1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2465 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Petition Statement by Mr. Speaker on Mr. McGeer's petition

— 2465

Mr. McGeer — 2466

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Skagit Valley treaty negotiations. Mrs.

Jordan — 2467

Gabriola Island telephone survey. Mr. Curtis — 2467

Dial-a-bus experiment. Mr. McGeer — 2468

Dental care. Ms. Young — 2468

Fluoridation. Mr. McGeer — 2468

Armed entry at city tavern. Mr. Wallace — 2468

Taxation relief for Mount Becher ski society. Mr. Morrison — 2468

Marathon Realty plans for Port Coquitlam. Mr. McClelland — 2469

Deaths of Vernon boys. Mrs. Jordan — 2469

Report of Comptroller General re B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 2469

Application of Bill No. 153 to municipal councils and school

boards.

Mr. Chabot — 2469

Employment situation at Ocean Falls. Mr. McClelland — 2476

Discussions with Kaiser Resources re Japanese steel

interests.

Mr. Smith — 2470

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44). Second

reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2470

Mr. Lewis — 2484

Mr. Speaker — 2484

Mr. Phillips — 2485

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I have a communication from the

Hon. Clerk of the House in respect to the petition filed

yesterday by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer). In the letter dated to me, April 10, he

states:

"Dear Mr. Speaker:

With respect to the petition presented

by Mr. McGeer on Monday evening, I find that it is neither irregular nor does

it contain matter in breach of the privileges of the House.

Yours

very truly,

E.K. DeBeck,

Clerk of the House"

So the form of the petition is in order in the reconstituted

version that was tabled yesterday with the Clerks. The only

difficulty I have with it, however, is that it is my duty to

consider the subsequent content of it.

There are two grounds upon which it appears to be contrary

to the rules with regard to public petitions. First, in May , p.

848 of the seventeenth edition, it says: "The petition must set

forth a case in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere."

Here the matter is one complained of by three petitioners

saying that they protest the decision of the Labour Relations

Board not to recognize a certain union. They say the

application was rejected even though well over half the

employees had taken out memberships in the union. They then go

to ask the House to pass a resolution urging the Labour

Relations Board to reconsider its decision regarding the

application and to urge the board to resolve this issue by a

government representation vote.

Now, in the light of May , the petition must set forth a case

in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere. In the case

before us, the Labour Relations Act sets out a form for

dealing with matters of this kind on certification.

Earlier in this session the same Hon. Member tried to obtain

from the House leave for an urgency debate by suspending the

rules. I was forced thereupon to rule on the same subject, that

since the Labour Relations Board has the jurisdiction granted

by this Legislature in the form of a "code", as it were, for

the certification of trade unions under very strict rules laid

down by the Legislature, it would be improper for this House to

exert any influence of any kind on a tribunal set up under

administrative law. In the same way it would be improper for

this Legislature to exert any opinion or influence or comment

upon the conduct of a court in the midst of whatever

proceedings or after any proceedings of a court.

The reason I state that is when you look at the Labour Relations Act ,

Chapter

205, the Legislature at the time when that was enacted

set forth a complete system for certification for determining the merits of

an application to that end. That means by the hearing of evidence and so on.

Quoting from the Act, it says:

"The Board shall prescribe the nature of the evidence that

the applicant shall furnish with or in support of the

application and the manner in which the application shall be

made."

I further quote from the Act:

"If the Board is satisfied, it shall certify the trade union

for the employees of the union."

The Legislature, having set forth statutory duties and

powers for the administrative tribunal, including clear

mandates prohibiting the board from certifying a trade union in

certain instances in

section 12, it would be improper for the

House to entertain any exertion of influence upon the board by

this means that is proposed by the petition.

Now, in the Act, it further says: "The Board shall conduct

the taking and counting of a representation vote." If in the

opinion of the board a vote was not in accordance with the Act,

the board may order another vote, and therefore, of course, the

resort under the Act for the aggrieved person is to the

board.

But in

section 65(3) of the Labour Relations Act it

also says "the board may order another vote and the board may,

on the petition of any trade union or other person, or of its

own motion, reconsider any decision."

Aside from that, the system of review, which is declared to

be final in most provinces and in the federal system, is not so

final here. An applicant in British Columbia can apply by way

of the prerogative writ to the Supreme Court of British

Columbia, which is the proper forum — not this assembly

— to correct any errors in the procedure or abuse of

jurisdiction by this administrative tribunal. It would be

highly improper in the circumstances, in the light of these

authorities quoted in May, for a petition to be the route by

which an aggrieved party would seek a remedy when that remedy

is evident both the Labour Relations Act set up by this

assembly and by the prerogative rights that exist to seek

recourse to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The claim to petition parliament was a very old one; a means of seeking redress of grievances fundamental to the

early constitution of England — as early as 1423

petitions were referred to the commons by the lords "to have

their opinion." You can see that in Stubbs Constitutional

History , Vol. 3, p. 440, footnotes.

In examining the history of the petition, the authorities

indicate that law originated as unwritten custom and as such

could not be changed. The petition was innovated by Edward I,

who produced a method for seeking redress that heretofore had

not existed. Today, as things exist now, we have set up a

[ Page 2466 ]

system of redress in a statute. Therefore, I would rule the

petition out of order as a means in this instance of

interfering with the tribunal that has its own proper. powers

and means by which it can be corrected other than the influence

of this Legislature.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Are

you raising a point of order?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yes. Mr. Speaker, may I draw

your attention to the Journals of our House in 1972 regarding the petition of

Mr. Howard Sullivan, which had almost identical content and which was ruled

in order by the former Speaker of the House with the advice of the Clerks who

are with us today. Therefore, in view of your practice of following the decisions

of previous Speakers, I would have thought you would be bound to see this in

order.

May I further say, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of expressing

grievances by petition goes back to 1669. I would refer you to

p. 792 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, where the

right to present these things is quite clearly given for all of

the Queen's subjects. In this case a petition seeks only, Mr.

Speaker, to have the House express an opinion. It doesn't seek

to direct the Labour Relations Board; nor does it limit the

ability of the petitioners to seek legal redress with the

Supreme Court of Canada.

The Legislature is supreme in its right to express opinion.

The tradition going back as far as 1669 gives to any citizen

the right to express his grievance to parliament. I would hate

to think that your ruling, Sir, would limit in any way this

right of over 300 years for an individual citizen to seek his

redress in this assembly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention

resolution No. 39 on our order paper which expresses a similar

opinion introduced by a Member of this House. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, if something is in order for a Member of this House to

bring before the public, it's in order for a private citizen to

do so by means of a petition. Sir, I would hope you would

reconsider the rights of individual British Columbians today by

not bringing down a ruling in conflict with that of a previous

Speaker which would limit the rights of individual

citizens.

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

advocated in this House that we interrupt the proceedings

between, say, the supreme court and the court of appeal, to

express our opinion on a case that was coming up in the court

of appeal, his action would be, I think he would admit, most

improper.

MR. McGEER: Nothing is before the supreme court or the court

of appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: A remedy exists for the persons who allege they

are aggrieved.

I might add another thing, and that is when you look at

section 12 of the Labour Relations Act , it requires by

Act of this House that the board refuse an application where

the evidence in their opinion leads to a conclusion that there

was anything about the application that was improper. I refer

you to that section.

If this House placed a stamp of approval upon a matter that

still had a redress under our Act, then we would be hearing one

side without hearing the other; without the other parties who

were involved in this — or indeed the board — being

before the House. That is the reason the Legislature sought a

means other than the petition for persons to resort to where

they have any grievance that they wish to express.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, we have only asked in that

petition to have the House consider an opinion. It gives no

orders by this. We're in a very difficult position in British

Columbia. If the Labour Relations Board has power to prevent

our expressing an opinion or an individual citizen's expressing

an opinion through us, Sir, I would certainly very much regret

your approach.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am sorry, but that's my ruling.

The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to five people who

are sitting on the floor of the House, Dionicio Cadelina, Barry Firth, Vance

Kohl who are sitting over here and Jerry Letendre and Mrs. Ferries who are sitting

over there. They are in wheelchairs.

Through the splendid cooperation of your office we were

able to have them on the floor of the House. This building does

not lend itself to having visitors who are in wheelchairs. I

would like to remind the Members that during the last election,

this group — and they represent 20 of the people who are

over here — were very active in the election fighting for

their rights. They were basically very successful in achieving

some of the things they wanted to get, hence the handicapped

assistance which we brought in last October.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that their presence

surely must be a reminder to us that they have a right as

citizens of this province to have access to all public places.

I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

[ Page 2467 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would like to have the House join with me in welcoming the

Mayor of Abbotsford and chairman of the Central Fraser Valley

Regional District seated in the gallery — Mr. George

Ferguson.

Oral questions.

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

SKAGIT VALLEY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would like to address my question to the Premier and President

of the Executive Council. Has the British Columbia Government

been specifically advised that the Canadian and U.S.

governments have agreed to bring the British Columbia

Government together with Seattle City Light for the purpose of

formal talks on the Skagit Valley as reported by Mr. Davis

yesterday?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Not to this moment,

MRS. JORDAN: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Has the British Columbia Government

continued to take the viewpoint expressed by the previous administration that

the Skagit problem involved an international treaty and any requirements for

confirmation should be met totally by the national government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We made clear that we wanted this proposal

to stop. The treaty was an international treaty and our only

recourse was to go to Ottawa. We've gone to Ottawa, we've

stated our position, and there the matter rests.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Have you,

Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, in your presentations to

Ottawa advised them that British Columbia would not accept the

responsibility of compensation and that the federal government

must assume this full compensation should the treaty be

changed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have advised them that we do not want

the proposal to go ahead and there the matter rests.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject? The Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the same subject, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary

to the Premier: has he made clear when the rental moneys were

returned to Seattle City Light that reasonable compensation would be paid for

expenses incurred by that company under this deal that we wish now to get out

of?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not committed ourselves in any

discussions with the federal government. We read with mixed

anxiety and confusion the conflicting statements made by the

federal Minister concerned.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I

take it from the Premier's reply that his Government has no

intention of providing Seattle City Light with compensation for

reasonable expenditures undertaken under…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The question is improper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of

having what should be good relations between British Columbia

and Canada reduced to a matter of political debate here.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out that I tried to stop the Hon.

Premier because it's argumentative. That is not the purpose of

question period.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

GABRIOLA ISLAND

TELEPHONE SURVEY

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker,

other Hon. Members perhaps will be interested to know that I

intend to slip a secret note to those guests on the floor today

who are near me saying, in effect, "Help. We're being held

captive in a big room without windows." (Laughter).

To the Minister of Highways, may I ask with respect to

Gabriola Island, has the Department of Highways or anyone

acting on behalf of the department commissioned or in any way

initiated a telephone survey on Gabriola Island to determine

island residents' views with respect to a possible ferry

terminal on Gabriola Island which would serve the cross-strait

system?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The answer is

no.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: has

he heard of any such telephone survey? Is he aware of its

existence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been told that such a survey is

being taken.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for

[ Page 2468 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey.

DIAL-A-BUS EXPERIMENT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Would he be prepared to subsidize a

dial-a-bus pilot service in the Greater Vancouver area?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This

matter of dial-a-bus and all other forms of transportation are

under study at the moment. It's a little early for me to say. I

would expect though that there would be a dial-a-bus experiment

within the next few months somewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain.

DENTAL CARE

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance. In view of the fact that he expressed

some policy earlier in this session regarding dental care for

those 12 and under, I wonder if he has any additional thoughts

on the matter of dental care.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, as you know we have a study going at the present time. I announced

that there were some very interesting details coming out of that study. I acknowledge

the Member's interest in this particular study.

We are not as yet prepared to make a definitive statement,

other than that we will be providing all dental care —

that is all orthodontia and surgery — for those people

affected with cleft lip and cleft palate.

Mr. Speaker, I have instructed our department — that

is Medicare — to look into how quickly we can get into

this. I hope to be able to launch it within the next few weeks.

There will be no longer the need for children in this province

to be going around with papers stuck in their mouths in order

to keep them semi-articulate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

FLUORIDATION

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to Denticare. Has the Minister of Health had any new

thoughts on fluoridation?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of

thoughts on fluoridation. As you know in B.C. we have two areas — the City of Kelowna and the

City of Prince George — that are fluoridated. Their

dental statistics are particularly good.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

ARMED ENTRY AT CITY TAVERN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney General whether he has had any discussion with the

armed forces regarding an unprecedented incident when two

soldiers marched into a local tavern a week ago and stood with

loaded rifles at the two main entrances to the building?

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

haven't had any conversation. Somebody mentioned that the

question had been asked yesterday. I'll look into it.

I was back in Ottawa on an industry conference and I tried

to quell a disturbance in a tavern there. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I tried to quell it. But it's very

difficult for me to be everywhere. If it's possible for me to

intervene in this one I will certainly try to do so.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Delighted as I am

that the Minister is so talented in dealing with tavern

situations, would he agree that this is a serious matter in

which the military intervene in essentially civil situations at

great danger to the public?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

TAXATION RELIEF FOR

MOUNT BECHER SKI SOCIETY

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Finance.

Has the Minister of Finance issued any instructions to

relieve the Mount Becher Ski Society operating ski facilities

on Forbidden Plateau at Courtenay from property taxation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not to my knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

[ Page 2469 ]

MARATHON REALTY PLANS

FOR PORT COQUITLAM

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Did the Minister or his department direct

Marathon Realty to prepare and submit a plan for a shopping

centre in Port Coquitlam?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not to my knowledge.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if there have been

any discussions with Marathon Realty with regard to Port

Coquitlam and if the answer to that is no would the Minister be

prepared to check into that for me?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll look into that. I know nothing about

it myself. There have been no discussions with me.

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

DEATHS OF VERNON BOYS

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is to the Premier of the

province, who I understand may have something to say on it.

This is in regard to the two tragic deaths of the young boys in

Vernon on Sunday which took place as a result of war maneuvers

during the Second World War which left residual bombs or fire

mechanisms. This area was swept some six years ago and there

has now been a tragic death.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: would the Premier be prepared

to make a statement to the Legislature as to whether he has

acted on my request to ask the federal Department of National

Defence to sweep this area, the Birnie Range, the Coldstream

Ranch and other areas which were used for maneuvers during the

war and which may well pose a potential death trap to citizens

of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) sent a letter to the Hon. James A.

Richardson, the Minister of National Defence. If you wish, I'll

read the letter; if not, I'll table it — whichever you

prefer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Table it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We also sent on behalf of the people of

British Columbia a letter to both parents involved.

We have asked the federal government to take some action.

I'll table the letter so that it's available to the

Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier be prepared to take in

consultation with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) the

feasibility of advising these families as to whether or not

there may be compensation — little help that it is in

returning the boys to life, which it won't — for this

accident? If so, could the deaths of the two boys some four

years ago also be taken into consideration?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would be difficult, I think, for the

Government to initiate action on behalf of the parents.

Certainly any request from the parents would be given the

utmost consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

REPORT OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL

RE B.C. HYDRO

MR. McGEER: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker: has the

Premier had an opportunity to complete a study of the interim

financial report submitted by the Comptroller General with

regard to the operations of the British Columbia Hydro? If so,

would he be prepared to table it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm almost through.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: how many

pages long was that report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a very long report. The civil service

of British Columbia, when asked to do a job, does a thorough

job.

MR. McGEER: How many pages? Six?

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

APPLICATION OF BILL 153 TO

MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND SCHOOL BOARDS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Will the Minister of

Labour be officially advising all municipal councils and school

boards that the Public Works Fair Employment Act will

not be applicable to them?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The Act will be spelled

out very clearly at the third reading stage.

MR. CHABOT: The question was will you be advising the school

boards and municipal governments of their exemptions under the

provisions of this Act? Also, will it apply to regional

districts and park boards, and other community organizations

that

[ Page 2470 ]

are dependent upon government grants?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter is one that's in

debate before the House.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there's no need to notify

anyone. There's certainly no change in the restrictions under

this Act. It affects them in exactly the same way that the

previous legislation did.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a matter for debate in the particular

bill to which the Member refers.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION AT OCEAN FALLS

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could he advise the House

how many people have returned to pick up their jobs at Ocean

Falls and whether or not he anticipates a crisis with the

shortage of personnel to fill jobs at Ocean Falls?

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

No crisis is anticipated at all, Mr. Speaker. There are some 500 people interested

in living and working in Ocean Falls.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I'd like to

ask if there are still positions to be filled at Ocean Falls

and, if so, how many?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There are still positions, primarily

skilled pipe fitters and the like. There is a limited number at

this stage prior to further production on the other

machines.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

DISCUSSIONS WITH KAISER RESOURCES

RE JAPANESE STEEL INTERESTS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you. My question

is to the Hon. Minister of Finance. Has the Minister entered

into any discussions with Kaiser Resources Ltd. for the

purposes of joining Japanese steel interests in an equity share

position with Kaiser Resources?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MINERAL ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 44. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River adjourned the debate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It's certainly a pleasure to resume the discussions

we're having today on Bill 44, which is

An Act to Amend the

Mineral Act . A few moments before the break I tried to

point out to the Minister what was happening in the province.

Because this is such an important Act, I will continue along

that line for a few more moments.

As I closed the debate before proceeding to that short

break, Mr. Speaker, I was reading from a report of the 61st

annual meeting of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. The last

statement I read from that report was that this year this

organization which speaks for a large portion of the industry

stated that there would be a reduction in capital investment in

mine construction in 1973 which will be felt by industries

substantially dependent on major construction of mining

mills.

There are several large, low-grade copper deposits in

various advanced stages of feasibility studies, Mr. Speaker. As

I pointed out this morning, the Government can step in anywhere

along the line of a feasibility study, the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) can take a look at it, and he has the

discretion under Bill 44 to say whether this shall go ahead or

stop. The decisions are taken away from the people who would

ultimately develop the mine.

Or are they, Mr. Speaker? No, I think the decisions are left

by the people who will eventually develop the mine, because

that is the intent of Bill 44 — to nationalize the mining

industry. Therefore they will make the decisions and they will

do the developing.

But they'll also have to do the finding and everything,

else, Mr. Speaker, because you're not going to have private

enterprise investing their money, talent, energies and

resources in proving-up mineral claims only to have the

Government step in at any time and make the arrogant decisions

that will be made.

These feasibility studies represent potential producers. If

the economic climate and if the legislative conditions were

feasible, they would probably be developed.

Mr. Speaker, before Bill 44 there were favourable conditions

in British Columbia. I am sorry to say that since Bill 44

conditions are now not favourable. The climate used to be

feasible before Bill 44 but now it is not feasible.

[ Page 2471 ]

Mr. Speaker, mining is the act or the process or the work of

removing ore, coal et cetera, from a mine. That is what mining

is all about. Once removed from the mine the product must be

turned into a usable product or in the case of coal it must be

used in the production of a usable product.

A resource, Mr. Speaker, is something that lies ready for

use or that can be drawn upon for aid or to take care of a need

— something that a country, state, et cetera has and can

use to its own advantage. But the use of these minerals

requires large expenditures. Under Bill 44 there won't be

expenditures.

One point that I'd like to explore a little, Mr. Speaker, in

dealing with Bill 44, is the fact that the Government seems to

think that the minerals should lie there ready for use forever.

But before they can lie there, they must be found.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister well knows,

Mother Nature did a good job of concealing her wealth and she

will only give it up as it is needed. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that

the Minister of Mines would get this into his theory, that

Mother Nature will only give up her wealth as it is required.

Mother Nature does not need Bill 44 to say whether she's going

to give up her wealth or not.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, Mother Nature will only give the

hiding places of her wealth to the strong of heart — the

prospector — the man who searches for Mother Nature's

wealth by scouring the countryside. The Minister seems to think

that under Bill 44 he's going to hire some men — and this

is the ultimate aim of Bill 44 — give them a pickaxe and

come back in three or four days and say, "There's coal here;

there's ore there; there's copper here; there's molybdenum

here." I honestly believe that that's the theory that the

Minister of Mines works on.

Point two is that it must be something that can be used to

advantage. Our economy, Mr. Speaker, is based on a prosperous

mining industry that provides jobs for people. Twenty-five

cents out of every dollar that moves in British Columbia is

generated by mining.

What we in British Columbia must consider are certain points

which are of vital concern to the mining industry. There are

certain points in the economy over which this government has no

control, even if they take the entire industry over themselves,

Mr. Speaker. The mining industry is dependent on international

markets and must be able to remove the minerals

competitively.

Second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the improving technology

which is taking place in the world today will serve to maintain

our mineral resources through discovery of new sources and

utilization of lower grade material. I wonder if that was taken

into consideration under Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

The third point is that the high risk inherent in mining exploration and development

necessitates a constructive review of new and proposed taxation policies to

fully assess their effect on the mineral industry and the Canadian economy.

This last point, Mr. Speaker is the point that was not taken into consideration

by the Minister of Mines, nor by anybody in the Government, certainly not by

the Minister of Finance — because of the high risk inherent.

We certainly must review our taxation policies as the years

go by to take care of inflation, to take care of rising costs,

to take care of increased requirements by the people. But, as I

have pointed out in this Legislature before, Mr. Speaker, if

this government and if the people of this province are going to

expect a continued increase in social services, we must have

the tax base to provide the dollars so that these services can

be applied because…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): First good thing

you've said all day.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, doesn't

like most of the things I say because we on this side are able

to see through the legislation that the Waffle group are

drawing up. I think sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that I explain the

legislation to them better than the group who drew them up

because when that Waffle group come out here and draw up

legislation, they don't take enough time to explain it to the

cabinet before it goes through the legislation process. So I

certainly feel that I'm doing my job here of explaining what

the legislation is all about. That's why, Mr. Speaker, there

aren't too many explanatory notes behind the legislation. They

don't want anybody to understand it. When I stand up here and

explain his legislation, that's why the Attorney General gets

so distressed, because he doesn't really know, he doesn't

really understand the legislation. So we do the research and

tell him what's what. That's why they bring in numerous

amendments to the bills sometimes.

Now as I was talking about, we need a tax base, Mr. Speaker,

to provide these services. And the tax base can only come from

an expanding economy. This Bill 44 is definitely not going to

expand the mining industry — it's going to bring the

wheels of progress in the mining industry in this province to a

complete, grinding and sudden stop. That's what's going to

happen, Mr. Speaker.

But, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the full effect of Bill 44

— was the full effect of it fully assessed by the

Minister before he brought it forward? No, I don't think it

was, Mr. Speaker. He certainly didn't meet with the mining

industry as he promised to do. He didn't work in cooperation

with the mining industry. No. Mr. Speaker, it's simply more

dictatorship.

Out goes the bill to the mining industry and the Minister of

Mines says, "That's your bill, like it or

[ Page 2472 ]

lump it. You've got to live with it. That's it." Hard

change, Mr. Speaker, from the wonderful world of cooperation

that they were trying to build, or said they were going to

build up. We're going to meet; we're going to discuss, we're

going to work with — there's the bill …

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You're

not making a good case at all.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not? Well it's pretty hard to make a case

with you because you won't open your mind. The only thing you

know how to open is your mouth. No, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is too

complimentary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it might not be complimentary but it's

probably truthful. I would suggest that maybe you listen to

what the Minister of Mines is throwing across the floor —

I can take it; it doesn't bother me because I'm on the right

side, Mr. Speaker. When you're on the side of right… That's

why the Minister shuffles down in his chair and wiggles around,

because he knows that I'm right and he knows that he's

wrong.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not have the ability to

visualize what this bill is going to do to the mining industry,

or I'm sure he never would have brought it in. Either that, or

he knows what effect it's going to have and he wants to

nationalize the mining industry completely. One or the other.

Maybe he does know, so he can take over the mining industry

MR. SPEAKER: Well you said all that this morning, prior to

adjournment.

MR. PHILLIPS: No I didn't, this is a different sheet.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it was all exactly the same.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I said this morning that the

mining industry was angry. I'm saying now that the Minister has

lost the confidence of the industry — he's lost the

confidence of all segments of the mining industry. He's lost

the confidence of the prospectors; he's lost the confidence of

the geologists; he's lost the confidence of the surveyors and

last, but not least, he has lost the confidence of the miners

themselves.

He's certainly lost the confidence of the financial

industry, that's for sure. I thought that was so apparent that

I didn't even have to read it into the record.

Mr. Speaker, this Minister's reign has been nothing but a

reign of incompetence in his portfolio as Minister of Mines. A

reign of incompetence. Mr. Speaker, this Minister has paralyzed

the mining industry.

If the Minister was so proud and so confident about Bill 44,

why did he not attend the meeting in Vancouver that was called

to discuss Bill 44? Why did he not attend? I have to take the

attitude that he was scared.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have the date of the letter. Don't try and

read something in that's not entirely correct.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, was afraid to stand up to his

legislation…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You cannot accuse anyone of

being afraid of anything in this House. That's obvious.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll have to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I'll inform you of this, Mr. Speaker, so

you'll know, because you should know, Mr. Speaker. The House

should know that the Minister was invited to attend a meeting

of, not the financial world that finances the industry, not the

owners of the mining industry, the directors, the presidents.

Not those, Mr. Speaker — not the people who make the

decisions as to whether the mines will go ahead and control and

go out and search for world markets and all of that to keep the

mining industry going. Not those people, Mr. Speaker, no

— not the multi-national corporations, not even the

multi-provincial corporations. No, not those people, Mr.

Speaker. Who were invited to attend this meeting in Vancouver?

The little people, Mr. Speaker. The little people. The

prospectors.

Now, surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines

might not want to match wits with all the presidents of the

mining industry, but I mentioned the people here just a moment

ago — 1100 of them, Mr. Speaker. They were geologists,

prospectors, surveyors. The little people, Mr. Speaker. One of

the largest meetings of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines

that has ever taken place.

If I'd have represented you I'd have stood up and said "I will withdraw Bill

44." That's what I would have said if I'd have represented the Minister. But

I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister wasn't at this meeting. I

was very disappointed, because I wanted to learn something about Bill 44.

[ Page

2473 ]

Well, I didn't learn it from the Minister, Mr. Speaker, but

I sure learned it from the little people of this province, the

people who are the nuts and bolts and guts of the mining

industry — the prospectors — Mr. Speaker. That's

the people that I learned it from, Mr. Speaker. That's the

people that I learned it from. The basic people in the

industry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Calling them nuts. Now we know. It's on

the record. It's unbelievable, calling those people nuts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do I have permission to call him a nut?

MR. SPEAKER: No, you don't.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh. Well, I'll have to withdraw.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Let's get back to more specific matters.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this was a very, very

enlightening meeting to me, because I learned a lot about Bill

44. No, we won't play the tape, but there were some very

enlightening conversations that came out of that meeting, and

I'm going to read into the record just a few excerpts from some

of the speeches that were made at this meeting. They were made

by people in the industry.

One of them was made by Dr. Harry B. Warren who is a

Professor of Geology at the University of British Columbia. Now

I think that the good professor knows something about the

mining industry in British Columbia, and he took a lot of time

certainly to study Bill 44. I'm going to read into the record

some of the comments that he has on Bill 44. These comments and

expressions of opinion were voiced at this historical meeting

in the Hotel Vancouver where the Minister of Mines so

conveniently didn't show up. I'm quoting, and I'll be quoting

for a few moments from Professor Warren's remarks:

"Every time any one of us in British Columbia handles a

dollar bill we would do well to remember that from 20 to 25

cents of that dollar comes from the mining industry. Every

person in British Columbia is, of necessity, a consumer. He

consumes food, clothing, heat, housing, transportation et

cetera, et cetera.

"What is not always remembered is that somebody has to produce

the primary wealth that supports us all. Mining is one of the vital cornerstones

of the whole economy of British Columbia. Who is responsible for finding most

of our mines in British Columbia? It is the prospector, working on his own or

on behalf of a small group or syndicate.

"The mining companies are called upon to develop prospects

and bring them to production, usually at the cost of tens of

millions of dollars of risk capital which, by Bill 44, the

present government would seem to be determined to discourage.

Bill 44 would appear to have been written by an academic living

in the nineteenth century, for it has the misfortune to be

designed to put the small man out of business and this would

seem to be in direct contradiction to what is the avowed

intention of this particular government."

I think the professor is making a very good point here,

because they are supposed to be the people's government. The

professor goes on and he says:

"Let me explain. B.C.'s mining history falls into three

distinct periods. Number one, 1820 to 1900. This was the period

of initial discovery and development. Many of our most famous

camps were discovered during these years, but in every

case…"

And I'd like the Minister to pay strict attention to this,

Mr. Speaker —

"…the original discovery involved an outcrop or at least a

weathered outcrop, an iron cap; gold in the Cariboo, Bridge

River, Hedley and Sheep Creek; copper in Rossland, the Boundary

district and Britannia; lead, zinc and silver at the Sullivan,

Saint Eugene and the Slocan. All of those mines were discovered

by outcrops."

Now the good professor moves into another area of our

history from 1900 to 1932 and he continues, Mr. Speaker:

"Few people realize that during this period no single major

mining camp was discovered in British Columbia. They were

relatively good years, but we were living on a heritage

bequeathed to us by our forebears."

That is a very important point, because you can see what is

going to happen with Bill 44. You should check back into the

history book.

I've done some research in the library on this, Mr.

Minister, and I recommend it to you. You will find out what the

far-reaching effects of your bill will be. I'll continue, Mr.

Speaker. The next, the third period in time the good professor

refers to is 1932 to 1972.

"These have been great years for all of us involved in

mining in British Columbia. We have seen our production grow

from around $30 million to over $630 million annually. New

prospecting techniques, better maps, airplane and helicopter

transportation have all helped; but today it is a different

kind of mine for which we search. It is a large, low-grade

deposit, not a relatively high-grade showing of modest

dimensions."

[ Page 2474 ]

Pay strict attention this Mr. Minister of Mines:

"However, in spite of all these changes, it is still the

little man, the prospector, who makes most of the original

discoveries although he seldom, if ever, has the resources to

bring his own property into full production.

"Perhaps some of us are too young to recall the days of the

big Depression, of the early thirties. It is well to remember

those many men who, after the price of gold was raised from $20

to $35, refused to accept the dole and kept themselves in beans

and bacon by prospecting for gold with pick, pan and

rocker.

"With gold soaring to $80 an ounce, this could happen again.

But we find even this avenue to independence stifled by the

proposed freeze on locating placer ground."

Mr. Speaker, the professor continues:

"It is usually the small man who brings the prospect to the

attention of a company. But it is a very different property

that he has to present to a company in the 1970's from what he

had to produce in the 1870's, a fact which seems to have

escaped the notice of whoever drafted Bill 44.

"In 1870 from four to eight claims with some good outcrops,

a few trenches and perhaps a short audit or two would suffice

to attract capital. For, say six claims, a prospector could

keep his precious ground in good standing by doing $600 worth

of work each year.

"In 1970, for technical reasons apparently not understood by

the framers of Bill 44, a major company likes to have some 20

claims at its disposal, and in many instances, would prefer 40.

However, supposing our prospector has only 20 claims, we find

that Bill 44 requires him to do $4,000 worth of work each year

to hold his claims and, in addition, put up each year $600 in

hard cash, a third of which admittedly is refundable, before he

is even able to start work on his claim.

"Moreover, on top of all the above deterrents, he has to

perform an amount of work which, while it may give satisfaction

to an armchair bureaucrat who has never worked a claim in his

life, is not the kind of task for which the kind of man who

would find mines is particularly suited."

I hope that the Minister of Mines is paying strict attention

to this, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Very strict.

MR. PHILLIPS: The professor says:

"In the 1930's the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, realizing

that prospecting was entering a new phase and that guts and outcrops were no

longer the only criteria for mine finding — which was more hazardous and expensive

than it had ever been — set about the task of tailoring our mining laws to meet

the extraordinary odds that were working against those who sought to develop

mines."

Now listen to this, Mr. Speaker. I'm still quoting from the

good professor's talk which he gave at that meeting in

Vancouver.

"Some 10 years of study, followed by much hard selling,

resulted in the mining laws of British Columbia and the

taxation requirements of the dominion and provincial

governments being modified to recognize the exhaustibility, the

unpredictability and the location of these bodies in the

earth's crust."

This was back in the 1930's that this was recognized, Mr.

Speaker. Now today we're throwing it all out the window again,

so we've got to start all over again after the government

changes in 1976.

Mr. Speaker, all this resulted in one of the greatest

periods of discovery, development and production ever seen on

the face of the earth. As I said this morning, Mr. Speaker,

people all over the world pointed to our mining laws in British

Columbia, which were the envy of many countries. "Were the

envy" because after Bill 44 we certainly won't be the envy.

Best of all, everybody benefited. Not only did the tax

collector — which is our government — benefit

directly, but also the wage earner and, as I said in the

beginning, the mining industry as a whole contributed 20 to 25

cents of every dollar handled in British Columbia. The

professor continues:

"I haven't the time to list the names of the many

prospectors whose initial efforts have led to mines, whose

names are now becoming household words beyond the confines of

British Columbia, but here are a few: Bethlehem Copper, Lornex,

Granduc, Brenda, Anvil. There are many more."

And he lists the prospectors who found these mines, Mr.

Speaker.

"Now with the buck-is-a-buck philosophy of our dominion

government and the unwise provisions of Bill 44, our

governments would appear to want not only to strangle the

industry which has done so much to provide us with the standard

of living we now enjoy, but discourage the efforts of that rare

breed of men who have done so much more for British Columbia

than our bureaucrats seem to realize. I refer to our

prospectors.

"Bill 44 in its present form is bad for the little man, the

prospector who is the salt of the earth. Worse still, it is bad

for the mining industry."

And, Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying, the professor

says:

"And in the long run it is bad for all the people of British

Columbia."

He asks those present to endorse the resolution that will be

presented to them.

[ Page 2475 ]

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has ever called on

the good professor of geology to visit him in his office. Did

the Minister have a meeting with him? Did he allow the

professor, who has had a lot to do with the mining industry in

British Columbia in the past, to have some input in Bill 44?

Did he discuss it with him? Were the provisions of Bill 44

discussed with the good professor, Mr. Speaker?

No, I'm afraid not. We seem to have forgotten, Mr. Speaker,

that we give lip service to cooperating and to saying that

we're listening, but lip service is about as far as it goes.

The Minister's Deputy has all the answers, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to read another few excerpts from a message that

was given to the same meeting. It will explain to some people,

Mr. Speaker — this is a lawyer's view of Bill 44. I hope

that the Minister will listen with keen ears because then he

will know some more about what Bill 44 is all about. The

speaker says:

"The extent of the concern of those at that meeting can

only be understood by those who know the mining industry and

its contributions to this province. I take a special pride in

having been associated with many prospectors, including Spud

Huetis, Dr. A. Ho, Chester Miller and Gordon Milburne."

By the way, those were the men who discovered some of the

largest mines that we have in British Columbia today. He refers

to the prospectors, Mr. Speaker, as being "the springboard of

our mining industry, which has contributed so much to the

province."

"During the past 12 years the rate of growth of the mining

industry has been spectacular, doubling itself about every five

years and growing faster than the forest industry, the

agricultural industry or the manufacturing industry. For us in

British Columbia it is second only to the forest industry in

dollar value of production, in tax returns to the government

and in providing employment opportunities for our people.

"Vancouver has become one of the world's leading mining

centres and our prospectors, mining consultants, engineers,

geologists and mining executives are known throughout the world

for their excellence."

All of this developed, Mr. Speaker, because of excellent

mining legislation before this Government came to power.

"It is not difficult to say that our mineral resources are

rich. On that basis it is difficult to account for the

development of our industry as opposed to other countries which

have equal and superior mineral resources such as Russia,

Brazil, Chile, Mexico and South Africa."

The speaker is trying to point out that those countries have more known minerals

than we do in British Columbia. But, as the speaker says, why are

they not developed? Because of repressive legislation such as Bill 44.

The speaker continues:

"More specifically, it is difficult to account for the

development of our periphery copper deposits which average 0.5

per cent copper content and less as opposed to the Congo, Iran

and Zambia where deposits average 3 to 4 per cent."

Yet are these countries — the Congo, Iran, Zambia

developing their copper deposits?

"Rather than the riches of our natural resources, I feel

that the main reason for their development is to be found

primarily in the stability and certainty of our political and

legal system which provided a good climate for investment and

in the excellence of our geology and mining technicians."

Which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, were developed under our

free enterprise system.

"Among these factors, I give special recognition to the

existing Mineral Act which provides procedures for

efficient acquisition and maintenance of title to

minerals."

This is a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, who was analyzing this. He

continues:

"In comparing the Mineral Act of British Columbia

with mining laws of various countries, it is easy to recognize

the superiority of the Act. This is borne out by the fact that

Ontario, the federal government and then Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, and Alberta were much influenced in drafting

their mineral laws by our Act.

"The Mineral Act has also served as a model for

mining laws in other countries."

Now how did it come about that we had such a great

Mineral Act , Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you how. The

previous Minister of Mines cooperated with the industry,

listened to them, worked with them.

"The first mining regulations" — the lawyer continues

— "were proclaimed in 1853 for the gold mining in the

Queen Charlotte Islands and similar provisions were

subsequently enacted for the mainland. Those first regulations

continued to evolve to regulate the early development of mining

from 1853 to 1896."

I am quite happy to tell you whose speech I am reading if

you didn't get it when I started. It is an address to a meeting

that you should have been at. Since you weren't there, I'll

give you the input here. If you had been there, you might have

taken a second look at Bill 44. It is an address to the B.C.

and Yukon Chamber of Mines by John Bruch, a partner in the law

firm of Lawrence and Shaw. Now you know, Mr. Minister, if you

didn't know at the beginning.

Certainly I'm reading his speech because it is very

important in discussing this piece of legislation. This man

studied the bill; he knows what it is all about. I want his

words read into the record on the debate of

[ Page 2476 ]

Bill 44. I'll continue from Mr. Bruch's speech:

"Those first regulations continued to evolve to regulate the early development of mining from 1853 to 1896.

The principle provisions of our mining laws as embodied in the

Mineral Act have existed basically in that form since

1896."

I'm going to read this into the record, Mr. Speaker, because

it is certainly apropos of Bill 44.

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of debate is to give your own

statements to this House, not to deliver to this House the

opinions of others. In other words, you are representing the

people, not somebody who has written a speech.

Consequently, you may make short reference to any speeches

that have been made by others who may reinforce your point. But

if you insist upon reading speeches from others I will ask you

to sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll refer to it briefly, but there is a

very important point that I want to get across here, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Find that kernel in it, would you, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. SPEAKER: Find the kernel of truth that's in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The "kernel of truth," he says. The Speaker says "the

kernel of truth" in a very well-worded document by a very good lawyer who knows

about the mining industry. And the Speaker says, "the kernel of truth." I find

that hard to swallow, Mr. Speaker. "The kernel of truth."

MR. SPEAKER: It's your kernel, not mine.

MR. PHILLIPS: And it's your joke, not mine.

"In his book on mines and mining laws of B.C., Mr. A.F.

Kroll said, 'British Columbia has given serious and intelligent

study to its laws governing its mining industry. Every effort

has been made to eliminate legal disputes'" — and this is

the point — "'and to establish definite rights for the

holder of mining claims.'"

Something that Bill 44 just washes

completely out the window, Mr. Speaker. If I'm not going to be

allowed to read the rest of this lawyer's remarks into the

record, I hope that the Minister of Mines avails himself of a

copy of this and reads it. Not only reads it, but pays some

attention to it.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, some of these prospectors had tears in their

eyes at that meeting. I'm going to give you the benefit of some of their remarks.

Here is the remark of a prospector who came to the microphone that day with

tears in his eyes. Probably the closest that man has ever been to a microphone

was at the end of a pick-axe handle. He said:

"Bill 44 is a warped philosophy and bares the

socialist claws of control. It is a knock-out blow to

prospectors who don't own gold mines to pay those exorbitant

increases but are only trying to find one.

"Two world wars were fought to preserve our basic freedoms

and rights and we have lived by these principles since the gold

rush days of 1865. These very cornerstones of our heritage are

being eroded away by this repugnant legislation. It is an

over-kill. The only thing left in B.C. that isn't taxed is the

air we breathe and in time they will think of a way to do

that.

"Mr. Bennett said that Bill 42 was threatening our very way

of life. The same can be said of Bill 44."

He's speaking as a prospector.

"The Attorney General used to say when he was in Opposition,

'Let the sunshine in.' Now that he is in, he has pulled down

the blinds. Pat Jordan stated in the House that the Premier is

wearing a crown of thorns. One of the Premier's favourite

axioms is that, 'It's for the people.' It is quite obvious that

more people are being hurt than benefited by Bill 44.

"Call a spade a spade and Bill 44 for what it is: a ghoulish

vampire that will suck the lifeblood of the mining industry.

Now is the time to drive a stake through its bloodless heart.

This bill is

an Act that will hijack B.C.'s economy into

bankruptcy."

Mr. Speaker, that is the type of feeling that many of the

prospectors who were at that meeting felt, and maybe that's

why, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines didn't show up.

I am just going to quote briefly from some other remarks

that were made by Mrs. Dale of Morrisey Mines. She went up to

the microphone and she said that her husband would have been

there today but he was in the country doing his assessment

work. This is the president, Mr. Speaker, of a small mine

— a vitally important person to the industry.

"The future growth of the mineral resource industry in

British Columbia is going to be exterminated if Bill 44 is

going to become law."

This is the wife of a president of a small mining operation.

She goes on to say:

"This is the prospector who, despite the more sophisticated

technology of today's experts, is still the most valuable

person in finding new ore deposits."

This is a lady speaking:

"Having prospected myself for a good many

[ Page 2477 ]

years, I am well aware of the hardships involved. For the

government to add to these hardships is not at all justified.

However, government should be paying more incentives for the

prospectors instead of making it more difficult for them.

"It is also obvious that this legislation would do nothing

but increase the welfare roll. The legislation is also going to

make it extremely difficult for the junior mining companies to

raise the risk capital which is so necessary to their

exploration programme. Junior mining companies in the past have

been responsible for most of the preliminary exploration work

on the majority of British Columbia's producing mines. This is

due to their willingness to take the longer risk and preserve

more than the major mining companies.

"To introduce legislation which will eventually eliminate

the small responsible junior mining companies would be

extremely detrimental to any future growth of the mineral

resources industry in British Columbia. Already many of these

companies are concentrating their exploration in areas outside

of British Columbia.

"I am sure that the vast majority of British Columbians are

opposed…"

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Who are you reading from now?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading from the thoughts of a wife of a

small mining company president.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: How did you read it? Because she didn't have

it. I'll have you know, Mr. Speaker, that I have ways and

means.

"I am sure that the vast majority of British Columbians are

opposed to the legislation. It will only add to the already

drastic unemployment within the province. I also say that it is

ludicrous that such laws will be considered. It is only an

indication of the incompetence of the people who were

responsible for these proposals."

I'm quoting her words. I took the effort, Mr. Speaker, and

wrote to the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and paid $15 for a

tape of the proceedings. I wonder if the Minister was

interested enough in that meeting, since he couldn't show up or

wouldn't show up himself. If you'd like the tape, Mr. Minister,

I'll make it available to you.

You might learn the truth from these prospectors who were at that meeting.

You might learn what they are thinking about your proposed legislation. Maybe

you'd learn something from it. Maybe I should bring the tape over and play it

for you. Then you'd know what the people of the province — 1,100 of those involved

in the mining industry — are thinking. I'd be most happy to play the tape for

you. If you don't ask for it and haven't enough interest in the mining industry

in this province to ask for it, I'll have to draw my own conclusions.

I predict mass unemployment, Mr. Speaker, in the mining

industry. I predict the stopping of risk capital. The first

chapters in the decline of the mining industry in British

Columbia have been written. It will be called, "The Collapse of

the Mineral Industry, 1972 Edition" by the man from the

Kootenays.

It's bad for the little guy. It's the misuse of power, Mr.

Speaker. It creates suppression. Bill 44 is the evil star that

is shining and casting its jinx over the mining prospectors in

British Columbia. Trample upon them, victimize them, oppress

them. Do that to all the little men in the mining industry.

That's what Bill 44 is all about, Mr. Speaker. That's this

socialist government's aim — to stand on and pinch the

shoes of every free enterpriser in British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just have a few more comments that I'd

like to make. I'd like to point out to the Minister of Mines,

or ask him, Mr. Speaker, if he is aware of where the B.C. and

Yukon Chamber of Mines got its start. It's very relevant to

Bill 44 and I'll tell you why. An

article in the Kootenay Star ,

Revelstoke, dated May 24, 1890. It prints the constitution and

bylaws of the Miners' Association of British Columbia.

Why was it necessary, Mr. Speaker to form such an

association?

"The causes which led to the formation of the association

and which made it necessary are found in the legislation which

is damaging to the interests of miners and mining enacted by

the parliament just terminated."

This

article is out of the

Revelstoke Kootenay Star , Mr. Speaker. "It seems that the

government of the day, and without opposition from the opposite

side, passed legislation without realizing what they were

doing."

That's dated 1890. I want to make it perfectly clear, Mr.

Speaker, that no newspaper is going to write a similar

article

in 1973.

Now this is what the Kootenay Star says:

"It seems that the government of the day, and without

opposition from the opposite side, passed legislation without

realizing what they were doing. They passed a law which would

compel prospectors to pay $105 before a claim in the railway

belt could be recorded."

Then the miners of the day, Mr. Speaker, realized that it

was imperative that they should organize for their own

protection. I wonder what the miners are going to do in 1973.

How far is their reaction going to be felt? I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if they're going to pay us a visit here at the

Legislature like the farmers had to do with regard to Bill 42.

But at that date back in 1890, Mr. Speaker…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They don't have to; they've

[ Page 2478 ]

got you to speak for them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the Minister to know that I certainly

am talking for them. I certainly am talking for the prospectors

and the geologists and the surveyors and all the small people

in the mining industry. I certainly am speaking out for them

here today, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be speaking out for them.

MR. PHILLIPS: It gives me great pleasure to do so, too, Mr.

Speaker. I want you to know that. Because when they call a

meeting, those miners need somebody to speak out for them, my

friends.

But even back in 1890, Mr. Speaker, Premier Robson of that

day met with the miners and exchanged opinions. I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, it's too bad we don't have that same type of

government here in 1973, with a Premier that would meet with

the miners and exchange opinions. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the

Minister of Mines remembers the meeting back in 1890. Do you

remember the meeting? You were around weren't you, Mr.

Minister? Maybe he was there at that meeting. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

maybe it's the last time he's ever met with the miners, too

— back in 1890.

All that happened at that meeting, Mr. Speaker, and it's so

appropriate at this time because back in those days the

government didn't set itself up on such a high pedestal that it

wouldn't talk to the ordinary man on the street, that it

wouldn't talk to the prospector. Today it has,

unfortunately.

The Premier, after realizing the error of his ways, promised

to remove certain obnoxious features from the law. Now, Mr.

Speaker, maybe if our Minister had met with the prospectors at

this meeting, through an exchange of ideas they would have been

able to see eye to eye or at least change some of the obnoxious

points in this bill. Maybe that's what he was afraid of, Mr.

Speaker.

"The object of the association is the union of miners and all interested directly in mining operations for

the purpose of promoting and exchanging the mining interests in

British Columbia and to advise with the government powers

regarding all legislation affecting the same."

That, Mr. Speaker, was the original object of the B.C.

Association of Mines when it was formed back in 1890. The

object is still there today, Mr. Speaker. However, they find it

very difficult to advise with the government powers regarding

all legislation affecting the same when the governing powers

won't attend their meetings. Very difficult indeed to have any

input.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that after Bill 44 the Minister of Mines would

be afraid to live with himself.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I had a chill last night.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because, Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 gives the

Minister of Mines complete going to be an absolutely corrupted

power after Bill 44. I don't know how he'll be able to going to

be an absolutely corrupted power after Bill 44. I don't know

how he'll be able to live with himself, Mr. Speaker.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I don't know how

you can live with yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I find it very easy to live with myself.

The mining industry in Canada has been under attack by the

federal government in Ottawa for quite some time, Mr. Speaker.

That government is now in a befuddled state of affairs. Why?

I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. For the same reason that the

mining industry here in British Columbia is going to be in a

befuddled state of affairs. Because armchair experts, Mr.

Speaker, are making up the rules. I don't know where those

armchair experts come from, Mr. Speaker, but someday we will

know.

Mr. Speaker, everybody seems to fear that we're running out

of resources. This country and province is marvelously and

abundantly endowed and we haven't even scratched the surface

yet. Ninety per cent of our wealth, Mr. Speaker, still awaits

the prospector's pick.

Many nations in the so-called developing world have an

abundance of natural wealth, but their natural resource

industries have not yet been developed. In those countries, Mr.

Speaker, the people are poor because of it. Is that what is

going to happen here in British Columbia? Are the people going

to be poor because of Bill 44?

"Asked if it was accurate to compare the Barrett regime to

Allende's in Chile, a government spokesman said ruefully,

'We're not sovereign; we don't have as much power as they do.'

I had picked that out of that

article long before it was

printed and made such a play of here in the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker. But the

article is very appropriate because in Chile

there are lots of mines. Because of regressive legislation, Mr.

Speaker, the mines are not developed and the people are poor

because of it, Mr. Speaker.

We have a fortunate set of circumstances in British Columbia. B.C. has prospered

because of innovation and motivation blended with technology and market expertise.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 proposes to kill all of that. There will be no more innovation

in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. There will certainly be no motivation.

Our technology will move to other centres. We have also been very fortunate,

Mr.

[ Page

2479 ]

Speaker, because of a ready market in the United States plus

lots of risk capital. All of this has helped. After Bill 44,

Mr. Speaker, that will all be out the window.

Mr. Speaker, socialist and communist countries have

succeeded in their efforts to redistribute common wealth. They

are all equal in communist countries, Mr. Speaker. They are all

poor. Mr. Speaker, that is what's going to happen in British

Columbia. After 55 years of experimentation, Russia had to call

on the free enterprisers to help them develop their natural

resources. If Bill 44 stays in, Mr. Speaker, we may have to go

to some other live-wire province in Canada to re-learn after

this regime is thrown out, Mr. Speaker.

Nations have an historical tendency to forget what made them

great in the first place. But British Columbia is great now, or

was great before August 30, Mr. Speaker. But this Government

hasn't been around long enough to know why. What made it great?

What made the mining industry great in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Lots of ore." That's a typical question from

a socialist. "Lots of ore here."

Socialism creeps in these countries, Mr. Speaker, and down

they go. Bill 44 will take us to the bottom of that cycle in

the mining industry. For those who want to leave minerals in

the ground in hopes of a better deal, I want to tell you this,

Mr. Speaker. Opportunity knocks but once. It's all right for

Bill 44 to say, "Leave the minerals in the ground."

But I want to relate to you something that happened in the

mining industry just recently in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and which

will happen many times after Bill 44 is enacted.

Denison Mines had a potential $1 billion deal with France

about eight years ago to sell uranium. But the Canadian

government quashed the deal ostensibly on the altruistic

grounds that it should have guarantees that the uranium would

be used for peaceful purposes. Denision lost a $90 million

prepayment which the company was planning to use to acquire two

companies — one foreign-controlled and the other an old

Canadian company they wanted to rehabilitate and bring back to

Canada.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? In stepped the "big club" of

government to quash the deal. At that time, eight years ago,

Elliott Lake was shut down and public money had to be used

eventually to finance a uranium stockpile there to keep up

employment in that town.

What happened? What was the eventual outcome of this, Mr. Speaker? Because

this is what's going to happen in many instances if Bill 44 is enacted in its

present state. France sought out other suppliers and eventually

made a deal at a lower price. France put up incentives and went out to discover

its own deposits of uranium in its own country. But first of all it had to put

up incentives.

Are we going to have to bring back incentives after Bill 44

is enacted? Why take them away in the first place, Mr.

Speaker?

France, because of this deal being quashed, now competes

with Canada on the world uranium market, selling it at a lower

price than we can offer.

Where would Canada have been without its natural resource

development, Mr. Speaker? Where would British Columbia be today

without natural resource development? We in British Columbia

today would be the puppets of Ottawa if we had not had our

resources developed. Canada would be the pawns of the Americans

and the Americans would have been under the control of Germany

had not British Columbia, Canada and the United States of

American developed their resources.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the prospectors, the ones who

find the minerals in British Columbia, feel the chafing of

their necks from the iron clasps of Bill 44. That's

unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

I want for just a moment to compare Bill 44 to some changes

that were recently made in the Ontario…

There are nine Members of the Government in the House as

compared to 11 opposition Members. I think we've got 'em.

What'll we do? Shall we pass a motion to withdraw Bill 44?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. I'm afraid that they'd pull something out

of those…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't make the motion. I'm just talking

about it. But you'd pull something out of those numerous books

you have there, Mr. Speaker, to get around it somehow.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): We drew lots to see who'd stay

and we lost. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Just recently, Mr. Speaker, Ontario made some

changes to their mining taxes. I think it would be interesting

for just a moment to compare. I wonder if the Minister of Mines

ever took the trouble to study other jurisdictions'

legislation.

They had a little problem in Ontario and last year they

changed it. The Mining Tax Act, 1972 of Ontario received

royal assent in December, 1972. With the minor changes that

they put in in Ontario, it says, "after a stormy session of the

Legislature," the new version of the Act does not differ

in principle

[ Page 2480 ]

from the original Act but eliminates some parts and modifies

others to bring them into line with accepted practices.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, are we going to be able to read in

the newspaper before Bill 44 goes — or after the session

is over — that the Minister of Mines, finally having

realized how devastating Bill 44 is to the mining industry, and

having had those points pointed out to him by the Member for

South Peace River, took a second look and revised this

bill?

Except for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which

come under federal control for mining resources, the provinces

— this refers to British Columbia too — have had

various basically similar mining tax Acts designed to obtain

for the province a return on mineral resources taken from the

land which was leased to the developers at relatively low

cost.

The lands were and largely still are leased in this way so

that those who have the necessary experience and risk capital

can seek, find, develop and extract the minerals. The

provincial governments, so far at least, have not considered it

their place to stake public money in mineral resource

development, apart from official exploration and development

organizations in Quebec and Manitoba — but provinces for

the most part, Mt. Speaker. I guess that was in the days before

Eric Kierans.

Our present Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker, because

something has been successful and it has worked very well,

thinks we've got to change it.

Instead, the provinces let the industry do the work in which

it is experienced and in turn impose a form of royalty tax on

profits to get compensation for the use of natural resources in

the province. But not so in British Columbia. Not any more, Mr.

Speaker. Not after Bill 44. The principle of Bill 44 is to

nationalize the mining industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is the principle of the bill. I'm merely

comparing some legislation that was recently changed in

Ontario, Mr. Speaker. In Ontario they even do what the Minister

said he was going to do. In Ontario the tax is levied on the

ore at pit's mouth based on one of the several ways of

estimating the values.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's got nothing to do with that.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I know it hasn't. But what I am saying is

if you want to tax the mining industry, tax the mining

industry; but leave it still in the hands of private

enterprise. That's what I'm saying. And you don't propose to do

that by Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Sit down and I'll answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: You propose to take over the mining industry.

You propose to do away with the individual prospectors. You

propose to hire your own prospectors.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Oh, why don't you wake up?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's good to see the Minister of Health

back in the House again. He hasn't been here too much today,

Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm not very highly motivated…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Then withdraw your crummy

legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not very well motivated either, Mr.

Speaker, by this Bill 44.

They made some changes in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, but they

were changes that the industry can live with. Bill 44 brings

changes to our Mineral Act that the industry cannot live

with.

When I say that I'm concerned about Bill 44 and what it's

going to do, I know that the socialist government in Manitoba

and the socialist government in British Columbia are very

close. They're putting their heads together to socialize all

the western provinces. What does Mr. Schreyer think, Mr.

Speaker? Mr. Schreyer talks of the economic rent which he

thinks should be assessed against natural resource companies.

This he describes as the surplus profit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That has nothing to do with this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. It's got a lot to do with this

bill.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We're in B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're in B.C. and you're afraid. The Minister

of Mines sits over there and is trying to not let me find out

the truth behind Bill 44. But I'll be very surprised, Mr.

Speaker, if Eric Kierans didn't have a hand in drafting Bill

44. I'll be very surprised indeed.

Mr. Speaker, the thing about Bill 44 is that it's just the

very, very thin edge of the wedge. It's just the beginning. As

a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister said himself,

"There will be more changes to the Mineral Act in the

fall session." That will be the final deal. This is just to

sort of cushion it a little bit.

[ Page 2481 ]

Then in the fall session, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be

surprised to see Eric Kierans sitting right here in the

Legislature explaining the new mining Act that's going to be

brought in this fall.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign?

MR. PHILLIPS: My gracious, Mr. Speaker, the Premier wants to

know if I'm going to resign. I can't resign. I've got too big a

job to do here. (Laughter). Every time he brings in a new piece

of legislation, it makes that job much bigger and much more

critical.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When are you going to start?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe if the Premier would stay in the

House, Mr. Speaker, he would know what the Member has been

talking about.

But at least Schreyer gets around, not like our Minister of

Mines. He addressed a meeting recently in Toronto, Mr. Speaker.

The truth came out. The people came out of that meeting and

they know where Mr. Schreyer's headed in the mining industry in

Manitoba.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we will know eventually that two

provinces — maybe three in British Columbia — are

going to completely nationalize their mining industry. I

predict that the wheels of progress will come grinding to a

halt in those provinces. Since the Premier's in the House now,

I'll say I think he should have a bust of Karl Marx in his

office.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're becoming a bore.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this legislation is a bit of a bore

too.

I have some recommendations, Mr. Speaker, that I'd like to

give to the House. A production lease should be automatic once

an individual or company has complied with certain reasonable

requirements. That is a recommendation I'd like the Minister of

Mines to take back to his office to discuss with his

Deputy.

Mr. Speaker, these requirements should be spelled out

— s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t — in the Act. Then people

would know. Right now, Mr. Speaker, they don't know. Everything

is left to the discretion. So that's number one suggestion:

that it be automatic once an individual or a company has

complied with reasonable requirements, and that these

requirements be spelled out.

I don't want the Minister or the Premier to come to me

tomorrow and say, "Well, you didn't give any suggestions." I

want these suggestions to be heeded.

Mr. Speaker, there should not be any discretionary power in the hands of the

Minister of Mines to decide whether or not a company or person should receive

a production lease. If there is, how are you going to build up a mine? You get

so far and then the Minister has the discretion. As I say, if you want to tax

the industry, tax the industry. Give them cut-and-dried guidelines to develop

themselves with.

Every bill that you bring in now, Mr. Speaker, is at the

discretion of the Minister. Everything's at the discretion

— unwritten guidelines, unwritten rules that can be

changed as the game develops. If this government hasn't got the

vision to see what's going to happen in the mining industry,

get somebody else to draft the legislation — somebody who

can see, somebody who knows something about the industry, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the industry is quite prepared to comply with

reasonable pollution control laws, land laws, land reclamation

laws, mine safety standards et cetera. Again I must emphasize,

Mr. Speaker, that all of these requirements should be listed in

the Act. They should be laid down. Many of them are now, but in

most of the mining laws that we have the guidelines are printed

out, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister of Mines wants to play games with the

prospectors, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he play fair. He is

certainly not playing fair with the prospectors under Bill 44.

No way, Mr. Speaker. As Bill 44 is presently written, he can

change the rules in the middle of the Act. That, Mr. Speaker,

is the way of a coward. You do not have faith enough …

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would you retract that statement —

"that's the way of a coward?"

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you still reading from your speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not still reading. I'm using my notes,

Mr. Speaker. Would you like to see them and inspect them?

MR. SPEAKER: I note they're rather voluminous.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the effects of Bill 44 are rather

voluminous too.

If the Minister does not have faith enough in his own

ability to draft proper legislation, if he has to make excuses

for his own ineptness, he should at least come forward and tell

us who did draw the bill. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,

who drew up Bill 44. Was it some crackpot from Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, it takes millions of dollars in expenses before

a miner knows whether or not he has a property that might be a

producer. It is absolutely essential that he know whether he's

going to get a

[ Page 2482 ]

production lease, if he's going to be encouraged to spend

all of those risk dollars.

The second and one of the most important points in this

bill, Mr. Speaker, is the increased costs of doing assessment

work. The annual rental fee of $20 per claim should be

eliminated. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is far too

costly to the individual .prospector. About 1,000 of them

exist.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put before the House a recommendation

or point out how costly this can be. Under the early assessment

costs, if a prospector had four claims it was $400. Under the

current assessment cost, if he had 40 claims — which he

has to have in today's mining activities; four will not be

sufficient — previously it would have cost him $2,000.

Now it's going to cost him $4,000. Under Bill 44, Mr. Speaker,

for 40 claims it would cost him $8,000 versus $4,000 under the

previous arrangement. The difference in cost to early-day

assessment on a 20-claim group is $3,600, Mr. Speaker, and that

is not peanuts to a prospector who is trying to find his

way.

Mr. Speaker, if you're planning on having all of the

prospecting in this province done by large companies…which

you're going to have to have under that new assessment, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like to read to you a couple of letters from some of the

geologists in this province who are also affected by the bill

and who have written many letters to the Minister, without very

much success, Mr. Speaker. Here is a letter to one of the

government backbenchers. It's referring to the Press release

dated March 21, 1973, by the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources. That Press release states, Mr.

Speaker, that:

"Considerable interest has been displayed among prospectors

in the proposed change in, mineral claim work requirements from

$100 to $200 per year. It has to be appreciated that this

figure has not changed since 1891, despite the fact that $100

in 1891 were worth the equivalent of no less than $500 today.

Even more significant to the prospectors is the inclusion in

the amendments of prospecting among the items available for the

purpose of meeting work requirements. This was not the case

under the existing Act."

The Press release goes on to say:

"The work requirements under preparation by this department

stipulate that the cost of prospecting, including an allowance of no less than

$20 per day for the time of prospecting, may be submitted in addition to previously

existing categories of work.

"In other words, prospecting time of one month's duration,

30 days, will be worth $600 by itself and will thus cover the

work requirements for three claims. The actual costs of

prospecting, including transportation and expenses, will cover

additional claims. Two months of prospecting time — 60

days — will cover the work requirements for at least six

claims in that fashion, again without consideration yet to the

actual cost of prospecting which will cover further claims.

"It should be quite clear from the above that the inclusion

of prospecting among the allowable items for the purpose of

meeting work requirements will leave individual prospectors in

an improved position regarding work requirements. Any

evaluation of Bill 44 must take this factor into

consideration."

This letter is from a young fellow in West Vancouver who has

a family of four and is involved in the mining industry.

"The subject Press release attached" — his letter states — "exhibits the same deplorable lack of understanding on the part

of the individual or those who wrote it as does Bill 44 regarding the individual

or those who wrote it. To appreciate this lack of understanding, one must first

understand the traditional role of the prospector in the mining industry.

"The prospector has been, and will continue to be the

initial finder or discoverer of viable mineral prospects. And

he accomplishes this by utilizing the experience he has gained

over the decades. His work involves deprivation, toil and

disappointment which for most of us would prove mortal. Very

occasionally, in the event of uncovering favourable signs, will

he stake claims to cover his find, for even under existing

legislation he cannot afford fees or assessment work.

"To profit from his labour, the prospector must attempt to

interest exploration companies in his find and convince them

that they should commit appreciable expenditures on the basis

of his few favourable indications. Traditionally, the small

stock companies have been essentially the only ones willing to

take on the very high initial risks involved and all of us who

have bought stock in junior mining companies know what this

risk is all about.

"There are some that would call this bogus

[ Page 2483 ]

promotion. The small stock company, like the prospector,

does not have the financial resources to go all the way and

must attempt to convince the large companies that appreciably

greater exploration expenditures involving several millions of

dollars, depending on the circumstance, should be committed,

and like the prospector, these small companies experienced

many, many disappointments. Thus the prospector is a discoverer; the small stock company is the risk-taker and the large

company is the developer. This arrangement under the present

Mineral Act , which is generally acclaimed as the best on

this earth, has proven its efficiency and has generated an

exploration expertise in this province that would be difficult

to find an equal for anywhere on this earth.

"I would point out, sir, that Bill 44 would increase initial

recording costs to the prospector by 600 per cent and work

requirements by 200 per cent. Hon. Leo T. Nimsick defends the

news release by stating these costs haven't changed materially

since 1891 and the dollar has depreciated since that time.

"The point that the Hon. Minister does not appreciate is the

fact that there has been a change in the industry since 1891,

just as there has been change in the dollar. For instance, the

old-timers explored visually with gold pan and hammer along

creeks and exposed ridges for small high-grade veins that they

could mine or sell. A couple of claims in those days would

suffice. Over the years, however, nearly all of the mines that

are discoverable by exposed surface indications have been

discovered, and most of the ones that will be discovered in the

future will be discovered in valleys and other overburdened

areas.

"As these targets are far from discreet and as most of these

targets are of the large tonnage, low grade bulk type of

deposit, the minimum number of claims now required for a viable

prospect is 40 or more. Larger companies prefer to protect

their interests having 100 or 200 claims.

"I would submit, sir, and ask you to inform the Hon.

Minister on my behalf that the proposed fee increases prohibits

the prospector from performing his traditional task as the head

of the discoverer development chain. The companies with

financial resources will have fewer finds presented to

them.

"The Hon. Minister is prepared to make an allowance of no

less than $20 per day prospecting time for the purpose of meeting work requirements.

As a very large proportion of the prospectors' time is spent in trying to find

something worthy of staking or, with other words, he stakes after a session's

work, all of the prior work is not allowable as assessment work credit under

the existing Mineral Act or under Bill 44 amendments. It is conceivable that

the Minister responsible for governing the industry is not aware of the requirements

of the Act, or his own prose in Bill 44.

"Another important point regarding the 200 per cent increase

in assessment work requirements is that this will require a 200

per cent increase in the service work on a claim block in its

initial years. As the real merit of mining property usually

takes a few years to discover, the 200 per cent increase in the

surface work on a claim block will lead to a disproportionate

increase in the amount of bulldozing, stripping, blasting et

cetera before one can determine how much of the surface marring

work is properly and responsibly justified.

"I express my chagrin and disdain regarding the Minister's

allowance of $600 for 30 days of prospectors' toil. You realize

of course, that a prospector's punch-card time clock is dawn to

dusk. He is no 9 am. to 5 pm.-er with regular coffee breaks

morning, noon and afternoon. Nor is he a time and-a-halfer with

double time for holidays.

"The Hon. Minister's $20 a day allowance for prospectors'

experience and toil in terms of dollars-per-hour does not even

meet requirements of the Minimum Wage Act. It

compares directly to an office boy's salary or to a hamburger

waitress's salary. The principle difference being that the

prospector gets no tips or bonuses.

"The Hon. Minister's $20 a day allowance in terms of dollars

per hour compares directly to the increase in dollars per hour

that the electricians and plumbers and carpenters will be going

out on strike for next time. If it wasn't for the modern

prospectors, those electricians, plumbers and carpenters

wouldn't have all their new work in communities like Port

Hardy, Princeton, Merritt, Logan Lake, Kamloops, Ashcroft,

Highland Valley, Williams Lake, Golden, Rossland, Atlin,

Smithers, Babine Lake, Peachland. The province is peppered with

communities that owe much of their origin and subsequent

development to the toil of the prospectors.

"A $20 a day allowance for prospectors' experience and toil

coming from an honourable Minister of the British Columbia

Government, would normally be the ultimate insult. But,

considering the lack of knowledge regarding the profession and

industry exhibited in the new release on Bill 44 by the Hon.

Minister, the insult is relegated to a class of mediocrity and

insipidity.

[ Page 2484 ]

"Bungles of eleventh hour ready calculations, like the news

release and like Bill 44, can only inflict immense damage on

the credibility of the Hon. Minister and to the faith in the

electorate in the ultimate objectives of the British Columbia

Government. It is becoming clearer day by day that these

objectives have been adopted from Mr. Eric Kierans'

recommendations to the Manitoba Government.

"I would appreciate, sir, if you as my representative would

convey to the Legislative Assembly my feeling and concern

regarding the matter. Indeed, to save me the cost of Xeroxing,

would you as my provincial representative kindly read this

letter this session to the Legislative Assembly.

"Thanking you kindly in advance and trusting and depending

upon your concern and eloquence on my behalf and on the behalf

of the industry, I remain,

Yours truly, Charles A. Lammle"

I wonder if the Minister got a copy of this letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have to read it.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't have to read it, no, because he

doesn't want to hear it. That's why he didn't go to the

meeting, Mr. Speaker.

I have a number of other letters here, Mr. Speaker, that I'm

not going to read, but they all point to the same things

— the recommendations that I have been pointing out, Mr.

Speaker. A lot of them, Mr. Speaker, are very, very,

pertinent.

There's one here that I probably should read because it's

HON.MR.MACDONALD: …better than making a speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, we get the yak, yak, yak from the A.G. We

got along very well when you were down in Ontario — why

don't you go back and stay?

Here is a letter to the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick. This is the one

I was looking for, Mr. Speaker.

"I've just taken the time to digest your Bill 44 and the

Press release of March concerning that bill. The resultant

effect is acute despair for myself and the mineral industry in

this province. In particular, I would like you to clarify just

what your underlying philosophy is for the mineral industry in

British Columbia.

"In their telegram of March 5, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber

of Mines outlined to you serious areas of uncertainty in the bill as far as

production leases are concerned. I endorse this observation, as must all in

our field, which includes yourself and your advisors. You must also see that

these uncertainties will lead to phasing down and/or

curtailing the exploration and development in this province.

"I can only construe, therefore, that you in fact want

just this. In other words, you wish the minerals to remain in the

ground. Why? If this is your philosophy, please be honest and tell us

so that we know where we stand and can make our plans for departure to

more favourable climes" — he must mean climate — "or find alternative

employment.

"If it is not your philosophy, I find it difficult to

understand why a man in your position, with the best men in the

industry only too ready to give you their advice, would add

further risks to an already high-risk field.

"Your explanation will be gratefully received by myself and

the mineral industry as a whole."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Did you get a copy of my reply?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as a matter of fact, I'll read your

reply.

Here's another very important letter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a

new Member in this House, I would like to know if we're here to

deal with Bill 44, or if we're on a contest to see who in that

party can speak the longest. The people from my riding didn't

send me down here to listen to this type of garbage for four

hours. They sent us down here to do some work.

MR. SPEAKER: It's certainly a point of order, if the Hon. Member is

deliberately obstructing the business of the House. I have to determine that

question and it's the sole prerogative of the Speaker to do so. I'm leaning

very heavily against drawing that conclusion as long as the Member deals with

constructive points that somehow or other can be related to Bill 44. But four

hours of debate on a principle as simple as revealed in Bill 44 strikes me as

pushing the House practically beyond the point of endurance. I ask the Hon.

Member, who promised an hour ago that he was concluding his remarks, to finally

come to the stage of that conclusion.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's very interesting…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Are you suggesting to the

Speaker that he cannot tell the Member to discontinue his

speech under the standing orders, when the Speaker deems that

he is not in conformity with the rules? Is that your

submission, Hon. Member? I'm addressing it to the Member

for

[ Page 2485 ]

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

If he has nothing to say, would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very disappointed in

your remarks because this is a very far-reaching bill. As I

said at the beginning, if four hours of debate on a bill that

involves an industry that generates 25 cents out of every

dollar in British Columbia is too long in this Legislature,

there must be new rules! And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: …that if I can't read good suggestions in

this Legislature from people in the industry, I'd like to see

those rules!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member direct his attention to

Bill 44?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a letter to the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick

and it's "Re amendments to Bill 44." It happens to be from a

fellow who has a degree in engineering and in mining

engineering, so I would suggest to the House that the letter

would be very appropriate under the terms of reference in Bill

44. If I have to go through a judicial request every time I

want to read a letter in this House with regard to Bill 44, I'm

quite prepared to do it. We'll let it be scrutinized by the

Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who calls it garbage.

MR. LEWIS: You haven't said anything all afternoon.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you had something in there in between

your ears, maybe you could hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: "Dear Sir:

"As a very active member of the British Columbia mining

fraternity, I welcomed the concept of change in the Act, but I

was extremely disturbed by what I saw tabled.

"Discretionary powers of a Minister leave uncertainties

that are unacceptable when huge sums of money are to be expended. Such a situation

existed in Australia to the jeopardy of their mining industry, with uncertain

tenure on the ground. I could foresee a situation arising where a major company

would not be granted its right to mine unless a percentage was allocated to

the government. This gives the government the envious position of being able

to pick over the best of the feasibility studies submitted and selecting the

ones in which they wish to invest. I would love that

opportunity, as would 20 major mining companies in town.

"It should not be forgotten that to reach the stage of

feasibility, a major mining company may have spent $10 million

on exploration and other projects. The requirement that a

feasibility study be submitted before the mining is allowed

curtails any chance that a small miner, leaser, or hydrator has

to obtain a few hundred tons from a small, otherwise uneconomic

mine or showing, and of making a living in this way. This is

particularly onerous when the price of gold and silver makes

such small vein-tied operations viable.

"The non-issuance of a free miner's certificate to a

non-citizen who has been in the country more than eight years

is utterly discriminatory and ridiculous. How many people will

it affect? Why should somebody who has spent eight years

working toward the benefits of British Columbia be treated in a

poorer way than somebody who has just come and been here maybe

one or two years? They are as much a part of British Columbia

as a citizen.

"The requirement that when a claim expires it is mandatory

to submit all engineering data within three months is onerous

and unworkable, though I agree it is desirable. There should be

some incentive for its submission progressively. Very often,

the ex-owner of the claim does not have all the technical data

and may not even have carried out or paid for the work that has

been done.

"I feel qualified to speak on the above matters as I have

worked for three years on proposed changes in the mining laws,

both with the Mining Exploration Group and the Chamber of

Mines.

"We have made some very constructive solid proposals to your

department. We have had excellent cooperation with your

first-class men in your department. I strongly recommend you

review the submission that we have made and use the skills and

background the industry is providing free of charge."

See what you can come up with when you read some of this

correspondence into the record, Mr. Speaker?

"We now know the Minister of Mines has had lots of input on

Bill 44. I think we in British Columbia have probably the best

Mineral Act in the world. But like you, I believe that

it can be improved. Let us make our improvements step by step

and not destroy an industry that has grown steadily, paying

larger and larger taxes to the people of British Columbia.

Vancouver is the exploration capital of the world with a

tremendous pool of skill and expertise that is already reaching

out as an invisible export. Mining people think

internationally. If the climate is not suitable in British

Columbia, they and the money that goes with them will move to

better locations."

[ Page 2486 ]

He continues, Mr. Speaker, and he says:

"I speak with feeling as I have poured 17 years of my

professional life into British Columbia and I do not wish to

move elsewhere."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, that's the type of reaction from the

mining industry.

It is very difficult for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, why

this Legislature does not want to explore the ramifications of

Bill 44 to the very ultimate. I would say, Mr. Speaker, and I

have said before, they changed just a few tenets of their

mining Act in British Columbia and they had lots of opportunity

for debate. Lots of opportunity for debate. It wasn't done

under harassment.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, from another engineering firm

— a young fellow. I met him. He also has a degree in

engineering. He is very concerned about Bill 44. I just wish,

Mr. Speaker, that we had the opportunity to debate the second

reading of Bill 44 earlier in the Legislature; but we didn't,

so we have to take the time today.

This is a letter to the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources, with a carbon copy to the Hon.

David A. Barrett, Premier of the Province of British

Columbia.

"Dear Sir:

As discussed in our meeting in November, the mineral exploration

industry has been most concerned over the uncertainties of impending legislation

affecting the mineral industry. As you yourself had stated, the rules of the

game must be clearly defined before the players can commit to play."

Evidently the Minister of Mines did commit himself back in

November to laying out the rules of the game, but in Bill 44

they are not very clearly spelled out, Mr. Speaker — they

are all at the discretion of the Minister.

"As you yourself had stated, the rules of the game must be

clearly defined before the players can commit to play. It has

therefore been with some considerable interest that I have

awaited your legislation ensuring a better return to the people

of British Columbia from their mineral resources. I have just

received and reviewed a copy of Bill 44 and your accompanying

Press release. Although I support many of the changes proposed

in this bill, I am most distressed to note that many of the

uncertainties remain unsolved and that of greatest

significance; the Government is guaranteeing that the rules of

the game will remain unknown until the Minister with his

discretionary power decides on each individual case."

Why don't you tell this man with his degree in engineering

to read the bill then? He's read the bill and he reads it the

same as I read it and he understands what's in it.

"These discretionary powers are appalling when one considers

they might be utilized by the Minister to negotiate a preferential equity position

in the mining development."

He knows what the bill is all about. The same as I know what

the bill is about, Mr. Speaker.

"That such an obvious conflict of interest can be embodied

in the proposed legislation can only reflect the Government's

lack of understanding of this industry and the lack of

expertise in understanding their own legislation. Should this

conflict of interest remain unresolved, your position and that

of the Government can only be jeopardized in future dealings

with both the mining industry and the electorate of British

Columbia."

He understands the bill.

"If Bill 44 assures a better return to the people of B.C.

then I must assume the Government has decided that the mineral

resources would best remain undetected and undeveloped by

industry. In its present form, Bill 44 will undoubtedly result

in a massive exodus of exploration and development funds from

British Columbia. The large tonnage, low-grade deposits, famous

in this area, require long-term stability with known ground

rules before the enormous risk capital can be attracted to

discover and develop these deposits.

"Very few companies will care to risk their funds on a

long-term basis when the rules of the game can be modified at

any stage to suit the political whims of the government.

"I consider Bill 44 to be a most adverse piece of

legislation precluding the raising of additional risk capital

for exploration in British Columbia. I trust you will

appreciate the immediate effect of the present Bill will be the

loss and dispersion of many highly-qualified and competent

exploration groups who have contributed to the success and

expansion of the mineral industry in this province. This will

not only affect some 4,000 persons directly employed by

exploration companies, but will also involve the many service

contract and supply groups who are directly dependent on

exploration activity for their income."

He finishes the letter by saying:

"I appreciate your comment that the mines department will be

expanding its service to industry. I only trust you have the

discretion to modify Bill 44 so that the industry also may be

served."

Now, I want to support the resolution that was passed at

this meeting of 1,100 miners and prospectors in the Hotel

Vancouver.

"This resolution was passed unanimously by a general meeting

of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines held in the

Pacific Ballroom of the Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver, British

Columbia, on Friday, March 23.

"Whereas the mining industry in British Columbia has been

expanding at a rapid rate with

[ Page

2487 ]

a record mineral production of $631 million in 1972; and

whereas

the growth of the industry has brought great benefits to the people of British

Columbia providing direct and indirect employment for 64,000 persons, a substantial

market for a wide variety of manufactured goods and services and increased tax

revenues to all forms of government; and

whereas the future of this industry

is now seriously threatened by drastic changes in British Columbia's mining

laws proposed by the provincial government, including the threat of increased

taxation in the form of royalties on the production of mines which would cause

the mineral industry in this province to become unattractive to essential risk

capital.

"Whereas introduction at the current session of the

Legislature of Bill 44 —

An Act to Amend the Mineral

Act : (

a) drastically increases the cost of staking and

holding mineral land in British Columbia with particular

hardship to prospectors; (

b) places discretionary powers in the

hands of the government to decide whether or not an individual

or company can place its mine in production and under what

conditions; (

c) forces small producers to obtain a costly and

cumbersome production lease; (

d) makes it possible for the

provincial government to participate in the ownership of mines

after private capital has taken all risks which would

discourage private investment.

"Recent imposition of a freeze on locating placer ground in

this province at a time when the price of gold is substantially

higher and thousands of men are unemployed.

Whereas, as a

result of all of these factors, mineral exploration and a new

mine development in British Columbia is being seriously

retarded with the immediate loss this year of 500 jobs in

mineral exploration, many by students, and the threatened loss

of thousands of more jobs, including those in the service

industries, in the curtailment of mine development and plans

for production.

"Therefore

be it resolved that the British Columbia and

Yukon Chamber of Mines go on record as urging that the

provincial government take immediate steps to restore

confidence in the industry by:

"

(1) Publicly declaring that a careful study will be made of

mine taxation before any action is taken; also that the government recognizes

the unique and high-risk nature of mining and, as a result, intends to provide

the incentives necessary for a progressive industry.

"

(2) Amending Bill 44,

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act ,

so as to preserve the rights of free miners and "(

a) encourage more prospecting

activity by reducing the threatened increased cost of staking and holding mineral

land in this province;

"(

b) remove discretionary powers from the government by

making automatic the granting of a production lease to any

individual or company that has complied with reasonable

conditions to be set forth in the Act."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You've already said that before.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"(

c) Exempt small claim and lease holders from the

provisions of a production lease.

"

(3) Restraining the government's obvious desire to spend

taxpayer dollars in becoming involved in the financing of this

high-risk industry.

"

(4) Immediately removing the current reserve on staking

placer leases in British Columbia and taking steps necessary to

encourage unemployed persons to become involved in the

industry."

I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I know that the

Minister has a copy of it. This resolution was signed by and

endorsed by everyone.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not by everyone.

MR. PHILLIPS: By everyone at the meeting.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I have a letter to show you that it

wasn't.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, one out of 1,100 is a very small

percentage. One out of 1,100. But when the resolution was read,

there was a standing ovation. There was a standing ovation for

all of the speakers. I want to tell the Minister, Mr. Speaker

through you, that it may be a good thing that the Minister

wasn't at that meeting.

Some of the prospectors at that meeting were pretty ugly,

Mr. Speaker. They don't like people interfering with their

rights — rights that they've had since the beginning of

British Columbia. Many of those prospectors have been

prospecting all their life. They don't like somebody infringing

with their rights, particularly somebody who won't come and

meet them on their own ground.

Mr. Speaker, that's why at this time I'm going to close my

end of the debate. But I certainly should carry on for several

hours longer because this piece of legislation points up again

the ineptness of this Government at drawing legislation. It

points up to their overall plan, which they certainly

subscribed to when they signed the Waffle manifesto. That's

what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker: to completely

nationalize the mining industry in British Columbia —

[ Page 2488 ]

make no mistake about it. The people in the industry know

it. The prospectors know it. Someday, the message will get to

all the people in British Columbia.

I'm going to ask once more, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Minister, to withdraw this bill or at least hold it over until

the fall session. Take some time to talk to the people involved

in the industry. They're most unhappy. If you're sincerely

interested in your portfolio as Minister of Mines, you will

recognize that people are concerned. You will recognize the

amount of determination they have in this concern, Mr.

Minister.

If you were at all a conscientious Minister, you would

listen to some of their concern. It's not just propaganda, Mr.

Speaker. It's not just a surface concern. It's a real concern.

That's one other reason, Mr. Minister, that I was very

disappointed that you weren't at this meeting so that you could

see the real concern of real honest-to-goodness hard-working

prospectors who have their life tied up in this industry.

Now you've changed the rules. You're either going to hire

them or they're going to get out of the business. I don't care,

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

is saying to make you laugh. If you're at all conscientious and

if you have any reading of the public at all and if you know

what the people of British Columbia are thinking about Bill 44,

you will hold it over or you will change it.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier of this province has any savvy

at all, he will meet with you and he will say, "Maybe, Mr.

Minister, we acted too fast. Maybe, Mr. Minister, we should

take a second look. Maybe, Mr. Minister, we are infringing on

the rights of those prospectors. Maybe Mr. Kierans didn't have

such a good idea after all." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the

Premier is able to read the public at all, he'll know the

honest, true concern.

All I've done this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is try to point

out to the Government my concern and the concern of many

Members on this side of the House. I don't care, Mr. Speaker,

if it takes four hours or 44 hours. When a bill as far-reaching

as Bill 44 comes before this Legislature, somebody has to point

out what is going on.

So I hope that some of my recommendations and some of my

requests to both the Premier and to the Minister of Mines will

not go unheeded. Because if they do, Mr. Speaker, the things

that I predicted this morning will come to be reality. Every

last citizen, be he young or old, be he male or female, be he

worker or executive, will suffer some of the far-reaching

consequences of this type of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed I want to

interrupt the proceedings briefly on a point of privilege.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

told the House this afternoon that my ruling on his petition

was contrary to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Murray in 1972

Journals . This is clearly a mis-statement of fact since no

Speaker's decision was made by that Speaker in respect to the

petition put in by the same Member on March 29, 1972. You can

see that in the Journals , page 237 and 238.

The procedure on that occasion was just that the Member

filed his petition. It was neither called the following day, as

would be expected under standing order 73, nor reported on as

to its regularity under standing order 73(6) by the Clerk.

Consequently, the Speaker had no duty cast on him, the petition

never coming before him to consider or rule upon, or the House

to vote upon.

I want that matter cleared up because of what the Hon.

Member said when he was arguing on the point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

to speak on a point of order to your comments. The petition in

question appears under orders of the day if it is accepted by

the Clerks. The procedure that was followed last year at the

time that this petition of Mr. Howard Sullivan was presented

was that it was accepted on the Table the following day. The

Clerks indicated that the petition was in order. Thereafter it

appeared on orders of the day to be called by the House Leader

at such time as it came up…

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member knows it was never called.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but, Mr. Speaker, it was on the order paper

to be called. And the fact that it was placed on the order

paper indicated its acceptance by the Speaker, and thereby by

the House. The fact that it appears on the order paper does not

necessarily mean it is called for debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member said it was a ruling of the

Speaker. It was not a ruling of the Speaker. I want to make my

statement clear. I have made my statement. Would the Hon.

Member sit down and we'll get on with the other matter before

the House. With great respect, the Hon. Member is incorrect.

Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Now does anyone want to talk on Bill 44? The Hon. Second

Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We too

have a few words on Bill 44, but first I would like to

congratulate the Member who just sat down. He is getting in

training now. After four hours debate last time, on Bill 42,

his voice showed much more signs of fatigue. I was surprised he

sat down in

[ Page 2489 ]

fact, because he is definitely showing more strength than he

did in Bill 42. And I thought he might continue a bit

longer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, his voice is still strong, Mr. former Premier,

he has no signs of laryngitis.

In any event, the bill before us, Bill 44, has a number of

features which we in this party cannot accept. First, we

question the whole concept of having the government coming into

one of the industries which is the most risk-prone perhaps of

any in the province. In addition, we dislike the concept of the

government, the Minister, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

as well, having virtually full control over what happens to a

proposal for a mine to be developed.

We don't mind regulations being set up — regulations

to insist upon the utilization of low-grade ores; regulations

for the proper environmental safeguards. Those things are well

and good. But we dislike a bill which gives this blank cheque

to the government, after a mine has been discovered, to make up

its own mind at that point as to what will happen. We realize

there can be considerable interaction between th