1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Steps to reduce power supply to U.S. Mr.

Smith — 1117

Damage to Langford Lake by Hydro tower construction. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 1117

Hydro negotiations with outside linemen. Mr. Curtis — 1117

Purchase of shares in resource industries. Mr. Morrison — 1118

Government intentions re Gorge Hospital strike vote. Mr. Wallace — 1118

Money loaned by B.C. Industrial Development Corporation. Mr. Phillips — 1119

Okanagan Telephone workers' strike. Mr. Bennett — 1119

Answer to question 115. Mr. Gardom — 1120

Appeals on marketing board legislation. Mr. Wallace — 1120

Training for air pollution monitors. Mr. McGeer — 1120

Hydro export profit. Mr. Smith — 1120

Purchase of Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 1120

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act (Bill 76). Second reading.

Hon.

Mr. Nimsick — 1121

Mr. Richter — 1121

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1123

Mr. Smith — 1125

Mr. McGeer — 1126

Mr. Chabot — 1129

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 1131

Mr. Wallace — 1131

Mr. Phillips — 1134

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1136

Division on second reading — 1138

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 77). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1138

Mr. Richter — 1138

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1138

An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act (Bill 80). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1138

Mr. Richter — 1139

Mr. Williams — 1139

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1140

Mr. Wallace — 1141

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1141

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulations Act (Bill 95).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1141

Mr. Richter — 1141

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1141

An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth 11 British Columbia

Centennial Scholarship Act (Bill 97). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1142

An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act (Bill 94). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1142

Mr. Phillips — 1142

Mr. Curtis — 1143

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1143

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Phillips — 1143

section 3.

Mr. Williams — 1145

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1145

Mr. McClelland — 1145

Mr. Lewis — 1146

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1147

Report and third reading — 1147

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill 69).

Committee, report and third reading — 1147

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill

83).

Committee, report and third reading — 1147

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act (Bill 84).

Committee, report and third reading — 1148

Pacific North Coast Native cooperative Loan Act (Bill

87). Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Smith — 1148

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1148

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1148

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1148

Mrs. Jordan — 1148

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1149

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Phillips — 1149

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 1149

Mrs. Jordan — 1150

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1150

Mrs. Jordan — 1151

Mr. Phillips — 1152

Division on third reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Bill

102). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill

103).

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill 103). Hon. Mr. Hall

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act (Bill 104). Hon.

Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill 10 1). Hon. Mr.

Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill 107).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick Introduction

and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act (Bill 99). Hon. Mr.

Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 100). Hon.

Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 (Bill 106).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of

students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary High School. They

are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Bain.

Will you join me in welcoming them?

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have a group of

students here from the Frank Hurt School in Newton out in

Surrey with their teacher, Tino D'Alfonso, and I would ask the

Legislature to welcome them.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at 3

o'clock there will be a class of students in from Georges P.

Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay, accompanied by

their teacher Mr. Leo Nepveu, and I would like the House to

join me in welcoming them now.

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

I've got two very good friends in the gallery today, my sister and her husband

— Mr. and Mrs. Frank Spring.

Oral questions.

STEPS TO REDUCE

POWER SUPPLY TO U.S.

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

My question is to the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs — are

you with us? Mr. Minister, in your capacity as a director of

B.C. Hydro, have you recommended to Hydro that they cut back on

the amount of natural gas that they use for the generation of

electricity which is exported to the United States?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, I

haven't told them to cut back on the use of that power. The

power that's being exported to the United States is not regular

power; it's the overproduction which is basically produced in

case of loads coming into B.C. So that power can be cut off at

any time when it's required in British Columbia, It's not a

firm sale to the United States. It's for their emergency

purposes, and in some cases they are getting it basically

regularly. But it can be cut off at any minute.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question, then, to the Minister. You are using

gas to generate power. Does it not follow that if you cut back on the generation

of electrical power through the use of natural gas, Hydro will cut back on the

amount of gas that they will be using and therefore make that energy source

available to other purposes in the province?

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's no problem in gas. This is a

reciprocal arrangement…. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It's not a subject of debate.

DAMAGE TO LANGFORD LAKE

BY HYDRO TOWER CONSTRUCTION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources whether steps have been

taken to stop the damage to Langford Lake which is being caused

by the B.C. Hydro tower construction in that area?

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

I certainly hope so — it'll affect my swimming next year. I might say seriously

that it is a matter we've discussed with the MLA for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) and

we're taking the matter up with Hydro. We haven't resolved the question at this

stage, however.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Has construction at the moment been

stopped while this matter is being looked into?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you intend to stop this construction,

Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen.

HYDRO NEGOTIATIONS

WITH OUTSIDE LINEMEN

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

the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of British

Columbia Hydro: Several days ago I asked if any final agreement

had been reached between outside linemen employed by B.C. Hydro

and the authority. He indicated at that time that he would take

the question as notice. Can he report on the settlement of that

agreement or any recommendation from the bargaining agents?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Certainly there has been

[ Page 1118 ]

no settlement of the agreement, and I'm not going to divulge

what the negotiations are at this particular time. I might say

that your figure was somewhat out.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is

correcting the part of the question, when we discussed it

earlier, of 22 per cent with fringes bringing it up to almost

30 per cent — is that correct?

HON. MR. LORIMER: All I said was that your figures were

somewhat out.

PURCHASE OF SHARES

IN RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

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

direct my question to the Hon. Premier as Minister of Finance.

Has the Minister of Finance authorized or ordered the purchase

of any shares in Afton Mines Ltd., Kaiser Resources Ltd. or

Westcoast Transmission Ltd.?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a question on the order paper?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Afton Mines?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, Afton Mines Ltd., Kaiser Resources Ltd.

and Westcoast Transmission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but I'll

take it as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got so much money he doesn't know where

it's going.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is it again?

MR. MORRISON: Afton, Kaiser Resources Ltd. and Westcoast

Transmission. And I have a supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: You might as well ask them all now.

MR. MORRISON: Would the Minister of Finance advise the House

if he has authorized the purchase of over 5,000 shares of B.C.

Telephone?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary

question: could the Premier and Minister of Finance tell us who

are the market players in the government?

HON . MR. BARRETT: We haven't selected the team yet.

GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS RE

GORGE HOSPITAL STRIKE VOTE

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

Minister of Labour: in view of the fact that we have had a

strike vote at the Gorge Road Hospital which recorded a 98.2

per cent vote in favour of strike action, and in view of much

of what was discussed regarding hospital workers in our recent

debate, could he bring us up to date with the immediacy of the

situation and tell us what action, if any, is contemplated by

the Department of Labour?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no

direct information on that situation. I shall check with the

department and report back to the House. I may be in a position

to report tonight, if you wish.

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

previous question: I would like to ask the Hon. Premier if in

fact these shares have been purchased on behalf of the people

of British Columbia with their money…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: …and he doesn't know about it, who is

spending our money?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When the Speaker calls for order

I wish the Hon. Member would stop long enough to find out what

it is all about.

As it turns out, what it is about is that your question is

highly hypothetical, inferential and is therefore banned under

the rules on page 147. I would commend the rules to the Hon.

Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: You said my question is highly hypothetical. Is

the Speaker suggesting that, in fact, these shares have not

been purchased?

MR. SPEAKER: I have no idea whatsoever, but I do know a

hypothetical question, which is: you lay a groundwork….

MRS. JORDAN: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you don't

think the question is hypothetical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. For the benefit of the Hon. Member: you

are not supposed to put an "if" question and then ask the

Minister what his answer to

[ Page 1119 ]

that "if" question is. You are supposed to know and make

your statement of fact when you ask your question. Please read

page 147 of the rules under Beauchesne .

MONEY LOANED BY B.C.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to address a

question to the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce. Would the Minister advise me how much money has

been loaned by the Industrial Development Corporation to date — Industrial Development Corporation of British Columbia, that

is?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for asking that question. None. The corporation

will hopefully be operational soon. We are making every effort to gather together

the expertise necessary to make it operational. An announcement should be made

in due course. Applications that have come across my desk are being reviewed

by a special review committee that I have appointed of in-House and outside

consultants who will advise me about the economic viability of these proposals

and will be….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member's inquiry dealt

with the amount that had been loaned to date, not with the

description of the department. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the

Industrial Development Corporation of British Columbia invested

any moneys in any corporations so far — in equity positions or

share structure as it has the power to do so under the Act?

HON. MR. LAUK: No, it has not.

MR. PHILLIPS: One more question, Mr. Speaker. Has the

Minister appointed a chairman of the Industrial Development

Corporation yet?

HON. MR. LAUK: The cabinet must do so and it has not as

yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: as he is not

spending money on operations, may I ask a supplementary

question on money spent on advertising? In view of the

Premier's and NDP's statement a year ago that the use of

government funds for general advertising would stop with a

change of government, may I ask the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce whether his advertisements of this week were

approved by cabinet before being authorized by him?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the advertisements in question

are having to do with the promotional aspects of the Department

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. They are the

regular annual budgetary activities of the department and they

are administered through our information services. They have to

do with advertisements encouraging ideas for economic

development.

The House voted the particular budget for advertising

purposes in the estimates of last spring.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the fact that a good part of

that advertisement is designed to be critical of the previous

administration, may I repeat my question? Was this type of

advertising programme approved by cabinet and approved by the

members of the cabinet who specifically stated in the campaign

that this thing would stop with a change of government?

HON. MR. LAUK: With respect to this particular vote, it was

approved by the House, not by the cabinet. Secondly, I don't

agree that the advertisement was designed to criticize the

previous administration but because of the previous

administration's record, I could see where the Member might

infer that.

OKANAGAN TELEPHONE WORKERS STRIKE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Hon. Minister of

Labour. The Okanagan Telephone strike has been on for some time

in the Okanagan and I wonder if the Minister has taken any

steps to appoint a mediator to this strike.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. BENNETT: Does the Minister anticipate an announcement

today?

HON. MR. KING: On what question, Mr. Speaker, would the

Member like an announcement?

MR. BENNETT: With regard to the settlement of the

strike.

HON. MR. KING: I haven't indicated that there has been a

settlement achieved. I have indicated that there has been a

mediator appointed. Indeed, the Associate Deputy Minister of

Labour is attempting to bring about the resolution to that

dispute, but I have no announcement to make yet.

[ Page 1120 ]

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental question, Mr. Minister. Did

both sides in the dispute request a mediator, or was this

initiated by government action?

HON. MR. KING: There was a request. I would have to check to

find out whether both parties requested intervention or not. I

believe that is the case, but I will check up. I'll take that

part of your question as notice and report back.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 115

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. It has been six weeks

since question 115 has been on the order paper. When do you

intend to answer it?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll

see which question that is.

MR. GARDOM: Question 115.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll read it.

MR. SPEAKER: The last question was not in order.

APPEALS ON MARKETING BOARD

LEGISLATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Agriculture whether he is giving any consideration to bringing

in an appeal mechanism in relation to marketing board

legislation since there seem to be some people who fear that

there is a conflict of interests as the boards presently

operate? I have had personal requests to find this out from the

Minister. Is he considering some form of appeal mechanism?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, it

requires a legislative change that likely we will be bringing

in in the next session.

TRAINING FOR AIR

POLLUTION MONITORS

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of pollution control.

With respect to this smudgey-bird or whatever the device is

that lay people will be trained in to detect air pollution,

what will be the circumstances under which they can receive

this training and then have the instrument available to them so

that they can undertake this citizen's monitoring of air

pollution in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that would require some digging to provide

an adequate answer for the Member and I will put that on my list of priorities.

HYDRO EXPORT PROFIT

MR. SMITH: A further question to the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs, concerning Hydro. He indicated in his answer

that Hydro export excess power that is generated through the

use of natural gas. Is the power exported at a profit, and if

so, how much profit does Hydro make on the export of that

particular energy source?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I do not have the figures on that.

MR. SMITH: Would the Minister take the question as

notice?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Sure, I'll take it as notice.

PURCHASE OF FRUIT GROWERS

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Transport and

Communications, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask him whether or not the

Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company has been purchased by

the government at this stage? Oh, sorry, by ICBC, not by the

government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you can ask. My answer would be that

negotiations have not quite… I'm not sure it's been signed

yet, or it doesn't take effect until a later date. But it is

certainly our intention, and so on. Agreement has been reached

with them; let me put it that way.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, please. I wonder if

you could clarify a situation for me that appears on the orders

of the day for today, Wednesday, October 31. On page 26 it says

"meetings of committees: Select Standing Committee on

Agriculture will meet at 3 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, October

31, in the Maple Room. Business: organization. G.H. Anderson,

Convener." To my understanding we have passed the time in the

business of the day when this motion might have

[ Page 1121 ]

been put. It is also my understanding that in order to have

a meeting of a committee when the House is sitting, there has

to be leave of the House granted. This leave has not been asked

for nor granted. In effect, we have two evidences here: One,

that it is another infringement on the rules of the House, and

two, that there would be a meeting taking place this afternoon

to organize, which in effect would be illegal and would not be

organizing the organization that it intends to organize. I

wonder if you would clarify this for me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion

was not called. Therefore it is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, may I point out….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, leave would have had to be

required to make that motion operative. Leave was not asked

for, therefore the very motion is no longer in order because

leave to bring that in would go past the hour that is intended

on the motion. The motion has been bypassed and is no longer

operative.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): So there's no

meeting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, of course not. The House didn't pass

anything, so how could we rule on order on something the House

didn't do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I clarify the matter for

everyone in the House? I noted the notice and drew it to the

attention of the chairman of that committee that leave of the

House had not been obtained. I notified him of that yesterday.

I would assume that he would notify the members of his

committee that they would have to obtain the leave of the

House, either by suspending the rules — asking for it by

suspending the rules — getting leave of the House to hold this

organizational meeting today, or the matter would just fall by

the wayside.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And that's what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: So I assume it has fallen by the wayside.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your

clarification. As a member of this committee, I am now in a

rather difficult situation. I understand this was discussed

yesterday. Is it in order for the House to advise, on behalf of

the chairman at this time, whether or not there is going to be

a meeting this afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: The only way I can suggest is that any Member

can ask leave of the House for the committee to sit, but other

than that we must go on with the business that otherwise is set

for today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 76, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND

PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT

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

in moving second reading of this bill, unlike the other Ministers that have

come before me, I promise you that I will not filibuster my own bill, providing

that the opposition will reciprocate to some extent.

This bill is a very simplified bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You always say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, the purpose of this bill, called the

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, is the

division of the department. For years while I've been in this

House I have noticed that the Department of Petroleum Resources

and the Department of Mineral Resources have been combined. It

was always my idea that these should be separated in order that

each one could stand on its own feet.

So I have separated them into two branches: one, the

petroleum resources and, the other one, the mineral resources.

Of course, it is one department so there will be one Deputy

over all, and there will be heads of each branch, called

Associate Deputies.

The functions of the department remain pretty well the same

as in the previous Act. The power to handle any situation:

we've added some powers in order to be commensurate with the

Mineral Act changes that we made last spring. The right to

information is in the Act; we can demand information from the

industry and receive it in order that we may give a greater

service to the industry. The right to deal with other provinces

is also in the Act.

The principle of the Act is to divide the department into

two branches so that when you look at your reports you can see

what each branch is doing.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the

Minister's explanation of the bill is completely oversimplified

as to the content of the bill — this being the Department of

Mines and Petroleum

[ Page 1122 ]

Resources Act, which re-establishes the guidelines for the

Minister to administer his department. Now many of the sections

in this Act…and while the Minister has referred to this as

a rather simple housekeeping bill, I have to disagree with the

Minister completely in that, while the provisions within this

bill in most cases are very similar to the previous Department

of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, there are some rather new

innovations which I am completely in disagreement with. Without

referring to the sections specifically, there are extremely

wide powers within this legislation….

AN HON. MEMBER: Sweeping powers again.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, sweeping, for sure. They actually sweep

the industry right into the Minister's hands. I think this is

what you will find as time goes on. The powers of acquisition

of real or personal properties, the acquisition of industrial

enterprises and mining properties and petroleum properties and

so on, is more than something to take lightly and pass on and

say, "Well, this goes hand in glove with Bill 44."

Certainly, if Bill 44 was a preface to this legislation, I

can assure you that Bill 44 certainly jarred the mining

industry. In this bill the Minister has referred to it as a

better picture. But I can assure the Minister that it is going

to be a very, very dark picture for the mining industry in

British Columbia — along with the petroleum industry — with the

extremely wide ancillary powers that the Minister is now going

to have within his jurisdiction.

Surely these powers are not really necessary unless the

Minister does have in mind the fact that he is going to take

over mines and other developments, mineral claims, and anything

that has to do with the processing or the mining industry.

Certainly the power is here to do it; and I would hardly have

thought this power would have been put in the Act unless it was

intended to be used.

This is very similar legislation to what we have had in

other bills. The debate on the Department of Transport and

Communications is another fine example of the same type of

socialist legislation. Along with that there are, again, very

extensive powers here in the hands of the cabinet in relation

to the appropriation of funds. It doesn't give any cut-off date

as there is in some legislation where an appropriation would be

made up until March 31, after which it would appear in the

estimates.

The Legislature is not going to have an opportunity to

discuss or to pass on any estimates because these funds will be

acquired from time to time upon the cabinet's instructions to

the Minister of Finance to convey the funds to the Minister of

Mines, who will then authorize a payment for whatever purposes

are set out in the legislation.

Now I see this as a very, very dark day for the mining

industry. While the Minister said there was going to be no

problem, as far as Bill 44 is concerned, in restricting mining

exploration development, it did close down mines. It did close

them down.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Tell me one.

MR. RICHTER: Tell you one? Yes. The Kendal Mining and

Exploration Company Limited is one.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've never heard of it.

MR. RICHTER: Well, it is one that lays the whole blame at

your feet — on Bill 44 — for closing their operation down. Now

there is one for you. There are other powers within this Act

that are virtually….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They never made application for a lease or

anything.

MR. RICHTER: Well, the reason they never made application

for a lease was probably because they already had the mineral

claims and it wasn't necessary. Where they would have been

caught was on the production permit.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Have they gone into production?

MR. RICHTER: The matter of fact is that Bill 44 was only a

preface to this Act and this is the real apex of the whole…

AN HON. MEMBER: They did all their mining in the Board of

Trade Building.

MR. RICHTER: …proposition of the mining industry. If the

Minister doesn't think he's going to get repercussions out of

this, he's badly mistaken.

The various sections — and I hesitate to mention them —

section 5,

section 7,

section 16: these are all types of

legislation which are completely foreign to this province. I

can't see where we are going to have a mining industry unless

the government intends to go into the mining industry itself.

It is a very high-risk industry, and there is no control over

the amount which the Minister might ask for. He may want to buy

up any number of mining companies now in business.

This is a province which has a great deal of high-risk

mining, particularly because of the low grade of ore that we

have. I personally am opposed to this legislation and I propose

to vote against this bill in second reading and in its final

stages.

Certainly there is ample room in the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources Act presently without these various

sections which give extensive

[ Page 1123 ]

powers to the Minister. Again, it is a sample of the

legislative powers that the government is seeking which will

eliminate the need for the legislators to come into this

chamber, because they can do most of these things through

order-in-council because of the wide powers that are within the

Act which really are the authorization for

orders-in-council.

Unless you have legislative authority, orders-in-council are

not legal, but with legislative authority — and you have that

authority in this Act — you can do anything. You could be the

possessor of Cominco, if it wasn't a federally registered

company. But there's nothing to stop you taking over Bethlehem,

taking over Granduc, you-name-it — you can pretty well take

them all over, providing you don't run out of funds somewhere

along the way.

I see a very, very dark day, and I refer to the Minister's

mentioning previously that this gives a better picture. I said

it was going to be a much darker picture for mining. This is

going to hit the small prospector harder, actually, than Bill

44 did. You virtually made it impossible under Bill 44 for

anyone to maintain any type of groups of claims — and it has to

be a group of claims, at least 40 claims, which would cost an

individual prospector at least $8,000 a year for the assessment

work, plus his registration and rental fee on top of that.

I don't know of any individual prospector who is going to be

in a position to pay $8,000 a year to do his assessment work.

To interest anyone at all in mineral claims, a person really

has to have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 claims as a

unit to interest a company to come in and spend large amounts

of money for development and exploration. This way I see the

end of the small man, the prospector, the person that your

government is supposed to be helping out and attempting to

assist in his efforts to make a livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, I must at this time say that I will oppose this

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, how could you?

MR. RICHTER: Certainly the official opposition will have

more to say on this matter as it proceeds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this bill dealing

with the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources is a bill

that the Minister has introduced very briefly. We appreciate

the fact that he did not take up a great amount of time on it.

However, in the mining area there are a number of factors that

must be considered and some, of course, have been touched upon

by the earlier speaker.

First, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a series of problems. It's no good saying

that the price or the return on minerals mined this year is up, which it is.

The Minister may be completely entitled to take credit for that and we would

be quite willing to give him that credit. That is one factor.

The second factor, of course, is capital investment in

mining, and the third factor, talked about by my friend for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), is prospecting.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's not in this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not in this bill but all these

things and this bill….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Wait till you get the chance to discuss it

in the proper bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well Mr. Minister, if you'll give me one

moment, what I'll suggest is that in this bill are the same

types of uncertainties, the same types of extensive powers to

the government, as we've had in other bills — Bill 44 in

particular — which have led to a situation in the mining

industry which has caused tremendous uncertainty. Therefore if

he will permit me for a moment to point out that this

legislation following the other will, I believe, accelerate

this trend to the disadvantage of British Columbia, he will I

think see the connection between this legislation and the facts

I'd like to put on the record at this time.

The first is, of course, the production. Production is up.

It's the result of six mines, major mines, major properties

being brought into production, basically in 1971. The

investment decisions were taken even before that time. So it's

a long-term process, the fruit of which is now being shown in

this increased mineral production.

The problem, however, is that capital investment is down

substantially. It was $112 million in 1972 and was down in 1972

from the $340 million in 1971. The Minister is not at fault for

this; it's a trend that is taking place because of the fact

that — regardless of what government had been returned last

year — the major projects were in production and there were

none on the horizon. However, what I think the Minister should

pay attention to, because I believe this is where his

responsibility begins, is the projections for 1973, the year

that's almost over. The projections here are $61 million to

$112 million, which is virtually half of what took place in

1972. I think that the amount that's been invested recently is

a very clear indication of the damage that is being done by the

uncertainty in the industry.

Once again, may I please assure the Minister that it's not a

question of him doing one thing or him doing another to satisfy

a group of industrialists; it's a question of him making up his

mind what he's going to do so that then there can be decisions

made by other people on the basis of him making up his mind.

He's been noted over the years for being a man of

[ Page 1124 ]

strong opinions, and I find it curious that it's taken him

this length of time to really get down and make up his mind. In

this bill, where he is being granted extra power over and above

what he had before, I think we're simply going to increase the

uncertainty, increase the difficulty that's being faced and

make it even more difficult for the mining industry in British

Columbia, as it applies to specifically bringing leases into

production and, of course, before that, prospecting.

Prospecting is a factor which I think has had perhaps the

quickest influence from the government's actions of the past

year. The prospecting and staking of claims, and the Minister

has given this information to the House by way of written

questions, is down. It's down 60 per cent from the same period

in 1972. Prospecting is just simply going down the drain.

There are a number of good reasons for it. The fact is that

there is tremendous uncertainty in the industry, uncertainty

which this bill will increase. The fact is that the production

lease is a totally unknown factor and the members of the

industry have no choice but to rely upon the good will and

common sense of the Minister. Unfortunately they've not seen

fit to put as much reliance on it as the friends of the

Minister might like.

You cannot have effective prospecting unless there is at the

end of the prospecting process a staking of claims, some

opportunity to develop the properties. If that doesn't take

place, the prospecting doesn't take place. The red tape that is

surrounding the production lease, the uncertainty that's

surrounding it, is having a very real effect. When we compare British Columbia with both the North West

Territories and the Yukon which, although not identical, have a

certain similarity to our situation here, we find that British

Columbia is going in a very different direction as far as

prospecting is concerned. In those two jurisdictions, the

prospecting levels remain very similar to previous years. In

this jurisdiction, it's falling apart. The reason, of course,

is uncertainty; the reason, of course, is the lack of knowledge

of the government's intentions; the reason is such bits of

legislation as we have here today where powers of Ministers and

purposes and functions of the department are spelled out in

very, very broad terms.

As far as the prospecting is concerned, we're now down to the lowest, I believe,

in the last six years. I'd just like to quote from a letter I received. I might

add that I asked this man, who is an expert in the industry, for his views on

what was taking place. He's an impartial person in that he gets his salary and

income not from the mining industry, per se, but from a separate source. But

he's very knowledgeable in the industry and is often called in as a consultant.

If the Minister would like to discuss this later on, perhaps after consulting

with this person, I might well give him the name so they could get together.

Anyway, he's a man well versed in the industry. He talks about the red tape

for the little prospector — and prospectors are not big people in economic terms:

"A second point is that there undoubtedly is an unnecessary amount of red tape before a prospector can

carry on even limited development work on a prospect. Some few

weeks ago, personally, I heard from a man who might be

described as a 'typical prospector' that it had taken him six

weeks to get a permit to use a small back loader in his small

place of operation in an area where there is no agriculture or

commercial forestry involved."

That's a six-week delay, strictly through red tape, the

result of legislation coming forward from this government. If

that's the type of situation that these prospectors are faced

with — and they're not wealthy people — they face in some cases

insurmountable difficulties and they tend to get out into some

other operation of mining or, indeed, out of the industry

altogether.

The point mentioned by the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) regarding assessment work is

right on as well. It's perfectly correct. The difficulty that

these people now face — the prospectors who have to have, as the

Member for Boundary-Similkameen said, approximately I think 40

leases, but we'll say 20 to 40 claims to make a go of things — is that as this industry switches from essentially underground

operations to essentially open pit operations, it's more and

more difficult to keep their claims and do the assessment work

that is required.

They are facing a real problem here as the open pit, which

requires a much larger number of claims, is of course changing

the nature of the industry and changing their ability to carry

on the assessment work which is necessary under legislation.

Under the circumstances, it's very tough on the little

prospector. Maybe the big ones can get away with it; maybe

those who are staked by larger companies, maybe those who are

tied in the sort of vertical integration of the industry into

the big corporations can get away with it, but the little guy

is really hurting very badly on this.

I'd like to make one further reference, Mr. Minister, to the

problem of uncertainty and the problem of this bill and, of

course, the problem of the question I've asked the Minister

often in this House about Crown corporations entering in and

taking over in the mining field — the question of

financing.

True, it would be nice if we could raise all the finances

for all mines in Canada. We cannot — some is foreign, some is

Canadian. But regardless of whether it's foreign or Canadian,

the financing people

[ Page

1125 ]

generally require two things: one is they require the clear

title; they don't want to get involved with heavy expenditures

when the prospector doesn't have a clear title to the claim,

and that makes sense.

The second thing that they want, of course, is some sort of

market for the product they're after. Under those circumstances

you can get massive developments such as we saw in the early

seventies in British Columbia; but without that we're not

going to get things of that nature in the future.

Now if it's the intention of the government to create a

situation in the industry where major developments do not take

place in the private sector, so that maybe a year from now a

mining corporation, a Crown corporation can come in and, in

view of the lack of major undertaking, enter in and start doing

it themselves — doing it by the government — well, if that's

the intention of the government I think the Minister should

make it clear now.

The reason is this: if the government intends to move into

this industry, I think they have a duty, to the many people in

British Columbia who are not major operators, who are trying to

make a go of things, to let them know what is going to

happen.

The situation that we presently have is virtually

intolerable. The small are getting squeezed and squeezed badly.

The major mining companies are making money hand over fist;

copper prices are virtually out of sight, for example. They're

doing well but the small people are not, and there are plenty

of small people in this industry, in particular in

prospecting.

If it's the government's intention, after creating a climate

whereby major financing does not take place and major

developments and major investments do not take place, to then

come in with its own corporation, the government, I think, is

doing a disservice to these people by not coming forward early — in the next few weeks or months — with its proposals.

The present situation where staking is off 60 per cent,

where the small person simply can't make a go of it, is driving

individuals to the wall but it's not affecting the big

companies. Of course it's creating a situation where

inevitably, perhaps, the government will feel compelled to come

in with a Crown corporation to carry out the financing aspects,

to carry out the development proposals which may be there,

which may be good proposals but which are not occurring now in

the private sector because of uncertainty.

Mr. Minister, I mentioned a large number of things which I'd like you to comment

upon, and I trust you'll do this when you close this debate. The fact is that

this legislation, following Bill 44, simply adds to the confusion and uncertainty;

it adds to the lack of knowledge of what is going on and this is particularly

true — let me repeat again — for the small person who doesn't have a law firm

full of mining law experts to advise him and he's really up against it. Unless

we get statements from the Minister as to government intentions, these small

people simply are going to get pushed harder and harder and harder until they

get pushed out completely.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): If the Minister wishes to comment,

I'll defer to the Minister while he comments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister may speak only

in closing the debate.

MR. SMITH: He can comment from where he's sitting. I forgot

that we're in second reading.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: You know, Mr. Premier, if I forgot the rules as

often as you do, then we would have something to talk about,

wouldn't we?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to second reading of this

bill intituled the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources

Act, which the Hon. Minister said was "just a simple little

housekeeping Act to actually separate the two departments of

Mines and Petroleum Resources." He said that was really what the

Act was all about, so he couldn't understand why people would

be upset about passing such

an Act since both the petroleum

division and the mining division had for a long time suggested

that it would be a good idea to have a separation of the two

departments.

Well if that was all it was, Mr. Minister, I'm sure that you

would have unanimous agreement from all the Members of this

House. But that is not what this Act is all about. Instead of

being called the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources

Act, I'd suggest a new name for it, Mr. Minister. It should be

called the "Mines and Petroleum Industry Abolition Act 1973," because that is exactly what is intended by the powers

contained in many of the sections of this Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You're not trying to put words in my

mouth, are you?

MR. SMITH: I'm not trying to put words in the Minister's

mouth. All I'm doing is reading the sections of the Act as they

are written, Mr. Speaker. If there was apprehension in the minds of the people in the

mining and petroleum business before, surely after reading this

Act they must realize that, if you carry out

chapter and verse

as it is recorded in the clauses of this Act, their days are

numbered in the

[ Page 1126 ]

Province of British Columbia. And that is an unfair

advantage, Mr. Minister, that you're taking.

You have not said what your plans are or where the thrust of

the government will be in the next few years in either the

mining or the petroleum industry. But if we look at this Act

and look at all the other Acts which have anything to do with

the control or the regulation of our basic resources since the

NDP came to power, the first thing we must realize is that

every one of these Acts reflects a preoccupation by the NDP

with take-over powers.

In every resource-oriented Act placed before this House,

whether it be mineral, petroleum, the agricultural industry,

the lumber industry, whatever, every Act contains the same type

of provision, and that is that without so much as even a

referral to the industry, you have the powers to take over and

replace the operating corporations with a Crown

corporation.

When you look at the sections in the Act, particularly

section 7, intituled "Ancillary Powers of the Minister,"

and you combine that with the provisions of

section 9,

particularly subsections (1), (2) and (3), there's ample

evidence that the Minister not only has the power to acquire,

purchase, lease, or otherwise expropriate mines and petroleum

resource companies in this province, he has the power to enter

and seize records or look at any records that may be in the

possession of any mining or petroleum company in the Province

of British Columbia.

If it were just a matter of looking at their records and

their logs, industry would not object to this. But when they

know that the reason the Minister may be wanting to search

their records and look at their logs is so that he can

determine for the benefit of the NDP whether it would be a

profitable enterprise to take over or not, they have reason for

apprehension.

There's nothing wrong with requiring industry to provide you

with ample records of what they are doing and how they are

progressing. As a matter of fact, you know you already have

that permission in the petroleum corporation Act in British

Columbia. But it's one thing to look at a company's records in

order to determine whether they are playing ball with the

government; it's quite something else to contain within that

same Act the powers of take-over so that you have the power, at

your sole discretion, at your sole decision, not only to take

over the companies but to demand from the Minister of Finance

the amount of money that's required for that particular

take-over.

The Act says in

section 16 that "The Minister of Finance" — not may but "shall pay" out of consolidated revenue whatever

impost that you demand.

Is it any wonder that the mining industry and the petroleum industry in the

Province of British Columbia feel that they have fallen on difficult times in

this province, that under the NDP administration their days are numbered in

the Province of British Columbia? To try to go to the money markets to find

the type of capital that's required is going to be extremely difficult if not

impossible for many of the well-founded, well-financed, well-established mining

and petroleum companies in this province.

Mr. Minister, before you close second reading on this bill,

you not only have a duty, you have an obligation to say loud

and clear and let it be recorded in the Journals of this House

and in Hansard , what the position of the NDP government is

towards all resource industries, be they petroleum, natural

gas, mining or whatever in the Province of British

Columbia.

If your position is a position as outlined in the Regina

Manifesto and is outlined in the Waffle Manifesto from Manitoba

that all resources should be controlled completely by the

government for the benefit of the people, then say it loud and

clear and let the industry know where they stand in the

Province of British Columbia. Because for the last year, you

have done nothing but waffle along, saying indirectly but never

directly what your intentions were, without discussion, without

ever calling them in.

You've made arbitrary decisions in every department that had

anything to do with resource development. It's about time that

the NDP, if that is their committed policy, said it loud and

clear so that everyone, including the Members of this

Legislative Assembly, know exactly the direction that you're

going.

We've had enough, Mr. Minister, of statements that were

very, very narrow to the press and to the Members of the

assembly. Then you turned right around and either brought in

Acts like this or by order-in-council made some move that

completely emasculated the rights of the companies who have

every reason to hope that their investments and the investments

of the people who bought shares in their company will be

protected by a government in this province, that they won't be

trod on, that it is not the intention of the NDP to remove

completely these people and their industries from the

province.

There's a better way of receiving revenue, and we as the

official opposition suggest to you that the best way of all is

to participate in the resources to taxation on a fair and

equitable basis — that you get the money for your benefit of

the citizens which can be re-directed into social services in

this province; that you get it through taxation. You let those

companies take the risk, but believe me, the taxpayers of the

province get all the profits.

This is a better way by far than bringing in

an Act like

this which gives you complete, unbridled power that you can

exercise at the stroke of a pen by signing an order-in-council.

It's no wonder the official opposition will not support this

type of legislation

[ Page 1127 ]

either now or at any time in the future.

This particular Act of course, as the Minister well knows,

follows the amazing pattern of the New Democratic Party in

power. I suppose all we have to decide is which Minister is

going to try and outdo the next one in arrogating to himself

the kinds of extraordinary powers and, I suppose, opportunities

as they would regard it, that any Ministers of the Crown have

ever had in this Province of British Columbia. One of the

Members, Mr. Speaker, said he's heard it before. But, Mr.

Speaker, he better hear it again because I don't think he

understands.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Is he talking to me?

MR. McGEER: We're not talking, Mr. Speaker, about ice-cream

stands. We're talking about the number two industry in British

Columbia. I'm not sure that the Minister of Mines could have

run an ice-cream stand successfully. But some on the government

side are trying, and maybe some of them will make it to the

government benches and I suspect if they do, the experience

will place them ahead of some of the Ministers of the Crown we

now have.

I think quite possibly the second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) should be in the

cabinet on the basis of his business experience. Tell me, Mr.

Speaker, who's had more business experience on that side except

for the Minister of Lands and Forests, and he's an

in-and-outer.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are talking big business when it comes

to the mining industry. How proud the Premier was the other day

when he stood in the House and told us all about the profits

that the major mining corporations were making in British

Columbia and said how wonderful it was under socialism. But as

Hon. Members have pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Richter), the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) and other Members, what we are experiencing in 1973

in the mining industry is the sum of a number of efforts by

many people in British Columbia over a long period of time. It

includes far wiser resource policies than the present Minister

has even considered.

By taking these wise policies for granted and assuming that

what is being experienced now could have been achieved without

those policies, he's destroying the very basis for the second

largest industry in British Columbia. He's destroying the very

basis for it, because he discourages the prospect — which is how

it all started. He discourages the enormous capital investment

that is required to initiate production. Make no mistake about

it. This industry is the most capital intensive of all.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he ignores the confidence that underlies all of the economic

calculations in bringing forward the production that ultimately results in a

substantial share of those profits coming to government — and in the old days,

Mr. Speaker, from government to the people in the way of benefits.

Under the terms of this Act, that reasonable cycle that has

brought us to such prosperity in British Columbia is going to

be broken. Because there is an appetite on the part of the

present cabinet, not just to take over and to control — if it's

a successful profit-making industry — to buy up the losers if

it's owned by friends of the NDP as happened with that

insurance corporation in the interior, to bail them out. But

the most interesting of all, Mr. Speaker, is to play the

market. They've all wanted to be the Ronny Grahams of this

world. Never being able to get the money on their own, they

want to play the market with the people's money. Buying stock

in mining corporations — Afton, Kaiser — getting into a little

communications — B.C. Tel. We don't know, maybe Valley Copper,

yes.

We don't know who's doing the buying, who's placing the

orders. But apparently the Premier and Finance Minister doesn't

know. But the cabinet's right in there with the high rollers on

Howe Street.

That's the public's money that's being gambled on the stock

market. Profits that are rolling into government, not as a

result of anything that this government has done but as the

result of some pretty careful groundwork laid by the former

government. Everything they did wasn't bad. I don't suppose

anybody has criticized that government more in this House over

the years than I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes. I have.

MR. McGEER: Everything they did wasn't bad, and they made

some pretty good policies in the mining field. I think they

deserve credit for that; it is on the record in Hansard . My

opinions of a good many of the bad things the government did

are on the record too.

But I'll say this: when it comes to policies in the resource

field, this present administration can't hold a candle to what

was there before. And, Mr. Speaker, that's why this year

expenditures on mining exploration are down to one-sixth of

what they were only three years ago.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He said a half.

MR. McGEER: Half of last year. If you go into this geometric

shrinking procedure there isn't going to be any left at all. It

will be like Mexico or Chile or some of these places that have

through imprudence destroyed what would be a beneficial

industry for their people.

You see $112 million last year in mining exploration and $61

million this year. That isn't going to hurt right away. That's

going to hurt four,

[ Page 1128 ]

five, six years from now, when hopefully this government

will have gone to its just reward.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You mean down the boom?

MR. McGEER: Buried, deep in the ground. And, Mr. Speaker, those who

follow are going to have a rehabilitation job to do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure are; we sure are.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I didn't know you had signed a membership

in our party. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: This isn't Quebec.

MR. McGEER: That's very interesting. Mr. Speaker, we'll

accept the good ones. That's a very nice and gracious bow from

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips); he's coming

along in opposition much better than when he was as a

government member.

H ON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Watch him carefully.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the production we have in 1973, the

profits we have in 1973 are in large part due to the buoyant

world prices for minerals. But had not the exploration work

been done and encouraged, had not the capital investment been

made and encouraged, there would be no production in our mines

to take advantage of the buoyant world market prices. That is

why what the government is experiencing and boasting about

today is happening despite their policies. It merely reflects

the lag-time, if you like, between the activities resulting

from policies and the fruits that are born from those

policies.

Now, what we have before us with this particular Act that we

debate now, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of policies that will

destroy the fruit and leave us in a position, no matter what

world prices for minerals may be, unable to capitalize upon

that, unable to provide adequate employment in the mining

industry and unable to bring to the people of British Columbia

the kind of returns they should be gaining from what is today

British Columbia's second largest industry but may not be for

very long.

I think, Mr. Speaker, as does the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith), that we are entitled to hear from the

Minister and his government answers to these questions.

One, what level of mining activity do you wish to have in British Columbia

in the future? Do you wish it to be an industry larger than it is today, equal

to what it is today, or smaller than it is today?

Secondly, what percentage of the mining industry, regardless

of what size it is, do you think it appropriate for the

government of British Columbia to own and control? All of the

mining industry? The Attorney General applauds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nobody else did.

MR. McGEER: Part of the mining industry? The Minister of

Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) does, so we have a

cabinet division already. Or none of the mining industry? Who

is for none of the mining industry? Nobody.

Let's hear it again. All of the mining industry? How many

for that? Some of the backbench. Part of the mining industry?

Half of it? How many for that? One for that. None of the mining

industry? Only on the opposition side.

But, Mr. Speaker, were you an investor, a prospector, a

little man or a big man, devoting his time and energy and

effort to the mining industry, would you not consider it

important to have some idea about that question?

If it were the intent of government to own 100 per cent of

the mining industry, what you should do is pack your bags and

go somewhere else or get out of the mining field.

If it is to be 50 per cent, then you might be encouraged to

stay at it a little bit, but the chances are you would look for

some other field — if you can find it in British Columbia — where those in power thought it ought to be run 100 per cent by

the people who are willing to work and develop that through the

sweat of their brows and not ride on the backs of others.

The mining industry is different from other industries. But

the government is starting to take the people's savings and buy

shares on the open market. A little bit of telephone here, a

little big of mining there.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Where did you get that?

MR. McGEER: Well, the Premier wasn't sure who was doing it.

But, Mr. Speaker, had the government not been doing this kind

of thing, it wouldn't have been necessary for the opposition

Members to ask the direct question, nor would you have found

the former Minister of Finance and Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

doing anything but telling the truth and absolutely denying

that the government was doing it or ever would do it. Instead,

the kind of waffling we had on the part of the Premier today

indicates quite clearly that this is going on. Anyway, the

Members of the opposition are well aware of it.

The point I'm trying to make….

[ Page 1129 ]

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, I wish you'd do it where there's no money

invested. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is simply

this: no government is going to get wealthy enough from the

people's taxes, no matter how much they deny in the way of

hospitals, education or other services to the public, to buy or

expropriate all the assets of every industry in this province.

There isn't that much money in the tax pocket.

The government, no matter how ambitious it may be with the

people's money, is going to have to make some choices. For

example, if it's the telephone company, it's somewhere between

$350 million and a billion there. If it's all the mines in

British Columbia, you are into several billion. So you can't

have all of every industry.

Maybe if it is your ambition to do that, it might be

worthwhile and helpful if you'd say which industry you are

going to attack and destroy first so that the people who are

interested in creating things would know which field to switch

into.

It looks, from this particular bill, as though the mining

industry is the particular one for destruction. Yesterday we

thought the transportation and communications industries were

the ones that were selected for destruction. So it is possible,

you see, with each of these bills that is being brought

forward. Obviously you can't take over everything in the

communications field, everything in the mining field,

everything in the industrial field all at once.

If your answer is, Mr. Minister,100 per cent for mining, or

even 50 per cent for mining, you might tell us whether that was

going to be done before the petroleum industry was taken over,

the telephone company and all the communications industry. That

way the people who were in it would know how many years they

had before they had to get out.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You can

make a better speech than that. Come on.

MR. McGEER: The Minister says I can do better than this.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he can not.

MR. McGEER: What the public wants is for the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to

do better for the public. What you are doing is undermining

their future.

It is all very well for these Ministers to sit and smile smugly while they

move to dismantle the economical machinery of British Columbia in the guise

of helping the people, when they are taking their profits and legitimate tax

money and using it to gamble on the stock market to take over corporations —

and attempting to do all of these things that they were incapable of doing before

they were given power by the people.

You are not going to retain that power very long as long as

you concentrate on going down the pathway you are selecting

with these particular bills.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I take it back. It's a fantastic

speech.

MR. McGEER: What we should do is hear from every single one

of these Ministers, starting with the Minister of Mines right now — to

tell us what he is going to get in the way of finances — the public tax

money — to implement this business of attempting to take over the

industry and dismantle the successes of past years.

One cannot

emphasize too strongly that the pattern being

developed by the New Democratic Party, with bill after bill

after bill that they introduce in this House, is one that

completely destroys and undermines the confidence of the

private sector which has been responsible for producing the

taxes which these people are now committing in the most

irresponsible possible fashion.

I doubt if there is a better example of the results of these

policies than in the mining industry, where we have seen, in a

matter of only three years, the virtual disappearance of

exploration in this area. It is down 50 per cent from just a

year ago, which was down to half of what it was only two years

before that. It's a sorry record and one which isn't being

helped by this particular piece of legislation.

Naturally we are against it because we are for industrial

development in British Columbia. If we can do nothing else than

to flush out from that Minister exactly how fast he intends to

move in destroying the fabric of the mining industry in British

Columbia, we will have done some small service to the people of

British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): When discussing the

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, I think that

the most shocking thing here relative to this Act is, again,

those broad powers — the broad powers being taken to take over

any industry possible — not only to take over any industry, but

to emasculate the powers of this Legislative Assembly.

I think the most shocking thing in this bill is the fact

that the Minister doesn't understand, he fails to comprehend,

the type of powers that are contained in the legislation he is

responsible to administer. It is a shocking thing.

It is well recognized in the Kootenays that when

[ Page 1130 ]

he was a warehouse man for Cominco, he couldn't even keep

track of the nuts and bolts up there. How can he possibly be

able to administer

an Act as broad and powerful as that which

we are discussing right now?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's very shocking, very shocking, to see a

Minister who can't keep track of the number of nuts and bolts

and pipe wrenches for Cominco, and expects to be able to

administer these broad sweeping powers contained in this Act.

No, this is absolute power they are asking for here. It is

really iron-heeled socialism in full bloom. That's what it

is.

I was going to say slowly but surely, but that isn't the answer.

It's rapidly and surely…they are in the process of destroying the

mining industry of British Columbia. They are destroying the mining

industry.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Are there any

expropriation powers in this bill?

MR. CHABOT: The Attorney General says: "Are there any

expropriation powers in this bill?"

Section 7 says "for the

purpose of carrying out his duties, powers, and functions, the

minister may purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire any real or

personal property; with the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council purchase, lease, or otherwise

acquire any business or commercial or industrial enterprise

relating to mineral or petroleum resources." — without so much

as your leave from this Legislative Assembly.

After all, you fail to realize, Mr. Attorney General,

through you, Mr. Speaker, that we are representatives of the

people, on the floor of this assembly, and we must speak out on

behalf of the people when we see the powers that exist in this

assembly being eroded like we have never experienced before, in

the last few weeks.

No, we see what is happening to the mining industry because

of the attitude of that government and the statements of that

government as well. Now we are seeing it in the legislative

programmes — the drastic increase. How do you expect the mining

industry, which is the type of an industry that has to attract

risk capital — which is difficult to come by — to finance

exploration and development in British Columbia with this kind

of legislation? I wish the Minister could answer that.

Or is there an insidious plan on the part of this government

to deplete exploration and development in the mining industry

so that they can take over the mining and petroleum industry in

our province? Is that the exercise? Is that the programme of

this government? If it is, you have the responsibility to tell

these people so they know where they stand.

No, I think one of the most shocking things is the power of

the expenditure of public funds without so much as your leave.

We have seen it contained in other pieces of legislation as

well. I think that it is important maybe that I read into the

record a couple of quotes relative to the rights and powers of

the Legislative Assembly to spend the taxpayers' dollars. Mr.

Speaker, William Gladstone in 1891, a famous politician in

England, had this to say about the powers of the Legislative

Assembly in spending the taxpayers' dollars:

"The finance of the country is ultimately associated with

the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by

of Commons, by any possibility, lost the power of the control

over the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very

liberty will be worth very little in comparison."

That powerful leverage has been what is commonly know as the

"power of the purse," the control of the House of

Commons over public expenditure. We see this being eroded by

this legislation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Every cent comes before this House.

MR. CHABOT: Every cent comes before this House! The Attorney

General says that every cent comes before this House. There are

broad powers contained in this legislation for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which everyone knows is the

cabinet, to spend public dollars without so much as a

by-your-leave from this Legislative Assembly.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You are not responsible to this House, Mr.

Attorney General, and you know it. You are most

irresponsible.

Another quote on the control of the purse had this to say: This was Paul Einsig.

He said:

"Accountability, in the narrow sense of the term, means that

the executive has to submit accounts of completed public

expenditures for inspection by parliament or by parliamentary

nominees. In a broader sense it means the responsibility of

the administration to parliament for public expenditures. In

this sense, accountability means not only the submission of

accounts for inspection, but also parliament's right to

criticize public expenditure and to sanctions in case of

unauthorized appropriation."

Yes, it's in the bill, Mr. Minister. That's what I was

saying a little earlier. You wouldn't understand the

[ Page

1131 ]

bill and that's why it's necessary that I tell you what the

powers are that you have in this bill.

"Parliament may well prescribe the objective for which the

revenue of the executive is to be expended. Once the money is

in the hands of the executive, parliament becomes powerless. It

is not in a position to prevent the executive from disregarding

or exceeding appropriations. All that parliament can do is to

insist on accountability for the expenditure in order to

ascertain whether, in fact, the money was spent in accordance

with appropriations and, if not, to criticize and punish

offending administrators."

We don't see any appropriation here whatsoever. It's

blank-cheque legislation. Where is your specific amount that

you need to administer this piece of legislation? It's not

there. No way. You don't have to put it in the estimates, and

you know it, Mr. Minister.

"It is my opinion that if parliament has not the power to

scrutinize expenditures prior to legislation, then already the

power of parliament is minimized. It is not in keeping with

true parliamentary procedure if the Legislature can only

criticize after the facts because then the power is shifted,

not to parliament, but to the government. It is completely

pointless to even bring expenditures to the House."

The power of parliament is being destroyed because this

government, Mr. Speaker, at this very time is out there in the

marketplace through some secret agent acquiring shares in the

mining industry, in the pipeline industry, and maybe B.C. Tel — we don't know. I think if they want to invest in these kinds of

corporations they should specifically say what kinds of dollars

should be spent. The Revenue Act is a complete blank cheque

piece of legislation such as this piece of legislation we are

presently discussing. No, this is dictatorial, completely

ruthless and reckless, undemocratic legislation.

The Minister smiles, and the Minister waves his arms around,

as if it's a big joke. No wonder he couldn't keep track of the

nuts and bolts at Cominco — no wonder!

AN HON. MEMBER: He keeps track of the nuts, all right.

MR. CHABOT: This legislation will ultimately destroy not only the mining

and petroleum industry, but will ultimately destroy the power of this parliament

as well. It's legislation that I can't endorse. It's legislation that any free-thinking

man, or a free-thinking Member of this assembly can't possibly support.

I hope we'll hear from those sheep in the backbench over

there. They'll stand up and say whether they believe that the

power of parliament should be eroded. I hope they'll speak and

say whether they believe we should continue and accelerate the

destruction of the mining and petroleum industry in this

province, because if they don't speak out now, they might never

have another chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ooh!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: I won't be offended if everybody goes back to

their tea and coffee.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: It's been suggested that we'll go to any length

to get an audience in here.

Once of the basic policies of this government and one of the

main planks of the platform during the election was the

judicious use of natural resources. It was very much a central

theme to the socialist election platform, and rightly so. The

world at large has become aware of the fact that resources

are

[ Page 1132 ]

finite….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: I'm glad you're on my side, Mr. Speaker. As a

realization of that very serious fact in the face of rising

population, the whole question of resource management has

become one of the primary responsibilities of all governments,

provincial, federal and worldwide.

It seems to me from this bill and bills which we debated at

the spring session that the government is letting its ideology

get in the way of a more practical reasonable approach to the

mining industry. The government has made it quite clear in many

statements in the past that profit is a dirty word and that

people who invest in mines in the hope of making a profit are

something less than honourable.

We on this side of the House just want to make two things

very plain. First of all, the husbanding or the judicious use

of natural resources is an important responsibility which we

accept as being receiving high priority from any government. We

would support this government's aim and dedication to use

resources wisely and for the best return to the citizens of

British Columbia.

At the same time, however, with particular reference to

mining, we have to point out, if the government doesn't realize

it, that it is rather a unique area in which resources are

produced from the earth. If it isn't unique in any other

respect, it is in the degree of risk which is involved in the

exploring for mines and the expense involved in getting the

mine into production. Of course, that has been made more

difficult by government legislation also, which holds the

mining industry at a disadvantage on the basis of the

production permit which the Minister introduced in a previous

bill.

Mining involves a great degree of risk with large sums of

money; a corollary is that the mining industry must have

incentives and not threats. It's typical of much of the

legislation of this government, this bill included, that the

mining industry is living in fear of unfair competition. We

will be debating the same under the Petroleum Corporation Act

which gives the power to the government to explore for

petroleum and natural gas.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it should be made painfully clear, if it has not been

done already by former speakers, that you can hardly expect people to put millions

of dollars of investment into this industry when there's legislation on the

statute books which makes it possible for the government to take over that industry

or segments of it piece by piece or, alternatively, to depress the private sector's

interest in the mining industry, which would ultimately depress the financial

value of the industry and make the takeover price that much cheaper. That certainly

makes financial sense but I'm not sure it makes moral sense. I don't think it

is fair that the government should leave the public and the mining industry

in such a degree of uncertainty.

The figures have been published in the brief which was

presented to the Minister in September of this year, and I'm

sure some of the other speakers have mentioned this. Just for

the record, Mr. Speaker, the degree to which interest in the

mining industry has dropped off should be recorded. The figures

which were quoted were: mineral exploration down by 31.6 per

cent; claims in the first six months of 1973 have dropped from

29,614 to 15,000; no new, large, low-grade mine developments

have been announced at all in 1973, yet six such mines went

into production in 1971-72. Incidentally, in our neighbours

north in the Yukon and the North West, mineral exploration

expenditure and claims are up by 100 per cent. This would seem

to suggest that while there is fear and hesitancy in the mining

industry in British Columbia, those interested in exploring and

staking claims have moved north where presumably the climate is

a little more certain and favourable for that exploration.

In the brief presented to the government, it also mentions

that there has been a considerable decrease in students seeking

a career in geology at the University of British Columbia. I

think that clearly establishes that there is uncertainty and

reluctance of people to invest large amounts of risk capital in

view of the government's general policy in many areas and its

specific policy in the mining area not specifically in this

bill but in previous bills in the spring session; Certainly by

outlining the purpose and functions of the Mining department

under

section 6 of this bill.

The Attorney General keeps chirping in with his little bit

that this bill doesn't include any powers of expropriation.

Again, that seems to be the only avenue of defence which this

government has to offer when the opposition repeatedly express

concern about the extent of powers invested in this bill and

other bills. As I've said before, there are several ways to

skin a cat. You don't have to control an industry just by

expropriating it. If you depress interest in that industry by

the investing public, and the financial value of that industry

drops, as indeed it must, then of course it's very easy for the

government to get fire-sale prices in buying out the industry,

whether

[ Page 1133 ]

it's mines or petroleum or telephone or transportation or

any other industry.

The point never seems to be understood by the government

that it is the indirect and long-term effect of its legislation

which will give it the power the government claims at the

moment it is not seeking.

I think it is becoming a little tedious to give us this

feeble excuse that you cannot expropriate under this Act every

time we complain about the power. The fact of the matter is,

Mr. Speaker, that the wise use of natural resources must always

involve a position of trust and cooperation between government

and the private sector. I think this applies in any aspect of

the development of resources whether they be coal, oil, gas,

and so on.

I've had approaches from the mining industry by letter, by

verbal contact and in the form of this brief which we've all

been made aware of. If you read the newspapers, the comments

there indicate anything but confidence by the mining industry

in this government. Instead of confidence, there's a very

substantial degree of fear.

No wonder, when one looks at sections 6 and 7. Again we have

the same phraseology as we had in the bill last night in

transportation: "ancillary powers." I always thought, Mr.

Speaker, the word "ancillary" meant some subsidiary powers,

some lesser powers going along with the main power. If you read

the particular

section under that heading, there's nothing very

subsidiary about what the Minister can do under this

section.

Regardless of the financial aspects and the obvious

motivation of the government later on to acquire the industry

at fire-sale prices, there is the whole question of jobs. If

the interest in the industry drops off, unquestionably the

number of jobs provided in a primary and secondary way through

the mining industry will diminish. Surely this is a government

that came to power saying that it would do a great deal in

every way possible to enhance jobs in this province. This

attitude to mining and the fear of government involvement,

partially or totally, does nothing to improve the job

situation.

In discussing this bill and in talking about power, we are

always reassured by the government that this is just a small

housekeeping bill. We had that comment from the Attorney

General when I rose to speak; here was just another of these

housekeeping bills. I just shudder to think what kind of bill

we're going to be faced with when the government admits that

it's something much more than housekeeping. It's difficult to

imagine what more power could be given to the Minister of Mines

under this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, there's no power for expropriation

in there….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You should be

honest and take the power to expropriate. Then we know where

you stand.

MR. WALLACE: Well, here we are again with the Attorney

General soothing the situation as best he can by saying there's

no power of expropriation. I think the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) makes the point very well:

maybe you would be better to expropriate. If there was any

skulduggery involved in that, there would be access to the

courts to decide whether the settlement was fair, as in the

case of B.C. Electric.

This way isn't the fair way; this is the way to put

everybody in the industry into fear and apprehension. The value

of the mining stock drops, there is less investment, and

everybody in the industry is in a state of fear which depresses

the financial value of the industry, making it much easier for

the government to take over partially or directly. In many

ways, as the Member has just said, it might be a more honest

and more direct way to grant the powers of expropriation; at

least the investor and the public and the whole community of

British Columbia would know where we stood.

At the moment, there is this uncertainty because the public

and the investors and those who might be willing to put risk

capital into mining are wondering what that government might

do. In a matter of such importance as the natural resources, it

is very bad for the economic future of this province if this

kind of uncertainty and suspicion is allowed to continue.

I read the same kind of comments from the forest industry:

they wish the so-called blueprint for the use of our forests

would be unfolded by this government so that we know where we

stand and so that the investor would know what the long-range

plans for the use of our timber resources are. Mr. Speaker, I

think it's obviously falling on deaf ears.

The Attorney General's repetitive comeback really misses the

point completely — or he chooses to miss the point. But the

fact is that this is bad for the economic future of this

province. At a time when we have all kinds of rich resources in

the ground which could provide the kind of tax money to pay for

our social services, private investors are holding back and I

suspect they'll continue to hold back.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps when he winds up the second reading of

this debate he will tell us in more specific detail just

exactly how he plans to use this

[ Page 1134 ]

power. Maybe you can assure us or give us the promise of

amendments. The government's always telling us it will listen

to our amendments. Maybe you should have a few of your own, in

light of the criticism you received from this side of the

House.

The fact is that this is a depressing influence in the

powers it provides to investment in the mining industry. In our

opinion and in the opinion of our party, everybody is suffering

as a result.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to reiterate the remarks the previous

speakers made when this bill was introduced a few moments

ago.

The Minister and the Attorney General have said it's just a

housekeeping bill. You know, Hitler had a theory, Mr. Speaker,

that if you tell a lie often enough the people will finally

believe it. I'm beginning to believe the socialist government

that we have in British Columbia is working on that same

theory, that if you mislead the people often enough they will

finally believe you.

Unfortunately for the socialists we have in the British

parliamentary system an opposition. It is the duty of the

opposition to tell it like it is. That's why we have to tell it

like it is with regard to this bill and with regard to 99 per

cent of the bills that the socialists have brought in in the

past session and are bringing in this session. They are trying

to create in British Columbia a complete socialist state with

the Waffle Manifesto being the blueprint. Regardless of how you

cloud this in niceties, regardless of how much you smile, Mr.

Minister of Mines, this is what is happening in British

Columbia.

I fear for the economy of British Columbia because the job

of governing this province as it was before you took on all

these additional responsibilities, before you created all of

these state-owned industries — the job as it was was too big

for the government that took power a year ago last August.

Under ordinary circumstances, as the province was being run,

the job was too big. Now that you are in the process of

creating this fantastic octopus that is going to have its

tentacles into every phase of life and industry in British

Columbia, the job is too big, because there isn't enough

business experience over there to look after it.

Already the activities of this government of piling blunder

upon blunder are being recognized by the population. I'll tell

you they're concerned and they're going to be more concerned

when they realize the full impact of this Bill 76.

The government hasn't proven in the year or more that it's been in power that

it can even run a simple operation like a ferry without blundering it, making

blunder after blunder. The British Columbia–owned railway, the same thing, blunder

after blunder. The people are finding out exactly how much business experience

this government's got — none, absolutely none.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you read the Minty report on your

blunder?

MR. PHILLIPS: I read all about how well the British Columbia

Railway was run; I read all about how well the British Columbia

Railway was run.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just read the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, would you please confine

yourself to the principle of this bill which has to do with the

organization of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources

of the province?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

It has to do with creating another department in order to

take over the petroleum industry in British Columbia. That's

the intent of this bill.

The housekeeping. Sure, the housekeeping is there; the bill

is there; but the true intent behind the bill is to take over

completely the petroleum industry in British Columbia. That's

what it's all about. That's where it is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've been sniffing glue.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what you said!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General says

I've been sniffing glue. I haven't been sniffing glue because,

if I did sniff glue, I would be able to see what is going to

happen in British Columbia and then I would have to tell the

people about it. I've got a bad enough dream right now, Mr.

Speaker. I visualize what's going to happen right now. I don't

know what I would do. I would see so many blunders….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You need my help.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would see the economy of British Columbia

going to such depths of despair that I really don't know what

I'd do. I'm having trouble enough just containing myself

without sniffing glue.

[ Page 1135 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I take it back. You don't need a

stimulant of any kind.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll be your social worker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's stuck in his own glue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Nationalized industries have got what seems to

be a better idea. Of course, when they take over these

industries, or they threaten to take them over, they create and

attract from all of Canada the better-idea men. I don't know

where these socialists come from. I think, Mr. Speaker, they

come out of the woodwork.

When they read this bill in all parts of Canada and England

and all over everywhere, they'll be flocking to British

Columbia to get in on the action. The idea is that they make

the service dear and less attractive and then they can do away

with those parts which they don't want.

And who suffers, Mr. Speaker? The population of British

Columbia. This is just another tentacle of the octopus that the

state socialists are building up in British Columbia, the

one-headed monster with tentacles reaching out into every

phase: financial, mining, lumber, transportation, agriculture.

The bills are all there and this just adds to the collection.

Another tentacle, Mr. Speaker.

It's unfortunate because when this government came to power

the Premier used to stand in his place in this Legislature and

say, "Trust us, trust us, trust us. We're not going to do

this." I stood in this Legislature at the spring session and

predicted almost word for word what would happen in the mining

industry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's happening?

MR. PHILLIPS: Exploration is ceasing in the mining industry

because of legislation that was introduced in the spring

session. I predicted it, it happened. And I hate to stand here

and say I told you so.

But the Premier stands up and he says, "Oh, but look at the profits, look at

the profits, look what's happening in the mining industry." The Premier hasn't

got enough business experience to realize that what is going to happen five

and 10 years from now has to be planned now. And the Premier knows better —

or at least he should know better or he should give up the Department of Finance

to somebody who does. I don't know who he'd give it to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stick to the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Premier, I'll stick to the bill and

I will advise the people of British Columbia that this is just

one more spike in the coffin, one more spike in the coffin

that's going to seal the lid on mining explorations and on

petroleum exploration. And what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll resign if you'll resign if you're wrong.

Certainly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right.

MR. PHILLIPS: And you've been wrong already. I predicted it

and I was right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You say there's no more metal

exploration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your point, is it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. Now the Premier gets all upset, Mr.

Speaker. I can understand why the Premier gets all upset.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is my bill. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the whole

House and not carry on a conversation with just one Member?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Mines says

it's his bill, but the Minister of Mines is going to be long

gone in about, oh, I predict maybe a year-and-a-half, two years

at the most. The Minister of Mines is going to retire

peacefully — to his constituency. But I wish he'd do it now

before he completely destroys his department. When there are no

jobs and no exploration in the oil patch the Minister of Mines

will be cozily retired on a great big pension, laughing about

the great socialist state he created.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Like W.A.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: He'll be long, gone. And unfortunately, if the

mess he creates is left on the shoulders of the Premier, well,

the Premier is going to be long gone also.

[ Page 1136 ]

We've got to take a good look at natural resources. One

David Cass-Beggs, just recently at a convention in Harrison Hot

Springs, predicted that we are phasing out of the Industrial

Revolution — and this has a lot to do with this bill because it

was really the discovery of petroleum products that created the

Industrial Revolution, as we know it today; it was the

beginning of the real Industrial Revolution.

Mr. Cass-Beggs, who is in charge of one of our largest

energy-producing utilities in British Columbia — B.C. Hydro — says that towards the beginning of the '90s, the end of the

'80s, the use of hydrocarbons as we know it today to create

energy is going to be phased out. We might phase this out not

knowing how much is left in the ground. That's what really

bothers me. We don't know how much.

We talk about an energy shortage, and we say we've got to

take over the Department of Petroleum Resources because the oil

companies are ripping off our resources. It's the oil companies

that have discovered what is there.

The millions and millions of dollars that it requires to

produce the energy from the petroleum resources we know now is

not going to be available from the public of British Columbia.

You would break them as taxpayers, and the Minister has got to

realize that.

There is untold petroleum energy underneath the surface of

the earth that we will never discover unless the incentive to

discover it is there — unless the Minister plans to go out and

buy up his own exploration company and his own drilling

companies. If he does, Mr. Speaker, the public of British

Columbia are going to be investing millions and millions and

millions of their tax dollars creating this department,

creating this corporation, and it will be many, many years

before they ever realize any return on that investment.

Now is that what you intend to do with the tax dollars? Is

that what you intend to do? You say you want to protect the tax

dollars of the people of British Columbia? It'll be years and

years, if you start a petroleum corporation, before they will

realize any true revenue and if you had the business experience

that you should have to run this government, you'd know

that.

But no, you carry on blindly, based on a theory that looks

good on paper, Mr. Speaker, but nowhere in the world has it

ever worked in practice or application. Why does this

government have to be driven blindly on to create a socialist

state in this province that the people didn't give them

authority to create?

Mr. Speaker, I have to vote against this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: After all that?

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to vote against it, Mr. Speaker,

because it isn't just a simple bookkeeping bill, as the

Minister would like us to believe. The sad and sorry part of it

all is that when the situation which this bill is going to

create comes to fruition and the people finally realize what a

mistake they've made, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) will be off somewhere nice and

neatly retired.

Mr. Speaker, it's a shame. It's a shame that the affairs of

British Columbia are being run today in such a horrible way;

it's a shame that such a large one-headed octopus is being

created. It will take us ages to get all those tentacles back

out of every facet of life in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have two heads.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You had a hydra-headed one on the

Hydro.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a sad and sorry rainy day here in British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to vote on that?

MR. PHILLIPS: The government, with their crushing power,

will crush it through. With their overwhelming power you can be

assured, Mr. Speaker, that second reading of this bill will

pass.

They've got too much power. It's gone to their heads. But we

in the opposition will stand here and fight until all our

energies are gone to protect the rights of the people of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the rest of your…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The last speaker drove his own Members

out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines closes the

debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I promised at the start that

I wouldn't filibuster my own bill and I want to thank the

opposition for cooperating with me in that respect. I thought

for a while that it was going to get out of hand, but it has

done pretty well.

I'm just going to say a few words about what the last

speaker said before he leaves for a cup of coffee. He said that

the Industrial Revolution was started when they found oil.

Actually he should have said steam, because we still get some

steam around here. But the discovery of steam was the start of

the Industrial Revolution.

[ Page 1137 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: With the run on hot air, you could keep it

going forever.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did take exception when the Hon. Member

talked about a "lie" and "misleading." It made me think of a

former Member in this House. I don't want to be compared to him

in any way, but I think that the Hon. Member must have been

thinking about him when he spoke about this problem, because

Mr. Gaglardi, when he was in this House one time said, "if I am

telling a lie it's because I think I'm telling the truth."

I think you had a very difficult job in trying to prove

there was something wrong in this bill, because you didn't

really attack the bill at all.

Now I'm going to go over a few of the remarks made. The one

man who should know something about the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resource's is the former Minister of Mines, the Hon.

Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter). I always

appreciate his talks in the House; I appreciate all the talks,

because it's from these debates that you get a lot of

information.

I don't know which one it was who gave the information, but

the former Minister of Mines was talking about the

wide-sweeping powers in this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Swooping powers!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I notice that there was a bill passed

under the previous government — I have it in front of me, and

there were many other similar ones — and this was Kootenay

Canal Land Acquisition Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It states at the end of it: "The Minister

of Finance shall pay from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the

costs, expenses, and compensation required to be paid in

respect of the acquisition of land and improvements."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, shame!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When you talk about wide-sweeping powers, you shouldn't

talk to me about them because I know what wide-sweeping powers are and what

it has done in my area in regard to the acquisition of land on the Libby pondage,

on the acquisition of homes in the Natal area. When you talk about acquisition,

that was the kind of acquisition that I've got no time for. You stole some of

those properties from the people. I don't think it was…. Well, we're still

having problems with what was done by the previous government. Orders-in-council,

any of this, has to be made by the cabinet, so you don't need to worry about

the wide-sweeping Powers. As far as having these powers, you've got to be prepared

for any possibility. My office has been over-run by people who own claims and

want to get the mines going to have us participate in them.

Maybe I'm very conservative. It's very difficult to get any

money out of me. That's one of the problems that they've got.

It's difficult to get any money out of me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They won't get it out of me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Take him on for a partner.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to make sure that whenever we make

a deal…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Co-op Car Sales, Don.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …in regard to any participation, we

want to make sure what the mines are all about. That is the

reason that we brought in some of the legislation last

spring.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that we

should have a good….

AN HON. MEMBER: Co-operation.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, he said "judiciously looking after the

resources of the province." How can you judiciously look after

the resources of the province if you haven't got the

information concerning how these resources are going to be

depleted? You're dealing here with a non-replenishable

resource, a resource that's not only going to benefit our

generation but it's going to benefit generations to come. I say

that when we talk about the judicious use of this resource we

must consider the needs of the people.

There are many other things that I'd like to go through for

the Member for North Peace River, but a lot of them are just

repeating. Nobody went into detail as to what I was doing

wrong, so I can't very well go into the whole picture.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) had

a letter about a placer miner and the problems that he had.

Don't forget that this province was built first on placer

mining, and today you haven't got any actual gold mines in the

province. We hope to ensure that we'll have copper and other

minerals in this province long after we are gone for the next

generations that are coming up.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 1138 ]

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

Bill 76 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 77, Mr.

Speaker.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This bill deals with steam, and I promise

you that it's got nothing to do with the opposition.

Geothermal energy comes from down in the earth. They usually

drill from 2,000 to 8,000 feet. The steam that is produced — some of it is called wet steam, some dry steam. The steam that

is produced is used to produce electrical energy to run

dynamos.

This originated in 1904 and Larderello, Italy had the first

plant, from what information I can gather. Today we have

electricity produced from geothermal energy in New Zealand,

Japan, Russia, the U.S., Mexico, Iceland, Chile — Chile is only

in the exploration stage — El Salvador, France, Taiwan and

Turkey.

Every one of these places has the control of geothermal

energy under the Crown — or under the public. The only place

that develops it privately is the United States. The others do

it for the public good, not for the profit that they can get

out of it.

They reserve the rights to the government agencies. The

purpose of this bill is that we will place the rights to this

geothermal energy under the Crown so that in the future, if

anybody wants to claim it, they will have to come to the

Crown.

I move second reading.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a steamy bill.

There's only one question that I would have, and I would hope

that the Minister would reply when he winds up the debate.

Where existing resorts do have certain rights on hot springs,

will this legislation supercede the right that they would have

through the Water Rights Branch or to anything of this

nature?

I realize that not only does this occur on the surface of

the soil, but it also occurs under the seas. We have what is

known as hot spots, or hot boils, where the minerals come up

and they are deposited on the floor of the sea. Will this have

any bearing on those particular hot spots? There are a number

of them on the west coast of the Province of British Columbia

where the minerals, through the intense heat, come to the

surface of the soil and are deposited in the water on the floor

of the ocean.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister

replies, is there any further debate on the question? The

Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It is usually 2,000 feet down or more than

they drill, so it's not applying to the hot springs as they

come to the surface. It applies to the steam that you can

develop away down in the earth. So that answers your question.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 77 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker,

second reading of Bill 80.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MINES REGULATION ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is an amendment to the Mines

Regulation Act , Mr. Speaker. Governments have been accused of

doing too much regulation by order-in-council, but this is one

area where it has always been done by legislation. It involves

quite a number of regulations and commenced some 75 years ago

when they started to develop safety conditions in the mines.

Each year new technological changes bring a great number of new

problems. One of these technological changes has been the

open-pit mining of today, where you have very large trucks

operating — 100- and 200-ton trucks. We find quite a number of

accidents have happened and we've had to tighten up on the

regulations considerably in that regard.

Another point in this amendment is the reclamation for exploration and developing

purposes.

[ Page

1139 ]

Previous to this summer reclamation and exploration only

applied to those places that were producing. We passed an

order-in-council, which is included in this now as legislation,

where a person who is going to explore or develop with

machinery must present their plans for reclamation to the

department, which I think will be well-accepted by everybody

here.

Another very important item in the bill is the certification

of miners. Any who were here in previous years will remember

that I fought hard many times to have the certification of

miners. I feel that mining is very risky, very hard work and

that it's the sort of work that needs a great deal of

experience, just as much as you'd need as a plumber or a

machinist. You need a great deal of experience when it comes to

mining.

Another problem is that if anybody hadn't been down in a

mine I'm sure that they wouldn't go down there unless it was

that they had to have a job. Undoubtedly, many of them like it

after they get there for a while. Nevertheless, every time you

go underground you take your life in your hands. We've had many

very serious accidents in mining. The safety regulations built

up over the years have improved the safety record of the mines,

but not sufficiently. To some extent, we can put the best

regulations on paper, but unless they're carried out and unless

they're policed on the job…. Don't forget that these

regulations are made for the men who are working on the job,

and what I'm trying to do is to get across to the men that it

is their job to police these regulations and see that they are

lived up to. It is the duty of management also, but it concerns

the safety of the men in the mines.

We have at the present time safety committees in most mines

that go around checking on the safety conditions. Last spring I

had some problems. Prior to this government coming into power,

the inspectors used to go to the mines and take management

along with them, but they didn't take any of the employees

along — the men that were really concerned about the safety

conditions.

Due to this, they built up a suspicion between the employees

and the management. Sometimes the employees figured that

management and the inspectors were in cahoots. I agree with the

previous Minister of Mines (Mr. Richter) that this was not so,

but that suspicion arises there. I gave instruction to my

inspectors that when they go to a mine to inspect it they must

take along with them at least one member of the safety

committee so that they know what is going on as well as the

management. It has worked very well, but it takes a little time

to get it really across.

With the new regulations, I'm sure that we're going to have

better times and a better safety record in the mines and that

less people will be killed and maimed in this great

industry.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has described,

this is a regulatory bill. The only point on which I can't

agree with the Minister is the fact that where a mining company

disturbed any soil previous to going into production, formerly

it was my instruction that they must get the necessary

reclamation permit to take care of any disturbances, any

trenching or any redirection of seepage that might come in by

way of melting snow and so on. This was certainly practised, to

the best of my knowledge. If it wasn't, I wasn't aware that it

wasn't being practised. It's most necessary when you disturb

any soil that the necessary precautions be taken for

reclamation of that and also for safety purposes in relation to

hillside sliding and problems of this nature.

Now, the only other recommendation that I would have for the

Minister, and actually I got this from the Minister when he was

in the opposition…. When I had the Coal Mines Regulation Act

before this House on previous occasions, it was his

recommendation that they go to an appropriate select standing

committee for study. They did, and the committee approved them.

Now I would recommend that with this type of regulation, this

would be a good forum before which to put the legislation for

scrutiny. However, I do know….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's been to committee all summer.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, but not a select standing committee of

this House, because a select standing committee of this House

never was given any function by way of the former Legislature

back in the spring; nor did they sit during that period of

time. I do know — and I practised the same practices as the

Minister has — that industry plus the unions plus the

departmental people have promulgated these regulations in

concert together, and this is a very good forum in which to

have such regulations promulgated. However, for the benefit of

Members who may not be conversant with mining, such as the

Minister is and probably myself and maybe others in this House,

it is exceptionally educational to know that the individuals

progressively are being protected by new regulations in light

of new technology that's coming into force and effect in the

mining industry.

We will support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: We, too, will support second reading of this

bill, as we will with respect to Bill 95. Certainly every

Member of this House must be in favour of continued safety

improvements with respect to the operation of mines, both

surface and underground. We've had too many tragic

accidents,

[ Page 1140 ]

too many serious injuries and lives lost as the result of

carelessness, and we would hope that continued improvement of

regulations would reduce the number of accidents which arise

from causes which can be prohibited.

I would like to join with the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), however, in suggesting to

the Minister that he is being remiss in not sending legislation

of this kind to the select standing committee. I recall that in

1967 I was on that committee, and with the Hon. Minister had the

privilege of going through a complete revision of the Mines

Regulations Act of 1967 and of the Coal Mines Regulations Act .

It was done in a select standing committee, and we had the

unions and we had the companies' representatives come before

that select standing committee and make their representations

known. Members were able to sit down with the officials of the

department and say rule by rule: "Why are you making this

change? What was it before? Why will it be better?"

That was the system and it was such a unique experience

under the former administration that it was a pleasure and a

delight for Members of the opposition, as the Hon. Minister

then was, to have this opportunity of bringing the people who

were actually going to work and live by these regulations come

before the committee with Members of the House and make them

understand that there were no errors being made.

Well obviously there have been changes since 1967 which have

resulted in new rules being required. Shouldn't we have the

opportunity of satisfying ourselves in this House that the

employers and the employees agree with precisely what has been

done?

The Minister commented a moment ago that it was studied by a

committee all this last summer. What committee? We know of no

committee.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll tell you. Sit down and I'll tell you

right away.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know, you'll tell us of a committee composed

of your Members and of members of the industry and the union

all inside the pocket, nice and quiet, working out all these

things. But we want to know, because it's our responsibility

when we pass this legislation. If anything goes wrong it isn't

the committee that gets criticized. You know, the widow of a

miner who is killed as a result of the inadequacy of one of

these rules will be writing to her MLA about it, not to the

committee that we don't know anything about.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I wasn't an MLA just yesterday.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Minister was very democratic when he sat on this

side of the House, but how great the change is. Well, you tell us about this

wonderful committee that resolved the matter and if need be, Mr. Speaker, I

suppose we'll have to go through every one of these rules in committee. I trust

that the Minister will have his deputy and his mine safety officer and his committee

and they'll be able to answer to our satisfaction the need for every change.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, we don't want your answers because, you

see, you're just a politician. It's been a long time since you

counted nuts and bolts and were underground doing any work. We

want the people who know what's going on, this committee who

helped to draft these rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Two points I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, we do appreciate the fact that while the Minister

has not gone the whole way, in other words, he's not putting

this to a committee of the House, at least this type of

regulation comes before the House and it's not to be done by

himself in secret or the cabinet in secret. We do appreciate

that he's gone halfway. Unlike any other Minister in this whole

government, this man at least has gone halfway to meeting some

of the objections that we put forward to the pretty poor

legislation that's come before us. He's not gone far enough,

but having gone halfway it's hard to criticize the man very

much.

I would just like to point out to the House and of course to

the Minister that his cooperative attitude has led of course

to response from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Richter), myself, my friend for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) and probably the Conservatives — I don't speak for

them at all, but they will be speaking for themselves. We are

quite willing to accept decent legislation on regulations in

this House, and we're quite willing to take extra time in

committee to consider it, but we cannot of course accept

regulations simply passed by cabinet of which we know nothing

until the things come out.

I would point out that when a responsible and constructive

and cooperative approach is adopted by the government as this

Minister has done, the opposition responds. It's unfortunate

that this Minister is unique in this respect and that he's been

unable to sell his ideas to his colleagues.

On the bill itself, I think it's well drawn. I've had a

close look at it. It's fairly well done. We're going to have

comments in committee. There are areas where we'd like to check

on various things but it is still possible, if the Minister so

wishes, to send it to the House committee prior to having it in

this room in

[ Page 1141 ]

the Committee of the Whole House. In other words, send it to

the special dozen or so Members of the Legislature who are

specifically charged with looking at things of this nature

rather than to all of us. It's still possible to do that and I

trust the Minister will give serious consideration to the

proposals of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WALLACE: This party indeed supports the principle of

carrying out any changes which will enhance the safety of

workers in what is a very hazardous occupation.

The detail in the bill frankly is not something that I

personally can criticize intelligently but I would expect that

this bill has been brought about by close communication and

discussion with the mining industry and with workers in the

mines and their representatives.

I'm pleased that the attempt is made in the bill to give

organized labour a role to play in developing safety

programmes. There was publicity given recently to an incident

and an accident in a mine where I understand the miners were

dissatisfied with the quality of mine inspection. This kind of

bill, while it's very detailed, obviously attempts to bring the

management of mines and the regulations governing t