let's send

this to the Municipal Committee so that we really know what we are

voting on.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Pardon, Mr. Speaker, but one of the things that

is covered in the Bill is a by-law which requires publication in a

daily newspaper circulating in the city, and I wondered if the Minister

could tell us what advice he could give to the City of Vancouver on

that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Municipal Act)

MR. SPEAKER: On Bill No. 44. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, likewise we are pleased to

endorse this Bill in principle. This covers a wide variety of sections,

but as far as the principle is concerned we endorse it.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, likewise we're pleased to

support the principle of this Bill, although this is the only

opportunity I do have, Mr. Speaker, to discuss what is not in the Bill

and what I thought was going to be in the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I doubt that you have that opportunity at this moment. (laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: You telegraphed your punch.

MR. CLARK: I telegraphed my punch? It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable member is going to be brief I am sure the House will permit it.

MR. CLARK: It was my understanding, on the words of the

Minister in an earlier debate, that we would have an amendment to the

Act allowing tenants the right to vote, and I just bring it to the

attention of the House that this is not included in these amendments,

and I for one am very disappointed on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Medical Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 45. The Honourable Member from Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Chairman, we'll be able to deal with

this more specifically when it comes to Committee. It's hard to

determine what the principle of the Bill is in the light of its various

features, but I would say this, that it is certainly welcome that there

are going to be some provisions made for determining the rules for

specialists, and secondly, that undergraduates are going to find a

place in the medical hierarchy pursuant to this by having them on a

limited register. That, I think, is something that members will

probably agree upon. It goes into the area that we've been talking

about, using limited medical groups, and for medical groups to assist

the specialist and to assist the hospitals and to assist the practising

physician. This, I think, is something that will help reduce the cost

of medicine. One of the costs of medicine is that the highest priced

help is so often used, when technically competent personnel could be

used in many of the problems of treatment. Now there's a change that

goes hand in hand with the Professional Corporations Bill that's before

the House and that provision in here, of course, is necessary, but

we'll deal with it in Committee much more, I hope, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention a few

aspects of this Bill in principle. We've heard numerous comments, from

particularly the member from Kootenay, with such statements as that the

doctors write their own laws and they have a closed shop and so on and

so forth, and I think the House should be put straight on some of these

principles.

In the first instance the main purpose, as I'm sure most of us are

aware, of the Medical Act is to protect the public, not to protect the

doctors. The College of Physicians and Surgeons is given the

responsibility of making certain that any doctor who wishes to practise

in the Province is, in fact, the person he says he is in terms of

qualifications, and I feel it is unfair to suggest to the public of

British Columbia that when we're discussing such

an Act as the Medical

Act that we are simply pandering to wishes of the medical profession.

The medical profession is, in fact, and as will be shown on the

section

by

section discussion in Committee, the profession is asking for those

changes which it believes will more efficiently and more accurately in

the 1970's help us to give the public safe medical care.

If I can just, in passing, refer to one

section referring to the

limited register, this is an attempt to allow the Province to utilize

the services of certain doctors who have a limited field of interest

and practice, who might not otherwise become registered in the

Province, and where their services

[ Page 700 ]

can be used if a limited register is set up. This

does not exist at the present time and the Province might otherwise be

denied the services of such a person.

The phrase "closed shop" is used or was used this afternoon in

talking about such principles in relation to the foresters, and the

same speaker mentioned the doctors. I think it should be emphasized

again that membership of the College under the Medical Act is simply

essential that the doctor applying for the licence to practise in the

Province is having his credentials scrutinized to be sure that he is,

in fact, a qualified doctor and that he meets the requirements which

have been spelled out in this Province. In this regard I would repeat,

the College is in fact, acting very much on behalf of the public to

make sure that the public are not subjected to a person who in fact is

not adequately or properly qualified within the terms of the Medical

Act in this Province, and I fail to see why we should be, in acting in

this way, compared to "closed shops" so called. As you all remember, I

made some reference in an earlier speech to the fact that I was

approached by a plumber who was willing to go to work but was forbidden

from doing so by his union. This is what I would consider a "closed

shop." In British Columbia the only action of the College under the

Medical Act is to grant the licence, and if you meet the professional

requirements no one, but no one, can stop you practising medicine in

this Province in any place you choose to settle, and I think this is….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh….oh….yes, they can.

MR. WALLACE: No you can't. No you're wrong, my friend. If you

meet the professional requirements spelled out under the Medical Act

and administered by the College — it is a question of meeting the

professional requirements — are you a properly trained doctor with the

necessary qualifying criteria, or are you not? But if you qualify for a

licence no one can stop you practising in the Province of British

Columbia.

Now do not confuse this with hospital privileges, my friends, that

is a different matter. And I don't want to go into that much detail

save to, if I may, Mr. Speaker, just clarify another fact that has

often been mentioned in this Session, and that is that the College,

acting under the Medical Act, is a completely different body from the

Association, the B.C. Medical Association, and I would repeat most

forcibly that membership is not compulsory in the B.C. Medical

Association. I believe that teachers are obligated to be members of the

Teachers' Federation, but this does not apply to the medical

profession, and I'd repeat that very clearly, and I'd defy anyone to

prove otherwise. It may be that about 90 per cent of doctors do join

their Association by choice, but there's at least 10 per cent who do

not, and it is not compulsory, and therefore I would submit that any

suggestion that we're dealing with closed shops does not in fact exist.

The only other point I would like to mention in general principles

is that this Bill is asking you, the legislators, to make the law. The

doctors are not making their own laws. The doctors are asking this body

to listen to their suggestions and either approve or disapprove of

them. One particular point which, I think, illustrates this aspect of

the Bill is the request for a wider selection of doctors to form a

Committee of Inquiry. Doctors are as human as the next person and fall

prey to drug addiction and alcohol abuse and get into social problems

such as any other person does, and the safety of the public being

involved, the profession feels very strongly that any such

investigation should be carried out on the most informative and skilled

basis possible, and since this often involves psychiatric help the Bill

is suggesting that they can spread their search further in seeking

professional help to form the Committee of Inquiry.

I would think that if one, for a moment, tries to be objective about

this, and I'm not so sure that the Opposition are prepared to be

objective, but if one can be objective for a moment, I think the record

shows in the manner in which the profession has disciplined itself and

managed its affairs and protected the public interest, that if one is

reasonable you would agree that they have a remarkable record. In this

regard the Act which we will discuss in detail in Committee is aimed

exactly in that direction of providing better protection for the public.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the

honourable the member from Oak Bay in his statement in regards to the

College of Physicians and Surgeons giving the right to anyone to

practise any place in the Province of British Columbia, and that no one

can deny him that right to practise and locate in any part of British

Columbia. And this is a point that I've been arguing about, that the

Courts of this Province had over-ruled the College of Physicians and

Surgeons by the very fact that they did deny the right of a physician

to practise in the City of Cranbrook. They denied that right….

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a civil matter.

MR. NIMSICK: And it wasn't a legal document and it wasn't a

civil…. If the honourable member is correct that no one can deny him

the right to practise in any part of British Columbia, then that should

be sufficient. I say that no group of doctors should have the right

then, to deny any individual doctor of that right. This is the point

that I've been battling over the last couple of years, because it is a

rather ridiculous situation when the taxpayers of this Province….

MR. WALLACE: Why doesn't he go to the Courts if he feels he's being unfairly treated?

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, he went to court, he challenged it.

MR. WALLACE: And what was the decision?

MR. NIMSICK: And the decision was they upheld the doctors in that area.

MR. WALLACE: Are you disputing the Courts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NIMSICK: I'm saying, I'm saying that it's an unprofessional conduct on the part of any doctor to….

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 701 ]

MR. WALLACE: I think the member in question is, in other words, stating that the Courts are wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. That's not a point of order. I do think, however,

MR. NIMSICK: It wouldn't be the first time that some of us objected to what the Courts decided.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it not true the honourable member is anticipating the debate which will be on his own Bill which he presented to this House?

MR. NIMSICK: Partly, but this Bill is called before mine. (laughter) This Bill over-rides mine, and you know where my Bill will go.

MR. SPEAKER: With due respect, I think it completely covers the subject quite adequately.

MR. NIMSICK: You know where my Bill will go, but I was just

answering the honourable the member so that he would know that he was

wrong when he made the statement that a person could practise any place

in the Province of British Columbia, and I think that the doctors have

got a little bit of cleaning up to do in their own backyard.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with one or two

bills on the matter of professions and professional groups, and while

our friend from Oak Bay eulogises the role that has been played in this

Province by this particular group, and of course that's only rightfully

so, we could expect that, but I've often wondered, particularly in

times of strife and conflict, when the doctors say have withdrawn their

services and threatened their colleagues, when they have withdrawn

their services and threatened their colleagues if they didn't fall in

line with that closed shop they might forevermore practise in that

area. This has happened in more than one area in America. So that with

this sort of thing having happened, when this Bill is being reviewed

and revised, I think we should all give very serious thought to the

chief policing and government body of all professions in this Province,

including the medical profession, being the universities — a Board set

up at the University. After all, they are the ones that draw up the

examination that the doctor must pass, and they judge as to whether he

has qualified, and this would remove it from the fear and the threat

that can often be carried on in any professional society and any union.

It would put it on a high, non-partisan plane, and these professional

people, the professors at the universities, would judge the quality of

each candidate and, again, if any problems did develop then the members

of this or any other professional association would not have to be

lackeys to that association. I believe it would be a step towards

greater democracy in this profession and in all other professions.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 47, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Mineral Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 47. The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, although there are a few

sections here, the one

section I believe where the principle is

involved is in

section 8, and this seems to be the more contentious

part of the whole principle.

I, for one, certainly have my doubts and fears with respect to an

outright purchase of surface rights. I just don't believe that this

would be a good practice, because in the last few weeks we have heard

debates about the Cypress Bowl in which it was earmarked for one

specific purpose and then ended up with another, and this Bill seems to

provide an avenue for this same thing, and that is a person who has

purchased an area for mining use following which, after the operation

is complete, or he decides to cease operation, he still owns the land

in our view, and he can do what he pleases with it other than mining

purposes. This sort of opens up a whole field in land speculation on a

large scale, and I don't think this precedence is of much value and we

certainly question this whole Bill, Mr. Speaker. On this basis we are

definitely going to oppose the Bill.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious change

in principle involved in this Bill before the House right now. There is

an indication under this Bill that the Government will permit people to

go in and stake claims and, under the revised regulations of working on

staked claims this Bill, along with the revised regulations, would

allow land speculators to use the dodge of staking claims as a method

of getting control of land, doing some work on that land, and then

applying for right to purchase. And it will allow them, Mr. Speaker,

and I suggest the member does not know what he is talking about,

because if he reads

section 118 of this Bill it spells it out in detail.

Now I want to suggest to the House that that is exactly what has

happened in other areas and this new move in legislation may be a move

to approve what has happened in other areas. Mr. Speaker, I have in my

hand a large number of mining claims that were staked in the West

Vancouver area. These claims were staked with no intention whatsoever

of doing any work on mines, but to meet the requirements of the Mining

Act they did do some construction work on one or two of the claims, and

the Minister can correct me if I am wrong in saying that if you have

got ten claims, you must do $100 worth of work on those claims. In the

past, it had to be $100 of work on every claim, but the regulations are

now changed, it's $1,000 work on one claim will cover all the claims.

That's correct, isn't it, Mr. Minister? What this means Mr. Speaker, is

that under the present regulations, the old regulations were that if

you went in and staked 100 claims you had to spend $100 on each claim,

but now, if you go into an area and stake 100 claims, you can spend all

that money — that's $10,000 — you can spend that $10,000 by building

one building on one claim in the group, and you have satisfied the

requirements of that particular area. Yes. Now the Minister, you've

said on one claim you'd spend $100 a year, right?

HON. FX RICHTER: That's assessment worth. Not

[ Page 702 ]

surface rights.

MR. BARRETT: Assessment worth. Okay, not surface rights, but

once they meet the requirements of the assessment worth to the fixed

amount of $100 per claim on one claim, it covers all the claims. What

has happened, Mr. Speaker, and I speak of this area in West Vancouver,

is that about 60 claims were staked in this area in Crown land that was

not reserved for anything, except there was an alleged watershed

reserve which wasn't really there. Once these claims were staked, no

matter what the Provincial Government wanted to do in that area, or no

matter what the West Vancouver Council wanted to do in that area, the

prior right to this land was acquired, the prior right was acquired by

the people staking the claim. And under the new

section of this Bill

and the principle of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to solidify

those prior rights completely, the surface rights completely.

Now the area I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, surprisingly enough is

Cypress Bowl, because that's where the promoters went in and staked the

claims, they even had placer mining claims in the little lake in the

area which are valid for 20 years. Then no matter what the West

Vancouver Council wanted to do, no matter what the Provincial

Government wanted to do in Cypress Bowl, if this law passes we are

going to create a legal jungle that will permit the developers in

Cypress Bowl to find another loophole to acquire that land. That's

what's involved, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the Minister, and I urge the

Government to re-examine what is taking place in this legislation.

We have a Land Act in the House, and I won't refer to that in

detail, Mr. Speaker, but it is to revise the old method of people

acquiring land in this Province, and while we are cleaning up one area

of loose administration we are creating another area, where people can

come in from anywhere, from anywhere in the world, go and stake a claim

on Crown land, have that claim registered in that name, do work on that

claim and establish the right to purchase that land from the Crown. And

that's the loophole, and it is a very, very dangerous thing.

I suggest again to the House, Mr. Speaker, we will oppose this, we

will vote against it, and we urge members to examine what's happening.

This will solidify the give-away of Cypress Bowl or any other similar

area in this Province, and it must be stopped and it must be stopped

right here and right now. With all due respect, the Minister himself

might not have realized how this was being used, and that's why I have

gone into detail in principle, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice of warning in the changes proposed in principle in this particular Bill.

The members will remember the Mineral Act as it once was, where an

individual could get mineral rights in perpetuity. It was finally

agreed by this House, and I think unanimously, upon recommendations

from the Minister, that no company should get the mineral rights in

perpetuity, and as I recollect the legislation it said they shall be

granted mineral rights for a period of 21 years. In the Mineral Act, of

course, the owner of the leases is given certain rights and privileges

with regard to timber that is on the surface, and access, and a number

of other features relating to his requirements for mining.

Now we are proposing to superimpose on top of that some changes that

will allow people who only had a lease for the mineral rights to

acquire in perpetuity the surface rights, and I suggest that where

necessary and where it is thought correct, the most that should be

given to a company who owns mineral claims is a lease to the surface

rights to run concurrently with the mineral rights. I can't see any

reason for making it possible in this way to allow anyone to obtain in

perpetuity the surface rights to property of this kind in the Province

of British Columbia. This is only stirring up more trouble for the

future, because we can expect great changes in our attitudes, I hope we

can, and in realization of what is needed.

I feel that this Bill simply would create more problems for the

future, and I think that particular

section should be removed and that

principle removed from the present legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we too are opposed to this

amendment because of the matters which have been stated by the two

previous speakers. It was hoped that under the other Bill which is

before this House, dealing with land, that we were going to get some

semblance of order out of the disposition of lands in this Province and

great wide discretions are being proposed for the Minister of Lands.

But now we find that someone else is being allowed to interfere with

that discretion, and it is the Minister of Mines, and if he is

satisfied as to the requirement of surface rights, then he can

over-ride the decisions which the Minister of Lands might otherwise

make. And further than this, the contrary is true. Under this Bill, if

the Minister of Lands were to determine that the surface should be

dealt with in a particular manner, he can't deal with the land in that

way, unless and until the Minister of Mines certifies that the contrary

is the case, namely, that the person holding the mineral claims has no

need of the surface. So we have a double interference with the

discretions which we are already offering to the Minister of Lands in

another Act, and we're left with the Minister of Lands having only the

right to determine value and that is value of unimproved land.

Altogether, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that what is proposed here is

contrary to the intentions of legislation already passed in principle

in this House this year, and to allow the two to stand is a conflict of

principle which we cannot support.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, it has taken a long time in

the Province of British Columbia to get rid of the idea of Crown

granted mineral claims, and I can remember the debates in this House

more than ten years ago over the whole question of whether we could do

anything about the Crown granted mineral claims. We set up the present

system that, in effect, requires performance by the prospector,

performance by the owner of the mineral claim, and it did not grant any

other surface rights than the rights to work the mines beneath the

surface.

But two important principles are involved here, and one of them is

that where the Crown granted claim has been issued, and exists, the

Minister will have the power under this

[ Page 703 ]

proposal to turn over to the owners of the mineral

claim the Crown grants to the surface of the land itself. Then there is

the other case where there is no mineral rights worth exploring or

developing or remaining under the Crown grants of mineral rights, and

in that case the Minister of Mines can certify that the surface rights

are not required for mining, and the Minister of Lands can go ahead and

issue a Crown grant to the surface rights to the owner of the mineral

claim.

What is wrong with this, in my view, is a bad principle, as it lends

itself to fraudulent mining. The second thing about it, that is wrong,

is that mining is a non-removable activity so far as the particular

mineral claim is concerned. Once you have got rid of the minerals from

that claim the purpose for it being a Crown grant of mineral rights or

a claim has vanished, and it should revert to the public domain again

for other surface use.

But this is going to change the whole philosophy of retention of

surface rights, and I think the reason for it is that some mining

interests have found that having mineral claims that were Crown

granted, they have discovered that with changing times the surface

rights are valuable, and they want them. It's as if the E. and N. land

grant were a grant of mineral rights on a Crown grant, and they turn

around and see how valuable Vancouver Island is and they want to take

over all the surface rights. But it should be remembered, the history

of the Crown granted mineral claims, the reason they were given at low

cost to the staker of the claims, no real cost to him was in the hope

that he would develop the minerals that were to be explored and found

beneath the surface, and if he did get minerals out of that, then he

more than enriched himself at public expense, without much return to

the public. But now he is to be doubly rewarded if this particular

measure is adopted by the House, and I warn the House that it is a

serious error to allow the sub-surface mineral grant to be converted by

this means to surface rights, whether or not a mine is still working,

or it has been abandoned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed

in that the honourable members did not research the reason for this

change, because this is something which we have been trying to do,

seriously trying to do in the public interest in the Province, for at

least the last ten years. It has been a most difficult situation, and I

thought that the honourable members would realize that at the present

time in British Columbia everybody who has a Crown grant by law has the

right to purchase that Crown grant for $5 an acre. It is a fixed price,

it doesn't matter where their land is, and everyone has the inalienable

right, without any question of whether they are using it for mining,

whether they have any use for it whatsoever, they have the right today

to purchase the surface for $5 an acre, and this is something we have

been attempting very strenuously to overcome.

All you have to do is to get into some areas in this Province, that

have been Crown granted since the very early days. Take Texada Island

for an example. Texada Island is almost completely covered by Crown

grants and they are owned accordingly, and the people that own the

Crown grants on Texada Island are systematically coming along and each

year or two they put a few more Crown grants, apply for the surface

rights at $5 an acre, which they are allowed to get by law, and then

they sub-divide those completely, beyond the wishes of the Regional

Districts and everybody else, carry out developments as they are going

on, and there is absolutely no way we have been able to prevent this

insofar as Government is concerned.

Now the mining industry as well as the Government have been trying

to get away from this law now for some years, and the only possible way

to get by that was on some basic agreement in the mining industry.

Contrary to the debate that's been presented to the members this

afternoon, the mining industry has been responsible, and they have

taken the stand that these people for real estate purposes, should not,

and I repeat, should not be able to purchase the surface of the mineral

claim and use it for any purpose which they consider it should be used.

And as it….

AN HON. MEMBER: What Act gives them the right to purchase?

MR. WILLISTON: In the Mineral Act right at the present time,

and it spells it right out there if you'll look it up, that they can

purchase the surface without this amendment for $5 an acre on all Crown

grants. And look it up, if you've done your research.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not change that?

MR. WILLISTON: That's what we're doing right now. But it's

legitimate. I would say, Mr. Member, there is no more Crown grants.

We're dealing in the past. Now let's be fair in all elements. We're

dealing in the past. We've stopped Crown grants. What people did

yesterday, in contract conditions and so on, is a matter of British

tradition as you go — I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you Crown grant mineral claims?

MR. WILLISTON: We no longer Crown grant mineral claims.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking about Crown granted mineral claims.

MR. WILLISTON: That's right. On Crown grants that have been

granted in the past. And they did not even have to, to get the Crown

grant, prove up the fact that that land even had minerals within it to

get the Crown grants which they had in that time. That's all part of

the past. But they are still there and the law still prevails, and the

thing we are doing is protecting them for legitimate mining, is

protecting the minerals for legitimate mining only. And if they are

going to use the land and it's proved for legitimate mining, and this

has been very, very carefully worked out, that we are not changing a

condition which has been traditional in British Columbia and that which

prevails no longer, which is Crown grants at $5 an acre. But we are

saying that it should be, if they are coming forth and they are going

to legitimately use it only for mineral production, that it should be

related to the raw land values prevailing there, and there are no raw

land values at $5 an acre in there, but it should be if they are going

to use it specifically in the wresting of the mineral from the soil or

from the area, it should be at that evaluation.

This was the compromise we finally have been able to come to over

those years insofar as this is concerned. I point out to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this is one of the most forward — something, as I say, we

have worked on for about ten years —

[ Page 704 ]

it has admittedly been an abused part of the

Mineral Act for many, many years and this the industry and ourselves

are in favour of. But I hope the debate goes, and I hope you will go

back into the reference and see what they can do with mineral claims

right at the present time, because that is what they are able to do,

and they are doing it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker…

AN HON. MEMBER: You've spoken before.

MR. NIMSICK: …it seems to me that I've never spoken on this before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your home town asked for this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member will proceed.

MR. NIMSICK: I haven't said anything yet and he says I am a hundred per cent wrong!

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

MR. NIMSICK: He must have been reading my mind or something.

I am rather surprised, though, that the Minister states that they have

been trying to get rid of this idea for ten years, for ten years. Why

don't you definitely bring in a law, and the Crown can do almost

anything. If the Crown gives the Crown grants they can even take the

Crown grants off. The Crown can do anything. They are the highest

authority in the land. And if you give Crown granted mineral claims,

why don't you have it written into the Mineral Act that the surface

rights do not and will not go with that claim and the only time that

you can have the surface rights is by lease for the purpose of

mining….

I know the new ones, but why don't you bring in a law to handle all

the previous Crown grants so that they cannot purchase that land that

is around the mineral claim? All you're doing is saying that they can

purchase it but that they've got to pay the price in relationship to

the other land around it.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they're using it for mining.

MR. NIMSICK: I am not sold on the idea of beating it around

the bush to solve the problem. Beating around the bush to solve a

problem is not, to my mind, the way to handle the situation. If it's

been ten years, if it's been bothering you for ten years, you have the

support of this group to get rid of this idea of whenever Crown granted

mineral claims, giving these extra rights to the man that stakes the

claim. Because it's not fair, it's not fair to other people in the

land, that he should be able to purchase the land for $5. It should be

wiped out altogether, but you are still giving him the right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not if they have a mineral claim there.

MR. NIMSICK: But they shouldn't be able to buy it fee simple.

They should be able to lease hold until the mineral is out of the

ground, and when the mineral is out of the ground it should revert back

to the Crown, so that other people could apply or it could be used for

some other purpose. But I don't think that giving it as a Crown granted

mineral claim you should give it for perpetuity and for other purposes

as well, and this is what could happen. This to me is not the proper

way of attacking it.

I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the timidity of the Minister, the

timidity of the Minister in trying to solve the problem by creating

another problem. Why don't you come out flat-footedly and deal with the

question the way it should be dealt with, because you're destructing

your whole land policy if you continue on as it has been in the past.

I agree with the honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests that

this has been a bugbear in the mining, because the honourable member

for Kaslo-Slocan used to bring it up many times about these Crown

granted mineral claims having all the rights on them. I feel that if

you wanted to solve this problem you should have come out flat-footedly

and solved it without trying to beat around the bush.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I think the principle that has

been debated by the previous speaker and the one before that is a very

simple one, and whilst the Minister of Lands and Forests who took

part

in the debate said that that's in the past, I don't think that is a

sufficient answer. I have only been here for four Sessions, Mr.

Speaker, but in every one of those Sessions at some time or another we

have that kind of statement. It is simply not right to say it belongs

in the past because it is here every single year, every single year

this problem is in front of us, so to say it is in the past I think is

really fleeing away from the problem.

The principle of allowing a resource, no matter what the resource

is, that has been given to a developer in the past by whatever

technique, by whatever method that the Government of the day chose, to

simply state that that will be forevermore, in my view is incorrect. It

is not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, when one of these resources — and this

is the principle I am talking about — that was, if you like,

controlled, and I don't want to use the wrong words, by a company, when

the company decided to get out and close down its operations — and here

I am talking about Georgia Pacific — when they decided to close out,

close down, put men out of work and go seeking a cheaper labour market,

Mr. Speaker, they made probably more money in that Crown gifted asset

than they made during the whole of the time they were running their

operation.

It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the Government which

has, on occasion, during its 17 years of office changed the rules — not

only has he moved the goal posts, he has changed the name of the game,

changed the name of the game, and we don't have to look very far back

to see that — why they are so reluctant, as Ministerial statements have

given us to believe, to change some of these rules of the past.

Now, nobody is suggesting that you just go and knock on the door and

say, "Okay, hand it over." The whole thing is obviously subject to

negotiation, obviously subject to a plan of intent, obviously subject

to some statement of purpose, obviously subject to some future

happening. But for the Minister to stand up and say that our resources,

once given, can never be taken back when we can see that those

resources are being used, or sat on, to go into other fields of

endeavour,

[ Page 705 ]

seems to me to be the height of putting one's head

in the sand. The height of putting one's…. if I can mix that metaphor

up for you. And that's how the Government was left in that position.

I heard the Minister of Lands and Forests, who essentially is one of

the most rational Ministers on the other side — and it is obvious that

I'm now in trouble — why he can't see the essential validity in this

thing, that the people who sit on the resources, Mr. Minister, should

be told in no uncertain terms that they got those resources for one

purpose and one purpose only, and they get on with the job. If they

don't get on with the job then I think it is time to say, " Move over. "

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Will all those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Kripps, Mrs.

Chabot

Ney

Mussallem

Little

Merilees

Price

Jefcoat

Marshall

Vogel el

Tisdalle

Wenman

LeCours

Bruch

McCarthy, Mrs.

Campbell, B.

Loffmark

Dawson, Mrs.

Wolfe

Gaglardi

Williston

Smith

Campbell, D.R.J.

Bennett

Capozzi

Brothers

Peterson

Skillings

Shelford

Black

Chant

Richter

NAYS — 16

Messieurs

Gardom

Williams, R. A.

Strachan

Cocke

Calder

Dowding

Hartley

Clark

Nimsick

Lorimer

McGeer

Barrett

Hall

Williams, L. A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Macdonald

PAIR:

Messieurs

Kiernan

Brousson

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.