1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page 2761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources estimates

On the amendment to vote 130.

Mr. Macdonald — 2761

Mr. Kerster — 2763

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2764

Mr. Gibson — 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2768

Mr. King — 2769

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2771

Mrs. Dailly — 2772

Mr. Lea — 2773

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2774

Mr. Skelly — 2774

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2774

Mr. Barber — 2778

Mr. Cocke — 2781

Division on the amendment — 2782

On vote 130.

Mr. Cocke — 2782

Mr. Skelly — 2783

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

House to recognize my zodiac twin tonight — it's her birthday. I'd like

the House to recognize Ms. Rosemary Brown on her 25th birthday

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'll correct that: the member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery this evening we have Mr. and Mrs. Cliff Oswald, the

president of the Social Credit Party in North Burnaby — Mr. Oswald and

his wife, Alice — and Keith Liddiard, also a member of the North

Burnaby constituency. We are very pleased to welcome them to the House.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now on the amendment to vote 130, the

amendment offered by the first member for Vancouver Centre. It reads:

"…that the salary of the minister in vote 130 be reduced by $1."

On the amendment.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I want to

speak strictly to the amendment to reduce the minister's salary by the

sum of $1. As a matter of fact, I helped draft that amendment, and I

intend to be strictly in order.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Who else was with

you at the time? (Laughter.)

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): How many people did you tell?

(Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: I have listened with interest to the analysis

of the Jurgen Lau incident. The point I want to make in supporting the

motion to reduce the minister's salary is, I suppose, a little

different and perhaps broader but it flows out of the Lau incident, and

that is the very legitimate concern that the people of British Columbia

have that the mining interests and other special privileges are selling

out the birthright of the people of British Columbia in their natural

resources.

I have heard in this debate speakers get up from the other side and

talk about our public officials disclosure Act. Now in this debate that

public disclosure Act is serving the very function for which it was

passed. Whether or not

section 18 of the standing rules applies to

people with interests in mining speculative stocks voting for the

government on important mining legislation is a technical point that

should be decided by Mr. Speaker. But it is very important in the eyes

of the official opposition, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British

Columbia should know the extent to which this Legislature is dominated

by mining interests.

It was the purpose of the disclosure Act to tear the bandages from

people's eyes so they could know when they looked at the legislative

process what interests were at work, and they should also be able to

know what campaign funds are at work when we see all royalties being

lifted off some of our exportable mineral resources.

Mr. Chairman, if you think I'm not speaking to the amendment, I want

to say to you that this is the reason I am supporting that amendment —

and I want to make that very clear — a legitimate fear that we are

being

sold out so far as the public interest is concerned in the revenue from

our natural resources in this province.

We have seen the Minister of Mines and Forests make, a little while

ago, a simple mistake. He gave $1,000 to the son of his executive

assistant to promote an advertising campaign for the mining industry.

MR. BARRETT: What's yours is mine!

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not too concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the

$1,000 was granted without tender. I am not too concerned that the

$1,000 was given to the son of an executive assistant for this

particular purpose. What does concern me is that the Minister of Mines,

whose first duty is to the whole public of the province of British

Columbia, to the public interest, to the public revenue from that

resource that belongs to all of the people, should add to the barrage

of hate and propaganda that the mining industry has been conducting in

this province in the last few years.

Wherever there has been a legitimate attempt of the people of the

province to get some return from their natural resources that are

controlled 80 per cent by international companies in the mineral field,

wherever there has been any attempt by the people to

[ Page 2762 ]

get back even so much as a 5 per cent sales tax

return on their

mineral ores that are being exported to the markets of the world, we

have seen a veritable barrage of propaganda from the mining interests.

This minister steps up to abet that campaign, and it raises legitimate

questions in our minds as to which side he is on.

MR. BARRETT: Welfare to the mining companies.

MR. MACDONALD: The examples are manifold — and this is under

the minister's jurisdiction — as to whether or not he is sticking up

for the people of the whole province or a particular interest. We note

that in the case of the metallurgical coal that is being shipped by

British Columbia to international markets, and particularly to Japan,

the price of that coal at Roberts Bank has increased in the last short

while from $20 a ton to $50 a ton. We have seen the profits of the

companies that are international and not B.C. companies, like Kaiser

Resources, increase from the year 1974, when net profits after taxes

were $24 million, to $71.2 million in the year 1975, which is a 300 per

cent increase. We have seen that and we have seen Fording Coal, which

is the son of Cominco and its CPR investments, a smaller company,

increase its profits from our natural resources from $1 million in 1974

to about $7 million after taxes in 1975.

While we have watched this, Mr. Chairman, we have seen the

government opposite refuse to increase the coal royalty and return to

the people of this province any amount of those excessive profits that

are being made from the export of our coal. When we see that government

taxing the people of this province, increasing ferry rates, increasing

sales tax, increasing ICBC by 300 per cent, on the one hand using

against the people of this province a heavy surcharge hand, and with

the other hand in a lavish way contributing to the profits of

international companies exploiting our natural resources, then we say

that this minister is delinquent in his office, which should return to

this province a share of our natural wealth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just interrupt you long enough to remind

you that we are on an amendment? It is my responsibility to keep the

debate strictly relevant to the amendment. I'm just weighing whether or

not your line of reasoning might not better fall under the main motion.

MR. MACDONALD: This is all one piece of one fabric, Mr.

Chairman. The bringing in of Jurgen Lau and other people to help in the

drafting of the legislation is part and parcel of the total picture of

what is happening to the natural resources of the province of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just ask you to keep the debate strictly

relevant to the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: And now we see something that gives us concern

and reason to vote for the amendment to reduce the minister's salary

and to vote no confidence, Mr. Chairman. I am very concerned that the

minister who has charge of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., which is in his

portfolio, is now receiving representations from major oil companies to

do away with the incentive plan for natural gas in the north, to do

away with the two-price system and to increase the return to the oil

producers in the north.

We wonder, Mr. Chairman — and we have reason to wonder — whether, if

this is the record of the minister in other resource fields, he will

stand up for the public interest in the north in natural gas and

safeguard for the people of this province the two-price system which

gave them a break. Will he ensure that if additional amounts are paid

to the oil producers of the north it should be by that incentive system

whereby they do not receive the additional price without reinvesting it

in the good earth of the province of British Columbia? It is because

the minister's record does not indicate that he is prepared to stand up

for the public interest that we have these concerns.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have seen that minister who has received

this help in drafting legislation bring a proposal before this

Legislature and state in his speeches that the mineral resources of the

province of B.C. should be exported without any rent or royalty

whatsoever, making the province of British Columbia the last banana

republic in the whole wide world.

MR. BARRETT: To get skinned again.

MR. MACDONALD: We wonder and we should begin to know, Mr.

Chairman, that in the last election on the 11th day of December,

1975, the people of British Columbia lost that election and the mining

interests won that election, because we see a total lack of concern to

return to the people of this province anything from their natural

resources, and because we see, on the other hand, taxes and charges

being piled one after the other upon the heads of the people of this

province, that we cannot have confidence in this minister to stand up

as he should have been standing up in the last few months for the

public interest, for the public revenues, to lift the burden off the

people of the province and safeguard them and their own heritage, which

is their natural resources and not the property of the multinational

companies, which have for so many years exploited this province of B.C.

as if it were a banana republic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 2763 ]

MR. MACDONALD: So I intend — and I hate to tell you this, Mr.

Chairman, because you have that nice smile.... It's because of this

total picture that I intend to support the amendment.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman, at the risk of

sounding like the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I'm appalled!

AN HON. MEMBER: Aloha!

MR. KERSTER: I'm appalled at the level to which this assembly

has been reduced in the past four days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KERSTER: That unruly bunch....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member

that we are on the amendment?

MR. KERSTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate must be held strictly relevant to

the amendment.

MR. KERSTER: I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I'm

speaking about that unruly bunch over there, the opposition…

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not on the amendment, Hon. Member.

MR. KERSTER: It's to the amendment.

…who should be filled with shame in bringing forward this

amendment. Seriously, they should be searching their own consciences

pertaining to the irresponsible approach, their attack, a vicious

amendment, a totally political attack and amendment against an

honourable minister and an honourable man.

AN HON. MEMBER: No politics in this House.

MR. KERSTER: The amendment to vote 130 is both mean and

repulsive. The opposition knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, George.

MR. KERSTER: In an attempt to regain some credibility under

the new leadership….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on

a point of order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I know that all

members of this House making their maiden speech are allowed to read

that speech in its entirety, but after that, that privilege ends by the

House rules, and I would draw that to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hon. Member, I hope that you are

using copious notes. Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Chairman, I am not making my maiden speech.

I am using copious notes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: I would repeat that in an attempt to regain some

credibility under their so-called new leadership, those in opposition

have carefully staged this stupid performance of allegations that are —

thank God — recorded in Hansard

and will someday return to haunt you.

Mr. Chairman, in his piousness, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

says he hates to see the House's time wasted by this type of debate.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Let's hear it for Mr.

Peanuts.

MR. KERSTER: Yet he stands on his feet for 30 minutes or so

on a 30-second subject. It's something that you're all very adept at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, I'm still trying to

determine whether or not you are on the amendment.

MR. KERSTER: I'm on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. There's so

much interjection coming from across the floor that it's very difficult

for you, I think, to relate my remarks to the amendment.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says that we

should investigate. The NDP members under their new coach display

outrage and disdain at what they consider conflict of interest. Mr.

Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Oh! Rubber ducky, would you give him a banana.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have a little order in

the House? Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that those

charges against the most honourable minister and a most honourable man

are total irresponsibility and nonsense in this amendment. They're

contrived by the opposition to grandstand at the expense of a new

minister's character and reputation. You over there on the

[ Page 2764 ]

opposition know very well that consultants are used

all over the

world by legislators, at least responsible ones, which we haven't seen

for three and a half years around this province.

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: It

is to assure that expertise is lent to the

achievement of the best possible legislation being brought to the floor

of any government assembly. Now for the past two days you've disrupted

this House, impugned the integrity of the members of the entire House

in your attempt to impress the people of this province with your

so-called false moralities. But you know what? Your hon. leader today

admitted….

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Well, I've run into that second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) before, and I believe he came in second.

He admitted though today that Mr. Lau was used as a consultant in

the past by his former government. And you know, if you have any

further aspersions to cast, I don't know why you guys don't put your

money where your mouth is. That is, make your accusations of conflict

of interest…. No. 1, make them out in the hallway. Accuse Mr. Lau of

breaking his oath as a respected barrister outside the safety of this

Legislature. Make them in the hallway. Don't make them in here where

everything's safe and easy. You've had the easy way long ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Member, order, please! May

I remind the hon. member…? May I ask the hon. member to address the

Chair? It will assist us greatly in trying to maintain order at this

early evening hour.

MR. KERSTER: Right, Mr. Chairman, I accept that direction. I

would, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the opposition, suggest that they

run from the refuge of this Legislature into the hall with these

accusations; put their money where their mouth is rather than attempt

any further to mislead the people of this province by innuendo.

Accept that challenge or withdraw that stupid amendment.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

The member from Whitechapel…. I beg your pardon, the second member

for Vancouver-Burrard (laughter) this afternoon asked about another

member of the tax committee that I had set up and his interest in

mining….

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, on a point of

order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Would the Chairman ask the member what it was he

said when he stood up at the beginning — the member from where?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that's not a point of order.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, it is a point of order. It certainly is a

point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't even listening.

MR. LEVI: I was listening. Now get up and tell us, if you've

got the guts, what it was….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please address the

Chair?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I was saying that the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard asked the question about what other members of this

commission had an interest in mining. The only other member who was

involved extensively in the mining business is Dr. Gordon Bell who is a

professional geologist and consulting engineer — a professional

engineer — and this member has no interest whatsoever in mining in

British Columbia. He is a professional, as are the other people who are

involved in this committee, for I felt that if you're going to have

proper input into taxation of the mining industry then you must hire

professional people, knowledgeable in the business, to give you

professional advice. That's why the particular committee that was

selected was selected.

I'm not going to carry on this debate, Mr. Chairman. I must

reiterate, though, that there was no conflict of interest with anybody

involved in this committee. There is no attempt to mislead this House.

There are, however, a couple of remarks which I would like to make.

Some members this afternoon, and I can't recall who they were, but

they cast a shadow of doubt upon my Deputy Minister of Mines, Dr. Jim

Fyles. They attacked him personally in this House, in a place where he

had no opportunity whatsoever to respond to it, and they implied that

he was not doing a good job, was not acting properly on behalf.of the

minister. Well, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this House, this

dedicated, long-term civil servant has

[ Page 2765 ]

an impeccable reputation. He is a dedicated

employee of the Crown

and has been for some time. He has the highest professional ethics that

anyone could hope to have, and his reputation is beyond reproach. I ask

that the members who did cast some doubt upon this I gentleman's

reputation, please, either here or privately, apologize to him.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, when the

minister rose, he identified the member for Whitechapel. I sit across

the floor. Mr. Chairman, I feel that that's a cheap religious slur, and

I'd like the member….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it is, and the member knows it. The minister

knows it. Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to withdraw that.

MR. KING: Shocking!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! The Minister of

Mines.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have had reference to

the member for Hawaii, we've had references to the member from Jamaica….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, there was no attempt

whatsoever to cast any political or religious connotations in this

statement. As far as I know, Whitechapel is a part of England from

which that member comes, just as the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster)

has been called the member for Hawaii. There was absolutely no attempt

to cast any religious implications whatever, or any other references to

that member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have to ask….

MR. BARRETT: We've asked for a withdrawal, not a speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, may I just ask the minister… ?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I cannot maintain order in this

House as long as each individual tries to maintain his own order. I

must ask the hon. minister: did he intend to impute any offensive word,

language or indication of any kind, to any member in this House?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That's all we need.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: The normal method is not to question one way or

the other, but to ask a member to withdraw. That is the method, and

that is the request.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In answer to the statement of

the Leader of the Opposition: it is practice in the House to withdraw

if a word is unparliamentary. However, if another word, not

unparliamentary, is used it is the practice of the Chair to ask whether

or not it was the intent of the speaker who used that language to

impute any improper motive to anyone, or to offend.

MR. BARRETT: In answer to this, Mr. Chairman, there are

methods of saying things to people that aren't necessarily banned

words, but the connotation is a matter of subject for withdrawal. That

is what we are asking for — a complete withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the same point of order, the

Premier.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the

second member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, because

he has just recently returned to the House, isn't aware that many times

members over there have referred to the member for Coquitlam (Mr.

Kerster), who beat him so badly in the election…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: …as the member for Hawaii.

Interjections.

[ Page 2766 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just a second….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman…as the member for Hawaii.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think that member does not take offence

that he spent some time in Hawaii or came from Hawaii.

AN HON. MEMBER: No religious prejudice from that kind of

person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, from time to time in the

House it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Racist, that's what you are!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: From time to time, Mr. Chairman, in the

banter in the House….

MR. KING: We've never implied any slur against anyone's race

or religion. Never!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sure the people….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To me, whether you are from Hawaii, whether

you are from the United States or whether you are from England is not a

slur on anyone.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am surprised. I put it down to perhaps

the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is just newly returned to

the House and that perhaps….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: …there is a lot of sensitivity….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But I assure you that this side has never

taken any offence when the member for Coquitlam, who beat him earlier,

has been referred to over and over as the member for Hawaii. It has

never been offensive.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, may I…? Is it on

the same point of order?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order, the second member

for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LEVI: You know, it's incredible — he makes statement

saying "the member for Whitechapel." Whether he knows it or not, I am

not from Whitechapel; I am from Birmingham. He made that statement as a

direct anti-Semitic statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: That's in the same kind of tradition of that party

previously — with Solon Law and his black word. That's the kind of slur

he threw across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEVI: And he hasn't got the guts to back off on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, I have asked the

minister whether any offence was intended by the statement. He has

given his word of honour….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore that would close the matter.

MR. BARRETT: No, it does not. We want a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I was walking into the

House one day we were talking about where the various members came

from.

[ Page 2767 ]

were talking about the member from Hawaii and the

member from

Jamaica. Someone….

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to withdraw?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you listen — just for a minute?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Someone mentioned that the second member

for Vancouver-Burrard was from Whitechapel. I apologize if he is in

fact from Birmingham. If he took offence at being referred to as the

member from Whitechapel, then I am sorry. I meant no improper

implications whatsoever in that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. That concludes the

matter.

MR. BARRETT: Give a reason, that's all.

MS. SANFORD: He hasn't given a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman….

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're getting downright silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. BARRETT: We are asking for a withdrawal, and that's the

rule of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: He meant no offence with that — don't be

silly! It's a deliberate attempt to stall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The second member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the only way anything intelligent

can be accomplished in this room is if we have one speaker at a time. I

suggest that we follow the standing orders to have individuals stand in

their place, address the Chair, and the Chair will do his very best to

recognize you one at a time. Now if we can follow that procedure I am

sure that we can return to orderly business. I have recognized the

second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I have taken offence at the

minister's remark. I ask him to withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think that we can solve the

matter very easily, although, in my opinion, sufficient has been done.

But let's do it this way: hon. minister, would you withdraw the

statement, because offence has been taken whether offence was intended

or not.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, naturally no offence was

intended. If the member was offended, I will refer to him as the member

from Birmingham or the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, whichever

he pleases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you would withdraw?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I took considerable offence

today at some of the things and statements that were made about me, but

I….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, a lot of the statements were not

within the rules. However….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you….

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If that member was offended, I cannot

understand why, but I withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. That concludes the

matter.

[ Page 2768 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order, the member

for Coquitlam.

MR. KERSTER: I would suggest that really this is a point of

order relating to the former speaker's point of order and the hon.

minister's point of order. We sometimes refer to "the member for

Hawaii," as we refer to the member for Burrard as "the member for

Jamaica." We take that in good humour, and it is accepted in that

fashion. If we all accept it that way I think things will become much

more amicable and we'll reach the solution to our problems tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is in order for the Chair to make a

suggestion, before I recognize the member for North Vancouver–Capilano,

I think perhaps we should adopt the

accepted method in the House of addressing each other by the

constituency which we represent. If we do that I think we can avoid the

kind of thing we have just experienced.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

just have a couple of questions for the minister. Towards the end of

the debate yesterday afternoon, he indicated that the information which

the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) had brought

forward with respect to the

meeting on May 13 was substantially correct. In going through that

information he referred to much of the information which was

contained in a memorandum summoning persons to that meeting.

I'll continue my remarks when I have the minister's attention, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. The rules of the House, Hon.

Member, only require that I recognize the member when he stands to

speak. There is nothing I can do to make people listen. I'm sorry.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. If the minister

wants to cast his attention elsewhere that's just fine by me.

I would like to ask him if the minister had a copy of the

memorandum, from which the first member for Vancouver Centre quoted,

summoning people to that meeting on May 13.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In answer to the question from the member

for North Vancouver–Capilano, Mr. Chairman, no, I did not. I was not

even aware the meeting was taking place. I f happened to be in Nelson

that day, visiting the Kootenay Forest Products plywood and sawmill

operations. I did not

have a copy of the memo; I did not know the meeting was taking place

at all.

MR. GIBSON: To understand that more specifically, the

minister did not have a copy on the floor of the House yesterday.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I did not. When the member

for Vancouver Centre read the memo I took him at face value, being an

honourable member, which I hope he is, and that what he was reading was

true. That was my first knowledge of the details of that meeting and of

the fact that meeting was held at all.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would then follow up with another

question.

We had here a case of a rather high-paid gentleman, I would imagine

— Mr. Lau — doing continuous consulting work for the department. I

would imagine that knowledge of this kind of consultation would be

available to the deputy minister of the department. It is, after all,

an expenditure which is of some consequence in the development of

departmental legislation. I would ask the minister if he took the time

during the debate we had on the floor of this House yesterday to ask

his deputy if he was aware of the fact that Mr. Lau was engaged in the

drafting of legislation — specifically Bill 57.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: While this debate was taking place

yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I asked Dr. Fyles if Jurgen Lau had been

involved in drafting the legislation, and he said he had been over on a

consulting basis, working with the people. The actual drafting of the

legislation is done by the legislative counsel and it appears that Mr.

Lau assisted in doing this. Dr. FyIes told me that Jurgen Lau had been

working with these people. I wanted to find out to what extent and in

what detail he had been working with them. Was he actually involved in

the drafting or was he working as a consultant, and what were the

implications of what he had done? Was it a normal procedure? I was not

aware of this. I found out since that it is a normal procedure;

legislative counsel was quite in order to have Mr. Lau assist them in

drafting he legislation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to understand this a

little bit better. The minister's telling the House, if I understand

him correctly, that his deputy told him, in response to questioning

during the debate, that Mr. Lau was engaged in actual drafting of the

legislation.

What I would like to know is why it took so long or the minister to

admit that fact on the floor of the House. We were engaged in that

debate, hot and heavy, for an hour and a half or so. Surely it didn'

take the minister that long to consult with his deputy to learn that

Mr. Lau had been engaged in the

[ Page 2769 ]

drafting of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important point, because it seems to me

that this is the basis of the cover-up evidence — the fact that the

information was available to the minister on the floor of the House and

nevertheless he remained seated and did not afford the members of this

House confirmation that Mr. Lau had participated in the drafting of the

legislation until he was faced with the actual documentary evidence of

a memorandum which proved that conclusively. That proves to me

conclusively, Mr. Chairman, that there was a coverup.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I do take exception to the

constant implications of coverups. There was no coverup. When a person

is hired to consult on the technical aspects of a legislation drafting,

where does the consultation area end and where does the actual

assistance in drafting begin? It's a very ill-defined area, and, as far

as I knew, Jurgen Lau had no

part in the drafting. I was later proved

to be incorrect because legislative counsel in fact had him working

with the drafting of a technical portion of this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My deputy did not sit in on each and

every meeting. He knew that there was consultation on the technical

aspects of things. Where does consultation end and actual assistance in

drafting begin? I don't know. It's a very grey area.,

I do take exception to the word "coverup." There was no coverup.

There was no attempt to cover up. I did not have the information. I

wanted to find the facts. When they finally came from the member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in a memo, I am more than happy to admit

that perhaps he did, in fact, take

part in the actual drafting. As far

as I was aware up to that time, it was consultation on the technical

aspects of the taxation legislation.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's been read from Hansard quite a

number of times today the conflicting statements which the Minister of

Mines gave to the House regarding Mr. Lau's involvement in the drafting

of the Mineral Resource Tax Act. There was first of all a denial — an

absolute, unequivocal denial — that the gentleman had been privy to the

bill or had participated in the drafting in any way. Now the minister

is asking us to accept his ignorance of who participated in drafting of

the bill in the first instance and is indicating to the House that he

only learned of the involvement of an independent non-government person

at a later time. This calls into question a whole new area of the

absence of ministerial responsibility.

If the minister charged with the bill is unaware of whose hands that

bill has fallen into, either in draft form or final form, then that in

itself, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, is grounds for censure against

that minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just utter rubbish!

MR. KING: Utter rubbish indeed! When we have a tax bill, a

budgetary matter, Mr. Chairman, that is being presented to this House

in message form and should not be under scrutiny by anyone but the

minister, his cabinet colleagues and his top-ranking officials —

certainly those people sworn to secrecy in this province — the minister

admits that he doesn't know who had the bill, who looked at it, who

participated in the drafting even. I say this is an absolutely shocking

revelation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: By all means. By all means.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was consulted by your government and

drafted message bills for you.

MR. KING: Well, I am quite aware, and I have made statements

in this House, how I conducted the preparation of my legislation….

Interjection.

MR. KING: Be careful, indeed! I can assure the House of this,

Mr. Chairman, that neither labour nor management in any way were privy

to the drafting of any labour legislation in this province. We invited

representation from both parties but never any involvement in the

drafting of that legislation. They were never privy to any of the

contents of that legislation before it was introduced in the House. I

want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in that case we were not….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Listen to the Liberals getting exercised. Isn't it

peculiar that the only people coming to the defence of the coalition

minister are the Liberals? Those Liberals are all principle now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, perhaps if we moved back to the

amendment we would have order.

[ Page 2770 ]

MR. KING: Well, the Conservatives are a dead issue. I don't

think they have too much to contribute.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that labour legislation is one

thing. It's not a budgetary matter. No one stands to benefit from

windfall profits from labour legislation. But it's a clear

parliamentary tradition that budgetary matters, taxation and so on,

must be treated with the utmost confidentiality for fear that anyone in

the private community should gain advance knowledge and be in a

position to profiteer. It's not only a question whether, in fact, that

kind of profiteering did take place. It's a question of the minister

understanding, respecting and protecting the confidentiality of bills

that are under his jurisdiction.

Now the minister is telling us…. He's changing his story again,

Mr. Chairman, and he's telling us: "Well, I didn't know who was

involved in drafting the bill. When I came to the House and was asked

the first question I didn't know at the time."

It was apparently not after Mr. Lau confirmed to reporters that he

had been involved in the drafting, but the minister became aware of who

had drafted a message bill affecting taxation in the mining industry

that he was responsible for introducing into this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, quite aside from the conflict of interest that

obtained with the individual he selected, quite aside from the

inconsistency and the great conflict in the statements which that

minister has made to this House, we now have a whole new arena of his

complete incompetence and his complete abdication of ministerial

responsibility in admitting that he did not know whose hands that

taxation bill had fallen into. Were there other people in addition to

Mr. Jurgen Lau and Mr. Stekl? Were there others? The minister didn't

know, apparently, when he came to this House. I don't know who he's

consulted or whether he's relying on press reports that were initiated

by the press gallery in this Legislature.

I think that we have a right to demand of that minister that he

table all documents pertaining to the drafting and preparation of the

mineral taxation act because, by his own admission, there could well

have been other people involved.

What's more startling and shocking — frightening, indeed — is the

fact that here the minister sits, apparently incapable of understanding

that there is any impropriety or any conflict in allowing top

executives of the mining industry to be privy to the preparation of

taxation bills which will reduce the financial obligations of the

mining industry and bring great windfall profits to that sector.

Apparently he's completely incapable of understanding that there's

anything wrong in this regard. It's absolutely incredible, and it's

incredible that his cabinet colleagues don't seem to understand this

proposition either.

What we have is the fox in the chicken coop. The mining industry is

writing their own ticket exploiting the people's irreplaceable

resources in this province under precisely their own terms and

conditions of payment for that resource. This means that the public

treasury of the province of British Columbia suffers. It means that

additional tax burdens have to be heaped on the backs of ordinary

working people, senior citizens, to pay for social services that should

be funded from the mineral wealth of this province.

Here we have an irresponsible government and an irresponsible

minister, Mr. Chairman, who sits there, defends the actions and admits

he is not familiar with all of the people involved in the preparation

of this bill, when it's clearly demonstrated that a senior mining

company official with corporate connections to other large mining

corporations in this province was actually involved in that drafting.

From where does this information come to the House and to the

members? Not from the minister responsible. It has to be dragged out of

him, literally, by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and

by the investigative reporting of the press gallery in the Legislature.

Then you get the facts. Only then, in grudging fashion, with great

reticence does the Minister of Mines acknowledge that yes, the

gentleman was involved in writing his own ticket in determining what

the mining industry would pay in this province for exploiting the

resources that belong to all the people of this province. It's

absolutely incredible, and he has the colossal gall to sit there and

try to justify this gross incompetence — at the best.

Mr. Chairman, there are other

interpretations that could be put on

the conduct.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put them on right now. Let's hear them.

MR. KING: All right — I'm always accommodating. It could well

be — as one member said — that this was an election promise from the

Social Credit Party, in return for the huge funds that the mining

industry put into the Socred campaign coffers. It's a payoff to that

industry. It's returning a favour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May we return now to the amendment?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that's an

interpretation that could

be put on it by a cynical mind. I know that the Education minister

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) would qualify in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's incredible, and I think the minister

should explain. If he finds all of his other activities, all of his

abandonment of ministerial responsibility acceptable and proper, how

can he explain and justify to this House that he was not even

[ Page 2771 ]

aware of that Mr. Jurgen Lau was involved in the

preparation of this

important tax Act in the mineral sector.

In light of his

ignorance as to who had access and participation in

drafting that bill, is the minister prepared to assure the House that

there are no other individuals associated either with the mining

industry or other corporate interests in this province who were also

involved? Would he be aware, indeed? He is the minister having charge

of the bill, and despite the technical drafting by legislative counsel,

there is no way that the minister having charge of that bill can

abandon his responsibility for the security of it. No one should

participate in the drafting or have access to that bill without

authorization from the minister having charge of the bill.

The minister has now admitted that he did not in fact have that

control, did not in fact maintain that security of an important

taxation bill. That in itself is grounds itself for passage of the

motion that's before the House, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it's

grounds enough for a new Premier, leading a new government, who is

seeking the confidence of the people of this province, to replace that

minister if he hasn't got the personal integrity to do the proper

thing, which is to resign, Mr. Chairman.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman,

I quite agree with what the member for North Vancouver–Capilano said

yesterday, and I think again today, that of course two wrongs don't

make a right. But it is our unassailable position that no wrong was

committed.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) usually doesn't stoop to

this sort of tactic — I'm a little surprised. He would have us believe,

Mr. Chairman, that statutes in this province — and please don't

misunderstand this in any religious way — are brought to this House on

tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, that they suddenly appear.

Mr. Chairman, let's examine the record. Auto insurance and ICBC were

drafted with the assistance of Mr. Green, administrator of Saskatchewan

auto insurance, while still in Saskatchewan, and Mr. Bortnick, who was

not living in the province at the time but later became the general

manager of ICBC. I don't see anything wrong with that. If I were going

to draft insurance legislation, Mr. Chairman, where better to go but to

a province that has government insurers, to find out how they do it?

But the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that long before they were under

any obligation to this House or under any obligation to the government

of British Columbia, and living in Saskatchewan, they were drafting

British Columbia legislation and were privy to it.

How about the Energy Act, Mr. Chairman? Great assistance given by a

very fine British Columbian and public servant, but nevertheless at the

time a professor at UBC, Dr. Andrew Thompson, and Mr. Martin Taylor, a

lawyer for Davis and Co. I cast no aspersions whatever. Where better to

go if they're going to draft an Energy Act than to people who are

experts in the field? That's where they went.

How about the Land Commission Act? Where did they go for assistance

to draw the Land Commission Act when they were the government, Mr.

Chairman? They went to Mr. Bill Lane, who was the municipal solicitor

in Richmond. Where did Mr. Lane go after the Act was drawn, Mr.

Chairman? He became the chairman, the head of the commission.

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to cast aspersions, let them stand up

and cast aspersions at a supreme court judge, because the person that

they went to in the Ocean Falls expropriation was none other than Mr.

Justice Hutcheon.

How about the Petroleum Corporation Act? Once again who do we see?

Do we see legislative counsel having drafts of the legislation? No,

once again Dr. Thompson and Mr. Taylor are back in the act; and I say

rightly so. There's nothing wrong with that at all — any more than

there was anything wrong with Mr. Jurgen Lau being involved with their

mining legislation, Mr. Chairman.

How about the Public Service Act, which we alluded to earlier, and

the Public Service Labour Relations Act? I repeat, Mr. Johnson — office

of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Let's go to the Assessment Authority Act. A Mr. Gwartney later

became the chairman. He was not related to the government when he was

privy to the legislation.

The Coal Act and the Mineral Royalties Act. It seems to me we've

heard this name before — Mr. Jurgen Lau. He wasn't a member of the

government, was he? Was he legislative counsel, Mr. Member? You were

here at the time. Was he sworn to secrecy? No.

Here's another one — the Strata Titles Act. Ruth N. Irving is a

lawyer in Vancouver, daughter of the owner of Irving Oil in New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Is she a member of this Legislative Assembly

or in any way subject to it? Of course not.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission Act. Peter Stein later became the

chairman. He's from Alberta. I repeat, Mr. Chairman — there's nothing

wrong with this. He became the chairman, Mr. Member. He became the paid

chairman after drafting the legislation, after being privy to the

legislation. Was he sworn to secrecy? I ask the opposition — they ought

to know. After all, my colleague is expected to know the contents of a

memorandum that's six months old. Surely it's not too much to ask you

whether these people were all sworn to secrecy. That's not too much to

ask. What were the arrangements made with these people, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the members opposite?

[ Page 2772 ]

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Were they promised

jobs?

HON. MR. MAIR: Were they promised jobs? Was it at all

suggested to them they might become chairman and presidents, things

like that, if they assisted with this type of legislation — with

message legislation, message bills? No suggestion at all, I am sure.

Mr. Chairman, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now let's

put an end to this nonsense and let's get on with the business of the

people.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): I will try to get back to

the amendment, because I found it very difficult, in listening to the

last speaker, to see at any point at all where he was dealing with the

amendment.

An opposition seldom moves a vote of non-confidence in a minister

facetiously or without due consideration, although may I say, Mr.

Chairman, I can consider a number of times during the past three years

where I might attribute some facetiousness to some of the calls for

resignation. But this one, I can assure you, has not been done without

due consideration by the opposition. And the fact that the Liberal and

the Conservative members also support the NDP in this call for

non-confidence in the minister, I think, should be thought of very

carefully by the members of the government.

There are two counts, two major points, why we support this motion

of non-confidence. The first one is dealing strictly with the

performance of the minister, because, after all, if you are dealing

with a non-confidence vote motion, you have to deal with two areas: one

is the performance of the minister; the second one is the policies for

which that minister is responsible. If you have grave concern about

either or both, I think it is only the duty of any opposition to bring

forward a motion of non-confidence — which our opposition has.

First of all, when it comes to the performance of the minister, this

has been documented over and over again by various members of the

opposition. My own feelings on the performance of the minister point to

two things: the minister has handled his estimates, particularly

yesterday, in a most inept manner, and if it was not because of

ineptness that we listened to such non-replies and poor responses to

the questions, then I'm afraid we only have to look at the alternative

— that if he is not simply inept, then he was purposely misleading the

House. Either thing points to the basic incompetence in any minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just interrupt the member

long enough to ask a question?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the member imputing any improper motive to

the minister in her statement that he deliberately misled the House?

MRS. DAILLY: No, I wasn't. I simply said, Mr. Chairman, that

the minister by his performance posed in the minds of the opposition

the possibility that he was either inept or misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because if any improper motive was imputed….

MRS. DAILLY: No, I am simply telling what his performance

left in the minds of the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: I would also like to point out that because of

this ineptness or, what appeared to us, misleading of the House, we

have very serious reservations about the ability of this minister to

continue in his portfolio and to carry on in a responsible manner.

Aside from his performance, one of our major concerns is the policy

which this minister has carried out since he came into office. We are

very concerned that this minister is not dealing with his portfolio in

the manner which is for the benefit of all people of British Columbia,

but that this minister has shown, by a very apparent conflict of

interest in the members who have been involved in the drafting of the

bill, that he and the government apparently are more concerned with

special vested interests in the mining industry of this province than

in what is for the betterment of the people of this province on the

whole.

The thing which concerns me most about this is that for two days now

we have sat through this debate on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and

the Premier of the province, who is responsible for appointing the

minister, who is basically responsible for the policy which this

government brings in, and particularly in the area of mining, which the

Premier of this province spoke on very many times around the province —

and we have seen the propaganda and the campaign literature of the

former government which they used to promise the mining industry

exactly what they were going to do…. The Premier is responsible for

his minister; he is responsible for selecting the minister. Of course,

if he is not satisfied by the performance of the minister, he of course

knows what action can be taken. But the Premier of this province is

basically responsible for the policy, the mining policy.

So I'm simply very concerned that the Premier of this province has

sat in this House, has taken no opportunity to stand up and speak on

behalf of the minister whom he appointed.

[ Page 2773 ]

He has sat in this House very

seldom, very few times during this

debate, and when he has been here, as he was this evening for barely 15

minutes, he spent most of his time heckling across the floor,

particularly making rather facetious and ridiculous remarks about the

Leader of the Opposition. So my point is that the minister is the topic

of discussion tonight, because he's been given this portfolio. But I

simply want to make the point that a vote of non-confidence in the

Minister of Mines is a vote of non-confidence in the Premier and

government of this province.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that in discussing this

amendment we've lost sight of what the issue really is. I think that we

have lost sight of what the issue really is by a concerted effort by

government to try and make us lose sight of what issue is before us.

Government members are now saying: "Well, the NDP had help to write

their legislation also. So they're guilty like we are guilty." But that

isn't the point and that isn't the issue. There are a number of issues

that do not surround whether or not it is correct or not correct to get

outside help to write message bills that appear before this

Legislature. What the issue is here is whether or not, in this

particular case, there was money to be made by the private sector for

having preknowledge of what that bill contained, not whether or not, in

fact, those people did make money but whether, in fact, there is the

slightest possibility that they could have made money.

What the coalition government would have us believe now is that it

doesn't really matter whether the Minister of Mines knew who handled

that taxation legislation or whether he didn't know. They say it

doesn't really matter whether the minister had complete control of a

bill, a taxation bill, from the time of its conception to the time of

its fruition. They say: "Never mind that." Never mind that a minister

of the Crown had no idea where a taxation bill was up until the time it

hit his desk, apparently.

Then that minister of the Crown brings into this Legislature a bill

that he has no real knowledge of, obviously no understanding of,

because the minister admits that he had no

part in the drafting and

that he had no

part in the philosophy behind the drafting. In other

words, the Premier said: "How about bringing in a bill on mining to

fulfil our campaign promise?" The minister said to people from the

mining industry: "Would you go out and do a report?" They said,

"Right," and they brought back the report.

The minister then took the report, without understanding it,

obviously, to the legislative counsel and said: "Will you take the

contents of this report and make it into legislation so we can fulfil

our campaign promise to take away the royalties on ore in the

province?" Then, to do the technical drafting, the same people, as I

understand it, who brought in the report were asked back to assist,

consult the government and government staff and then to assist in the

actual drafting — or at least one member was asked to do that, to

assist in the actual drafting of that legislation.

At this point, as I understand it, the minister had lost track of

the legislation. He didn't know who had it from time to time. He

couldn't have known, not knowing where the bill was, what the bill

contained. Yet the minister has the audacity to bring into this

Legislature a piece of taxation legislation that was promised during

the Social Credit campaign and ask the other members of this House to

vote for it or have confidence in him. How can they do that, Mr.

Chairman, to ask us to have confidence in a piece of legislation when

the minister has no idea what is contained in that legislation and

quite frankly admits it?

When asked if people in the private sector had taken a hand in

drafting it, he didn't even know whether they had. Well, at first he

said yes, he did know. He said: "No, no one had." He said: "Mr. Lau had

nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation." Then, we find out

that Mr. Lau did, indeed, take

part in the drafting.

So what we have here is a piece of legislation that can only be

described as blind legislation, as far as that Crown minister is

concerned, because it is legislation which is going to be levied on the

province of British Columbia for a campaign promise by a coalition

government and a coalition party to get power. To get power to do what?

Power to help their friends? Obviously. Who are their friends? It's

easy to tell the friends of politicians. The friends of politicians pay

for politicians' campaigns. The usual practice within any system is

that the government, once taking office, pays back those people who

paid for its campaign.

My party is no different. There is one difference. When my party,

when it becomes government, no matter where in this country, has to pay

back its friends for supporting it, it's paying back the working

people, the ordinary people, the people who walk in off the street with

$10 of their paycheque; $5 of their paycheque. They may sign over $25 a

month, if they're making good money.

When we get to form government in this party, we have to pay back

those people. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what politics

is all about, and we're kind of proud of the fact that we represent the

ordinary people and therefore have to bring in legislation that will

represent the majority of the people in this province — the working

people, the poor people and the elderly.

Who are their friends? Why was this legislation brought in? This

legislation was obviously brought in because…. The minister didn't

even know what was

[ Page 2774 ]

in it, why it was there, who drafted it. All it was

was a blind

campaign promise to pay for their debts, for their campaign, so they

could win and take power to pay back their friends. We've seen an

example in the last days of how they pay back their friends. They pay

back their friends by removing the taxation from mining. That's how

they pay it.

The issue is not whether or not people should be called in from

private life to assist government. We all know that that is done and it

is proper. What we are saying in this case is that it was not improper

to call in private interests to help draft legislation, but it was

improper to call in the executive of the mining industry to draft their

own legislation that would affect them as an industry; and to further

it, the minister didn't know anything about it — didn't know anything

about it. Not even up until yesterday, after the minister had

introduced that legislation into this House, did he know. By his own

admission, he didn't know what that legislation was about up until

yesterday afternoon. He may have read it, but he took no

part in the

philosophy that put that legislation together, and he took no

part in

the drafting.

Mr. Chairman, obviously if we were made up as a city council, as a

municipal body — each member not bound by party policy, each member not

bound by a partisanship in a political way, each member being free to

vote as his or her conscience led them — this minister would have a

vote of non-confidence passed against him.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

think the debate has certainly settled down a great deal since the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) left the chamber.

MR. LEA: Do you think the public will pick that up if you

keep saying that, Pat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has

decided to drop in this evening, because perhaps he can answer a

question, Mr. Chairman, that was asked earlier this afternoon of him.

Why is it, if the gentleman in question — with regard to the drafting

of this legislation, which has been standard procedure under many

governments — why, if this particular individual is unreliable, was it

that the NDP engaged him in the first place to draft their legislation?

None of the members opposite

have made it clear to me at least why

an unreliable individual, in their view, one who is paying off the

mining industry, to use their words, would have been hired in the first

instance — not by the Social Credit government, either present or

previous, but by the NDP government. Why would they have hired this man

as a consultant if it were so wrong, Mr. Chairman, for such an

individual to participate in the drafting of legislation? Why was it,

then, that the NDP engaged this man to participate in the drafting of

three message bills that they introduced? Why, if this individual was

being placed in a position to profit by whatever knowledge he may have

had, and making use of whatever advantages he may have had, and paying

no attention to whatever morals he may have had, why is it that that

individual would have been so reliable under the NDP administration and

yet unreliable under the present administration?

Why, Mr. Chairman, is the present minister to be the subject of a

non-confidence motion of the NDP with regard to a meeting that he

didn't attend, when the same individual, Mr. Chairman, was shown a

message bill by the former Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition —

the member who's insisting that the present minister resign? Why was it

that he wasn't criticized for having shown that same individual a

message bill before he and his Minister of Mines (Mr. Nimsick)

introduced it into the House? Why is it that the former

Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), the man originally responsible for

hiring this consultant, the man whose office the message bill was

produced for the benefit of this particular…? I'm referring to the

mineral royalties legislation. Why, if the Premier and the

Attorney-General should have made available to this particular

consultant their message bill, why is it so correct that this procedure

be followed in their hands and yet so incorrect if that same procedure,

or one less sensitive, be followed in the hands of the civil servants

and not in the presence of the minister?

What's consistent, Mr. Chairman, about the attitudes of the NDP and

their remarks? Why is it that the former Highways minister (Mr. Lea)

and the former Mines minister (Mr. Nimsick) were so reluctant to

criticize their colleagues, the Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and

the Premier (Mr. Barrett) when they were guilty of the very same

transgression they are criticizing the present minister for — if it

were a transgression at all? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is that no

transgression was involved. The answer is that it's sheer and utter

hypocrisy on the part of the present opposition. And to use the words

most often used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett): it was

nothing more nor less than cheap politics.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I enjoy the forays

back into history by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and

the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) — the information

they provided this House on who assisted in the drafting of legislation

for various departments such as

[ Page 2775 ]

the Department of Human Resources and a few others.

I hope those

members aren't asking to rewrite the textbooks of this province,

because they're a little bit shaky about the history they are providing

us with tonight, Mr. Chairman. For one thing, those who drafted the

Automobile Insurance Act had nothing to gain, owned no shares in

automobile insurance companies, and had nothing to gain….

AN HON. MEMBER: Only the payoff of a job.

MR. SKELLY: Get back in your seat. They had nothing to gain

from….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, the payoff of the job….

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Williston?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Williston and Mr. Bonner….

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I would ask the Premier to

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Members….

MR. LEA: I would ask the Premier to withdraw that a senior

civil servant, namely Mr. Bortnick, would take a job helping to draft

legislation within this province to receive a job. That is what the

Premier said, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, may I remind you that no

reference was made here to any member of this House.

MR. LEA: I would ask the Premier to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no reference made to any member of

the House, and so the Chair is powerless to ask him to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) also

suggested that Dr. Andrew Thompson displayed a conflict of interest

when he assisted the government in drafting the Energy Act when Dr.

Andrew Thompson had no shares in companies that stood to benefit by the

drafting of that Act. That's what the Minister of Consumer Services

said.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back a little farther into history, if

we are permitted — a bit of a foray into the history of the drafting of

mineral legislation in this province. I'd like to read another letter

into the record. It's dated December 1, 1966.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh boy! History.

MR. SKELLY: Just hold it. We went back into history; we went

back four years. We talked about the Energy Act. We talked about the

Automobile Insurance Act. Well, this was the year before we presented

an amendment to the Mineral Act and the Mining Tax Act. The letter is

addressed to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, Prime Minister — as he was known

as at that time.

"Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C."

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's when Dave was the MLA for Coquitlam.

MR. SKELLY: That's right.

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

"This letter is to confirm your suggestion and my

agreement for the provision by me of a letter o f analysis,

summary and

recommendation relating to taxation by the Province of British Columbia

of the mining industry, and I will proceed as quickly as I can with

this matter, and I hope to provide you with my comments by early

January. I welcome the opportunity to do this in the role which you

have designated for me as a public-spirited citizen.

(signed)

Jack Austin."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SKELLY: Jack Austin.

AN HON. MEMBER: The senator?

MR. SKELLY: Now a senator.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the member show how this relates to the…?

MR. SKELLY: Jack Austin has a few problems along the way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Hon. Member, we are on the amendment.

Please, I did the courtesy of not interrupting you.

MR. SKELLY: In 1967 he was an adviser to the Prime Minister

on mineral taxation in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: "Well, what else did he do?" says the present

Premier of the province, and son of the former Prime Minister. Well, at

that time he was on

[ Page 2776 ]

the board of directors of Brameda Resources, which

came crashing

down around his partners after he had escaped to Ottawa. He was also

president of Giant Mascot Mines.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Where have we heard that one before?

MR. SKELLY: They stood to benefit from mining tax legislation

in this province.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: A fine old mining company — that's right.

He also was accused of using his office as private secretary to the

Prime Minister of Canada to promote mining shares and to take advantage

of tax privileges.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, this was somewhat later. This was when we had

presented the Mineral Royalties Act, when Jack Austin was advising the

Prime Minister of Canada and when, strangely enough, a ruling came down

from the federal government that our mineral royalties would not be

deductible from income taxes even though private royalties would be

deductible.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: This happened at the time that the Mineral

Royalties Act was presented in this province, and Jack Austin was a

close personal friend of the present Premier's father. He was involved

in mining ventures such as Brameda Resources, Brenda Mines, Giant

Mascot Mines and many other fly-by-night mining operations in the

province. He assisted the previous Social Credit government in drafting

and commenting on legislation — a man who had something to gain from a

foreknowledge of changes in the mineral taxation Act and changes in the

Mineral Act that took place in the following year.

So if we're going back in history, Mr. Chairman, then we should go

back into the previous Social Credit regime and find out who had an

influence over the drafting of legislation that involved the mining

companies at that time — the people who were involved in profiting from

that resource.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: It may be the Social Credit policy to do that.

MR. SKELLY: What we're concerned about here, Mr. Chairman, is

not a conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Jurgen Lau. What we're

concerned about here is whether or not the Minister of Mines and

Forests and various other things told the truth to this House. The

reason that this motion is on the floor of this committee is that we

are concerned that the Minister of Mines was either not truthful or

that he was incompetent in drafting legislation and presenting it to

the House.

Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Forests, the member for

Yale-Lillooet, said Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that

legislation. He made a flat statement to this House that Mr. Lau had

nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation. He must have

known. He appointed Mr. Lau to his mineral taxation committee. He must

have known. He had the senior members from his department who were

involved in the drafting of that legislation and involved with Mr. Lau

in the drafting of that legislation. He must have known at the time

that he made a flat statement that Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the

drafting of that legislation — and that's a quote from Hansard .

The minister allowed at least one person with interests in mining

companies — possibly more people with interests in mining companies —

to be involved in the drafting of a taxation bill…people who stood to

benefit from the results of that legislation in advance of its

presentation to this House. And for that reason alone, the minister

should be required to resign forthwith. The Premier should demand his

resignation forthwith.

MR. LEA: Or resign himself.

MR. SKELLY: If we had a Premier with any sense of moral

obligation he would have demanded his resignation last night but not

only did the minister and the Premier not feel any obligation to demand

the minister's resignation when he revealed the tax bill to those who

stood to gain from the results of that taxation bill, even after the

evidence was presented to this House which demonstrated that the

minister had, in fact, not told the truth to this House, even after

evidence had been presented and the minister had been confronted with

the truth, still he refused to resign and the Premier did not ask him

to resign, as anyone with a sense of moral obligation would have done.

That's the reason this motion is on the order paper, not that the

person who assisted in drafting the legislation, Jurgen Lau, is at

fault. It is the minister who is at fault, and the minister refused to

reveal the truth to this House until he was confronted by the truth in

the form of a memo presented by the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk).

So I, Mr. Chairman, have no other obligation but to vote against, or

vote for the motion….

[ Page 2777 ]

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Start all over again.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I'll start all over again. I have an

obligation to vote in favour of this non-confidence motion. I'm only

sorry that we're not reducing the minister's salary in proportion as

he's reducing the taxation on the mining companies in this province, in

which case we'd be reducing it a heck of a lot more than $1.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman….

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Under standing

order 37, I was….

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's only applicable, Hon. Member, if two

members are on their feet at the same time, and the Chair recognizes

the….

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of

Environment will….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I recognize the second member for

Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to defer to the

Minister of Environment if he would care to speak now. If he would nod

his head yes, I will sit down. He nodded his head yes. So I'll sit down.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the

second member for Victoria. I can assure you I will not take much of

the House's time.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) chose to delve into history by

way of correspondence. I thought perhaps in keeping with this attitude

towards this motion we might also offer to the House just a very

limited amount of information from correspondence.

Interjections.

MON. MR. NIELSEN: No, not this time. It came by way,

apparently, of a different route.

They were speaking about the

propriety of persons involved in

industry, particularly in the mining industry, of being privy to

information which is or may be contained in a bill — specifically, a

message bill — the thought being that such a person would have an

advantage which he may take advantage of and possibly produce some

wealth for himself, his friends or associates.

MR. LEA: You wrote through supper too, eh?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The persons who are privy to legislation

prior to its presentation in this House…. It has been argued by some

members of the House that it is standard procedure in jurisdictions

elsewhere, and in this province, to consult with persons who have

expert knowledge in specific fields, be it mining, insurance, energy or

whatever. It has been suggested by members that in most instances — and

it was suggested in all instances cited tonight — that these persons

were either of such calibre, or were not involved at the specific

drafting moments, or it would not be to their advantage, or their own

ethics or professional ethics restricted this….

But getting back to the point of any person involved in an industry

which may have a conflict in legislation to be presented to this House

prior to it actually being presented….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have a letter addressed to a person who

is very much involved with a mining corporation from a minister of the

Crown of British Columbia, speaking to a peculiar problem in the

industry in which this person was involved:

"We propose to present to the Legislature of this

province, and to recommend its passage, legislation which will have the

effect of providing new copper smelters with a sum equivalent to 2

cents a pound for each pound of copper actually produced from such new

smelter for a period of four years from the date of the substantial

completion of the smelter."

This letter is telling the person what is proposed to be brought in

as legislation which would be brought in as a message bill.

It is from a minister of the Crown no longer sitting as a minister,

the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Hon. Gary V.

Lauk, dated October 17, 1975, and addressed to….

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the man who started all this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of

order.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is

reading from a memorandum that was handed out at a press conference

last October by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he

was the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Hon. Member.

Proceed, Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just for clarification, I am

[ Page 2778 ]

not reading from a memo. The member is wrong again.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I will table this

correspondence after committee rises to prove him wrong again. The

letter is addressed to Dr. N.B. Keevil Jr., Teck Corp. Ltd., 1199 West

Hastings St.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: October 17, 1975.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): "Signed, Gary Lauk."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That has been said, yes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of

impropriety on the part of a minister of the Crown relaying information

prior to its presentation or, in the words of the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly), in advance of its presentation to this House, the

attitude of those calling for the resignation of the Minister of Mines

seems very strange when you consider such correspondence was forwarded

from this building as late as last year. I leave that for them to

consider.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is a very brief point of

order. The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned in his recent

debate — and I am sorry, it has taken me a moment to look up the

references, which is why I am only bringing it up now — but he appeared

to me to be criticizing the conduct of a member of the Upper House of

relationships between governments and chambers. I would ask the member

to clarify if he was imputing any improper motives to Senator Austin.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. member for Alberni imputing any

improper motives to a member of the Senate?

MR. SKELLY: No, Mr. Chairman, I was not. He was not a senator

at the time; he was a consultant to a former Prime Minister of British

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, have you ever seen a new government

lose public confidence as quickly as this one has?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): No.

MR. BARBER: Have you ever seen a new minister lose public

confidence as quickly as this one has?

There are two major wrongs that concern us, and are the subject of

this amendment. We believe, in the first place, that there is a

substantial conflict of interest when we have the president of a mining

company preparing legislation to the considerable advantage of mining

companies and, indeed, when that legislation will be voted upon by 16

members of the coalition government who own shares in mining companies.

We believe, secondly, that there are grave conflicts between the

statements variously made at various times by the minister himself, and

between statements made by the minister and by Mr. Jurgen Lau. These

are the two principal wrongs that concern us, Mr. Chairman, and any

attempts to divert from that, any of the attempts that have been made

today, will fail because we know what's going on; we believe the public

does too.

MR. DAVIDSON: You're on the fruitloops again.

MR. BARBER: One of the things, though, that's yet to be

talked about much in this Legislature is one of the most remarkable

admissions we've yet heard from that coalition government, and from

that Minister of Mines, about how they really work. Do you recall, Mr.

Chairman, how in the last campaign and during their term in opposition

they paraded themselves up and down the province of British Columbia as

good, reliable, competent, first-class businessmen? They told all of us

that. They were all first-rate businessmen, all of them.

The Minister of Mines was a first-rate businessman; they all knew

how to run businesses. But in this debate 16 of them have stood up to

say: "Well, when it comes to mines, we're not such great businessmen

because we have to admit that every investment we've made is a dog."

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: This is an incredible conflict. These guys have

paraded for three and a half years as a bunch of first-rate,

first-class businessmen.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman,

the hon. member over there has stated that 16 businessmen — or 16 men

from this side of the House — have got mining shares, and I think he's

making statements that these mining shares

[ Page 2779 ]

are in the province of British Columbia. I think if

he checks, they

are elsewhere. He's creating the impression that we're a bunch of

crooks, and I think he should withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that may be a point of

clarification which could be dealt with after the member finishes

speaking.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the more they talk, the more they

sink in the soup. Every time they open their mouths it gets worse.

MR. KING: Turkey soup! (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: It's quite remarkable, isn't it? Sixteen of the

best businessmen in the province of British Columbia have invested in

dog after dog after dog in the mining industry. What judgment they show!

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: What discretion! What competence! What sublime

business ability these guys have — they have all invested in dogs — all

these ministers, every one of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will be getting to the

amendment?

MR. BARBER: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BARBER: The minister himself tells us that he too has

invested in a dog. Isn't that extraordinary? The man entrusted with one

of the principal natural resources of this province is so inept in his

judgment, so poor in his business that he too has invested in a dog.

He's a mining engineer by profession — so he says.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: A mining engineer, of all people, has invested in

a dog.

Now I can understand when the occasional car dealer, when the

occasional land speculator, by mistake or on ill advice from a friend

somewhere located, accidentally invests in one….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, will you kindly come back to the

amendment, please? You are very confident; would you come back to the

amendment?

MR. BARBER: But when the Minister of Mines himself, whose

competence is called into question by this amendment upon which I am

speaking, when the Minister of Mines himself, a professional engineer,

admits that he too, like 15 of his colleagues, has invested in another

dog, you've got to begin to think that these guys are giving dogs a bad

name. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: His bark is better than your bite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Woof, woof!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member proceed on the amendment?

MR. BARBER: I was just waiting awhile for the statement to

sink in.

MR. BARRETT: Talk slower — it might help.

MR. BARBER: I've always talked too quickly — I've been told

that for years.

So, first of all, we have the sight of this Minister of Mines, a

professional mining engineer, confessing that he's invested in a dog,

and 15 of his colleagues invest in dogs also — and all of their shares

in mining companies are allegedly worthless. They are all worthless,

every one of them. These are the businessmen who purported to be the

competent managerial class, able to manage the business interests of

British Columbia.

That is the first problem raised and suggested by this amendment,

Mr. Chairman. This amendment clearly calls into question the competence

of the Minister of Mines. His own statements call his competence into

question even more.

Secondly, those statements are at substantial issue here. May I

repeat — for the 400th time — that he said yesterday: "Mr. Lau had

nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation." That's what he

said.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): You're getting excited again!

MR. BARBER: Did he tell the truth then, or did he make a

statement that he was not competent to make? Did he tell the truth

yesterday, or was he speaking from ignorance? One can only conclude,

because only one of those things can be logically correct — they cannot

both exist simultaneously and be simultaneously and equally correct —

that he either did not tell the truth or he was not competent to say

anything. If he didn't know the answer, as an honourable and honest

minister he would have said

[ Page 2780 ]

so. We would have accepted that. He would have

taken that question

as notice. He would have taken that line of argument as notice and

said: "I'm sorry. I don't know, but I will find out for you. I won't

mislead you by making statements that I'm not really competent to make

and I won't tell a lie to you. I'll go and find out." And we would have

accepted that. Any of us would have accepted that. But the man stood in

this House and said: "Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of

that legislation." That statement was contradicted totally by Mr. Lau

himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blabbermouth!

MR. BARBER: Totally! Does the man know what he is saying, Mr.

Chairman? Does the minister know what he is talking about? Or is Mr.

Lau a liar? Has Mr. Lau made all this up? Is Mr. Lau at fault? Did he

misinform the people?

You know, the Minister of Mines may not have known who drafted the

legislation but The Vancouver Sun

did as early as June 5. I wish to read into the record something that

the minister should know, were he a competent minister. In a lengthy

article in the Saturday edition of The Vancouver Sun , June

5, 1976, appearing on page 32, in which a substantial analysis of

proposed mining legislation was carried out, these comments were

written:

"Waterland said that though the immediate effect of

the mining legislation will be a drop in government revenue…"

We all know

that's true.

"…a steady increase can be expected over the next 10

years. 'We shouldn't just look at what we can get out of the mining

industry today,' he said, 'we should plan for the future.'"

The

article carries on, the

article tells us what we knew to be the

case and what we presumed any competent minister would have known to be

the case. It was, after all, his legislation. On June 5 The Vancouver Sun

knew who drafted the legislation. It said:

"A committee of four, three of them from outside the

Mines department, drafted the legislation. They were Jim Fyles, Deputy

Minister of Mines, Jurgen Lau, a lawyer with Bull, Housser and Tupper,

Gordon Bell, and independent consultant George Stekl."

On June 5 The Vancouver Sun

knew who drafted it. This

minister comes in here yesterday and tells us he didn't know who

drafted it. He told us that Mr. Lau did not draft it. "Mr. Lau had

nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation."

Is the man telling the truth or not? Is he competent or not? Did he

know who was drafting the legislation or not? On June 5 The Vancouver Sun

knew who drafted the legislation. Yesterday the Minister of Mines

didn't. What's going on here? This is the most

gross neglect. This is the most gross incompetence. He comes into the

House and he makes a flat statement that Mr. Lau did not draft the

legislation. The Vancouver Sun on June 5 said he did. The

minister, when confronted by the fact that Mr. Lau, an honest man,

admitted he did, changed his story, altered the tune and tells us, yes,

Mr. Lau….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you are becoming very repetitious.

Would you kindly…. You have canvassed that point before.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: The fourth

question raised by this amendment lies

in that question of the minister's qualifications to hold the job he

holds. I believe, if I may speak personally for a moment, Mr. Chairman,

that the minister is a nice guy. I've been into his riding. I've

corresponded with his constituents who have come to me to solve some of

their personal problems, and I believe that the Minister of Mines is a

decent man.

I also believe that he doesn't know how to swim. He's out of his

depth. He's completely out of his depth. He's also the Minister of

Forests and he talks….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, personal attacks are

unparliamentary. Would you kindly deal with the amendment?

MR. BARBER: I said I believe he's a nice guy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Deal with the amendment, please.

MR. BARBER: The amendment calls into question the competence

of the member for Yale-Lillooet to hold the portfolio of the Minister

of Mines, and it is precisely that to which my remarks are directed.

The Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Forests, tells us that one

of his qualifications is that he's lived in the bush for a number of

years. He told us a few days ago that he spends 80 per cent of his time

on the forestry half of his portfolio.

MR. LEA: He spent 80 per cent of his time in the bush!

MR. BARBER: It may be that the fact that he's only spent 20

per cent of his time — if we're to believe his statement about 80 per

cent, and it, too appears in Hansard

— is at least in part responsible

for

[ Page 2781 ]

his total failure to exercise the duties of

Minister of Mines

seriously. But he is also the Minister of Mines.

Let me read a quotation. I wonder if someone in this House might

recognize it.

"I became involved in politics to change the mining

royalties and the ministerial discretion clauses in the mining

legislation, and that's what I've done."

I take it the pounders in the back bench recognize

the quote. I

wonder if the minister does. It's his own quote. He said it himself. He

came into politics to do what he's done, and that's straightforward

enough. But when you look at how he's done it and when you look at who

he did it for, you have to wonder whether or not the mining companies,

the former employers of that particular gentleman, have received some

quite remarkable consideration from that coalition government.

Is it possible that the minister was placed there by the mining

companies? Is it possible that he's a kind of human payoff for the

mining companies?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're coming very, very close to

imputing improper motives towards the minister.

MR. BARBER: The motives in question are those of the mining

companies and the extraordinary, subtle, diabolical influence they have

on the politics of this province and that coalition. The minister

himself admitted that the immediate effect of the mining legislation

will be a drop in government revenue, but to whose benefit is that?

It's pretty clear that the bill in question was out of this

minister's personal control. Maybe he'll find out something tomorrow,

but he didn't know tonight in whose hands the bill was, who drafted it,

who prepared it or who was responsible for it. We know who was

responsible for it. It's the Minister of Mines — first, last and

always. The bill was out of his hands. Quicksilver-like, it slipped

through his fingers. The president of a mining company ended up doing

the job. The bill was out of his hands. He did not exercise control,

and this is the grossest neglect.

We asked the Minister of Mines to file the list of shareholders of

Barrier Reef, to file the list of shareholders of Bethlehem Copper, to

file the report of three consultants and of the deputy minister, and to

prepare for us a statement, chronological and exact, of who had that

legislation in their hands. Who had it? When did they see it? We need a

complete list of all of the mining company interests, including

directorships and shares held by all of the members of the committee

who drafted that bill. Otherwise we're never going to know who is

responsible. We're only going to know that the minister wasn't.

The minister has exercised no discretion, has ensured no security

and has taken no precautions.

The bill was not in his control. He didn't even know who drafted it.

The Vancouver Sun knew, but he didn't know. The Vancouver Sun

knew on June 5; he didn't know yesterday.

I wish to conclude by pointing out, Mr. Chairman, the really tragic

and predictable outcome of this amendment: it will fail. The opposition

will be defeated by the government majority. It will fail. The

government majority will defeat the vote and the cover-up will succeed.

We'll never find out through whose hands that legislation passed. We'll

never find out who actually wrote it, but over the years to come, we'll

find out day by day who benefits. It isn't the ordinary people of this

province that benefit; it's the mining companies of this province that

will benefit. That's the most tragic outcome of them all.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I understand the need for defence of

a situation like this on behalf of the government. I understand the

motives of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) standing up

and reading a letter that was publicly released in mid-October — a

letter from the Minister of Mines at the time (Mr. Lauk) to Afton

Mines. Also he publicly released at the same time a letter from Afton

Mines. Mr. Chairman, the interesting part of that smokescreen was the

fact that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in

this province had said on a number of occasions that all of his files

had gone missing. I would ask that this rather news-media-inclined

person let us know where he found part of those files, or was he just

reading something that was made public and certainly not part of any

kind of a cover-up in any way, shape or form?

Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing this whole question for a good

long time. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) can

sympathize with the Minister of Mines, because to some degree his

budget and his financial direction were also shared with others outside.

Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't be so hard for us to take, except that we

all recall how the Minister of Mines moved around this province

assuring the mining industry that all would be well. Not only did he

assure them that all would be well, but he saw to it that they were

involved. But, Mr. Chairman, this goes way beyond that. Let's not lose

sight of the real basic issue, which is not a smokescreen. Let's not

accept a smokescreen; let's accept the words in Hansard , Mr.

Chairman, and that's really what our debate is all about. Mr. Chairman,

the minister made conflicting remarks. The minister has led the

committee into chaos, to the extent that for a good part of the day

most of the cabinet disappeared. The front benches emptied, but they

felt it best to come back in and do a job. I noticed, Mr. Chairman,

that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has been

[ Page 2782 ]

conspicuous in his absence, also came in….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please come back to the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I just want everybody to understand that all the

smokescreen that has gone on is really irrelevant. Sure, some of the

implications from the opposition have been off the track from what the

real direction is. The real direction is that the minister has put us

into a terribly embarrassing position in this House where we cannot

support his tenure in a most responsible position in this province; a

position wherein he makes the basic decisions that apply to the largest

resource industries — not only mines, but forests. Mr. Chairman, how

can we therefore do anything in good conscience but support a

resolution put forward in the best interests of parliament and put

forward in the best interests of this House? I hope the people in this

debate will think it over and will support a resolution that will put

this committee and this House in better stead than it has been

heretofore.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 25

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Bawlf

Bawtree

Fraser

Davis

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kerster

Loewen

Mussallem

Rogers

Strongman

Veitch

Mr. King requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals

of the House.

On vote 130.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on vote 130, yesterday we were

having a debate about what mines and what mining companies may be

assisted in this province. A number of members in the House indicated

that they had shares in mines. As a matter I of fact, I'd like to bring

attention to Charta Mines.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) got up and very piously

talked about Charta Mines — it was in Alberta, and it had claims here,

there and everywhere. Mr. Chairman, we said that B.C. was looking more

and more hospitable to that company.

I just by chance today came across the directors of Charta Mines….

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. COCKE: Charta Mines — C-h-a-r-t-a, for the interest of Hansard .

I found, Mr. Chairman, that one Charles Bawlf is a director of Charta

Mines. I don't know what the relationship is, but I wonder if he's

related to the member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if he is?

MR. COCKE: A Gary Anderson, Mr. Chairman, is another. Then we

heard also from the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers); he was

indicating that he knew something about Charta Mines. We also find on

the board of directors of Charta Mines a C. Stephen Rogers. Mmm! Two

out of three so far.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): No claims in British

Columbia!

MR. COCKE: No claims in British Columbia — we're not talking

about claims in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. What we're talking

about is how hospitable is British Columbia to Charta Mines.

In Charta Mines we find strange name relationships: Charles Bawlf,

Gary Anderson, C. Stephen Rogers, John S. Brock and, I believe, J.

Pendergast. Well, we missed out on the last two, but, Mr. Chairman,

strange bedfellows possibly.

Really, what we're talking about here is the fact that this

government, by their own admission during the election campaign, moved

around this province and said: "Mining corporations, support us,

because if you do we will make British Columbia a place that you'll

enjoy for ever and ever." Then while we took our vote a minute or two

ago, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "Are you against

the mining industry?" Mr. Chairman, a mining industry that will provide

that this province and the people in this province receive their share

of their heritage — no, we're not against. But we have witnessed in

this country a mining industry that has grown fat with the ability to

avoid tax, and the ability to put themselves in a preferred position

that hasn't been enjoyed by any other industry with the exception of

the petroleum industry.

The forestry industry has never been treated in Canada like the

mining industry. So, Mr. Chairman, it s interesting to see that there

are names we all know turning up in the strangest places.

[ Page 2783 ]

MR. SKELLY: I would like to talk about some things which were

brought up during the time we were discussing the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, and one of the things was that the Minister of Mines desires

to do away with discretion in mining legislation. I'd like to talk

about a piece of legislation that was on the books since 1970, called

the Mineral Processing Act. It was placed on the books by, I believe,

Tiger Richter, as he's affectionately known. I'd like to talk about

some of the sections of that Act as they relate to the minister's

abhorrence to discretion in the mining industry and discretion in

mining legislation. It says in this Act,

section 4:

"Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the

minister may direct the owner or manager of a producing mine within the

province to deliver a maximum of 50 per cent of the minerals produced

by that mining operation to a processing plant, smelter or refinery.

Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the minister may, in

notice by writing, direct the owner or manager or any processing plant

to accept delivery of, process, smelt or refine such minerals, to be

carried out within such period of time and at such cost to the

producing mine as the minister may determine or direct. Failure to

comply with the written directive of the minister is an offence and

upon

summary conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000

for each day that the contravention continues."

Was that passed by the former Minister of Mines who sought to usurp

discretionary power over the mining industry of this province? That

statement "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" — did that

come from the former member for Vancouver East who, we were told in

this House over the last three years, didn't believe in the sanctity of

contracts, Mr. Chairman? No, it was Tiger Richter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I just interrupt the member

long enough to give you this caution?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: Was that to join the Socred party?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to introduce at this time a caution that

there are restrictions in what can be debated in Committee of Supply,

and May at page 739 says that

"the administrative action of a

department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and

matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee of

supply." That's just a caution. Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: Well, this Act, I believe, comes under the

administrative purview of the Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman. He has

this discretion. He said he had an abhorrence to this type of

discretion and the use of this type of discretion. He sought to repeal

it, and he criticized the former Minister of Mines for placing this

type of discretion in the Mineral Act. Yet in another Act that he

hasn't touched at all — and okay, the Fair Sales Practices Act, but of

course we're not discussing that minister's vote — this minister has

the discretion to seize up to 50 per cent of the production of any

mine, to direct it to any smelter or refining company to accept the

production of the producing mine at any price he chooses to set. Now

that's what I call ministerial discretion. In his abhorrence for

ministerial discretion in the mining industry he hasn't repealed or

proposed to repeal the Mineral Processing Act. In fact, it remains on

the books.

I don't believe that the minister is concerned about discretion at

all. I believe it was a sham, his abhorrence for discretion under the

Mineral Act. I believe it was a sham, just a sham minister, and he was

following the dictates of the mining companies when he presented that

Bill 30 to this Legislature, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't have any

abhorrence to ministerial discretion at all.

When he was interviewed by the news media he said that he wanted to

cut down the powers of his office, to cut down those discretionary

powers, and yet he leaves it in the Mineral Processing Act. I think

it's typical Social Credit coalition legislation. They don't want to

remove the discretionary powers of ministers. After all, they've left

it in the Highway Act. They've left it in the trade practices Act.

They've left it in many other Acts, including Acts under the

jurisdiction of the present minister — heavier legislation, more

Stalinist, statist type of legislation than was ever passed under the

previous New Democratic Party government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the member again that legislation

or the need for legislation is not in order in discussion in committee

of supply?

MR. SKELLY: Right, I'm talking about the Minister of Mines'

administrative jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it sounded like you were talking

about legislation.

MR. SKELLY: Right. In any case, he has this discretion under

legislation that still exists on the books of this province, and he has

the power to seize and direct and allocate resources under this

[ Page 2784 ]

legislation. I ask the minister: if he really

believes that he

shouldn't have this discretion, then why has he left this legislation

on the books — legislation that empowers him to seize minerals from

free-enterprise mines operating in this province, and direct them to

processing plants within this province, not with the permission of

those people involved in the free marketplace?

Remember how they criticized the former minister of resources, Mr.

Chairman, for interfering in the free marketplace. They criticized him.

Yet this minister has the power under the mineral processing Act to

seize minerals — up to 50 per cent of the production of any mine in the

province — and to direct them to a smelting plant or a processing plant

and to force them to accept those minerals and to process them at a

price that he dictates. This is statist, Stalinist type of legislation

that was put on the books by the previous Social Credit government.

The minister doesn't really believe that he shouldn't have this type

of discretion. He's simply following the dictates of the mining

companies and he doesn't really believe that he shouldn't have that

type of discretion. He's a sham minister and a front for the mining

companies. What did the mining companies say, when that legislation was

presented, about the jurisdiction that this minister has over minerals

within the province, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just remind you for the last time that we do

not discuss legislation.

MR. SKELLY: But this is part of his administrative

jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is legislation, Hon. Member.

MR. SKELLY: He has the power, though, under his department to

direct minerals, to interfere in the free marketplace, to decide which

mining companies should direct which minerals to which processing plant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion of legislation will be out of

order.

MR. SKELLY: This is already on the books, though, Mr.

Chairman. It was passed by the previous Social Credit government in

1970, and he still has that power. I'll steer clear of the legislation;

I'll simply tell you what the reaction of the mining companies was. Oh,

and here's another telegram, too:

PREMIER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL,

MINISTER OF

FINANCE, THE HON. WILLIAM ANDREW CECIL BENNETT, P.C., LL.D., DOCTOR OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE, VICTORIA, B.C.

SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF BILL 40

MINERAL PROCESSING ACT THIS ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED EXPRESSIONS OF

CONCERN FROM RESPONSIBLE MINE DEVELOPERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND

REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN FINANCING

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINING VENTURES AS WELL AS PURCHASING COPPER

CONCENTRATES FOR LOCAL MINES. JAPANESE INTERESTS APPEAR TO BE THE MOST

CONCERNED OVER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL AS IT WOULD AFFECT THE

PURCHASE OF COPPER CONCENTRATES IN THIS PROVINCE. IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY

BEEN ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF LORNEX MINING COMPANY THAT FINANCING

OF THEIR IMPORTANT LOW-GRADE COPPER-MOLYBDENUM IN THE HIGHLAND VALLEY

AREA ASHCROFT IS IN JEOPARDY OWING TO THAT COMPANY'S INABILITY TO

GUARANTEE SALE OF COPPER CONCENTRATES TO JAPANESE SMELTERS. IT WOULD

APPEAR OBVIOUS FOR THE COPPER OUTPUT CANADIAN BANKS WILL NOT FINANCE

LOCAL MINING VENTURES.

That legislation's still on the books.

WE RECOGNIZE YOUR GOVERNMENT'S

DESIRE TO BRING ABOUT

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COPPER SMELTER IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Well, they didn't have to worry about that because

they recycled

that promise several times over.

HOWEVER WE WISH TO URGE THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT

CAREFULLY

WEIGH ALL ASPECTS OF THE LEGISLATION BEFORE IT BECOMES LAW BEARING IN

MIND THE FACT THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA MINERAL TRADE WITH JAPAN IS NOW

VALUED AT SOME $200 MILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY WITHIN FIVE YEARS THIS

TRADE COULD BE VALUED AT $500 MILLION PER YEAR. IT'S OUR OPINION THAT

ANY ACTION THAT MAY BE TAKEN WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE OF THIS MOST

BENEFICIAL MINERAL TRADE WITH JAPAN AND WOULD BE MOST UNWISE AS IT

WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE A VERY ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE GROWTH OF B.C.'S

MINERAL INDUSTRY BUT WOULD ALSO SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE ECONOMY OF THIS

PROVINCE. AS YOU ARE AWARE THE FUTURE OF MINING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA IS

DEPENDENT ON LARGE LOW-GRADE DEPOSITS THAT ARE NOW BEING DISCOVERED AND

DEVELOPED.

Sounds like I'm recycling a few Socred speeches

from the last three

years — but it's 1970.

TO PLACE, SUCH DEPOSITS IN PRODUCTION

REQUIRES VERY

SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF VENTURE CAPITAL MUCH OF WHICH MUST BE ATTRACTED

FROM OUTSIDE FINANCIAL MARKETS INCLUDING JAPAN.

[ Page 2785 ]

RESPECTFULLY

THOMAS ELLIOTT

MANAGER

B.C. AND YUKON CHAMBER OF MINES

Mr. Chairman, that legislation is still on the books. This minister

still has that discretionary power to direct minerals from one mine in

the province to a processing plant in the province. This minister says

he has an abhorrence to discretion in mining legislation and that he

came to office out of a desire to remove that discretion from the

legislation. Yet he's only removed it from part of the legislation

which he administers, Mr. Chairman. And he's left the balance of it in

there — kind of a Catch 22. And I am wondering just what the minister

plans to do about the discretionary powers that he holds under certain

other legislation in the province, legislation that was passed by the

previous Social Credit government and legislation over which he has

jurisdiction. What does he plan to do with that legislation?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit

again.

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, for the second time in

as many days in committee there has been misleading information

presented to the House concerning my holdings in Charta Mines and with

respect to the question of whether Charta Mines in fact has any

interests in the province of British Columbia. Yesterday the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk)

cited the Financial Post

Survey of Mines, 1976 to the

effect that Charta Mines does, indeed,

have such holdings. I wish to correct that statement of fact that

Charta Mines had a claim in British Columbia which lapsed March

27, 1975. In fact, Charta Mines has only holdings in the province of

Alberta. The fact is that Charta is now moving into the toy business,

Mr. Speaker, which I am sure will pose no threat to the…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BAWLF: …sensitivities of the opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression we were

going to have a statement from you about a matter raised earlier

regarding a telegram.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement will follow in due course, but not

this evening, Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: I was under the impression that it was today,

Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tables documents referred to in committee.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada