1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5507 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Windermere Lodge dispute. Mr. Cocke –– 5507

Hiring of crew to film Premier in Kamloops. Mrs. Dailly –– 5507

Mr. Hall –– 5508

Ombudsman investigation of Eckardt redistribution commission, Mr. Leggatt ––

Status of Ian Jessiman. Mr. Hall –– 5509

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 65: minister's office –– 5510

Mr. Passarell

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lockstead

MONDAY, MAY 11, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the gallery

today is my wife, accompanied by a citizen, Mrs. Helen O'Neill, who has

lived all her life in British Columbia but has never been in Victoria

before. Her home is Hixon, B.C., which used to be in the Cariboo and is

now in the Prince George South riding. She is a great supporter of this

great government, and I'd like to introduce her.

MR. D'ARCY: In the gallery and precinct area today from the city

of Trail is Cominco's manager of environmental control, not only for the

Trail operation, but also for Cominco's interests on a worldwide basis.

I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Nigel Doyle.

MR. DAVIDSON:

Visiting with us today from Cougar Canyon Elementary School in Delta

are 78 students with their teacher Mrs. Sawatsky. I would ask the House

to give them a warm welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I

have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that a member

of our caucus — the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) — received

an honorary doctorate degree this past weekend from Mount St. Vincent

University in Halifax. The bad news, of course, is for the government,

because it means there's one more doctor in town.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I'd like the House to welcome a group of students from the Brookswood

Junior Secondary School in Langley, accompanied by their teacher, Cliff

Shiskin. I'd like everyone to make them welcome.

MR. LEA:

For a number of years before entering politics I worked for CBC radio.

I know that most people here, from time to time at least, listen to CBC

radio to find out what's happening here. This is CBC Radio Week, for

those of you who have been listening. Today I thought it would be

fitting to recognize Barry Bell, who is CBC regional reporter for

legislative matters.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like

the members to welcome Rev. Allan Dawe, who is a good friend of mine

and minister of Knox United Church in Prince George.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I have the honour to say that in the gallery today are 35 students from

Mission Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. and

Mrs. Leckie. They are hosting 35 students from John Pritchard School in

Winnipeg. They are being billeted in Mission with these students on an

exchange basis. They hope to reverse the exchange and go to Winnipeg

soon.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's a privilege and great pleasure for me to

have in the gallery not only an outstanding nurse in British Columbia but a

fellow classmate and very good friend for many years. In fact, we shared our

quarters at the Vancouver General when we were in training. Mrs. Romer works

in long-term care. She is a strong advocate of our program, as well as being

a very realistic critic. I ask the House to join me in extending Mrs. Romer

a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the House, on behalf of myself and the

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), to welcome a group of students

visiting from Guildford Park senior secondary school with a group of

visitors from Quebec. We are very pleased to see them here today.

Oral Questions

WINDERMERE LODGE DISPUTE

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Health. Given the fact that Treasury Board has approved the Health

minister's request for funds to cover the costs of standard health-care

rates in negotiated collective agreements in long-term care and given

the fact that 100 employees at Windermere Cential Park Lodge in

Vancouver, which is funded through the long-term care program, have

been on strike since April 4, 1981, for precisely those standard rates,

has the minister instructed Windermere Central Park Lodge to turn over

the funds that were made available to them for payment to their

employees or, failing that, to return the funds to general revenue?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House who is running the

health system? Is it a large corporation such as Trizec, which is a

subsidiary of the Bronfman corporation, or is the Health ministry

involved in some way?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure I heard the words, but I'm not quite sure what the member is asking.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, to clarify the question, the minister wrote to all the

long-term care facilities indicating that their rates would be paid

from the Ministry of Health, by which they are now being paid. That's a

standard rate of around $8 an hour, and these people are being asked to

work for $4.50 an hour. I'm just asking what the minister is going to

do about directing the disparity.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to look into that specific situation at

Windermere Lodge to find out where the problems are at the moment.

Through various people within the ministry I will certainly determine

if funds have been provided to Windermere Lodge which have not been

properly disbursed, if the member is suggesting that that is the

situation. I will also determine if we're involved in a labour dispute

of some kind which cannot — or someone chooses it not to be — resolved.

But I would have to look into that and respond to the specific

questions asked by the member.

HIRING OF CREW TO

FILM PREMIER IN KAMLOOPS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to

the Provincial Secretary: can he confirm that a film crew which

followed the Premier in his travels through the Kamloops riding this

past weekend was hired by Douglas Heal and paid for by the taxpayers of

British Columbia?

[ Page 5508 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that, but I'd be happy to take the question as notice.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, this is getting really ridiculous. That minister is in

charge of public relations for the government, and he can't ever answer

any questions in this House. When he brings that back, I wonder if he

would also inform this Legislature how much money this film is costing

the taxpayers of B.C., what purpose the film is being used for and when

it's going to be used.

I have a final supplementary to the

minister. I'm sure he can answer this because it was in the morning

paper. I'm sure, like all ministers, he reads it. We'll find out.

According to press quotes, there was a very unseemly argument between

the minister's own public relations deputy, Mr. Heal, and the Premier's

press secretary. My question to the Provincial Secretary — whether he

has read it or not — is: are you going to do anything about this

unseemly fighting that is taking place on the Hollywood set of the

government? What are you going to do about it?

MR. SPEAKER: Only that portion of the question which refers to what the minister has already done is in order.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the nature of the question itself is

unseemly. Am I to be asked to answer questions on conjecture, newspaper

articles, etc.? I've undertaken to take the previous question on notice.

MRS. DAILLY:

I want to assure the House that it wasn't a facetious question. When we

have fighting and arguments going on between two different departments,

I think the minister has the responsibility to tell the House that he's

going to clean up the Socred PR act.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, may I remind the House that the purpose of

question period is to ask questions and not to enter into debate and

make statements.

MR. HALL: I have some supplementaries for the same minister on the same subject.

MR. SPEAKER: It's difficult to ask a supplementary on a question that's taken on notice. A new question would be in order.

MR. HALL: I have new questions to do with the same subject.

The

subject is the same, and will continue to be the same, Mr. Speaker,

until we make this government desist from the wasteful expenditure of

moneys in this regard. The subject is the continuing saga of the

communications problems that the government on the other side of the

House has.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has a question?

MR. HALL:

I would like to know if the Provincial Secretary, through his

communications deputy minister, has sent copies of these

Hollywood-type, government-sponsored movies to the film classification

officer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It never ceases to be interesting how the opposition

is so concerned about the government providing public information. It's

completely baffling that they would want information suppressed. Day after day

they stand in this House and criticize our attempts to try to provide public

information. It's pretty obvious that they don't want that to happen.

I think that the last question from the member for Surrey relates to the one

I took on notice to try to get information for the House, having to do with

a certain film. From my view, it was entirely facetious to ask whether it had

been submitted to the film classification director.

MR. HALL:

In view of some of the identification problems that the new public

relations deputy is having, can the minister assure the House that he's

instructed his staff to provide pictures of Mr. Hal Leiren, Mr. Hugh

Harris and Mr. "Whistling" Smith to Douglas Heal to prevent further

confusion between all this high-priced help?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

No, I cannot, but I can assure the member that the film crew is

producing now a film on the past history of the NDP years in this

government entitled "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly."

MR. HALL:

I have another question dealing with the communication gap that the

minister has seen fit to hire a public relations deputy for, the

communication gap that obviously existed on the return of the Premier

from Thompson, Manitoba, and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan).... I wonder if the minister can assure us that his new public

relations deputy, in his role in providing communications assistance,

has provided a map of the buildings for the Minister of Tourism so that

she can get to the Premier's office unescorted.

OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION OF

ECKARDT REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION

MR. LEGGATT: My

question is directed to the Attorney-General. It concerns the

announcement on May 10 by the ombudsman that he is going to undertake

an investigation of Judge Eckardt's redistribution. One of those

matters would be the Little Mountain constituency. My question is: has

the Attorney-General provided the ombudsman with all the transcripts,

letters, correspondence and other materials which were available to Mr.

Vogel and Mr. Prelypchan in the initial inquiry, so that he's going to

be apprised of all the material that was available to the ministry in

their inquiry?

HON. MR.WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT:

My next question is this: would the Attorney-General advise the House

which materials in the ministry of the Attorney-General will not be

provided to the ombudsman in his investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The response to the member's question would require the giving of a

legal opinion. That's not appropriate for question period. [Laughter.]

You may laugh, but the ombudsman has just embarked upon his

investigation. He will be seeking information from a variety of sources.

MR. LEGGATT:

Would the Attorney-General advise the House whether the ombudsman has

been provided with the memoranda between Mr. Prelypchan and any members

of his staff or himself, or memoranda by Mr. Vogel to any member

[ Page

5509 ]

of his staff or himself? Will those internal memoranda of the ministry be made available?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is whether it has been made available, it's in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the Attorney-General advise the House why he has made the decision to deny that information to the ombudsman?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member misunderstands his question, and therefore the answer. No such decision has been made.

MR. LEGGATT:

Will the Attorney-General make available to the ombudsman the notes

made by the investigators in his department — whether Mr. Prelypchan or

Mr. Vogel — in respect to the interviews they had with the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Judge Eckardt? Are those notes

going to be made available to the ombudsman so that he can assist

himself in the interviews he conducts?

MR. SPEAKER: Only that portion of the question which refers to actions already taken by the minister is in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No action has yet been taken with respect to this matter. No request

has been received, and I wouldn't want to dictate to the ombudsman how

he would do his inquiry.

STATUS OF IAN JESSIMAN

MR. HALL:

Mr. Ian Jessiman's appointment to the position of Assistant Deputy

Attorney-General does not appear to be recorded in order-in-council

records. As a consequence, it's unclear to me in what capacity he was

hired. Can the Attorney-General inform the House if we have hired an

assistant deputy or a consultant?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Jessiman is not an assistant deputy minister. He takes the senior

position in the legal services to government division of the ministry,

which is the civil side, and in that respect he may be seen to be a

consultant.

MR. HALL: We're told that Mr. Jessiman

consults with his old law firm in Winnipeg one week out of every month.

Can the minister confirm that the British Columbia government has hired

a consulting firm and not an individual for the senior position just

referred to by the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we've hired an individual in these circumstances.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand it's the practice of the

House that a member may attempt at the first opportunity to correct

misinformation which was given to the House at an earlier time.

MR. SPEAKER: Only if it affects a portion of an address which the minister

himself has given.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be in the best interests of the

House to know that in question period today — and I'm just seeking

guidance on this — one of the members for Burnaby referred to a film

crew in Kamloops. I would just like to tell the House that the Premier

was not in Kamloops, nor was there a film crew in Kamloops. As someone

who was on the scene, I can guarantee that neither Doug Heal, the

camera, nor the Premier were in Kamloops over the weekend.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, a statement of that nature at this particular juncture

would have to be considered a ministerial statement. It's not a point

of order.

MR. KING: If I may respond to the

ministerial statement very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would advise that I

was in Kamloops on Saturday morning and clearly saw the Premier of the

province, along with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland),

leaving the airport in Kamloops. So the information the minister has

just given the House is patently untrue.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources seeks the floor on what basis?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the direction that you've given me....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The minister is out of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you anticipated something I

wasn't about to do. I did not wish to respond to the member. I wish to

respond to the direction you gave me that it was more appropriate for a

minister to make a ministerial statement than to seek to rise on a

point of order. I would like to ask the Speaker if I may be permitted

to make a ministerial statement on a matter which refers to me. As a

matter of fact, perhaps I don't need permission.

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial statements are in order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I just want to report to the House that because of questions raised by

one of the members of this House about a film crew which was apparently

in Kamloops — taking film of the Premier, according to the member — I

would like to say that I was in attendance with the Premier and the

Minister of Forests, and those members did leave the Kamloops airport

because it was the only way to get to Logan Lake from Kamloops. I would

like to say that at no time was Doug Heal ever there, and I would also

like to say that at no time was the camera crew filming the Premier in

Kamloops.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Ministerial statements are in order according to the

practice of this House. Reply is always anticipated to a ministerial

statement; but I must

[ Page 5510 ]

remind

the members that we cannot use the vehicle of a ministerial statement

to do indirectly what is not in order in other fashion.

MRS. DAILLY:

I don't intend to answer the ministerial statement, when I think there

is serious doubt whether it was a ministerial statement. I think I may

ask you, Mr. Speaker, to kindly rule on whether that member over there

has the right, under the guise of a ministerial statement, to enter

into debate that took place in question period. I think we should have

a ruling on it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Chair has already observed on it, and has warned against it.

MR. KING:

Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the minister did clearly state in his

initial comments that the Premier was not in Kamloops. Now the Premier

was in Kamloops, and the minister himself subsequently admitted that he

was there too. It's understandable that I didn't recognize the

minister, because he unquestionably has a lower visibility than some of

his colleagues. But the fact is that he was there, and Kamloops airport

happens to be within the municipal boundaries of the city of Kamloops.

I would advise the minister that he should stick to the exact truth in

terms of these comments.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, I have a point of order. A number of times during this session

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) particularly has

raised standing order 8, by which every member is bound to attend

service of the House unless leave of absence has been given to him by

the House. That applies to all members of the House. Certainly that

point is raised when even only one member is missing, on business, from

the cabinet bench. However, in this particular instance, while many

questions have been raised which certainly ought to be for the benefit

of all members — government and opposition — I note that almost half of

the opposition members are not attending the House today: the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The same answer is given when one side of

the House raises this point as when other members raise it. That answer

is that members are required to attend the House; however, when they

attend the precinct of the House it is considered that they are in

attendance. It is not for the Chair to determine whether or not they

are in the precinct. I cannot assist the minister in his point.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. If I may finish my point of order, for the

record I would like to have the list and then perhaps we can find out

which members were granted leave. There's the first member for

Vancouver East, the second member for Vancouver East, the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard), the first member for Vancouver Centre, the second

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson)....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon.

member. I think that the Chair has addressed the problem. The House is

aware not only of the problem but also of the remedy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Could you tell us if they were granted leave?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the members please come to order so that we can continue with business.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I've been attempting to rise on a point of order. During

question period the Attorney-General advised me, as a questioner, that

he had not hired a certain gentleman as an Assistant Deputy

Attorney-General. He said that he didn't hire him as a consultant. I've

just been given a official government document. Mr. Speaker, I ask your

guidance on it. It has a date of April 1981 on it. It lists as the

Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, Legal Services, the very gentleman

that I was asking the question about: Mr. Ian L. Jessiman, Q.C. I

wonder what your advice is to a questioner, a private member in this

House, who asks a question based on government information and receives

the kind of answer I got from the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER:

Perhaps that matter can be raised in a question period and clarified in

that fashion. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on a point of

order. He's been seeking the floor for quite a while.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. During the statement by the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) I tried

to get up on a point of order and.... Is it not appropriate to get up

on a point of order during a ministerial statement?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Whenever we have a ministerial statement, the practice

of the House is that the House extends the courtesy until the end of

the statement. Then a reply is provided for. Other than that, there

would be no need for the vehicle of a ministerial statement being

allowed at all. It could then just be part of debate at some other

point in the proceedings.

MR. LEVI: Further to your

statement, today we had the example of the need for a point of order to

head off a statement which was clearly not an appropriate ministerial

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not for the House to

decide what is appropriate for a minister to say. That is at the

discretion of the minister, and be accepts the full responsibility for

his statement.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 65: minister's officer, $194,679.

[ Page 5511 ]

MR. PASSARELL:

Going over some of the issues concerning Amax and the issues that I

raised on Friday before we adjourned, I'd like to speak a little bit

about permit PE-4335.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point

of order, Mr. Chairman, estimates are designed to debate the

administrative responsibilities of a certain minister who is under

debate at the time. In this instance it's the Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources. I had some difficulty during Friday

afternoon's debate, because I found it not only difficult but

impossible to relate the statements and questions that the member for

Atlin was asking to any part of my ministry. I didn't say anything at

the time, because this is an extremely important question regarding the

mine at Kitsault, B.C., but the member says again that he intends to

talk about the permit which was issued for pollution-control purposes.

just bring to the Chairman's attention that no permits of that nature

are issued by my ministry. The responsibility for the environmental

protection of this mine and other mines of the same nature in the

province is under the Ministry of Environment, and I would suggest to

the Chairman that the member be advised that the appropriate place to

debate the matter of pollution, pollution permits and pollution control

is under the minister responsible, who is the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well

taken, hon. member. The administrative action of the minister is open,

but we cannot discuss the actions for which the minister is not

responsible. Bearing that in mind, the member for Atlin continues on

vote 65.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, that's probably

one of the reasons why this government has fallen into the trap and

found itself in the position of presenting cultural genocide on the

Nishga people because of this mine at Amax.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PASSARELL:

That's why this minister says he doesn't know anything, Mr. Chairman.

The reason this mine is in operation is because this government has

given it permits to go ahead and dump mine waste into the ocean. If

that minister doesn't understand, he's been a very poor minister

concerning his responsibility.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I know that the member hasn't been

in this House long, and I also know that he doesn't care much for the

rules of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: But, Mr. Chairman, these matters are not within the responsibility of my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the point has been made that the course of action the

member is now pursuing is clearly not under the administrative

responsibility of the minister in question. An opportunity does exist

for that member to canvass the issue. I must again explain that the

Chair is bound by the rules that have been established in the House,

hon. member. I would ask you to bear that in mind as you continue in

his debate of these estimates on vote 65.

MR. LEA: On

a point of order, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

made a statement, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Atlin doesn't care

whether the rules in here are adhered to or not, putting a motivation

to the member. I would ask that the minister withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair must ask that if any improper

motive or imputation thereof was made, the minister would withdraw

that. That is the only thing the Chair can do, hon. members. Did he

imply any improper motive, or otherwise, to the member for Atlin?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, what do you want me to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just give an answer, hon. member. Did the member imply any improper motive to the member for Atlin?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, I don't know whether that's a proper question to ask. Mr.

Chairman, I don't imply any motives of any kind. I just speak in debate

and....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order. Mr.

Chairman, at times emotions run high in this place. I trust that I

might assist the Chair, and I hope the Chair will not be offended by

the remarks. The rules which are being discussed right now are not the

government's rules; they are the rules which were in place a good many

years ago and they are in our standing orders. With respect, Sir, I

feel that from time to time members in the heat of debate do stray from

the estimate vote which is before the committee. Let no one think that

somehow there is a reluctance to discuss any issue, but each member

should know, sir — as I'm sure you do — that there is the opportunity

to discuss virtually anything which falls within the provincial

jurisdiction. But I do feel that a member who has a very strong view on

some subject should not attempt to inject that where it does not belong.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order the minister raised

regarding the strict relevance of the debate which the member for Atlin was

proceeding with, I would like to point out that where there is a resource use

anywhere in this province, quite often there are a number of different permits

and approvals that have to be obtained from different ministries, but there

is absolutely no question that there is a molybdenum mine being operated at

Kitsault on Alice Arm. A mine is a mine is a mine. That is what the member is

talking about, and he's talking about the waste material from that mine.

He's not talking about a refining operation, a forest operation or a transit

system. He's talking about a mine. In my view, that discussion is strictly

relevant to this minister. If it's not, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could

advise the House what ministry it should be under.

MR. LEA:

On the same point of order, first of all I'd like to say that I think

the Minister of Finance can play Premier on somebody else's time, which

is all he was doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's the kind of thing you're noted for here: cheap shots. I try to be helpful, that's all.

[ Page 5512 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Everybody knows what you're noted for and what you're going for. You're going for the guy's job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I try to be helpful to the Chair...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. CURTIS: You know it very well!

(Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Members of this House are well aware of the rules on

which this Chair has on many occasions insisted. I have no alternative

at this time, in maintaining an even balance of the rules of this

House, but to ask the Minister of Finance to leave the House.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: This House will come to order. The Chair recognizes the member for Atlin.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, back on the minister's estimates, it appears that we've

hit a very touchy nerve with that minister. The fact still remains that

that minister stood in his place at the opening of his estimates to

take credit for the mining operation at Kitsault, if that minister can

remember three or four days ago. All I'm explaining is why Kitsault

came into place. If it's that touchy an issue, that minister should be

a man, sit in his chair and listen to it.

We're talking

about a molybdenum mine 90 miles north of Prince Rupert. Through its

operation, it will be dumping 12,000 tonnes of toxic waste into the

ocean daily. The only reason it is marine-dumping is because of a

permit granted by the government.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just need

to say that the rules of this House are for all the members. They're put

there for specific purposes — primarily, as I understand it, so that full and

open debate can take place in this Legislature. In order to do that there must

be some order, and that order is built into our rules of order in this House.

They say that only those matters which are strictly relevant to the administration

of a ministry can be debated under a minister's estimate. That's not

to say that they can't be debated at other times during the estimates of

this House. They can and they must. But if we're to allow this House to

disintegrate into debate being allowed on any matter under any minister and

in any time period, then I submit that this House no longer has any sense of

order and that this House won't serve the purpose for which it was designed.

The

permits for pollution control and dumping of tailings of the Amax mine

at Kitsault were issued by the Ministry of Environment, the guidelines

are set by the Ministry of Environment, the reviews are done by the

Ministry of Environment, and the entire responsibility is under the

Ministry of Environment. If it was only a matter of strict relevancy, I

wouldn't even be standing up here. But there isn't even a semblance of

relevancy in this case. On the basis of good order in the House, I must

protest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point raised by the

minister is well canvassed and well taken. I must now instruct the

member for Atlin, regarding the particular point that he is now

canvassing, that there is no way that the Chair can in any form see

that it complies with the strict relevance section; nor, in this

particular case, is the minister responsible for the action in

question. The Chair has no alternative but to accept the word of the

minister and to ask the member, in continuing his debate, if he is

going to refer to anything of that nature, to frame his remarks so as

to comply with the very strict rules that the Chair must enforce if

this committee is to serve its function.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order that I sought to raise earlier. Regretfully, I did

not catch your eye at that particular moment. The point of order I want

to raise relates to the decision the Chair just made with respect to

the Minister of Finance. I suggest you could perhaps give us some

guidance, Mr. Chairman, as to how it should be proceeded with, when the

Chair rises and reports to Mr. Speaker and to the House, to report such

an incident in order that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) may take the same action with respect

to the Minister of Finance as he took in moving a motion to suspend the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) some time ago. In order that

there be equitability and empathy on the part of the government....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Please take your seat, hon. member. The action taken by the Chair has

been taken in two other instances that this Chair is familiar with. The

action followed was exactly the same. The matter was dealt with in this

House. I will not name the members concerning whom this Chair took that

action. There was no reporting. The action was taken by the Chair. The

action that the member is referring to is that of a naming process, and

is totally different under the standing orders that we have to guide

ourselves with. Further than that, I must say that the member is

reflecting to some degree on the actions of the Chair. I would ask now

that we continue on with the debate.

MR. HOWARD: On a

point of order, Mr. Chairman, lest there be any doubt at all in your

mind or anybody else's, there was no intention on my part of reflecting

upon the actions of the Chair. I thought I did not do that. I was

seeking guidance from the Chair as to what the next step — the

follow-up step — might be when you report to the House in order that

the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) or the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources may, reflecting government

attitudes, treat his own members as equitably as he did ours. That's

all I was trying to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member is eminently familiar with the rules that guide this House and

[ Page 5513 ]

knows that no further action is necessary by the Chair when reporting to the speaker.

MR. PASSARELL:

This is on the Kitsault mine itself, Mr. Chairman. We have a great

amount of information to discuss about this, but I'd like to read into

the record a letter dated January 29, 1981, to Hon. Robert McClelland.

I guess that would fall under his estimates, since it's addressed to

him concerning Kitsault. Through your guidance, Mr. Chairman, pollution

permit PE4335 is out of his jurisdiction, but if I talk about mine

waste, that's within his jurisdiction. So I'll stay away from the

permit itself. This is from the Vancouver and District Labour Council.

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"The Vancouver and District Labour Council was

horrified to learn that the provincial government has allowed Amax

Mines to proceed with the construction of their molybdenum mine at

Kitsault, B.C., with the result that millions of tonnes of contaminated

tailings will be dumped into Alice Arm. This clearing has been granted

over the objections of every environmental group in the province and

even over the protests of the Nishga Indians in the area, where

historical food sources will probably be eliminated if this project

proceeds.

"This labour council, along with the

B.C. Federation of Labour, insists that a public inquiry be established

to determine whether the experts are correct in stating that the

dumpings of tailings from the mine could destroy the livelihood of the

Nishga nation.

"We would further insist that

all licences or permits for the start of this project be cancelled

until findings of the proposed public inquiry are finalized and

publicized."

Mr. Chairman, to go further with this, the

entire issue of how this mine got into operation has come under

scrutiny from many organizations and groups across this province, as

well as international organizations.

Another

article I would like to refer to is from Fisherman ,

dated March 27, 1981: "Dumping Approval Ignored Protest. Amax Reviewers

Never Reported." It states some of the background information

concerning the report that was done by the Amax company that allowed

this travesty to proceed at the Amax Mine in Kitsault and was given to

the government, which, in turn, allowed this mine to proceed. We've

seen in many public statements afterwards that four of the five

scientists who were involved with the initial decision were opposed to

the operation of this mine and any development involving sea disposals

by Amax in that particular area. The scientists involved in the initial

decision asked that all mine wastes be placed on land. It seems that

the levels of government involved would not follow this recommendation,

and allowed Amax to proceed in dumping its mine waste into the ocean.

quote briefly from this

article concerning the dumping and the

scientists' involvement, the interdepartmental technical committee

charged that in the review the Amax project never made a formal report

to the provincial government. Members of the committee objected to the

poor information, most of it gathered by company-paid consultants, on

which they were asked to base a decision. Thirdly, the opinion of the

Fisheries department biologist and the committee was overruled by their

superior, then director-general W.E. Johnson.

Fourthly, even

after the permit was issued, the Institute of Ocean Sciences protested

that it was unable to plan a monitoring of the tailings, because so

little information was available about the physical aspects of Alice

Arm.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of

order, I think you very clearly pointed out to the member for Atlin

that everything concerning the disposal of tailings from the mine into

Alice Arm come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment,

not under the Ministry of Mines. The member persists in discussing a

subject which is not the responsibility of this ministry. I wish you

would bring him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, I must

ask the member presently speaking to be a little bit more selective. If

we are going to read from documents, it's one thing to relate to

something that specifies this particular ministry, but to stray, as the

member must realize he is doing.... I fully appreciate the difficulty

the member is having. Nevertheless, hon. member, we must abide by the

rules of the committee, which in this case bring us into the direct

responsibility of the minister concerned.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, just to draw your attention to what I'm told is

the latest annual report of the ministry for 1978 — at least, it's the

latest I was able to get from the library.... The annual report of the

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources refers on page 45 to

an enhanced mine-site reclamation program that deals with tailings

ponds, which is what we are dealing with here. Further on, under the

activity of the ministry, under reclamation, there are quite a number

of references to mine reclamation programs, all dealing with waste

material, dumps, tailing sites and everything else. What the member for

Atlin is seeking to deal with is basically, I suppose — in addition to

saving people from having some pretty terrible situations visited upon

them now — preventing the ministry from having to spend public moneys

in the future to go through a reclamation program. I submit, the

minister can't have it both ways. He can't engage in his activity in

dealing with tailings ponds and at the same time say he has no

responsibility for them.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess

the bottom line here is that the ministry responsible for tailings

ponds and the issuance of permits allowing them is not my ministry. If

we are talking about the safety of tailings ponds and whether or not a

permit should be issued — which is what we are doing here — I'd just

bring to the Chairman's attention that this matter was canvassed over

many years by both provincial and federal agencies, neither of which

had anything to do with my ministry. It was ultimately approved by the

waste management branch of the Ministry of Environment. I say again

that it's very difficult for this minister to deal with administrative

responsibilities which are not in my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the point has been made several times by the minister.

The Chair now has no alternative but to insist that the member confine

his remarks specifically to vote 65, dealing with the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and those actions for which the

minister is responsible.

[ Page 5514 ]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I know it must be difficult at times to take those frivolous points of orders from the Minister of Forests.

To get back to the vote itself, I'd like to read a letter....

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point of order I raised was not a

frivolous point of order; it was a very serious point of order. I would

ask the member to withdraw that comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. minister, the Chair has, some difficulty in asking a member to

withdraw something that is technically not unparliamentary. I would

fear that if members insist that the Chair take such action, we would

have virtually no debate in the House at all, and we must remember that

each member in this House must take responsibility for the statements

that he makes. We are bound by regulations that we must all try to

abide by.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, may I read a

letter from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mr.

Bob McClelland, in his vote? Thank you.

The letter I'd like

to read is dated March 9, 1981, signed by R. H. McClelland, Minister:

"Concerning underwater disposal of mine tailings." I'm quoting this

letter to Mr. Jim Lamb. He's stated he doesn't deal with that, yet he

writes a letter to the Canadian Union of Public Employees stating why

Amax has proceeded. I guess he must have forgotten he's written these

letters. I quote:

"Underwater disposal of mine

tailings at depth in either the ocean or lakes is often the best

disposal method from the standpoint of environmental concerns. This has

been proven positive in a number of cases in British Columbia, both in

fresh and salt water." Buttle Lake is an example, but that's not in the

letter. "In the operation of the B.C. Moly mine in Kitsault between

1967 and 1972, the mine disposed of tailings directly into Lime Creek,

which discharged into Alice Arm without any significant detrimental

environmental effects."

Under the Mineral Act, which falls

under the minister's responsibility once again, if we read closely we

find out where deposits of ore bodies may be disposed, which also falls

under the minister's responsibility. But we're spending too much time

on this. There are more issues I can cover outside the permit. I think

this House and the public across this province, and across the country,

understand what went on with the granting of permits.

Another aspect concerns the Nishga themselves. We found this

article in the Times-Colonist ,

dated May 11, 1981: "Amax Protest Turns Violent." It concerns some

smoke bombs, rocks and beer bottles containing red paint hurled through

the windows of the Ministry of Environment. "Amax Kills, Governments

Approve." I think any law-abiding citizens like the Nishga people, and

Project North who are also involved in the issue, would never turn to

violence. I certainly hope that no member of this honourable House

would ever believe as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

does, who is making comments once again. It seems that the snuff box

must be very potent this afternoon.

It appears that some

unscrupulous individuals are trying to discredit the opposition to Amax

mines, and I would certainly hope that every hon. member of this House

would never believe that a certain individual who voices opposition

would be categorized as becoming a vandal.

Regarding the

Nishga, the mode of publication concerning the initial mine operation

comes under consideration. As this House is aware, when you start a

mine of this nature you must publish in The British Columbia Gazette

as well as in local newspapers. That has been one of the faults with

this government in its mode of operation of allowing this mine to

proceed: most people do not read the Gazette ;

secondly, the area newspapers where the mining company published its

operation mode were hundreds of miles away from the area in which the

Nishga people live, so they didn't see it in the 30 days it was posted.

think it comes down to the situation right now that the Nishga people

and the residents of this province are concerned about allowing this

mine to proceed even though it has fulfilled the legal responsibilities

of publishing information in newspapers hundreds of miles away, and in

a post office in Kitsault. It's the need of a public inquiry right now.

We've seen that the Nishga people are quite concerned about getting

some information across to the people, and to the government as well.

One of the earlier statements made was that this particular area was

one which the Nishga people did not use for fishing, and mine waste

dumped into the ocean would have no detrimental effect there. A report

was given to the government well before the permit was granted that

stated the Nishga Indians did not fish in this particular area. This

fisheries officer of the lower Nass subdistrict to the chief north

coast division field officer, in which the subject quoted is the Indian

food fisheries of Alice Arm. In the five pages of this report it states

quite clearly that the Nishga people fish in the area for their

livelihood.

Secondly is the breach of the international

convention concerning the mine itself. It was sent from Mr. Jim Fulton,

MP for Skeena, to Dr. M. Mercer, manager of the international program

on chemical safety of the World Health Organization. In this letter

Mercer states that any dumping of radioactive waste is subject to the

control of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

of which Canada is a member. In the company's own feasibility studies

they talk about radioactive waste that will be involved in the

overburden, as well as mine waste that will be dumped into the ocean.

It appears that the movement of this provincial government and its

cronies in Ottawa — the Liberal Party — have totally ignored the World

Health Organization in the aspect of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I apologize for rising again, but we're talking about matters which

have absolutely no relevance to my ministry. We're talking about

environmental concerns, international conventions and the Nishga

Indians, none of which come under the terms of reference of my

ministry. I'd be happy to try and answer many of the questions if I

were allowed the same kind of debate that member is allowed. Perhaps

there should be another forum for it — I don't know. But there's full

opportunity for that member to discuss the environmental concerns that

he has under the Ministry of Environment. In my opinion, we should get

back to the administrative responsibilities of the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. I'm sure the hon. member realizes that the Chair has allowed the

[ Page 5515 ]

member

more than substantial latitude in his discussion hoping that the

remarks would be simply in passing and would more quickly relate to

vote 65 presently before us. But, hon. member, you are beginning to

leave the Chair with very little opportunity other than to instruct the

member either to discontinue his speech or to be strictly relevant to

vote 65. The cooperation of the member would be greatly appreciated,

not only by the Chair but also by members of the House.

MR. PASSARELL:

To bring the Chairman into line here, it appears the minister and his

two support staff behind him forgot to look at the mining regulations.

To give you gentlemen an idea of what to look for so you can help this

minister out of the bind,

chapter 265, subsection 5 of the mining

regulations,

section C, states: "...exercise power...the minister

necessary for ensuring the health and safety of persons employed in and

about the mine...." That's exactly what we're talking about here. When

I'm talking about the World Health Organization and this government

ignoring the fact that there's radioactive waste going into Alice Arm,

this minister has the audacity to stand up and say: "Oh, we have

nothing to do with this."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a

point of order, Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with you in your attempt to

bring the member to order, but he has just read a quote from the Mining

Regulation Act with regard to people working in and about a mine. He is

continuing to bring up the problem of pollution control permits to the

minister who is not responsible for it. He is ignoring every bit of

direction you have given him. A few moments ago you asked a member of

this House to leave for doing almost a similar thing. I think we should

insist that this member relate his remarks to the responsibility of

this minister or else ask him to leave.

MR. LEGGATT:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if at this point we

might clarify the ruling for the guidance of those who are intending to

participate in the debate. The member has just referred to a specific

section of the mining regulations, clearly a matter within this

minister's jurisdiction. What I'm asking for is a ruling for the

guidance of other participants in this debate. Can we refer to matters

dealing with the health and safety of people in and around the mine? If

we are denied questions to this minister concerning that, it would seem

to me a tremendously unfair handicap to any opposition to ask questions

of the minister where the mining regulations clearly set forth his

responsibility. The minister may want to get up on a technicality about

who did or did not issue the permit. There seems to me no question that

under the provisions of those mining regulations this minister has to

have some responsibility for the health and safety of people who work

around the mines, including people who fish and swim in that inlet, who

may be poisoned by the tailings that go into that inlet.

in the course of his remarks the member touches on the permit that is

clearly issued by the Ministry of Environment....You've already had his

apology, but it is difficult to deal with these questions on a

segregated basis; they are somewhat interrelated and intertwined, and

clearly we have a

section in the act. So I'm asking for your ruling,

Mr. Chairman: is this member going to be given the opportunity in these

debates to comment to this minister on the mining regulations and the

safety and health of those who work in and about mines, or is he going

to be denied that opportunity?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, the Chair can only enforce the regulations, guidelines and

rules that it has before it. The Chair has before it a guiding rule,

which is that only questions for a minister responsible may be asked in

this particular forum.

On the matter that was raised by the

member for Coquitlam-Moody, the Chair has no alternative, until it is

informed otherwise, than to allow the member for Atlin to continue.

Often the Chair finds itself in the position of having to accept two

statements which are in conflict. Because members of this assembly are

honourable members, the Chair has no alternative but to accept the

statement of each member. In the case of the member for Atlin, the

member has pointed out a

section of

an act which, in the Chair's

opinion, allows the member to further canvass a situation.

Until

the Chair is advised otherwise by either the minister responsible or by

another member, the Chair permits that member to continue on his

address. The Chair has no alternative. The

section referred to by the

member clearly, in the opinion of the Chair with the information that

it has before it at the present time, allows the member to continue to

canvass his point until the Chair is made aware of anything to the

contrary.

MR. PASSARELL: Thank you for the guidance,

Mr. Chairman. Concerning this particular subsection that I addressed

earlier concerning the minister's responsibility for safety, the

feasibility studies done by the company show that the waste contains

radon 226, cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, nickel, zinc, copper, iron,

molybdenum and uranium. Now under the subsection in the mining

regulations I referred to, this minister has a responsibility to

protect the people in this particular area — Alice Arm — against

uranium. It wasn't that long ago, Mr. Chairman, that this minister had

a PR gimmick concerning mining and exploration of uranium in this

province — something I supported that minister on — and I would

certainly hope he would foster it further through legislation by

accepting my private member's bill outlawing any type of mining and

exploration of uranium in this province.

But further

regarding Amax, Mr. Chairman, we have seen a total disregard for the

concepts, beliefs and the livelihoods of the people of the area, the

Nishga people.

Any mine has two modes of operation when it

comes to the deposit of mine tailings. It can do as most conventional

mines do in this province and dispose on land. We've seen some

excellent mining companies in this province use the technology that's

afforded by putting tailings into ponds on land. A case in point is

Cassiar, which has a very favourable disposal of mine waste.

But

if we look at the second mode of operation in the disposal of tailings,

we see the archaic method that Amax is using. They're depositing their

tailings from a pipeline outlet 50 metres below the surface of the

ocean; the chuck itself goes approximately 300 metres down. This mine

will be depositing toxic wastes — and many scientists across this

country have made the term "toxic wastes." When you look at the

ingredients that make up the composition of the 12,000 tailings....

Some scientists who were involved with the initial decision stated that

the tailings contained poisonous waste or, at any rate, significantly

toxic material to pollute the waters and damage Alice Arm's fishing

resource.

To get back to the vote, this mine has been in operation for just a few short weeks. We saw on Thursday and Friday that

[ Page 5516 ]

the

mine had a spill. As one of the mining engineers involved with the

decision stated, this happens daily to mines across the province. I

don't know if it is such a factual statement that 200 metres of beach

is wiped out daily in this province and that toxic wastes are brought

upon and carried out to the open sea. Part of the way that government

regulations are brought upon this mine is that the company has to give

feasibility reports to the government concerning the accumulation of

heavy metal and waste going into the ocean itself. As I stated earlier,

this mine has only been operation for three and a half weeks. The first

initial report from the company itself stated in objective 9 — on the

last page of a three-page letter to this government — that there are

already high concentrations of arsenic in the shrimp of the area. One

of the first feasibility studies states that arsenic has already

started to leach into the food supply of the Nishga people of this

province.

What does this government do? It gets up on

frivolous points of order and says: "That's not my department; that's

another department." To continue to allow this travesty to the health

of the Nishga people will eventually be a cultural genocide fraught

upon the Nishga people. We're asking this minister to take his

responsibility as Minister of Mines and close down this operation.

Don't allow it to dump 12,000 tonnes of toxic waste a day into Alice

Arm. Mr. Chairman, it appears that this Minister of Mines has done very

little research and homework concerning the Amax issue.

would like to bring him up to date on another part of his

responsibility. Instead of sea disposal, it's on-site land disposal.

This falls under his responsibility, as much as he would like to push

it off on his friend, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). In

June 1978 Wright Engineers Ltd. of Vancouver did a feasibility study

for Climax Moly Corp. concerning disposal of these toxic wastes on land

— project 911. It's a short, three-page report, compared to the

feasibility study of almost 200 pages done by Amax concerning sea

disposal. The capital cost estimate to have Amax dispose of 12,000

tonnes of toxic waste on land, well away from fishing sources and the

ocean, was approximately $20 million. This company found that it was

easy to get approval through its friends to dump it into the ocean.

There

was also a report done by Mr. Stephen Hilbert, who was involved with

B.C. Moly before it ran out of money in 1972. He was an engineer with

the previous firm. He stated that it would be a very easy mode of

disposal to pump these toxic wastes onto land. It appears that the

Minister of Mines has ignored these reports and found that it's much

easier to let this multinational corporation have its way and dispose

of 12,000 tonnes of toxic waste into the ocean.

Further, we

have seen that the cheapest mode of deposit of any mine waste is into

the ocean. It's cheapest for a company to get a big exhaust-pipe and

just suck these toxic wastes right through, like a toilet, instead of

giving them the responsibility to dispose on land, to build tailing

ponds. The company has stated to this minister in documents that have

been leaked that it's too costly for Amax to dispose on land. That's

foolishness. It would cost $20 million to dispose on land, up by Clary

Lake. I certainly hope that this minister understands, after it has

been driven to him countless times, that you can't allow a mining

company to deposit that type of waste into the ocean for 26 years.

We've also seen the public response concerning this whole issue of Amax. In the Times-Colonist , March 28, 1981, we see: "Critics on Amax Panel Gagged by Chairman." It appears that much of the information regarding

Amax

has been suppressed by government on the federal and provincial level,

not to allow the people of this province to find out exactly what is

happening. What we're simply asking this minister to do because he's

the appropriate minister as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources, is to put a moratorium on the Amax issue. Have a full public

inquiry on this issue. I noticed that in this provincial budget they

set $10 aside for public hearings. Let's have a full public inquiry

under this issue of Amax. Let all the facts be brought forward. If the

company has the safest mode of disposal into the sea, then fine, it

will come out as truth in a public inquiry. To allow these kinds of

reports that come out saying that the members of the panel were against

the initial decision to allow Amax to dump into the sea and that they

found four or five scientists saying no.... We found that just about

every scientist in this country is saying that it's totally asinine to

allow the dumping of this type of waste into the sea.

We see the "Halt the Mine Dump" in the Province ,

March 25, 1981, in which the fisheries union stated that it's totally

asinine to dump this type of toxic waste into the ocean. When is this

minister going to take responsibility and stand up in this House and

say: "Look, enough is enough. There's too much mine waste going into

this. It's affecting the fish. We don't know for sure exactly what it's

going to do to humans. Let's put a moratorium on this dumping until we

can find an equitable solution to this toxic waste. Put it on land."

Time and time again we see editorials such as this one from the

Smithers newspaper, which says "Time to Reconsider, " concerning the

involvement of the Most Reverend Edward Scott, the primate of the

Anglican Church, who has constantly stood up in public forums and

denounced this government for allowing the cultural genocide of the

Nishga people because of this mine dumping. Time and time again we see

newspapers across this country simply saying that it's time to

reconsider this project, and it's time to go back and look over exactly

what's happening and what effect this is going to have on the people.

It's

fine and dandy to have 300 people employed. Those people up in Amax at

Kitsault right now are saying: "We live in the area too. We don't want

to be eating fish that are contaminated by uranium, radon, arsenic and

mercury. "Why doesn't this minister stand up and say: "Look, enough is

enough. It's time to reconsider this project"? He's got enough

information to go back and be honest with the people by saying: "Look,

let's have a public inquiry."

We've also seen the effect of

long-term dumping. We've also seen public involvement being suppressed

by both levels of government, the provincial and federal. On April 7,

1981, an

article in the Province states: "Nishga Barred From Meeting.

Amax to ask Officials for Right to Dump Rock." They've already been

given the right to dump 12,000 tonnes of mine overburden into the

ocean. Now Amax is going back and they want a little bit more. They

want to be able to dump on land at two creeks also. They want to be

able to further pollute the inlet of Alice Arm.

What was the

condition of this government? They barred the Nishga people and the

environmental groups that are helping the Nishga people in their fight

and struggle from attending the meeting. What was the answer from the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources regarding why? They

didn't want the Nishga people or the environmental people concerned

with this to attend the meeting because some trade secrets might be

divulged to competitors. What nonsense that is! The Nishga people are

fighting for their

[ Page 5517 ]

livelihood.

They want to have a say in this mining opportunity, and the minister

says: "Well, we can't allow these people to come in. They're novices

and they might give the information to the competitors." I doubt if

you're going to find any competitor in this province who would go

through the public relations part of dumping this kind of waste into

the ocean. They simply asked to attend a meeting with the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and four other ministries, and

what are they told? "No, you can't come into it."

Mr.

Minister, time and time again we found, concerning ocean dumping and

its effect upon people.... The case in point in British Columbia is the

ecology of Rupert Inlet. Ten years after that company started to dump

mine waste into the ocean they're finding that the sea body in Rupert

Inlet has been totally annihilated, with life-sustaining forms

destroyed because of the dumping of mine crush into Rupert Inlet. This

came out through the Waldichuk report on fisheries and oceans, as well

as through Mr. R.J. Buchanan, who is the co-signer of this report. If

there is anything that this minister could understand it is that you

have permitted one travesty, even though you weren't minister at that

time. We've had one travesty in British Columbia concerning

sea-dumping. Why allow the second to happen, Mr. Minister? Why allow

Amax to go ahead and proceed with the dumping of this waste into the

ocean? Do you know what's happened already with the Waldichuk report,

which showed what happened in Rupert Inlet? You have lead time now.

Don't allow another Waldichuk report to come out ten years hence to

state that Alice Arm has been made totally devoid of life-sustaining

forms.

When you get further and further involved in an issue

like Amax, you become very disenchanted with government, and I don't

think it's just political because I represent the NDP and the

government is a representative of the Social Credit Party. We're

talking on human levels, about the Nishga people who live in this area

having some say in decisions affecting their livelihood. This hasn't

been granted by this government. I'm not just embarrassed with this

government because it's Social Credit; I'm embarrassed because of these

people. To allow something like this to happen, without any kind of

feeling concerning the Nishga people — and the fishermen as well,

who come up from Vancouver and Prince Rupert to fish in this area....

Our counterparts in the United States and Alaska are concerned as well.

interesting note on this is that following our very successful visit to

Alaska in February, discussing this matter with Governor Hammond and

his staff, the Governor's staff said they were totally disappointed in

the little bit of information given them by this government concerning

the operation of Amax. As a matter of fact, one of the commissioners —

who act as ministers in their government — stated that he was told in

telephone conversations that Amax was still two years down the road,

and a full public inquiry would be held. I can't say that the Minister

of Mines stated that. Maybe one of the support staff did for this

commissioner in Alaska to be able to have this kind of erroneous

information.

I think it's time to put another moratorium on

this mine, and close down the operation before further life-sustaining

forms are destroyed up in Alice Arm. Sit down with our Alaskan

counterparts and give them an idea of what this is going to do. We

share a border and common waters in this area. It's about time the

Alaskans had an understanding of what Amax is all about. The only way

this is going to happen is a full public inquiry — not by sitting in

this House and trying to make the facts known, with ministers standing

up making points of order and trying to disrupt the debate.

The Province

for Sunday, March 29, describes the Amax approval as ugly and done

without any type of arbitration. This

article was written by Mr. Roger

Smith, who comes from Ottawa: "The battle of Alice Arm, which at first

pitted Indians against industrialists in a remote corner of British

Columbia, has raised larger questions about the ugly, arbitrary way in

which the federal and provincial governments sometimes do business."

People have asked to have a delay in the dumping, and both times Amax

has rejected two calls to delay the dumping of 12,000 tonnes of mine

waste into the ocean.

An

article in the Victoria Times-Colonist for April 16, 1981, states: 'Amax

rejects two calls to delay dumping." Is there a reason why Amax doesn't

want to delay the dumping of 12,000 tonnes of waste into the ocean? Certainly

they want to reject it. They've been given carte blanche to destroy

the ocean up in Alice Arm. Why should they hold back just to hold a public inquiry?

This

article further states that if the project were turned down — and a moratorium

is what we're asking this government to do — it would cost the firm between

$10 million and $13.3 million. These are their own figures.

$13 million too much to ask if it's going to show some type of

protection for the livelihood of people who fish and live in the area?

Is $13 million too much for this government? I doubt it. They seem to

find money anywhere they can to build stadiums. But to ask them to have

a moratorium to protect the people of this province against a

multinational corporation which will help destroy the livelihoods of

the Nishga people, $13 million is too much. And these are the company's

figures. The way Amax gives figures out to the public, I wouldn't be

surprised if that figure could be cut in half.

Further to

the Amax issue, we've seen the embarrassment that this government has

given to our counterparts in Alaska concerning the information. Maybe

it's time for this minister to stand up today and to say that he's

going to be in contact with the Alaska government concerning the Amax

issue and give the information out. It appears that Amax isn't

concerned about provincial or federal governments in this country.

They're more concerned about making profits for their board office in

Connecticut. They're looking at 300,400 or maybe 4,000 Nishga people in

the area. What's their concern if they're going to be able to turn over

a profit? They're not even concerned about the 300 workers who are

living in the area either. For this government to say, "Carte blanche

responsibility — go ahead and dump the 12,000 tonnes of waste into the

ocean," It is unbelievable. I would certainly hope that this government

would take the responsibility of contacting the Alaska government and

the United States federal government for whatever information they have

and to get the real facts out.

I have another

article I'd like to discuss. It's an

article in the Fisherman ,

March 27, 1981. The title of it is "Does LeBlanc Fear the Truth on

Amax?" I wonder if this could be appropriate to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Does this minister, the member for

Langley, fear the truth concerning Amax? Are you afraid to really face

the facts of what arsenic, mercury, lead, uranium and radon can do to

people who eat fish? We've already seen the shrimp being contaminated.

[ Page 5518 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Radar?

MR. PASSARELL: Radon 226. Maybe you could ask some of your high-priced staff behind you to explain what that is.

Is this minister afraid to face the truth concerning this? We've got radioactive materials going into people's food sources.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You'd better ship yourself off to Saskatchewan.

MR. PASSARELL:

We see the Minister of Agriculture and Food who's also concerned,

making a comment and saying: "See your friends in Saskatchewan." I

don't care what government it is. You don't play with people's lives

with radioactive materials. I don't care if it's the NDP or Social

Credit.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I thought you had national policies on radium, or did you forget that?

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, can you protect me from the Agriculture minister? He's

got his time to debate concerning radioactive materials in the people's

food sources. He had his estimates up and he seemed not to do it.

Back

to the vote. I just wonder, with the track record of Amax, what it's

done in Africa and Australia, concerning people; they've totally

ignored people's concerns, feelings and livelihoods. We've seen

Australia where they destroyed the aboriginal people and sacred

monuments because of a profit. In Namibia we've seen this multinational

company forget about people and go right ahead and destroy their

lifestyles. Amax is doing it here in Canada. They haven't picked

Ontario or Quebec; they picked the west coast of Canada in our great

province of British Columbia. This government has allowed them to go

ahead and do this. It's unbelievable. To allow this travesty to happen

with a company that has shown its track record of not caring for people

for over 20 years.... They're totally concerned about making the mighty

buck for a profit. This minister allows them to go ahead and dump this

kind of waste into our residence.

What are we going to be

able to tell our children or our grandchildren, 20, 30 or 40 years down

the road? We allowed this mine to proceed. We really didn't know the

facts and figures of it. We knew there were radioactive materials being

dumped into the ocean. " But it's good for the economy," the Social

Credit government of this province states. "We're Bullish on Mining"

was the

article that I read. There are some good mines. Mining is an

important part of this province, but not when it comes to destroying

people. This minister can't tell for sure what these radioactive wastes

are going to do to people 20, 30 or 40 years down the road. The idea is

that these things are going to sit at the bottom of the ocean. Already

there's been movement of the tailings into the ocean.

We've

seen opposition and editorials from across this country stating: "The

Amax Coverup." We've seen a very incompetent federal Fisheries

minister, Mr. Roméo LeBlanc. We've seen material concerning information

leaked by individuals in the Minister of Mines' office to people across

this province.

I'd like to read a letter from Mr. John

Sanders, who's the manager of the Kitsault mine, dated February 13,

1981. If you're going to apply for a position at the Amax mine, the

company makes you read this letter and makes you understand what it is.

It's unbelievable. I doubt if even the Social Credit government would

write such a poor letter as this. It states on the very last page: "In

our opinion, a public inquiry would only focus attention on the subject

of land claims, which is the one unresolved issue raised by the Nishga

tribal council. Amax cannot negotiate with the Nishga on land claims,

as only the federal and provincial governments have the authority to

act in this regard." It seems that the opponents of Amax are being

branded and labelled — as in that silly

article in today's paper — as

vandals. If you oppose Amax, all you're concerned with is native land

claims, which isn't the case. People are more concerned about their

livelihood.

I can see my time is coming to an end, but I'd

just like to quote from a book, The Town That Got Lost. It's part of

the history of our country that Captain George Vancouver and his crew

came into Alice Arm on July 24, 1793. They went into Alice Arm and made

camp in the proximity of where this mine is now, and they encountered

the Indian people of that area. What happened was that Captain

Vancouver's crew killed ten Nishga people in a battle. Quoting from

page 27, it says: "Later Captain Vancouver decided that the Indians had

previously been badly treated by the traders who visited the area. Some

of the Indians, he noted, had trade muskets." It goes on further to say

that Captain Vancouver put himself on the side of the Nishga Indians in

1793, concerning the unscrupulous business dealings being done. That's

almost 200 years ago, and maybe it's time for this country to wake up

and find out that we've treated the people wrongly. That's July 24,

1793 — Captain Vancouver in Alice Arm. What happened? We find out 190

years later that the same situation is going on.

To close,

Mr. Chairman, politicians come and go, and political parties in this

province also come and go. They are fortunate, at times, to be able to

form government, and concerns like Amax will defeat governments.

Decisions made by governments seem to follow that government once it's

out of office. Hopefully, the decision of this Social Credit government

to perform cultural genocide upon the Nishga people will be changed by

the next election, because the people of this province, whether they're

Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, are just tired of the way

this government allowed a multinational corporation to come in and

destroy the livelihoods of the Nishga people.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Once again, hon. members, the Chair must observe to the committee that

we have been spending an awful lot 4 time on discussion that would be

more properly covered under another vote. In most cases, votes 76 and

78 would appear to be more appropriate to the discussion we've heard.

MR. HANSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, your comments regarding the

appropriateness of the Amax discussion under this minister's vote have

left me a bit confused.

section 5 of the Mining Regulation Act outlines

the powers and authority of the mining inspectors who work under this

minister.

Section 6 outlines the action that the mining inspectors

shall take if they see a dangerous condition which clearly can affect

not only the workers at the mine but the public

[ Page 5519 ]

around

the mine. Also,

section 8 outlines what action the mining inspectors

shall take in the event that there's a dangerous occurrence. The list

of items under the purview of this minister is extremely broad. If

there is a dangerous occurrence, or some aspect of a mine will have a

negative impact on the surrounding public, that minister can close the

mine. My argument is that the discussion by the previous speaker is

entirely in order within the purview of this minister, and not

appropriate under the Ministry of Environment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member who has just taken his place will note that the Chair did

not interrupt the last member speaking, but was only making an

observation and referred to votes which will be coming before us to do

with the Ministry of Environment, and specifically vote 78, waste

management branch.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I

just want to contribute a little to this debate. First of all, I agree

with your observations that the member for Atlin was out of order for

the last hour. There are a lot of places to discuss that; this isn't

the place, and he knows that. The other observation I have is — and I

won't be out of order very long — that you didn't mention anything

about Ottawa also issuing a permit for this, I wonder what the Member

of Parliament did. That shows how ineffective the NDP Members of

Parliament are. I wonder what he did about it. I am referring to Mr.

Fulton, the NDP MP. Where was he when Ottawa issued the permit? That's

his job.

MR. LEA: He wasn't elected!

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh, is that right? Well, he's been elected far too long already.

was also surprised at the member for Atlin discussing this entirely out

of order, and he never mentioned a thing about the actual mining going

on in the riding of Atlin. I'll bet the Atlin people really will be

proud of that. In your own riding you never even referred to anything

there, That's a famous area for mining in the Atlin riding, and never

once did he mention that. He's sure derelict in his duty there. They're

finding gold like it's going out of style up there, and you never once

gave the citizens of your riding credit for any of that. What do you

want — do you want them all on social assistance or something? There

are hard-working people up in Atlin finding lots of gold; it's rich in

it, and they want to earn some money without handouts. Shame on you not

referring to that at all! You'd better stay within your own riding when

you're talking, and you'll do a lot better, Mr. Member.

That's

the issue I want to bring up here today, and give these young

socialists here a bit of history. First of all, I have the honour to

represent the riding of Cariboo, if nobody's told you, and that's where

all the mining started in British Columbia — in Cariboo. The mining

started in the Cariboo in the 1850s and started the famous Barkerville

gold rush. You know, I don't know whether that was good or bad, because

it made the country so affluent that we got it 30 percent socialist.

They're coming along and taking

part in the abundance that flows

from.what history started in the 1850s.

Victoria or Vancouver wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for the

gold rush in Barkerville in the 1850s and 1860s, and I've read my history.

Furthermore, in 1861 there were more people in the community of Barkerville

in the riding of Cariboo than there were anywhere north of San Francisco. As

a matter of fact there were 10,000 people there all gainfully employed, making

or losing their fortunes. It was the largest community north of San Francisco,

and the people of Barkerville in those days said Vancouver and Victoria would

never amount to anything, because they were too far away from Barkerville —

Quesnel Forks too. I'll take you up there someday — on real good roads too,

I might tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Likely too, eh?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, and Likely too — all part of the Barkerville gold rush. Great

country! So what I'm saying is that little places like Prince George

wouldn't have been anything if they hadn't found gold in Barkerville in

the early 1860s.

That's gone on one way and another for over

a hundred years, and now we have lots of mining going on in the Cariboo

riding. We have something I'm very happy about: the Mosquito Creek

mines is in production in Wells, reviving what was almost a ghost-town

in my riding because of other mines which were there and so-called "ran

out" of ore. I want to tell you there's lots of gold in them than hills

in the Cariboo, if you want to go out and work and find it.

Mosquito

Creek is a good example of that, and they've now put in a large

operation in the community of Wells. They have a payroll of 75 or 100,

and it's done a great thing to that community to revive their economic

base. We have Gibraltar Mines, the Boss Mountain mine at Hendrix Lake,

and so on, and I am very proud of what they generate in the way of

economic activity and jobs in the Cariboo. As an example, at Hendrix

Lake we have a molybdenum mine there, underground and open-pit,

employing 180 people on a full-time basis. Gibraltar Mines, as I

mentioned earlier, is employing 618 people on a permanent basis, just a

short way out of Williams Lake in the Cariboo at McLeese Lake.

The

other thing, going on in the Cariboo mining district that's very

interesting to note is the placer activity, Mr. Chairman. After the NDP

hit the mining industry on the head and killed it with the Mineral

Royalties Act of 1974, there was nobody who would invest or stake

claims, until we had the election in 1975 and turfed these silly

socialists out of office. In 1976 in the Cariboo alone there were 177

claims staked — and that's the year that our government changed the

legislation and got rid of the stupid Mineral Royalties Act, and then

the people in the investment sector, as well as the individual

prospector, knew where they stood. In 1977 we had 162 claims; in 1978,

233 — these are leases staked; in 1979 it jumped to 501, and by now the

people of the province and outside investment knew they had a reliable

government. In 1980 the leases staked jumped to 1,350, and I think that

we should be proud of that.

We have these energetic citizens

out there looking for ore, and they're finding it. Then they go on to

create larger mines, hopefully — some of them at least. But the

activity in the Cariboo is immense. It also is in Atlin, and that

member stood up and talked about something that's not in his own riding

and never referred to the activity there. But it's great, and it's

great in a lot of other places in British Columbia.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to make a few remarks today. The socialists always

want to know where your research is from. They're always saying: "Where

did you get your figures from? Table them in the House." I want to tell

you that I haven't any difficulty at all, because I did all my research

[ Page 5520 ]

reading

"The 1200 Days of Socialism." I read it all weekend — and, boy, is that

ever a revelation of everything they did in 1,200 days as a government

from 1972 to 1975, including how they killed the mining industry.

MR. LEA: Weren't. you here?

HON. MR. FRASER:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert asks: "Weren't you here?"

You'd better believe I was sitting over there, and I watched you

scuttle the province of British Columbia on everything including

mining. It's in the records of this House that I didn't vote for the

Mineral Royalties Act; neither did the present minister, who was here

at the time. We voted against it. But they ploughed merrily along and

said that they were going to tax the mining industry to its full

potential, and if the mining industry didn't like that, they could

leave it in the ground. The Premier of the day said that they'd leave

it in the ground till he decided it was the right price to bring it out

of the ground. What a mining policy! Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that's

their policy today. If they ever become government — and God forbid it

happens, but it did happen by an accident of fate — their mining policy

is: you come and see the Premier in his office. That's what their

policy is today.

I want to reveal a bit about the Mineral

Royalties Act, which was brought in by them when they were trying to be

government. They had a fine Minister of Mines at that time, and the

socialist power honchos loaded him with bringing in the bill. The poor

minister at the time didn't know what was in the bill, but he brought

it in and he got the hammering for it. Actually it was the socialist

power honchos — they meant everything they said in the Mineral

Royalties Act — and that poor minister was finally relieved of that

responsibility shortly afterwards. But he did go down in history as the

minister of the NDP government who brought in the Mineral Royalties

Act. He really went down in history as quite a veteran public person in

this province until they loaded him with that. If you want me to tell

the House, Mr. Chairman, who urged him on to bring that bill in, it was

the power honchos of the NDP. They're still around; not necessarily

here, but they're still around, advising. That's why I say their policy

is still come wheel and deal with the Premier in his office. He made

history in our province by being known as the best Minister of Mines

the province of Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories ever

had. He drove all our mining people out to those various jurisdictions.

I guess the poor man is pleased that he's down in history, but I don't

think he's very pleased how he got set up by the socialists to bring

that kind of nonsense legislation in here.

You're probably

wondering what happened following that and following the rightful

defeat of the socialists on December 11, 1975, in the middle of a big

snowstorm. I was never in my life so happy to be stuck in a ditch in a

snowstorm in the Cariboo as when the word came out that they'd been

defeated.

In 1976 we were honoured to govern this province,

and the then Minister of Mines, now the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), brought in a bill to eliminate the Mineral Royalties Act.

From then on it's been everything go ahead, and I thought you might

want to know some of the things that have happened in the province

since then or are going on now. We now have expansion going on all over

the province in mining of all different descriptions. The estimated

capital cost of that expansion is $1,292 million scattered throughout

the province: committed expansion either going on now, to go ahead

shortly or already completed. I repeat that because of the policies of

this government $1.3 billion has been invested. It is also creating

4,500 new jobs directly in the mining industry, to say nothing of the

side benefits that will flow from the direct jobs in mining.

There

are ongoing jobs in the Lornex expansion in the Highland Valley. I

understand some of our prominent citizens were in the Highland Valley

the other day. That's great. I hope there were some socialists there to

have their eyes opened and see where people actually make their living.

Early in 1981 there was also the expansion at Noranda creating 50 jobs;

Dankoe expansion $12 million, a further 50 jobs; Equity silver in

production thanks to the policies of this government — it's been talked

about for 50 years and is in production at a capital cost of $110

million creating 225 new jobs in the small community of Houston. The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is here, and that's the reason he'll be

back. The silly socialists don't understand those sorts of things.

That's what our citizens want to see: gainfully employed people, and

not necessarily on a government payroll. The socialists were all ready

to go mining as well, but we cut them off at the pass when we defeated

them in December 1975.

Mosquito Creek, in the great riding

of Cariboo at Barkerville, where everything started 110 years ago, is

still going. A new mine there, $6 million investment, 75 full-time

people gainfully employed; Highmont in production, expansion $150

million creating 350 new jobs; Highland Valley in production, $15

million, with an estimated 100 new jobs created; Granduc, $20 million

expended, 350 jobs; Baker, early 1981, $12 million, 35 jobs; Carolin,

early 1981, $20 million creating 105 jobs: Kitsault — the member talked

about the other side of the issue — mid-'81, investment $150 million

creating 500 jobs; Goldstream, early 1982, $50 million, 250 jobs; Line

Creek, early '82, $170 million investment,400 jobs; Greenhills,

mid-'82, $240 million, 1,200 jobs; Fording expansion, late'82, $168

million and 400 jobs. I want to repeat for the record that these total

$1.3 billion in investment in mining in our province. It assures 4,500

new jobs in mining. What is wrong with that?

I haven't a

great deal more to say, but I want to go back to my own riding of

Cariboo. It's now going to become famous for gas and oil. I give thanks

to this minister that we have; he made a deal with Canadian Hunter, one

of the finest exploration companies in western Canada, to go into the

Cariboo, west of Quesnel and Williams Lake, and explore for gas and

oil. The deal he made with Canadian Hunter on a bid basis was that they

had a five-year contract for $27.5 million to go in and drill for gas

and oil.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that Canadian

Hunter has now been in there a year. They have spent almost $10 million

of the $27.5 million in exploration for gas and oil. They've drilled

one hole and are drilling another. They're employing not only 100 local

people for their exploration program, but also local machinery. What's

wrong with that? I know, Mr. Chairman, that you'd like to see them up

in the area north of Prince George. After they find the gas and oil in

the Cariboo, we'll see what we can do to help you up in that poor area.

I'm delighted and so are the citizens of the Cariboo that they're in

the Cariboo looking for gas and oil and have been for some time.

Dealing

with the opposition again, even the reporters get tired; it doesn't

take much to get them tired. They say: "Why are you always talking

about the NDP years?" I'll tell you

[ Page 5521 ]

why

I'll always talk about it: because I suffered through it, sitting over

there and listening to the guff coming from over here, and I saw how

they ruined our province. Now they have the audacity to tell our

government to step aside and they'll take over. What a bunch of phony

baloney.

The observation I want to make — and I want to take

some advice from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) — is that I

know you're not supposed to be political in here; I might move away a

bit from that principle. I know that he does it only when he feels like

it. I use the same guidelines to operate in this Legislature: be very

careful when you're being political. You're not supposed to talk

politics here, but I'll deviate a bit. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that

none of this would have been possible if we'd had a socialist

government. The Mineral Royalties Act that they imposed in our province

in 1974 drove everybody out — the investor and even the prospector.

What was the use of finding anything when they had to give it all back

to a socialist government? That is where we're at.

What has

happened since 1976 in our province? It's a great success story. I

believe a speech was made here by one of the junior Bob Williamses, as

I call them, the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He said that it's all

caused by the metal prices. Don't buy that garbage, Mr. Chairman. The

atmosphere was created by this government through amending the taxation

in this province. Right now the metal prices aren't that hot. Why

doesn't he say that? But the mining is still going on full-bore, and

the expansion in mining. He didn't say that.

I don't want to

miss the opportunity to say a word or two about other responsibilities

of this fine minister we have now. It relates again to natural gas and

the Grizzly Valley story. The silent member here for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) would probably be saying the same thing, but he

doesn't say much very often. I don't want to miss this. The point is

that when they were government, they didn't trust the Minister of Mines

with energy, so they gave it to the then Attorney-General and attached

energy to his responsibilities. He is now the member for Vancouver

East. I never sorted out whether he's the first or second member, but I

refer to the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald). He said that

there was no gas in the Grizzly Valley. That's why the government

wouldn't in any way have anything to do with it. Of course, once we

turfed them out.... I hear he's going to get turfed out on his own.

He'd better watch. They're going to get him in the back, right within

his own party. I hope he's listening. I hope he's in the precinct and

not out playing tennis. I think he should worry about himself, because

I hear that within their own party he might even lose his nomination. I

wouldn't like to see him away from this House, because he's a bit of a

veteran, but he was sure a hopeless energy minister, I want to assure

you.

Again through our policies, the Grizzly Valley is one

of the biggest finds of natural gas we've had in years, and I believe

this fine exploration company called Canadian Hunter had something to

do with that. But we also got a pipeline, and everything is "go." We're

having a little problem now with selling the gas because of Ottawa, but

that's a little stickier one I don't want to get into.

just want to get back to the member for Atlin, who is forever after the

wrong minister in his debate. The socialists are all in bed with the

Liberal government in Ottawa, so maybe they could get out of bed with

them and help us with the energy policy too, where Ottawa is trying to

take all the revenues from our natural resources.

You know,

when Dave Barrett was the Premier of British Columbia, he said that if

the Liberals in Ottawa would nationalize the petroleum industry they

could have all our natural resources. That's his policy, and that's a

great policy, because there they are in bed again with the Liberal

government in Ottawa. They give it all to Ottawa.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. The Minister of Transportation has the floor.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Anyway, that's their policy, Mr. Chairman. The socialists in our

province would give all our natural resources revenue to Ottawa. For

what? To develop a national energy program. And do you know what that

is? Buying out all the gas stations in all of Canada, and latterly

buying out Petrofina, and we in the west now pay for a bunch of new

service stations. The national Liberals and the national NDP agree it

is great. What an energy policy: just go in and buy more service

stations, and again put the little guy out of business with big

government.

How do you ever rationalize that? Did you ever

see a government able to run service stations? Well, you're going to

see it now whether you like it or not. The socialists agree with that

policy, so thank them every time the price goes up for buying another

service station. It's their policy as well as Pierre Elliott Trudeau's.

all boils down to the socialist philosophy: they want to make serfs of

the people of the province, and they want to be the landlords. That

applies to gas stations, or to land. I see the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann) is here enjoying himself; he's the member who said that

nobody should own land. That is right in the record of Hansard

for 1974. He wants everybody to be a serf and the Crown to be the

landlord. Well, this government doesn't believe in that policy.

Mr.

Chairman, after the Minister of Mines in the NDP government brought in

Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act, he got into some difficulty, and

while they gave some of his responsibilities to the then

Attorney-General, the final Minister of Mines in that government was

the present first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He assumed

the Mines portfolio and came out with the Barrett policy, which was

that if you wanted a mine in this province, you had to come to the

Premier's office. Again, an election came along. I didn't have time to

tell him I was talking, but I'm sorry he isn't here to listen to me,

because he'd be interested. I imagine he's out practising law. Really,

his job is to be here in this Legislature, not out practising law.

Again

with regard to their mining policy, I notice they've been pretty silent

in places in the province. It all boiled down to this: come and wheel

and deal in the Premier's office — not our Premier, but the then

Premier. The irony of that was he was in so much trouble nobody could

get into his office to talk about anything. So that was their policy.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Yes, just on mining alone — the way you ruined the mining industry in

this province — you deserve to get thrown out of office and you'll

continue to get thrown out of office. On behalf of the prospectors,

miners and so on in this province I want to say to you people over

there: shame on you! There are still a lot of you sitting here

[ Page 5522 ]

right

now who voted for Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act. There are some

new people here, but the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the

member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and members who sit

in all those empty seats were here. Those seats are empty so much that

I can't remember who's supposed to sit in them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you vote against the Land Commission Act?

HON. MR. FRASER: I voted against the Land Commission Act. You bet I did. I voted against the Mineral Royalties Act too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

HON. MR. FRASER:

Oh, I didn't know you were under a time-frame here. I've got an hour

more of copious notes here, Mr. Chairman. I did all my research out of The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream .

I read that book three times between Friday and Monday, and I'm going

to read it again. I'd like to table the book. I recommend it to all

citizens of the province to read and memorize.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order I want to raise relates to the fact that the

minister said he had an hour longer of copious notes. Most of us didn't

get much entertainment by way of fiction over the weekend. I wonder if

the minister would be permitted to continue in his fairyland discussion.

HON. MR. FRASER: I certainly appreciate the member for Skeena wanting me to continue.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like your guidance. It's my

understanding that once a member takes his seat and another member

stands, the time starts again.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Chairman, that's exactly right, except that if the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources had been paying attention, he'd know that

I rose on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. There has to be an intervening speaker. Outside of that, the

rules of committee allow a member to speak as many times as he wishes

on a particular vote. If the committee is concerned about more comments

from the member who is now speaking, there will be ample opportunity

for that. However the three minute light is on at this point, and with

that said the Chair once again recognizes the minister.

HON. MR. FRASER: It won't take me long to say what I have to and I'll go....

AN HON. MEMBER: We want to hear an hour.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, yes, it'll take me an hour, but if the bell rings on me, I'll go and do some more research and come back tomorrow.

want to tell you that I'll do my research in the book, "1,200 Days of

Socialism." I'll table that for backup notes. They always want backup

notes. They never give us any.

I'm proud of the record of

this government with regard to mining and the investments and jobs

mining has generated. While this minister doesn't need any compliments

from me, I want to compliment him for making sure that natural gas is

coming to Vancouver Island. It's something that governments of the last

50 years have put off. The socialists were going to do it, but they

backed off at the last minute. I'd like to congratulate him on his

fight on behalf of the people of British Columbia over the Liberals in

Ottawa and their natural resource policy. They're stealing from us. He

is a tough fighter. I only wish him lots of luck.

The

socialists over there are in bed with the federal Liberals. I'd like to

hear what their position is, other than supporting the federal Liberals

on everything. I can't understand why people in this province vote NDP

federally, when actually when they get back there they all get in bed

with the Liberals anyway. They might as well vote Liberal as vote NDP.

It's all the same thing.

I don't know what colour your light

is, Mr. Chairman. I'm colour-blind. I know that I'm finished. I'll be

back later. I want to congratulate this Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. He doesn't have any trouble making decisions to

benefit the majority of citizens in this province. Carry on with the

good work.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to

respond to a number of the items raised by the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell). I would hope that the Chair would show me the same kind of

latitude that the member for Atlin was shown in terms of answering some

of the questions which were raised. While I resent terms like cultural

genocide and things like that, directed in any way towards me since

I've been in public office for some time, I defend my public record

against anyone in this House. I won't protest or ask for any

withdrawals, but I would ask the people in the House and the people in

the province to recognize that that kind of overkill and over-reaction

doesn't help the debate in this Legislature. I think that any

reasonable person hearing that would reject it out of hand.

don't exactly know where to start, but perhaps I could attempt to go

through many of the questions in the kind of order in which I remember

them. If I miss something, I'm sure it will be brought to my attention.

Much

of the debate by that member, at least, really had nothing to do with

the administrative responsibility of my ministry. But in answering the

questions, I suppose I as well have to stray to some degree from the

administrative responsibility of my ministry. If I am drawn to order,

then I won't be able to answer those questions. I would hope they would

wait until the minister's estimates come forward — that is the Ministry

of Environment.

First of all, there's much made in relating

the question of Kitsault to a report done for the government by the

Fisheries and Oceans department of the federal government and our

Environment ministry, by Michael Waldichuk and R.J. Buchanan. It comes

to our attention by various means from a number of people — and it

certainly began before this report was made public — who had, I

suppose, left the impression that the damage — if not very serious

damage, it was perhaps damage which would could never be repaired — had

been done because of the tailings disposal at Rupert Inlet. Everything

from "disaster" to "catastrophe" was used in describing what that

report might contain. Again today we're given some indication by the

member for Atlin that that report does say those kinds of things.

[ Page 5523 ]

does say that there have been some difficulties, and it recommends a

number of ways in which those difficulties can be overcome. But I think

it's important that we also remember the main conclusion of that

report. While recognizing the problem and recommending some solutions,

the bottom-line conclusion of the report is just this: "With the

present evidence available on the ecological impact of the existing

mine tailings disposal system, a change to one of the alternative

techniques — in other words, going to another disposal system for

tailings — "does not appear to be warranted."

That was what

the report said in the bottom line, as the final conclusion. Sure,

there were some problems. In many ways that was kind of a laboratory

situation, Those problems were recognized and solutions were suggested.

At the same time, the tailings disposal question at Kitsault used, as

part of its model, recommendations from that report in coming up with

the final solution.

There were a lot of questions about

having land disposal of those tailings. The real reason is simply

because land disposal would probably be more dangerous to the

environment than would tailings disposal into Alice Arm. One of the

things that grieves me is that people who have never been to Kitsault —

for good reason, because it's a very difficult and remote location —

talk about things like this in sort of abstract terms. They haven't

seen what the mining company is doing there. The member for Atlin

refers to the tailings disposal system as archaic. In fact it's a very

sophisticated, expensive and safe operation which is being put into

place in Kitsault.

The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) and I have taken the opportunity to go to Kitsault to make sure

that we at least understood what was going on. I commend to anyone else

who is interested to go there and just see what's happening. For

instance, I wonder if the member for Atlin has been there, especially

in recent times since much of the work has been put in place. I don't

know whether he has or not. If he hasn't I hope he goes.

lot of money — hundreds of thousands of dollars — and a lot of time

were put into the question of tailings disposal. Because of the very

serious concerns of technical experts from all parts of government and

private industry, it was decided that because of the topography of the

area where that disposal would have had to be done — the heavy

rainfall, and being in an earthquake-potential zone — the danger done

to the entire environment, including Alice Arm and its marine

environment, should a spill ever happen as a result of damage due to an

earthquake or or some other reason — or just a failure of the rock wall

which would be necessary to hold the tailings on land.... There would

indeed be a catastrophic effect as the tailings were dumped into that

area. In addition, even if all of that didn't happen, and the rock wall

held all the tailings and there was no accidental damage or other kind

of damage, then the question of whether or not heavy rainfall could be

contained and be safe was also considered, and it was decided that the

wall couldn't retain the rainwater, The activity would continue, and

the leaching activity of the material contained behind that wall would

continue not only now, but long, long after the activity had ceased.

After the 26 years of the mine operation, that activity might continue

for fifty or a hundred years. I don't know how long, but the seepage

would then find its way to the shore and the fines from those tailings

would also move and contaminate shellfish and other shallow-based

organisms which live in that upper 50 feet of the water where most of

the life systems are found — certainly the life systems which are

required to support the native fishery, the shellfish and any other

fishery found in that area.

So the next question was: what

do you do with it? I must remind members that there was a mine

operating in that area for some time. That mine was depositing its

tailings directly into Line Creek, and then the tailings would find

their way into the top of the inlet and then presumably settle at the

bottom. It was recommended by the scientific advisers in all of the

ministries, Fisheries Canada and Environment British Columbia, and

those technical experts from the mining company as well, that one of

the ways to ensure that the life system living at the top 50 feet of

the inlet would not be damaged was to make sure that the tailings are

deposited below that area. I don't know the scientific terms for them,

but basically I guess it's the area where the sunlight can get at them.

So that's where the life begins, grows and continues.

Drop

those tailings down into the inlet below where the sunlight is, and you

don't directly affect the life systems of those marine occurrences

which are in Alice Arm. So that was the reason for developing the kind

of deep disposal system which was agreed to and permitted by all levels

of government. Again, that was taken both in the light of the

experience of Rupert Inlet and the experience which would happen when

the mine, B.C. Molybdenum, was first in operation at Kitsault.

It's

important too, since the member talks about toxic wastes being dumped

into Alice Arm, to understand what exactly is being disposed of in

Alice Ann. The tailings are 99 percent ground rock, with fresh water.

They have a general consistency of the sand you find on the beaches

around this province. All of it meets all of the federal and provincial

discharge regulations. The company itself — and I'm not an apologist

for the company.... We demand as a government that any company wishing

to go into mining in British Columbia goes in under very detailed

conditions of operations, and we insist that those conditions are met.

In many instances they are met above our recommendations.

There

were over 35 technical reports examining the ocean currents, metal

content of the water, sediment, the populations of the marine organisms

present in the inlet, water clarity; everything else having any bearing

on this was examined in detail over and over again. The mineralized

rock which has been ground to the consistency which I mentioned earlier

and mixed with water contains heavy metals which are a fraction of a

percentage point of the total amount of the solution.

They

are well below — and I can't say it too many times any limits

permissible under federal or provincial regulations. The radium 226

which the member talks about so much and which has been publicized in

many other areas is present in minuscule amounts. In fact, the radium

226 which will be included in the tailings which will be going into

Alice Arm is less than any of the radium 226 which is already found

naturally in the volcanic rock of that area.

It has been

shown by the various scientific studies which have been done that no

harm to the food chain of the Nishgas or anyone else has been predicted.

I should quickly, for the benefit of the public and others, go over the chronology of the Amax mine at Kitsault.

should also remind you, MT. Chairman — and our friends in the

Legislature — that the development of the mine and mine site is

basically complete. It will house about 1,000 people when the mine goes

into production. Again I wish I

[ Page 5524 ]

had

the opportunity to see that everyone in this Legislature could visit

that townsite. I believe that the company has done an admirable job in

providing the best possible environment, which will be necessary to

operate that town, for its workers and the associated workers of any

company that I've seen in a long time. Working in an area like that is

pretty tough. It's hard to attract workers to come into a place that

only has air access, although a road is being constructed. That will be

overcome sometime in the future.

The housing that's going in

there is of extremely high quality. The apartments being developed —

for single men, single women and families — are of extremely high

quality. The working conditions meet the highest standards possible in

that mine site. I think that rather than condemn the company's efforts,

there should be some praise for the way in which they've developed that

mine site in order to make sure that their workers have the best

opportunity for the best lifestyle that they possibly can, given the

tough conditions under which they'll have to work and live.

All

of the studies which have been done into all of the aspects of the

mine, including the tailings disposal, were designed to ensure that the

mine can operate and dispose of its tailings with the smallest possible

impact on the environment of the area. It is, of course, the tailings

which have attracted most of the controversy. Besides what I've said

about the reasons for the dumping into Alice Arm, which at its deepest

point is about 1,200 feet, it's estimated that after 26 years of

operation of the mine, about 30 feet to 40 feet of that 1,200 feet will

have been covered. Despite all of that, that's not the end of it for

us, because there will be a very detailed monitoring program, which the

company must operate while the mine is in operation. It's been

developed to make sure that those standards are not only observed but

that those standards work. Most evidence at this point indicates that

there will be no adverse affect on the fishery of Alice Arm or the

surrounding waters.

This mine has quite a history. This

whole question goes back to about 1960 when exploration of that ore

body began in this province. B.C. Molybdenum built the original

townsite, some roads and some powerlines. They started operating in

October 1967. As I said earlier, tailings were discharged directly at

that time into Lime Creek and from there into Alice Arm. Later in 1970,

while B.C. Molybdenum was still in operation, the company made

application to dump 10,000 cubic metres of tailings daily into Lime

Creek. However, at that time the company ceased operation because of

economic reasons. It was bought later by Climax Molybdenum. That

company's name was later changed to Amax. There were a lot of

consultants, including Dr. J. A. Littlepage of Victoria, who carried

out studies. There were about 35 technical reports which provided the

background data needed to evaluate the impact of the tailings.

The

company applied for a permit to dispose of those tailings in Alice Arm

in 1975 — six years ago. It is a requirement that those notices be

published in various ways so that anyone in the public who wishes to

oppose those applications can do so. The member says that the

government, in some way, chose to publish them in newspapers hundreds

of miles away from the actual site. The fact is that they were

published in thePrince Rupert Daily News , which is the largest and most read newspaper of the area.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Province ?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Well, we have always published in local newspapers. It's been a

requirement. I'd dispute that member, but certainly we published in the

paper which was most readily available and the same paper, I'm sure,

which carried these notices at other times. We published in The B.C. Gazette ,

of course. There was a notice on the wall of the post office in

Kitsault, as is the responsibility. I wasn't in Kitsault or Prince

Rupert at the time, but I would expect that that notice would not have

gone unnoticed, and that there would have been the opportunity for

public opposition at that time if public opposition had been either

necessary or desired. There was none.

Another permit

application was submitted proposing the disposal of tailings into Lime

Creek. Once again those notices were published and there was no

protest. However, this application was withdrawn in favour of a better

plan to dispose of the tailings. It isn't as though objectors didn't

have lots of time. Our Pollution Control Act and regulations stipulate

that after publication there are 30 days available to notify the

director, and that even after a permit is issued objectors have another

15 days to appeal to the Pollution Control Board. All these regulations

were met in 1975 and 1976. There was no public opposition. In 1978,

after three years of study following the publication of these notices —

only after three years of study — the pollution control branch prepared

a resume which recommended that the permit be issued. The permit was

issued in 1979, those appeal periods went by, no appeals were filed,

and then the federal government issued its approval. In April 1980 the

Nishga native convention was held. At that time the first public

opposition to the mines operation was heard, and a resolution was

passed at that convention opposing the mine.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

don't want to go on and on, because I really feel that much of this

should be dealt with by my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Rogers) during his estimates.

I must say that the

conclusion reached in regard to the disposal of tailings at Kitsault

was not a hasty one. It had exhaustive study, and exhaustive time was

spent on ensuring that the environment would be protected, and of

course the marine environment is the most important consideration there.

can only conclude by saying that I believe the scientific study,

careful planning and intelligent regulations should have answered those

concerns about the environmental damage and the damage of the food

supply source of the Nishgas. I believe the disposal system has been

subject to the most extended study and conditions possible and shown to

be environmentally safe. I believe that even with that extreme care

which will be taken in the disposal of tailings the ongoing monitoring

of that disposal system will ensure that conditions contained in the

permit are always met, and that it will go on being safe.

We've

talked with members of the federal advisory board on trawl fishing, and

we've been advised that the potential for a commercial fishery in Alice

Arm is very small. That conclusion was supported by findings of the

consultants who were involved in developing the permit. There is sport

fishing in Alice Arm at some times of the year, and there has been some

fishing for spring salmon in outer Alice Arm over the past 15 years.

But it's interesting to note that there hasn't

[ Page 5525 ]

been any evidence of native Indian fisheries in the area from about 1974 to 1978.

I'd

like to say too that since 1911 there has been extensive mining in the

Alice Arm area. More than 350,000 tonnes of copper, lead, molybdenum,

silver and gold have been produced from both open-pit and underground

mines in the area. Up until 1980 — after all those years of mining

activity — there has been no public opposition to mining in that region.

I close by saying that it's interesting that the member for Atlin ended his comments with a quote from the book The Town that Got Lost .

That book is about the Anyox mine, which is across the inlet from Alice

Arm. The