1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Assessment Act (Bill 151). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3739

Oral Questions

Staff problem at Jericho Hill School. Mr. McClelland — 3739

Consultant fees paid to A. Koehli. Mr. McGeer — 3739

Qualifications for election to community resource

boards. Mr. Wallace — 3740

Cost of dairy and hog income assurance programmes. Hon.

Mr. Stupich — 3741

Apology requested by Victoria mayor. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 3741

Security of tenure of LCB chairman. Mr. Chabot — 3741

Possible purchase of property from Daon Corporation.

Mr. Morrison — 3741

NDP policy on investment return. Mr. Gibson — 3741

B.C. pulp shortage. Mr. McGeer — 3741

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 50). Second

reading.

Mr. Cummings — 3742

Mr. McGeer — 3742

Mr. Fraser — 3742

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees

Association Incorporation Act (Bill 51).

Second reading.

Ms. Brown — 3743

Statutes Act (Bill 111).

Committee, report and third reading — 3743

Securities Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 116).

Committee stage.

section 59.

Mr. McGeer — 3743

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3743

Report and third reading — 3743

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 121).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 11.

Ms. Sanford — 3744

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3744

Mr. Gibson — 3744

Mr. Curtis — 3744

Mr. Wallace — 3744

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3744

Mr. Gibson — 3745

Mr. Morrison — 3745

Mr. Wallace — 3745

Amendment establishing

section 14.

Ms. Sanford — 3746

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Mr. Gibson — 3746

Report stage — 3746

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill

122). Committee, report and third reading — 3746

Companies Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 127).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3747

Report stage — 3747

British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 17).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3747

Mr. McClelland — 3747

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3747

British Columbia–Alberta Boundary Act (Bill 30). Second

reading.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3747

Mr. McGeer — 3747

Mr. Curtis — 3747

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3747

Department of Economics Development Act (Bill 71).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3748

Mr. Chabot — 3748

Mr. McGeer — 3748

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3749

Mr. Wallace — 3749

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3750

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3751

Point of order

Lack of quorum

Mr. Curtis — 3753

Routine proceedings

Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment

Act,

1974 (Bill 146). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3753

Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

87).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 3754

Mr. Wallace — 3754

Mr. Chabot — 3755

Hon. Mr. King — 3755

Division on second reading — 3756

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading. On

the

amendment to postpone second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3757

Mr. Phillips — 3759

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act,

(Bill 152). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3757

Mr. Phillips — 3759

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act,

(Bill 152). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

Mr. Fraser — 3768

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3768

Mr. Curtis — 3768

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

Motions and adjourned debate on motions.

On motion 27.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

On motion 28.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3768

Mr. Curtis — 3768

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3769

Royal assent to bills — 3769

[ Page 3739 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

seated in the gallery today is a group of young people who are

from the Island Youth Centre near Nanaimo. The Island Youth

Centre is one of the resources operated by the province that is

available to young people and is shortly to become

co-educational. I would ask the House to welcome these young

people.

Introduction of bills.

ASSESSMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Assessment

Act .

Bill 151 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

STAFF PROBLEM AT

JERICHO HILL SCHOOL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question for

the Minister of Education, regarding Jericho School. I

understand that four of the teachers in the school for the deaf

have resigned. Four others have said they are leaving and are

looking for other jobs. The parents in the school seem to be in

panic at the moment about what they can expect for the school

in the future. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House

whether or not she is aware of the situation and what's being

done to correct it.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Member, I've

just been very recently made aware of it and I'm having a look

at the situation. I will inform you what I have found out and

what we intend to do about it. I'll see you personally about

it, if you like.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right. Just a supplementary. I

understand that Mr. Walsh in your department was warned some

three months ago about this and I would hope that some action

would be taken quickly.

CONSULTANT FEES PAID TO A. KOEHLI

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask a

question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister paid

any consultant fees to Mr. Albert Koehli with regard to advice on any

housing project involving Community Builders Ltd. or any other firm

with which this gentleman is connected'?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The answer to that

is no, but I have paid consultant fees to Mr. Albert Koehli for

other projects.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could he

tell us what those projects are?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I could give you some examples; I

couldn't name them all. He has given some assistance to the

United Housing Foundation, preparation of plans for duplexes in

Burnaby, and others — I can't think of them all off hand, but

not related to Community Builders.

MR. McGEER: Is it a directly stated policy of the Department

of Housing, Mr. Speaker, that no consultant fees will be paid

either to aldermen or to private consultants connected with the

building industry that might involve either these communities

or these companies in future dealings with the provincial

government?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Would you like to ask the questions one

at a time?

MR. McGEER: It's the same question. First of all, with

people who aren't on city councils, is it a stated policy of

the department that consultantship shall not involve ultimately

the firms with which they're connected being involved with

receiving provincial government assistance — housing projects?

Is that policy or isn't it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Consulting for which fees are paid do not

relate to projects involving the companies by which consultants

are employed.

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

the same subject to the Minister. I wonder if the Minister

would indicate at what point in time he, the Minister, first

became aware of Mr. Koehli's position with the firm of

Community Builders Ltd. Was it before or after Mr. Koehli was

invited to serve as a consultant to the Department of

Highways?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've known of Mr. Koehli's connection

with Community Builders from the first of my acquaintance with

him. He, I believe, was also used in a consulting capacity in

no way related to Community Builders prior to my

appointment.

[ Page 3740 ]

MR. CURTIS: A very brief supplementary, with the concurrence

of the Member for South Peace River. Does the Minister know how

long Mr. Koehli has been associated with Community

Builders?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I would say quite a while — probably

before 1972.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To the Minister of

Housing: in view of the fact that the government purchased

Dunhill Developments Ltd., in the Minister's stated words, "…to obtain

a management team for the housing industry in

British Columbia," are there any consultants involved in

the management fee of upwards of a quarter-of-a-million dollars

over a five-year period, and what housing projects…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One question at a time, I think,

is a wise policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are there any consultants in the management

team that you purchased with Dunhill Developments?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You're referring to some management

contracts which extend for some five years for consultant….

Contracts extending five years…I really don't understand

the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking you about the management team that

you gave a contract to from Dunhill Developments after

purchasing it. You stated in the Legislature that one of the

purposes of purchasing Dunhill Developments was to get

expertise and a management team for the housing industry. Are

there any consultants in that management team?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Not that I'm aware of. You might be

referring to two-year contracts that we have signed with four

of the senior personnel.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would

the Minister of Housing advise the Legislature what projects

this management team are presently involved in to provide

housing for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They're involved in some land development

on behalf of the department in Squamish and in Saanich. They

are building a 200-unit senior citizens' project in the West

Point Grey–Kitsilano area of Vancouver. I'm trying to think of

specific government projects, not wind-up projects that they

have — another project which they've more or less initiated, a

rental project.

They're well employed. I could say that they are looking to

put a certain number of duplex properties, which we have, on the

market. They are also, of course,

continuing with the Burnaby property they have where they will

be building a condominium; a couple of North Vancouver

properties and others.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one last, final, short supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. Are all of the housing projects that this management

team is involved in on land that was acquired through the

take-over of Dunhill Developments?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION

TO COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARDS

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

Minister of Human Resources if he could tell us what

restrictions there are on individuals seeking election to the

community resource boards? Is the sole qualification residence

in the community concerned?

HON. MR. LEVI: I didn't hear the first part of the

question.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if you could tell us, Mr. Minister,

what restrictions, if any, there are on individuals seeking

election to the community resource board, for example, on the

Dunbar–Southlands–West Point Grey election where nominations

closed a few days ago. Could the Minister tell us, are there

any restrictions on a citizen living in that community?

HON. MR. LEVI: They must be a Canadian citizen or a British

subject in order to participate.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Could the Minister confirm

that our native people are not allowed to seek election to

these boards, or that a person who did apply to be nominated

was turned down and told that she could not seek election?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not aware of that, Mr. Member. I'd

appreciate if you would let me know the details. I'm not aware

of it.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Am I to

take it that this sounds to the Minister like an administrative

error and not in keeping with the spirit of the whole business

of the community resource board elections?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, for instance, you're talking now about

a native person. They certainly would be eligible, in my

estimation. But I'd appreciate letting me know what that

particular was.

[ Page 3741 ]

COST OF DAIRY AND HOG

INCOME ASSURANCE PROGRAMMES

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

Monday I took as notice a question from the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan about the cost of the income assurance

programmes to date. For the dairy income assurance programme we

have figures from December to March inclusive, that's four

months — a total cost of $5.89 million. The hog assurance

programme, which was announced at the time as an income

programme only, for the first six months, that's December to

May inclusive, a total of $47,406.

APOLOGY REQUESTED BY

VICTORIA MAYOR

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Public

Works: may I ask the Minister whether he has replied to the May

31 letter from His Worship, Peter Pollen, mayor of Victoria,

asking for an apology for the "unfounded and dishonourable

remarks from the Minister," and I again quote — the

Minister this time — that "there was an underhand deal carried

on by the City of Victoria with respect to the Reid

property."

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You better be careful or they'll

throw you out again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): To date I am

not aware of such a letter. When I receive the letter, I will

answer it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. May I ask the Minister

for confirmation if he has not received this letter from Mayor

Peter Pollen, dated May 31, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question has been answered,

surely.

N. DAVIDSON TO CONTINUE AS

CHAIRMAN OF B.C. LIQUOR BOARD

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Attorney-General:

In view of Mr. Neil Davidson's resignation from the Silver Star

Provincial Park Board in Vernon and his public letter of

condemnation of the policies of the Department of Recreation

and Conservation and the B.C. Forest Service, I was wondering

if the Attorney-General could tell us if he continues to enjoy

security of tenure in his position as chairman of the B.C.

Liquor Board.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I don't

think that his opinion in any other field — and I haven't read

the letter — would have anything to do with his duties as the

chairman of the B.C. Liquor Board.

POSSIBLE PROPERTY

PURCHASE FROM DAON CORP.

MR. N.R., MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Transportation and Communication.

Could he advise the House, has ICBC purchased or are they

negotiating the purchase of property from Daon Corporation, a

large piece of property which is located at the northeast end

of Burrard Street Bridge in Vancouver?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transportation and Communication):

I'll check on that. I'll take that as notice.

NDP POLICY ON INVESTMENT RETURN

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the most important economist in British Columbia,

the Minister of Finance. I would ask him for clarification of

party policy, and ask if he adheres to the profit limit stated

by his national leader, Mr. Lewis, the other day, of 8 or 9 per

cent return on investment.

HON. MR. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): Unlike the Liberal

Party, Mr. Speaker, we don't have two divisions at the

provincial level, one known as Social Credit provincially, and

federally Liberals — or Liberal provincially, but disavowing

themselves federally from the Liberal Party. I've noted with

the….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you give me a chance? I still buy my

underwear from your leader. (Laughter.) I'm not familiar with

our leader's statement. I'll check it out and let you know.

MR. WALLACE: That's why you're always so warm and cheerful.

(Laughter.)

B.C. PULP SHORTAGE

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Lands and Forests with respect to

pulp shortages in British Columbia. Did the Minister request

from the B.C.

[ Page 3742 ]

primary producers, before or during the time he was

refusing

to table the Gottesman contract with Ocean Falls here in the

B.C. Legislature, details of the production contracts and

selling prices of the B.C. primary producers?

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

Resources): As Minister, Mr. Speaker, no. But with respect to my

staff, I would have to take that as notice.

MR. WALLACE: As supplementary to that answer from the

Minister of Resources, could I ask him was the request for that

information withdrawn, and if so, who has to order for it to be

withdrawn?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd have to take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Every question seems to be taken as notice. I

don't know whether we can keep asking questions until we get

the reply back from the first one, really. Could you wait

patiently for that?

MR. CURTIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, you might find the

question in order. It is simply on the subject of kraft paper.

I wonder if the Minister has….

MR. SPEAKER: If we all agree that it's not a supplementary,

it probably would be in order.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Does the Minister or his department

have any kind of contingency plan to deal with the predicted,

projected kraft-paper shortage which is going to be of

significant proportions in 1974? — 20,000 tons is one figure

which has been mentioned.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have asked our staff to review that

question in terms of producers in British Columbia that need

that commodity. I think there's been some work done with the

Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, but

we have no specific recommendations at this stage that I'm

aware of.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Private bills. Second reading of

Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that standing

orders for the day show private bills first.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to stick by standing orders.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

I move second reading of Bill 50, An

Act to Amend the

Vancouver Charter .

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You can do better than that,

Roy.

MR. CUMMINGS: I've forgotten it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate on the matter?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I wonder if in

closing the debate the Member would give us some indication of

the depth of study that he as a Member and chairman of this

committee has put into this legislation. I know that a number

of questions were raised in the private bills committee with

regard to some of the provisions.

I must say, as a Member from the City of Vancouver, that I

am naturally going to stand behind all the reasonable wishes of

the city council. But questions were raised and I think they

should be fairly dealt with by the Minister, who is also a

representative of the City of Vancouver, and give us some idea

as to the justification for these particular amendments.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would just like to make a few

comments in general on this bill. I don't think it should be in

this House with us at all —

An Act

to Amend the Vancouver

Charter . I would like to know if this government is

considering putting them under the Municipal

Act where

all the rest of the municipalities of British Columbia are.

Why should they have their separate charter and take up the

important time of this Legislature with their amendments? Then

we have to deal with the amendments to the Municipal Act .

I think the City of Vancouver belongs under the

Municipal Act as the one Act

for all the municipalities

of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate on the bill? The Hon.

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain closes the debate.

MR. CUMMINGS: After considerable thought, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to move that the bill be referred to Committee of

the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after

today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, I would like to

put the question on all of this debate.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3743 ]

Bill 50,

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Charter , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 51, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES

ASSOCIATION INCORPORATION ACT

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): This is just a simple

amendment which is repealing

section 4 of the original 1956 Act

and replacing it with new objects of the association. There

isn't anything controversial in this bill except possibly that

it now gives school trustees the right, if they are so

requested by the respective boards, to do negotiations with the

teachers' federation on their behalf. It doesn't make it

compulsory, but it says that if they are so requested they are

able to do so.

Bill 51,

An Act to Amend the

British Columbia School

Trustees Association Incorporation Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 111.

STATUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 111; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 111, Statutes Act ,

reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 116.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 116; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 58 inclusive approved.

section 59.

MR. McGEER: I didn't want this to go all the way through

without any debate at all, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask

the Attorney-General…. This

section makes the Act a

proclamation Act. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us

how long we will be waiting before this comes into effect,

whether there is any important reason why it shouldn't come

into effect now and whether the bill, as it is now amended,

keeps our B.C. Securities Act

in line with Ontario's and the

other provinces who are trying to make their securities Acts

more or less uniform. Doesn't this result in important

departures, in other words, from standard legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as we said on second

reading of the bill, there is a new departure because we are

setting up this appellate body which is outside the civil

service. The reason it is a proclamation bill is that there

will be a corporate and financial services commission

consisting of part-time people who can sit on appeals under the

Securities Act , Companies Act , Societies Act and some

others.

We can't really enact the law declaring that there is a

commission until there are bodies to constitute that

commission. But we will do it as soon as we can after this

session of the Legislature.

Section 59 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 116, Securities Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 121, Mr. Speaker.

LAND REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 121; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

[ Page 3744 ]

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move

the amendment standing on the order paper in my name which adds

one section, called

section 11(a).

The purpose of moving this amendment — and I hope that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will accept this

amendment, because I feel it is very, very important — is to

enable the government to begin to make an inventory of how many

people are purchasing land in this province who are

non-citizens.

Some time ago there was a provision in the Land

Registry Act for people who were purchasing land in this

province to state what their citizenship was. That provision

was removed some years ago, so at this time we in this province

simply do not know how many people are purchasing land who are

not Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.

My hope is that the provincial government will move in the

future, although the amendments at this time do not provide for

this, to prohibit the sale of land to non-citizens.

Section 11(

a) would make provision for people who are

purchasing land to state what the citizenship is. That, Mr.

Chairman, in my view is the first step in enabling us to find

out how much of our land in British Columbia is being purchased

by non-Canadians.

We who travelled on the Gulf Islands with the municipal

affairs committee were told over and over again: "There are so

many people from other countries who are purchasing our Gulf

Islands, and we would like you to put a stop to it." But right

now we don't know how much of that land, either on the Gulf

Islands or anywhere else in the province, is owned by

non-citizens.

On the amendment to

section 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this

amendment, as the Hon. Member has said, is to begin the

information-gathering process whereby the people of British

Columbia can, because of their residence and citizenship in

this province and country, control the land in which they live

and be masters in their own province.

I support it. I think it is an excellent amendment, and I

congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this forward because

I think she has initiated this whole question of local

ownership of our land, so far as this provincial government and

this province is concerned. As a matter of fact, I think this

is kind of an initiation which is almost the first in Canada,

with the exception of the Prince Edward Island thing, which is

in the courts.

So I congratulate this Member for the initiative which she

has shown and the government will be pleased to accept her

amendment.

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

am absolutely delighted that the government is prepared to

accept this amendment and I congratulate the Member who moved

it. I think it is a great step forward in determining just what

is the status of foreign ownership of our land in British

Columbia because wise policies can best be developed with

information, and we simply haven't had this kind of information

in the past.

I hope and trust that the amendment, as written here, will

prove sufficient to get all the facts and figures we need, and

I trust that if and when it is passed the Attorney-General and

his department will keep it under close review to see if we

need ever closer reporting provisions. I would then look down

the line as soon as possible to some sort of action being

taken, once the information to base the policy on is available,

as quickly as possible to restrict the alienation of British

Columbia land.

I understand the constitutional difficulties in that regard.

I don't believe there are any constitutional difficulties

insofar as registration of nationality is concerned. I very

much support this amendment and congratulate the government for

accepting it.

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

will support the amendment. I do echo the words of the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to the

need for a much bolder step by this, and if not this

government, the next government of the Province of British

Columbia.

We see the trend throughout the country now towards more

careful scrutiny and control of foreign land ownership. This is

a first step, but I think it should be recognized as only

that.

MR. WALLACE: I also feel that this is a very worthwhile

amendment, particularly because of the point already stressed

that it is the basis for information without which we cannot

make intelligent legislation.

There is one point in this whole business of foreign

ownership of land which always puzzles me. The Attorney-General

talked about being masters in our own home, and I've often

wondered if the implication behind that is that if a person

from another origin owns land in this country somehow he is not

subject to the same rules, laws and regulations to which I, or

any other Canadian citizen, is subject.

I'm only asking a question because I don't know the answer,

but this statement which the Attorney-General made and which I

frequently hear made that we have to control our own land….

I'm always of the impression that municipal, regional,

provincial and federal governments can legislate as to the use

of land. As the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis) has said, there are few issues

[ Page 3745 ]

which are more important with a growing population

than the

judicious use of land, but I'm always a little puzzled by this

implication that somehow a different set of rules applies to

someone who owns land who wasn't born or didn't come to Canada

compared to the Canadian resident.

I feel that in the continuing public debate, and political

debate, on this very emotional subject of land ownership,

particularly owned by, in this case, a person who is not

Canadian or a landed immigrant, this aspect of the emotional

debate should be perhaps also discussed widely to provide that

part of the information which the total subject, in my view,

merits.

We are supporting this amendment very confidently because

first of all it gives us the facts and figures on numbers of

people and the acreage and so on. But I would just make the

comment in supporting this amendment that there are these other

aspects which I think are often commented upon in a purely

emotional sense that because a piece of land is owned by a

"foreigner," to use the word, there is some feeling that

it is badly used, or misused or in some way or other a

different standard or a different kind of rule, or a kind of

legislation seems to be available to that foreign landowner

which is different from the Canadian. I would welcome comment

on that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is an old rule which

is now embodied in our Canadian

Citizenship Act that an

alien can freely dispose and own property just as much as a

native resident of that country. And that old rule originates

to dispose of the grazing lands of Scotland without any kind of

inhibitions being placed upon them because they were absentee

owners. That was extended into Ireland. The Irish estates were

owned in London, and their posterity still owns great sections

of London.

We dispute that that rule is a proper one, and yet under the

Citizenship Act . We, as a government, at the conferences

that have taken place, have asked the Canadian government to

remove that because those few little words, that aliens can own

property under the same terms as anybody else, mean that we in

British Columbia will be increasingly subjected to absentee

ownership of the very land in which we live. We don't think

that's an acceptable proposition.

We think there should be a benefit to being a native and a resident

in a province in terms of ownership and perhaps in the terms of the

taxes you pay, and so we asked the federal government to remove that

ancient and unjust rule — fair in terms of those who have international

capital to buy up the lands of another country, but very unfair to the

residents of that particular country.

MR. GIBSON: I would just like to make one other

representation to the Hon. Attorney-General. This amendment, as

I read it, while it is a great step forward, does not get at

lands which are currently owned and for which there is no

application for registration. It gets only at the lands as they

pass through the registration process. It may well be that it

would be an impossible administrative burden to say let's do

the whole thing at once, and then it would require staffing and

computers and all that kind of thing. Since this amendment will

catch the new applications for transfer and give us the

information on that, in order to complete the statistical

picture with respect to foreign ownership of British Columbia

lands, would the Attorney-General consider bringing in, at a

future session, a further amendment to this Act which would

require that the beneficial nationality of ownership of all

lands in the province should be registered within a certain

time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will be considered.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to know also if the

Attorney-General could advise us what he means by foreign. Does

he mean someone who lives in Alberta, or someone who lives in

the United States or someone in Europe? What's the definition

of that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read the bill. It's in the

amendment.

MR. MORRISON: It doesn't specify.

MR. WALLACE: I certainly appreciated the Minister's response

to my original comment, but he didn't answer the question. I'm

agreeing that certain people in other countries, resident in

other countries at the present time, own land in Canada. The

question I asked — and I didn't get an answer — is: does that

person have any different status in regard to the laws

governing land use in this province?

a Canadian-born, he pays taxes, he's subject to the zoning laws

and he's subject to municipal, regional, provincial and federal

legislation.

All I was asking was the question as to whether or not the

foreign owner — by being an absentee owner, or perhaps living

here on a temporary or intermittent basis — is in fact granted

any particular benefits. Or is he subject to any additional

penalties compared to a Canadian citizen owning land? That was

all I was asking.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not at the present

[ Page 3746 ]

time.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On the amendment establishing

section 14.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the

amendment standing on page 27 on the order paper, which

establishes

section 14 to this Act. The reason for adding

section 14 is that the department, now that it has accepted the

amendment to

section 11, will require time to prepare the

schedules and the changes of forms. I would so move that

amendment, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the government supports

that amendment, which is necessary and consequential.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the need for this

amendment, but I just hope it won't be too long. I wonder if

the Attorney-General could give us some rough idea.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's really a matter of

redrafting the necessary land registry application forms, and I

wouldn't anticipate delay.

MR. GIBSON: It will be given priority, then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. There are one or two other bills

that are of equal importance that are before the House, but it

will have priority.

Amendment establishing

section 14 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 121, Land Registry Amendment

Act, 1974 , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 122, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 122; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 122, Provincial Court

Amendment Act, 1974

(No. 2) , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 127, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 127; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on page 28 of the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 5 standing in my name on page 28 of the order paper.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3747 ]

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on page 28 of the order paper to this

section. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 127, Companies Amendment

Act, 1974 , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HARBOURS

BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly simple

bill. It increases the borrowing power of the B.C. Harbours

Board by $25 million. As the House is aware, it already has the

borrowing power of $25 million. This amount has been spent on

the purchase of farm lands, rights-of-way and railroad

construction, and almost all of that initial authorization is

now used.

There are no immediate plans for any further port

development, but it's to allow the port authority to take steps

that will probably be necessary as the development of our ports

becomes critical in the years ahead.

So this bill allows the B.C. Harbours Board to increase its

borrowing authority from $25 million to $50 million.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a brief comment, Mr.

Speaker. I would suggest that this bill is probably a direct result of

the so-called northern development deal announced by the provincial

government, and it has to do with the harbour at Prince Rupert.

I recall in previous arrangements that British Columbia

wasn't going to find it necessary to put out any money, that

CNR and the BCR were supposed to look after their own capital

costs, except for the normal sharing costs with the

province.

It would seem to me that we've thrown away some of the

control and have sort of given in to the CNR and given them

some kind of a special deal, and that this $50 million is now

going to be needed to spend directly to subsidize CNR

operations within the boundaries of British Columbia.

While we can support the bill, I think that concept is one

which is all too prevalent in the government: losing out in

negotiations to arms of the federal government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In answer to the point raised by the

Member, I can assure him that there's no intention of spending

any of this money in the Prince Rupert harbour area.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 17, British Columbia

Harbours Board Amendment Act,

1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA–ALBERTA

BOUNDARY ACT

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

Resources): I move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McGEER: I'd just like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker,

whether the wishes of the community of Fernie will be taken

into consideration when drawing up the new boundaries between

British Columbia and Alberta.

MR. CURTIS: As I read this, there is no federal involvement

spelled out in the bill. I wonder if the Minister would comment

on the reason for that absence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Which absence?

MR. CURTIS: The federal presence. There is no federal

involvement mentioned in this bill.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The federal jurisdiction

[ Page 3748 ]

has been contacted at the staff level, Mr. Speaker,

so that

they are fully aware of the actions jointly being taken by the

Province of British Columbia and the Province of Alberta. As

the Members may know, this bill really deals with the gaps

between the dashes on the map. As I recall, Fernie doesn't

quite fit into that slot, nor Golden.

So I would move second reading, Mr. Speaker, complete

without amendment. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: And almost without comment. (Laughter.)

Motion approved.

Bill 30, British Columbia–Alberta

Boundary Act , read

a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 71.

DEPARTMENT OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): In moving second reading of this Act I think it should

be pointed out very briefly that, as I have said earlier in the

estimates of my department, the new department has been reorganizing

over the past several months, acquiring new staff and creating new

positions to move away from just being a branch of economic statistics,

statistics which may or may not be useful to both government and the

business community, and into, in addition, an advisory group of civil

servants, economists and analysts who can give the kind of up-to-date

expertise and advice to government and private industry that is

required in this day and age.

The bill in: itself allows for this kind of activity and

shortens the name of the department considerably. The initials,

of course, of the department, D.E.D., are most unfortunate. I

thought I had better point it out to the House before the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

did.

The Act is fairly straightforward. It's a modest bill

creating and setting up a very dynamic new department, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, speaking very

briefly to this legislation, in changing the name from the Department

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to the "Department of

Economic Development," I hope the Minister is going to include a

little bit of economic diplomacy, as he suggested was to take place on

his journey to Japan a little while ago. I hope the department will

become a buoyant, radiant, vibrant department of government. I hope it

won't only be a matter of organization.

The Minister suggested from the day he has been in the

cabinet that he's going to do all this shuffling and

rearranging in the department. It seems that's all he has done;

shuffle here and shuffle there. He has done very little else.

He has written a few letters, which the taxpayers have had to

pay, through the way of advertising in the newspapers, even

though he went to Japan, to indicate to the people who produce

steel there that there is a critical shortage of steel in

British Columbia. Lo and behold, a few weeks later he comes

back and he puts ads in the paper, asking people if they're

aware of any shortages of steel in the province.

Now, Mr. Minister, you've got to become a little more

organized. You've got to stop the wiffling and the waffling.

You've got to stop the shuffling within your department so that

you recognize what your rightful role is as a Minister of the

Crown.

I hope and I pray, for the well-being of the people of

British Columbia, that you will do a job, that your department

will become functional and that you will tell your colleagues

to stop instituting policies and programmes and making

statements that frighten investment capital away from this

province.

You have a responsibility in your role to attract secondary

industry. I hope you'll stand up to full height when you're in

the cabinet speaking to your colleagues and tell them that many

of their statements are detrimental to the attracting of

secondary industry in this province and that you won't tolerate

those kinds of statements and that kind of behaviour by your

colleagues because you feel you have a responsibility in your

department to ensure that future jobs are created in British

Columbia for all British Columbians and for those people who

would love to become British Columbians.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister says, it's a little

bill. The little Minister is a good friend of the

Attorney-General and he is sort of the Attorney-General's

protégé. The Attorney-General used to have this

department and he thought so well of the Minister leaping to

his assistance on so many occasions that he brought him right

along into this portfolio.

We certainly welcome this change because it's going to be a

test of learning whether the problem has been with the Minister

or whether it has been with the department. It's going to

expand now and develop. I certainly share the wishes of the

Member for Columbia River; we hope for an effective, robust

department.

I would feel personally much more optimistic about this

department if the Minister could give us a

[ Page 3749 ]

categorical guarantee that Dr. Mason Gaffney would

not be

associated with it in any way.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West

Vancouver–Howe Sound): While the

bill is short, in essence it is a very significant change that

we're making for this department — far more significant than

just a change in name would suggest. As Members will note,

having read the operative

section of the bill, this department

is now becoming the repository of all matters in this province

concerned with economic developments which are not specifically

assigned by legislation to some other department.

This casts upon this Minister and upon the staff of this

department some very serious and expanded responsibilities. It

has been popular in this House to criticize the Minister who

has held this portfolio in the past and now to treat the matter

somewhat facetiously. That's because of the way in which the

department has carried on in previous years. But with this

particular legislation, we are placing firmly in this

department a responsibility for economic development which that

department has never before had.

I know the Minister recognizes the burden that

responsibility carries with it. In supporting this change, I do

so in the knowledge that the Minister can expect careful watch

to be taken in the way in which he and his department perform

their responsibilities. We will, a year from now, be looking

for a very responsible report as to the way in which these new

broadened responsibilities have been carried out in this

province, I know the Minister recognizes the burden that

responsibility carries with it. In supporting this change, I do

so in the knowledge that the Minister can expect careful watch

to be taken in the way in which he and his department perform

their responsibilities. We will, a year from now, be looking

for a very responsible report as to the way in which these new

broadened responsibilities have been carried out in this

province.

I say this not in warning to the Minister but only in

recognition of what I believe he recognizes in this

legislation.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to enlarge a little on the comments of

the Member who just spoke, particularly in relation to the

Minister's duties. There seems to be a considerable overlap, at

least in the debates that go on in this House, as to exactly

which Minister seems to be related and in what sphere to

development.

Section 4 spells out all matters relating to economic development of

the province not assigned to any other Minister. It seems to me there

is an overlapping when one talks about economic development that

inevitably involves in a very close way Lands and Forests, Municipal

Affairs, and Mines and Petroleum Resources.

It's a puzzle to me sometimes to know whether one Minister

knows what the other Minister is doing. I've tried to

demonstrate that in a specific way in departmental estimates

the other day when it was obvious the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) had no idea of what was going on in a recreation

development even after he had a letter three months previously.

This kind of thing.

It is not fair to criticize this Minister because of the

sins of the past, but this department was a source of mockery

to the opposition in the hands of the former Minister, and the

former administration, who perhaps took first prize for being

the Minister who never answered a single question.

So this Minister, in being given this authority through Bill

71, must realize that we on this side of the House are very

eager and very keen to see some real economic progress in the

province under a very well coordinated management by this

Minister and by the other Ministers with whom he has to work in

close cooperation.

I don't feel that the record to date is very encouraging.

One of the most recent statements by this Minister about

economic development was a bitter attack on the effects the

proposed federal budget would have on economic development in

this province. Yet we have this same Minister in the cabinet of

this government bringing in exactly the same kind of

legislation provincially which is proposed federally. I find it

very contradictory that this Minister should, in fact, make

this kind of public statement about the damaging effects of

proposed federal taxation which in many ways is similar to

measures being taken by his own cabinet in the field of

provincial taxation.

I don't think it is a very reassuring answer, Mr. Speaker,

to be told in this House that it is simply a constitutional

concern and that the only reason this Minister was getting

up-tight about it was the federal government was intruding into

areas of provincial jurisdiction.

When we are specifically approving and supporting this bill,

as we will, giving the Minister very clear-cut and fairly

widespread authority in the very important area of economic

development, I have to say that so far, while he may well be an

improvement on the previous Minister, we, in this party at

least, are somewhat concerned when there is talk of the

financing or the negative effects on the financing of economic

development that we should have the kind of apparent

contradictions where this Minister and the cabinet reject

increased federal taxation but apparently find that it is all

right to impose similar taxation at the provincial level. I'm

talking particularly about royalties and similar forms of

taxation.

[ Page 3750 ]

To return for just a moment to the question of overlapping

departments, just in the last few days when I was in the Peace

River country there was great concern about the DREE agreements — where

there is a provisional decision on the DREE agreement.

Certainly the people in the Peace River area are wondering just

exactly which Minister is really the final person who is

responsible in dealing with the federal government.

For example, perhaps the Minister can clarify this: the

rumour in the Peace River country two days ago was that most of

the negotiations for the DREE agreements are in the hands of

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams). Maybe the Minister can clarify if one Minister or

more than one Minister is involved, and who finally signs

agreements involving federal-provincial cooperation in such

agreements.

I just raise these points because it seems to me that in

this House we frequently have confusion as to which Minister is

responsible, or to which degree there is overlap and

coordination between different departments.

As the former speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made plain, we are, in fact, with

this bill providing duties, powers and functions for all

matters relating to economic development except the ones where

other legislation clearly delegates it to other Ministers. But

economic development so often involves other Ministers that we

in this party are very concerned to know what really efficient

degree of organization is being set up to ensure that this

bill, in giving the Minister these powers, at the same time

guarantees a clear delineation of authority and also some

assurance of real coordination and cooperation of the efforts

of overlapping departments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted

to be here to discuss the Member from Kokanee's bill. We think

that it is an interesting thing that he wishes to change the

name of his department. The present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) is the only Minister sitting on that half of the

cabinet who is here to listen because he is worried about an

amendment that might get stuck in there to change the name of

your department to Attorney-General, and he is trying to

protect himself.

Anyway, we see that the bill does not include economic

diplomacy, which we feel the Minister might like to comment

upon. It doesn't include mariculture, which we feel he might

want to comment upon. We just hope that in summing up the

debate he says a little word or two about some of the other

areas of considerable interest to him.

One thing that comes up in this bill at this reading is the whole

question of economic development — the growth of the economy as a

desirable end. I guess the government has made the decision that it is

desirable in the general sense and I don't think that is necessarily a

wrong decision. I wonder however, in spite of some of the questions

made by members of the Minister's party, whether or not he is going to

say much about the no-growth concepts, about the relationship of his

department to other departments of government with respect to

controlling the use of resources and the rate of industrial development

in the province.

This may not be the best moment to raise it, but there have

been statements made by the Minister of the Crown, in

particular in discussion of matters relating to the Minister of

Mines which are interesting and which indicate that the

government believes that the export of raw materials in terms

of mine ore is an undesirable thing. I wonder if the Minister

would like to say a word or two about what his views are as to

how this should be extended in the future.

For instance, are we to close down Kitimat because it

imports foreign ore? Are we not to have a steel mill because

that, indeed, would require, for almost the total ore

amounts, foreign ore to be imported into B.C.? It's the other

side of the coin. If we don't like to have our ores exported,

are we going to, at the same time, carry on economic

developments, which the Minister is closely interested in,

which depend upon the importation of foreign ores? I think in

particular of iron and aluminum.

I would like the Minister to comment, perhaps in closing, on

the scope that is provided here. It seems extremely wide. I

have noticed that since he came back from his economic

diplomacy tour he has hardly said a word about that tour and

what it achieved. He's taken on the federal government in his

major speeches, made no reports to the businessmen of the

province in terms of the great opportunities that he found or

did not find in the Far East. He decided to talk about that

old, old thing — the Port of Vancouver problem — which every

politician in British Columbia who doesn't have anything else

to say always winds up taking a crack at.

Not to say there is no problem. I agree. But it is something

that is so obvious, I wonder why the Minister fell into the

trap of not commenting on his exciting new department or,

indeed, his tours abroad to get trade and further business for

B.C. He chose instead to ignore all of those things and go and

talk about that particular subject which, as I said, has been

canvassed so often by all of us so frequently that it has,

indeed, become the subject to use when you have a business

audience to speak to and you've got nothing else on your mind

to think or talk about.

The same is true, of course, with respect to taxation. His

savage attack on David Lewis' policies and his intervention

into the federal election were intriguing, Mr. Speaker, and can

only be interpreted as being really under the scope of this new

bill. Under

[ Page 3751 ]

this bill he can attack anyone he likes because

everything

to do with economic development — whether it be assigned to the

federal government or any municipal authority as well as the

province — is apparently going to be under his purview.

Perhaps he will say a word or two again as to why, with a

department which I think has great potential, he has in recent

months been talking so little about it and has been launching

off into great speeches on subjects which are the concern of

either other Ministers — indeed, not only other Ministers of

this government but other Ministers of other governments at

other government levels.

I would be intrigued to learn from the Minister what

precisely he and his department intend to do. I would be a

little less interested than perhaps he himself thinks I am in

such subjects as taxation policies and the Port of Vancouver,

all of which have been thoroughly canvassed by politicians at

other levels. Not that these are not important subjects but he

keeps harping on them to the exclusion of telling us about his

own department and what he is doing.

Mariculture was something that intrigued him for a long time — he

happily went off climbing mountains in Japan to look at

lakes where fish grow. We had fascinating reports on that and

he could have learned beforehand, as indeed I tried to tell

him, that he was wasting a day of his valuable tourist trip in

Japan when he could have been looking at the bright lights or

something else….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be pompous.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. May I interrupt to say

that we are not here dealing with the estimates of the Minister….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely. I'm just talking about

the scope of the department, which is very wide here. I'm

intrigued, because the Minister himself has dwelled in recent

months with his imaginative speeches on so many other subjects

well outside the purview of his department, even outside the

scope of Bill 71, that I wonder whether this bill is an

attempt to bring him into line, to tell him that his true job

is here in the Legislature, and not only here in the

Legislature but here in the Legislature dealing with economic

development, not playing second fiddle to the Attorney-General

and trying out his chair to see whether it fits and is

comfortable.

I wonder whether or not this bill isn't indeed a bit of a

reprimand to the Minister for going too far in other areas, not

only trying to take over powers from other governments, but

also powers from other Ministers. Perhaps, in the light of the

broad scope of the bill, he would like to say a word or two

about that.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, in closing debate….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the Hon. Minister does

conclude the debate.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I said you do conclude the debate. I'm supposed

to say that, according to standing orders.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh. I'm gratified to hear, Mr. Speaker, that

you're now conforming to standing order…whatever number it

is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: What did you say your name was? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: David Anderson!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's trying to take over from the

Speaker, too.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with just a few

remarks of import made by the Hon. Liberal Leader (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), a very few — and what remarks of import he did make

I'm sure will occur to me in a moment — the Liberal leader

reminds me of the statement made by Field Marshal Montgomery

when he was describing a young lieutenant. He said: "I cannot

see how anyone can follow that officer into battle, unless, of

course, out of some profound curiosity." (Laughter.)

I appreciate, of course, his kind warnings and admonitions

that I shouldn't involve myself in other areas which don't

concern me, such as the wholesale blackmail attack of the

federal government on provincial rights in western Canada. I

suppose he would think that we should remain silent and let

them juggernaut over provincial rights and take away what has

been ours primarily by way of royalty on primary resources in

these provinces since the beginning of Confederation.

I disagree entirely with the comments made with respect to

making comments on that situation or the disastrous state of

port development in the City of Vancouver which has plagued our

economy and economic development in this province for so many

years. It is absolutely essential that the provincial Ministers

not only in representing my portfolio but in other related

portfolios comment, and comment frequently, on the kind of

irresponsible programmes of other governments, particularly the

federal government when it affects our role.

With respect to other concepts — the export of ore

[ Page 3752 ]

and so on — I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that everyone

realizes in

this province that what we want to do here in the best and

shortest way possible is to refine and fabricate from the

metals that we produce in British Columbia here at home. That's

the concept.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How about importing ore?

HON. MR. LAUK: As far as importing ore, of course, that must

be and will continue to be the practice of industry in this

province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Double standards.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't think particularly it's a double

standard, Mr. Member. I think that what it is is an economic

reality.

I appreciate the comments made by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) on how important a

task I have as Minister, and I will comment on some of the

things they've missed.

It is very strange, Mr. Speaker, that Members of the

opposition will miss some of the good things that this

government is doing in its various departments. I'm not saying

they are doing it on purpose. They just seem to overlook it.

They have a tendency to criticize and not praise. And that is

most unfortunate, because quite often they forget the word

"loyal" in loyal opposition, and once in a while it would be

such a refreshing thing to have Hon. Members on the opposite

side stand up and say: "You've done a good job." (Laughter.) I

would really appreciate it. I would be able to go home so

satisfied, and tell my wife of what a community of leaders we

have here in this assembly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We told you you'd make a great

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

raised a few things. I think I've dealt with the attack on the

federal budget. I will continue to attack the federal budget,

and I hope that other responsible Members of this Legislature

will do the same thing, because the very survival of this

province depends on that kind of irresponsible move being

prevented.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I won't comment on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker, as

the other Members have done, and I will probably take my place

in that debate in due course.

The comments made by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I hope

don't frighten my colleagues. I know

that

section 4 sounds wide-ranging, but it does confine itself

to economic development. I'm not going to take over the role of

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) or the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Lea), and I think maybe the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

might have a problem. I don't know. But I don't think they are

particularly frightened.

In terms of Lands and Forests, of course there has to be

close cooperation between the two Ministers. The

responsibilities of both interrelate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Exactly. What do you think? That they are

Balkanized departments that operate in secret? I know that's

what occurred for 20 years and that's why we got relatively bad

government and bad decisions in terms of economic

development.

MR. FRASER: Balderdash!

HON. MR. LAUK: The communication between Deputies and senior

civil servants on all levels in various departments has never

been more efficient and more effective. We have

interdepartmental committees set up that meet regularly and

discuss matters of policy and implementation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. I'm glad you made that point. The Hon.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), of course, stands up

and says something about ads and steel shortages. Rather than

poke fun at my good friend from Columbia River once again, I

like to keep that to the corridor because he's pretty good at

it himself….

The ads were placed, Mr. Speaker, to inform those who may

not have heard or may not be aware that a service is being

provided. The bulk of the shortages we feel we understand, and

know where they are, how much, and how they will occur over the

next few months, and this information is being provided in the

way that I outlined in my estimates.

The record to date of this department, some of the things

that you've ignored, is that through the department the

Development Corporation and the department have been assembling

and will assemble industrial land throughout this province to

do two things: to assist those who must otherwise invest great

amounts of capital in land to set up their operations. We will

lease them at reasonable rates to industrial areas so that they

need not worry about a great initial capital expenditure on

land.

Secondly, it is an objective of this government to do

whatever it can, whatever is in its power, to

[ Page 3753 ]

decentralize industrialization. And this will

occur, we

hope, by providing reasonably priced land through leases in

other areas of the province.

The Development Corporation is now underway. It has a

programme with criteria for small business loans. It has a

project with a certain amount of money with respect to special

projects which are going to be beneficial to the economic

development of this province. The officials of the Development

Corporation and my department communicate regularly with other

departments with respect to the kind of development that should

take place.

We have conducted many surveys, not like the ones in the

past, and if I speak just one or two more minutes perhaps I'll

get rid of the entire opposition and move second reading.

(Laughter.)

We've got greater contact with the business community. We've

solved, at least at this stage, the steel shortage. We're

moving towards a more permanent solution of steel supply in

this province.

We've conducted trade missions and the Minister responsible,

I say to the Member for Oak Bay — I don't know whether he's

still in his chair or not — the Minister responsible for DREE

is myself, and I conduct the negotiations on the subsidiaries,

just so there is no confusion and I'll be saying that to the

good people of Peace River region on June 14, when I make a

trip up there.

I move second reading.

MR. CURTIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I perceive your point of order before

you say it.

MR. CURTIS: It seems to me that our numbers have shrunken

below the point of quorum. Is that not correct?

MR. SPEAKER: It appears that the presence of at least 10

Members of the House, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary

to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its

powers. Standing order 7 says:

"Whenever Mr. Speaker adjourns the House for want of a

quorum, the time of the adjournment and the names of the Members then

present shall be inserted in the Journal ."

I appear to be in the position that I must adjourn the

House. I'm short one Member. I think I do also have a power

which I would in this case invoke, and that is that I intend to

declare a short recess for five minutes.

The House took recess at 3:40 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:43 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I should remind Hon. Members that there

is a duty to attend the service of the House. There was a

failure, a want of a quorum as provided under standing order

AN HON. MEMBER: We did that nicely; let's go home.

MR. SPEAKER: It hasn't happened for 20 years that I know of — 25 years.

I would ask the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) to continue his remarks on

Bill 71, and he can continue to talk to me if he wishes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Did you make the motion? Oh, that's right; I'm

sorry. There was a motion made but I couldn't entertain it

because there was a want of quorum. Would you now make the

motion?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, is he responsible for

driving us all out?

HON. MR. LAUK: Now that they are all here, Mr. Speaker, I'd

be delighted to repeat my remarks. It would only take about 25

minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. LAUK: No? Well, all right, I move second reading

then.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Department of Economic Development Act , read

a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this

bill, there is not much to say about it. It's a group of

amendments that were felt to be necessary for the efficient and

intelligent operation of the development corporation. Several

of them were requested after they were considered by the new

board of directors of the corporation, and they make good

sense. I think that the bill speaks for itself.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3754 ]

Bill 146, Development Corporation of British Columbia

Amendment Act, 1974 , read a second time and referred to

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, there are

a number of rather important amendments contained in this

particular bill to the Public Works Fair Employment

Act .

There is the provision for the exclusion of public schools,

of hospitals and of municipal councils from the provision of

the Public Works Fair Employment Act . This was in

actuality provided for through amendments to those specific

Acts in the previous session and represents more or less legal

housekeeping in including those provisions in the amendments to

the Public Works Fair Employment Act itself.

In addition to that provision there is a need to establish

some criteria for resolving disputes which develop between

labour and management in areas which are not controlled by the

collective agreement requirement of the Public Works Fair

Employment Act .

Members will probably recall that my rationale for removing

this function from the discretion of the Minister of Labour's

office was that I found objectionable the authoritarian

approach whereby a Minister of the Crown has the arbitrary

So for those areas which are now not covered by a collective

agreement we provide that the labour relations board may

resolve issues that arise by making reference to a collective

agreement which exists in a similar industry, and resolving

disputes on the basis of a reference to that collective

agreement, so that the concept of collective bargaining remains

as the basis of regulating the relationship between employees

and their employer.

There is the additional provision, Mr. Speaker, for some

control as to the manpower of work forces involved in

government contracts. In my view, this is something that is

long overdue. It's my feeling that there should be the ability

of the government to ensure that our native Indian population

in the northern remote areas of the province have a fair

opportunity to participate in large government contractual

undertakings that occur from time to time in their area, and

that local populations, wherever contracts may develop in the

province, have some access to the employment opportunities that

accrue from those contracts. That provision is now written into

the Public Works Fair Employment Act .

I commend these amendments to the House. I would observe

further, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments were developed in

consultation with a committee of the construction industry,

representing construction labour relations, and the trade union

council involved in that industry. They're fully supported by

those bodies.

I have no hesitation in submitting these amendments to

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly interested to hear

the Minister's final comment that these amendments are brought

in after consultation with the construction industry. I wonder,

in just clarifying that, whether or not in fact the

construction industry and the construction labour relations

board are satisfied precisely with these amendments and whether

the Minister has had any further consultation or discussion

with them after the bill has been tabled.

I'm sure the Minister remembers that this party opposed the

bill when it was first introduced last year because we have a

differing philosophy, and we agreed to differ on that. We also

felt that our concern was somewhat proven when soon after the

bill was passed by the House we have an example of it being

wrongly applied — for example, to the moving industry — when in

point of fact that assurance was given to this House quite

clearly that this applied only to construction on public works

under the aegis of the provincial government.

I hope that by expanding the power of this bill, as indeed

the bill clearly does in

section 3 in particular and the

section that relates to hiring practices…. I would agree

with the Minister that indeed it would be very useful and very

fair to ensure that local populations and, in the instance he

has quoted, native Indians should be given every opportunity on

government projects in a certain area.

Nevertheless, my concern goes a little further because of

the very specific power that is granted to the Minister in that

part of the bill. The Minister may "by order" prescribe

manpower requirements and conditions in respect of the contract — the minimum number of workers that must be employed and the

conditions of their employment and so on. While the example the

Minister has given certainly meets with our agreement, the fact

is that that power goes a great deal further in the general

terms in which it is expressed in this bill.

We have the same kind of reservations about the degree to

which government is insisting either on unionization as such — or where

the company has less than the requirements in the eyes

of the Minister, the Minister can then impose conditions

existing in similar contracts.

We feel that this is just another extension of this

government's power toward having control. The

[ Page 3755 ]

Minister himself used the word "control." In giving second

reading of the bill he said "control of the work force on

government contracts." In our view, this is undesirable. For

this reason we will be opposing second reading of this

bill.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, looking at the bill it is quite

obvious that it is a watering down of the provisions of the

original Act — the Public Works Fair Employment Act — passed last year.

I can readily understand the Minister

saying that he's discussed it with CLRA.

I want to say right now that CLRA accepted the principle of

the original Act without these amendments. After all, CLRA

represents a group of 800 unionized contractors in British

Columbia. Certainly they would accept the provisions of these

amendments which do give a little bit more consideration to

non-union contractors in the province.

But has the Minister really talked to those people who are

concerned about this legislation that you are introducing at

this time — associations such as exist right here in Victoria

such as the Right-to-Work Association? Certainly not. The

Minister hasn't talked to those people who are concerned about

the type of legislation that you have introduced here, which is

rash discrimination against the workers of this province who

deem not to be associated with the trade unions.

Don't you think that right should exist in this province for

workers who do not want to be associated with a trade union?

Don't you think their rights should be respected? Don't you

think their employers should have equal rights to bid on

government contracts — whereby you deny them that right?

After all, those employers, those small contractors and

those workers who do not have a collective agreement should be

given the same kinds of rights as the union contractors in

British Columbia. They pay taxes just like the larger

contractors in British Columbia, and they should have equal

rights.

You don't give them equal rights under this legislation. It

is harsh discrimination, that's what it is. You're watering

down the discrimination slightly.

The Minister suggests that he is taking away discretionary

power. I think the Minister should look at

section 2(b). He has

ample discretionary power to govern the job site, to indicate

how many workers and what the conditions will be on the job

site.

Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation because it does

help a little. It improves the harsh kind of discrimination

that was instituted in the Public Works Fair Employment

Act in its original inception.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) brought

up a number of points that I would just like to comment on. He

questioned the application of this Act and suggested that

perhaps we have a difference of opinion in terms of whether or

not collective bargaining should be the method by which fair

standards are developed for the expenditure of public

funds.

That is really the heart of the matter — whether or not an

individual politician, as was the case in the past, dictates

not this should be accomplished through the collective

bargaining process.

In terms of exercising power, I submit that it is far more

repugnant to anyone who respects individual rights to have a

Minister of the Crown, or indeed any politician, dictating what

collective bargaining is the appropriate method in all

countries in the western world to regulate the relationship

between the employee and the employer.

The powers relating to manpower. I want to say to the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay that certainly I would have no intention of

arbitrarily exercising that power without consultation with

both the trade unions involved and the company involved who has

won the contract. Obviously it would be necessary, in

exercising that kind of power, to determine the availability of

local and qualified tradesmen who you could include in the work

force. There would be a good degree of consultation required in

that exercise, and that certainly is the intention of this

office.

With respect to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot),

well, his response is predictable, Mr. Speaker. He gets up and

defends the right-to-work groups in the City of Victoria. That

is predictable and understandable. That's why, I suggest, we

had the kind of chaos in labour in this province for many, many

years. It was because we had a Minister of Labour under the

former Social Credit government who had a disdain for trade

unions.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order. Would you have that Minister

withdraw that statement, please?

MR. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You weren't referring

to him, were you?

MR. CHABOT: He was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, in case you

forget, that I had disdain for the trade union movement in this

province. I want him to withdraw that statement. It's a

lie.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member goes too

far in stating that it is a lie. I think

[ Page 3756 ]

that the proper course is merely to ask the Member to

withdraw an imputation that he takes personally. If it was

intended personally, I'm sure the Hon. Minister would do

so.

HON. MR. KING: I'm prepared to do that despite the fact that

the Members across there throw charges across the floor of

lying and so on. I accept that. I don't even take it seriously

any more. I wouldn't think of asking that Member to withdraw,

Mr. Speaker. It is perhaps too much to ask from that side of

the floor that we have freedom from personal attacks…

MR. CHABOT: You know it is a lie.

HON. MR. KING: …vindictiveness and all kinds of

innuendoes and irresponsible charges that are hurled across the

floor. I don't expect anything better from that side of the

House. I certainly wouldn't put myself on the same level by

asking for a retraction from the Hon. Member.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that he stood in his place and he

did in fact support an organization which calls itself the

right-to-work group that does in fact have a disdain and an

animosity for the trade unions of this province. In the name of

freedom, which is a very questionable premise that they put

forward, they take that posture. And the man who formerly acted

as Minister of Labour in the former government supports that

view. I think that that is a classic indication of why we had

chaos and turmoil on the labour front under the previous

administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a vicious man.

HON. MR. KING: I think, personally, that he is a harmless

little man, and I don't take too seriously his rather

intemperate outbursts and accusations of lying. I notice that

he confines them to the House. So long as he does that, he will

probably get by with it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: I want to make this other point. Their

hostility to trade unions is something that's not quite

necessary with respect to this bill. In the first place, a

collective agreement can exist without a formal trade-union

organization, without a certified union. If the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) had done his homework and taken the

interest when he occupied the office of Minister of Labour, he

would know that.

His attacks on trade unions and the need to belong to a trade union

are not valid in this case because there is no such requirement in the

Act. The Act requires that a collective agreement be in force, and that

does not necessarily imply membership in a trade union. There are

contracts in this province in existence now where there is, in fact, no

certified trade union.

So I think the fears are rather empty. I think it serves

only to, once again, display the basic hostility which the

Social Credit opposition has for the trade-union movement in

this province. I don't object to that; I think it's a record

that is plainly understood by all the citizens of the province.

They'll pay for it at the next election.

I move second reading.

MR. CHABOT: Twist! Twist!

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Chabot

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Gardom

NAYS — 2

Wallace

Curtis

Bill 87, Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act,

1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Adjourned debate on Bill 31.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister adjourned the

[ Page 3757 ]

debate on the amendment.

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

When I got up to reply to some of the arguments put up as to why this

bill should be hoisted for six months, I was a little afraid I might

carry over the 11 o'clock deadmark….

AN HON. MEMBER: Deadmark?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The 11 o'clock deadline…so I adjourned

the debate. Now I have an opportunity to reply to the Members

as to why we should not hoist Bill 31 for six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on Leo, accept it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, last night is not today. I had a

sleep on the bill since that time and I found the only reason

any of you would want to have the bill hoisted for six months

is to give the mining industry possibly a chance of getting a

few more millions of dollars that rightfully belong to the

people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

said we were in a very risky business. That was the reason he

thought we should hoist the bill. He said that, because I made

a statement the other night — something about stockpiling ore — that

was another reason why we should hoist the bill.

The statement I made the other night, I think, was quite a

reasonable one. If the mine was employing a number of men, and

a community was depending upon that mine, and it came to a

point where the mine was going to close down because it had

reached the cutoff price and yet had plenty of ore left yet, we

as a government could tide that mine over by stockpiling the

ore until the price came back to where they could make it. Then

we could sell the ore on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

I stated that this was done. It was done with refined metals

in Trail during the last Depression when we stockpiled many,

many tons of refined lead and zinc. The company later on sold

it at a much higher price. I think this is good business. If a

company can do it on their own, fine and dandy. But if a

company could not do it on their own, there is a possibility

that the government could step in.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay also talked about clarification

of

definitions. I went very deeply into this during my first

talk on second reading when I moved it. I'd like to say that it

doesn't matter what you put in a bill; if you take it to three

lawyers, you will get three

interpretations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right; you should only have it to

one lawyer and get one

interpretation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, it's been right through the mill.

Interjections.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) criticized me for using 70 cents rather than 80 cents

or $1 copper. I say that anybody can use any figure they like

and that could be the average. But when you look ahead for

1974, at the time we brought this bill down, it was a little

bit more difficult to state that the price was going to

continue to rise or continue high. I don't think anyone can

make a firm statement on that at the present time.

The Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) said that there

was no consultation. I had two years consultation on this

bill.

MR. FRASER: But who with? You never listen to anybody.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, my goodness! I am rather shocked at

you people telling me that I don't listen.

MR. FRASER: Did you get your executive assistant on that

campaign meeting yet?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I listen very carefully, and we had many

meetings in consulting about this bill and the principle of

royalty. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I think it was, or the

Hon. Member for North Peace, speaking about the meeting we had

in regard to royalties and the presentation that the industry

made in regard to royalties…. We weren't satisfied with the

method because it would be a nightmare to try and apply what

the industry proposed to the government. So there was a reason

that we didn't accept their proposal in regard to

royalties.

The reason that I suggested we have royalties…. Royalty

is not a tax. It's a payment for the product you use. In every

mining industry in the province that sublets a mine for others

to operate — and individuals also — the first thing they say to

the people who are going to produce from that mine is: "What is

there in it for me?"

Royalty is a common practice with most of them. I've got the

contract let out by the CPR; and right at the beginning it's

a royalty that they ask for. A

[ Page 3758 ]

royalty is deducted as a cost item for the product that

they're using.

MR. GIBSON: How many mines in the province right now…?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's a cost price for the product that

they're using. This is a principle of business, that you pay

for all the products that you use in the operation of your

industry — each and every product.

Now why should you say — and I'm sure that no supplier in

this province would — to any company when they want to buy

something from them to get something from them: "If you make a

profit, you must pay me for this article; but if you don't make

a profit, I don't want anything for it"?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think we've

had numerous rulings from the Chair that we must speak to the

amendment. I suggest that the Minister is speaking to the

principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well made.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Minister to

speak to the amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I was just answering the very

argument they used during the discussion on the amendment. I'm

a little surprised that the Hon. Member would get up…because they were trying to prove why the bill should be

hoisted for six months. They were talking about the 99 failures

out of every so many. That was the Hon. Member for North Peace

(Mr. Smith) who spoke about that.

MR. WALLACE: I spoke strictly to the amendment last

night.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You didn't stick too close.

(Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister

address the Chair, please?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, they were talking about every

city….

MR. WALLACE: What about the federal budget?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The federal budget. That would be speaking

to something else that wasn't proper on this amendment; But that's not

the reason we should hoist it. I don't think that the province should

run scared from the federal government to uphold their rights. If we

were to run scared now and withdraw the bill because the federal

government came out and made an announcement, this would be rather

foolish.

When the constitution was written, it was written that the

province had the ownership and control of the resources of the

province. All we're doing in dealing with these resources is

that we are going to sell them to the people who are going to

use them in the operation of their business.

MR. WALLACE: Lougheed used to think that, too.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Hon. Member for North Peace said that

every city in the province was dependent upon mining. I'll

agree because most of the letters that I got were from

Vancouver; and Vancouver is the biggest mining area in the

world — especially down around Howe Street where there are many,

many claims staked out.

They say there were letters from little people. I got a

letter, Mr. Speaker. I got a letter from a company that I

worked for for 40 years. I now receive a small pension from

them. This is what they state after talking about Bill 31.

They're not too emphatic about Bill 31 in their letter, but

they do say that if you want to do something about it, you

might consider using a time-honoured, democratic process and

write or telephone your MLA to see that Bill 31 should be

withdrawn and reviewed.

I hope this is in accordance with the amendment, Mr.

Speaker, because I'm talking about having it withdrawn or

reviewed, and that's exactly what the amendment calls for.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I further quote:

"You may also wish to express your feelings about the

bill in a letter to the Minister of Mines. Both the Minister and your

MLA can be reached at the Provincial Legislature, Victoria, B.C."

Mr. Chairman, as a dutiful subject, I did. I didn't write a

letter to my MLA and the Minister of Mines, but I confronted

him with the arguments about Bill 31. After I got through, he

was so convincing (Laughter) that I had to go along with

him.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Did he understand you, Leo?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I tried to use all the arguments

that the industry had proposed to me, but he was overpowering

in his convincing argument that

[ Page 3759 ]

we should have royalties and that the bill should not be

withdrawn and not be reviewed.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's

very interesting to listen to the Minister of Mines talk about

probably the most important legislative matter to be brought

before this Legislature in quite some time — the legislative

measure that will affect the economy of British Columbia

probably more than any other piece of legislation that we have

had in the nearly two years of socialist reign here in the

province.

Before I get into the main reasons, Mr. Speaker, as to why

this bill should be withdrawn, or at least postponed for six

months, I would just like to comment on a couple of remarks

made mostly in jest and in triviality by the Minister. That's

the way he looks at most of the very serious legislation that

has been brought before this House.

It seems to be a joke in the Minister's mind that he wants

to kill the economy of British Columbia; but he says it's

because we want to give the mining industry a chance to get

more millions of dollars.

Well, that's a cliché and that's where the Minister

of Mines always sort of attacks the opposition when they talk.

He tries to build up in the minds of the people of this

province that it is the mining industry that the opposition is

concerned about.

I want to tell you right here and now that the opposition is

concerned about the people of British Columbia and the jobs of

the many thousands of people that are involved in the mining

industry. We also feel that the mining industry should pay

their fair share. I want to set the record straight.

What we want the bill postponed for six months for is to

give the government another opportunity to open its eyes to the

facts. A six-month postponement of this bill will give the

government a chance to see the results of this legislation.

Because within six months, without putting the bill through,

there will be a suspension of mining activities, and you will

be able to see what would happen if the bill were actually

passed.

MR. CUMMINGS: Where's your leader, if this bill is so

important?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says that he has had…. Mr.

Speaker, I hope I'm not going to be confronted with that

chirping Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain while I'm making

my talk. If he has something to say, I wish he'd stand up and

contribute to the debate. You know we in the opposition, when

we're trying to talk, Mr. Speaker, get a little tired of the

chirping and the chaffing and the noises from across the

floor.

Certainly when they have their opportunity to stand up and speak in

the debate the entire backbench is practically quiet. The silence is

deadening!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

to speak to the amendment. I would ask the other Hon. Members

to obey standing order 19(2) and allow the Member to speak in

silence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he has had

two years of consultation with the industry and he doesn't need

another six months. Out of that two years of consultation the

Minister met with some of the executives of some of the mining

corporations, but when it came time for the Minister to go out

and meet face to face with the hundreds of people involved in

the mining industry — the people who I am speaking for in this

Legislature this afternoon — he became afraid.

AN HON. MEMBER: He took a power.

MR. PHILLIPS: He took a power, that's right. When it came to

getting right down to the crux of the situation, he wouldn't

attend the meetings — he became afraid. So he has talked to a

few mining executives and he scans the financial statement and

says: "Oh, you made millions of dollars of profit." He doesn't

look at the debt retirement or what the complete financial

status is, but he takes a look at the end figure. Particularly

last year, profits were the result of world demand and high

prices for minerals — world demand and high prices caused by

similar legislation in other communist countries that created a

false scarcity, thereby shoving up the price of metals. That's

why.

The Minister didn't go back two or three years and take a

look. I intend to point out some of the areas of failure in

mines. In previous years the price of copper was normal and it

should be normal. There is no reason in the world to have the

tremendously high price for copper that there is in the world

today. There is lots of copper in the world — millions and

millions and millions and hundreds of millions of tons of

copper. So there is no reason whatsoever for the people of this

world, and in particular the people of British Columbia, to

have to pay a premium in our present day and age for a metal as

necessary as copper. They are paying that premium due strictly

to the stupidity in other countries of legislation that is

similar, Mr. Speaker, to exactly what this Minister is trying

to pass through this Legislature at this time.

Just one further comment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says

that if you are going to buy something you are going to have to

pay for it. He refers to the royalty on a mineral as something

that you are going to have to pay for. I remember last year, in

this Legislature, where he referred to it as a popcorn

stand

[ Page 3760 ]

where you have to pay for your popcorn. I would suggest to

the Minister that there is no such resemblance at all. None at

all. If you had to go out and search for the popcorn and you

didn't know where it was, and you had to spend hundreds of

dollars to find that hidden popcorn, and then when you did find

it you weren't sure it was all there or how much was there and

you had to spend millions more to get it out of its hiding

place, you would have to pay more for popcorn and the price

would go up and people wouldn't be able to afford it. That's

exactly the whole theme of your bill.

So it is not that simple. If the government had the ore in

its hand and went to the mining company and said, "Here is the

ore — you pay for it," then there might be some

similarity. But there is absolutely no similarity between

finding an unknown quantity and spending the millions of

dollars to find it and the millions of dollars to develop it

all of which, as the Minister should know full well, might be a

complete waste because when the product comes onto the market

the price could have changed.

I'm just commenting, Mr. Speaker, and I'm just about

through, on the Minister's remarks. The last thing he said was

that he convinced himself that this was good legislation. I

want to tell you that when that Mines Minister looked in the

mirror he didn't see the Mines Minister, he saw the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the

true architect of Bill 31. He didn't see the Mines Minister at

all. As soon as he saw the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources in that mirror he knew that there was no backing out — no backing out whatsoever.

That's how the Minister was able to convince himself that he

couldn't really do anything with this bill. The true source of

power in that government, the true architect of this

legislation….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

to confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is just one more reason, Mr. Speaker, why

this bill should be hoisted. It isn't really the government's

policy and it isn't really the Minister's policy. It's the

policy of the great architect — the man who wouldn't sign the

Waffle Manifesto because it wasn't strong enough. That's why

the Minister can't withdraw this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we would like to see this bill suspended — you can sit back and relax, I'm through discussing the Minister for the

moment — is so that the many thousands of people involved, not maybe

directly in the mining industry but in industries that serve the mining

industry, will have a chance to come to the Minister and point out to

him cold, hard facts as to what the results of this legislation will be.

Another reason that this bill should be suspended is due to

the very fact that the Minister of Finance and the Premier of

this province said he wanted to look at another legislative

body in Canada in the Province of Ontario which brought in

mining legislation to make the mining companies of that great

province pay their fair share.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mining companies are fighting that,

too.

MR. PHILLIPS: They can fight it. That doesn't matter to me.

Just let me carry on.

In the Province of Ontario…and I agree with them. They

are taxing their mining companies on their profits. If they

have windfall profits then the people of Ontario are going to

share in it. But if the price goes down they are not paying for

something that they cannot possibly financially or economically

take out of the ground. There is where the people lose. There

is where the people of British Columbia will lose.

The Minister can talk about buying the ore when it reaches a

certain price all he wants to. If he would just learn a few

lessons from other jurisdictions…. If we had a six-month

suspension of this bill, let the Minister of Finance go to

Ontario and study that legislation. Let him go and talk to the

mining industry in Ontario. Let him go and talk to the Minister

of Mines in Ontario.

I have to say that I agree with the method of the Province

of Ontario of returning to the people some of the excess

profits when the price is good and they do have windfalls. But

you can't tax them before they have it or the mineral will stay

in the ground. The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) knows

that.

No, Mr. Speaker, we are not against the people of British

Columbia getting their fair share from the resources of this

province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think you're going to convince yourself,

too, that you're going to vote for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going to convince myself. You must

realize that the mining industry in British Columbia has been

built up over a long period of time. As I said in this

Legislature last year, the mining legislation in British

Columbia is probably the best mining legislation in any

jurisdiction in the world. Other provinces came here to study

it. Last year a phenomenal thing happened. As I pointed out

before, there were excess profits because prices went over,

above and beyond the wildest dreams of any of the people in the

mining industry. They never dreamed that the price of copper

would go as high as it did. The reason it happened last year

was because

[ Page 3761 ]

there was a shortage created in the world market or it

wouldn't have happened. When you see situations like that it is

thy same as our stumpage on trees. It is based on the New York

price and when the market goes up the returns to the people of

B.C. go up. But that is after the tree has been cut down.

As I have said before, a mineral is not a natural resource

like a tree that you can see, like agriculture, like coal — not

even like the petroleum industry, which takes a great deal of

money to search and find out. It runs in various veins.

Geologists can pretty well determine where it is going to be.

Not so with the mineral.

We have no idea how many tons of various ores there are in

British Columbia because they are hidden, usually in

mountainous terrain. They are sought out with great difficulty

by the prospectors. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in your riding it

takes many hundreds of thousands of dollars even to find out

what is there once the claim or some show has been found.

Therefore minerals are not a natural resource. We don't know

what we have in natural resources until the money is spent to

find them and prove them out.

It's not like a river. That power, that energy is there for

the eye to see; all you have to do is send a surveyor out there

to find out how great it is. But you know it's there. Minerals

don't come into the same category — none whatsoever.

What bothers me is that when the prospecting of minerals

ceases in British Columbia — which it will do — it is going to

be too late if this legislation becomes law. If you suspend it

for six months, then the results will be visible. The Minister

will see what is happening in this great province of ours. Then

it won't be too late for him to kill the bill. If it becomes

law, it will then be too late. That's why we're pleading with

the Minister to hold this bill over.

We have another province with a socialist government — the

Province of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, the government there

decided to do something similar to what this province is doing

to the oil industry. What happened in the Province of

Saskatchewan? Maybe if they had held their bill in abeyance for

six months or a year it would have opened the eyes of the

government.

Who is paying in Saskatchewan today for the policies of that

socialist government years ago? Who is paying? It is the people

of Saskatchewan who are paying, and paying dearly. They are in

the one province in this Canada of ours who could be today

taking in millions and millions and millions of dollars from

the oil industry. Why are they not? Because of the shortsighted

policies of a previous socialist government in that

province.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about my children in just a

few moments. I'm going to talk about people and I'm going to

talk about the future people in this province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are you on the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly I'm on the amendment!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I doubt it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Had the Saskatchewan government, at the time

they were bringing in this legislation to tax the oil companies

out of Saskatchewan, held that bill up for six months or a year — which we are asking you to do — they would have seen what was

going to happen to the oil industry in Saskatchewan. But they

didn't. They rushed it through.

Today we're speaking for the people of British Columbia, not

for the mining industry. We're speaking for the people of

British Columbia. That's who we were sent here to represent. We

weren't sent here to represent the mining industry; we were sent

here to represent the people. That's what the whole mining

industry is about — people, like the people in Saskatchewan who

today are losing because of short-sighted legislation of that

government years ago. I'm not going to read the whole

article

but I do want to quote from it, if you'll….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

try to make his remarks more relevant to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm making my remarks relevant because I have

to point out what happened in the previous jurisdiction and why

this Minister should hold this bill up, Mr. Speaker.

Fred Presley, chairman of the Oil Service Technical Workers

Association, centred in Estevan, writes. This isn't talking

about any oil company; this is talking about an association of

service technical workers. He says:

"The industry has given supply and service firms

advance

information indicating that there will be 200 new wells drilled

in southern Saskatchewan in 1974. But so far only six have

materialized."

These are people who are involved in this, not the oil

industry.

"This has proved to be particularly catastrophic for

the

southeast area of the province because the supply, service and

production industry makes up some 25 per cent of the region's

economy. In the City of Estevan alone, oil industry property

tax assessments

[ Page 3762 ]

total $1.7 million a year. Four firms have already

been forced to close down.

"The Blakeney government has now promised grants and

loans

to keep the service industry's 1974 profit at 1973 levels. At

the same time, it has broadened tax incentives to the oil

companies in the hope of luring them back into the field."

This is a direct result of short-sighted policies. That's

why we want the Minister to suspend this bill. We don't want

him to come back into this Legislature, offering incentives,

using taxpayers' money to keep service industries alive. That's

exactly what will happen. If he holds it up for six months,

maybe he will open his eyes; maybe the Minister of Finance will

open his eyes and see what is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their eyes are open but their minds are

closed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there it is. This is a direct result and

a true case in Saskatchewan of what will happen in the Province

of British Columbia if this bill goes through. The people of

British Columbia will be the ones who will suffer. The people

of British Columbia will become unemployed. Then the Minister

of Finance, with reduced revenues from the mining industry,

will have to subsidize industries or let them go broke.

Just another interesting

article along the same line out of

the Northern Miner : May 2, 1974. It's entitled: "The

Wrecking Crew."

"We are all human and therefore find it hard to

suppress a

chuckle, however bitter, when the opportunity to say, 'll told

you so,' occurs in the case of Saskatchewan, where New

Democratic Party policies have led precisely to the tragic

situation that common sense predicted."

That's what we're trying to point out. If this bill isn't

suspended, it will be the same type of catastrophic situation

in British Columbia that common sense dictates to us will

happen.

"Saskatchewan voters fell for the barrage of NDP

propaganda,

promising to take it away from the rich and giving it to the

poor, and elected the socialists, perhaps thinking that they

are the poor who will get it all. Saskatchewan is getting it

now all right — right where it hurts most, right in the pocket

book."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What year was that?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's happening right now, Mr. Minister of

Mines.

One of the reasons this bill must be suspended and held is to point

out to the government the error of their ways. It is the policy of this

government to enlarge on its socialist policy for people. Those very

people whom this government wants to help will be the ones who will

suffer when the kitty is dry, when people aren't employed and when the

economy is not vibrant and the tax dollars cease to flow.

We're asking this government to do exactly what they said

they wouldn't do. We're asking them not to kill the goose that

laid the golden egg. Maybe with a suspension of six months,

they will realize there are no more golden eggs coming from the

mining industry. Then, Mr. Chairman, they will take a second

look.

It's too bad that this particular day here in British

Columbia where we're debating this particular bill comes from

such an odd set of circumstances. Had the world price of

minerals and the high demand not happened in 1973, I doubt very

much, in all sincerity, if we would be debating Bill 31 here in

this Legislature today. I doubt it very much.

But there was a bonanza for the Province of British Columbia

last year; a bonanza not brought about by any policies of the

government in power. It was a bonanza brought about by stupid,

idiotic policies of other jurisdictions, as I said before,

creating a false shortage.

Expenditures on exploration for minerals in the Province of

British Columbia declined last year, as I predicted in this

Legislature during debate of Bill 44. Had Bill 44 been

suspended for six months, Bill 44 might never have been passed.

Mining exploration did dwindle in the province last year with

only those moneys being spent which had been committed in

previous years. New money was not committed in the Province of

British Columbia last year for the exploration and the seeking

out of new ore bodies.

But what happened in an area far more severe in many

instances than in the Province of British Columbia, in the

northern jurisdiction of the Yukon? Money spent for exploration

and seeking and development of new mines more than doubled in

other jurisdictions, in the Northwest Territories and in

Ontario. In a time when the highest prices ever known for

certain minerals were being paid, moneys for development of new

ore bodies in British Columbia declined.

Why? Strictly because of legislation passed in this

Legislature last year by the government. Had they suspended or

held up the passing of that bill, they would have seen, as we

are trying to get them to see now, the error of their ways. The

facts would come clear. When unemployment and people start

moving out who were involved in the mining industry, when they

start moving out of British Columbia, then they would see. In

our own area, north on the Alaska Highway, already one mine

which was going to be re-opened and was going to go ahead has

stopped because of this bill — and it's not even law yet.

[ Page 3763 ]

I want to mention this mine in particular because this is

just one more reason why this bill should be suspended. I want

to refer to Churchill Copper Mine, which is located 80 miles

west of Fort Nelson in northern British Columbia. This mine

went into production when the price of copper was 70 cents a

pound. I remember it well. As a matter of fact, I drove into

that mine over miles and miles of very, very dusty road and

looked at it. The price dropped and the mine shut down after 18

months to await a better copper market. And it came. They

reopened in January of this year.

Right across the mountain from Churchill Mines is another

mine known as Davis Keys Mine. This mine was also going to be

opened up with either a trench or a road connecting the two

mines. All plans for that, Mr. Chairman, because of Bill 31,

have been suspended., But in the first quarter of this year, Churchill

Copper

resumed operations and they thought they had made $1,075,000.

But under the proposed legislation this is a windfall profit,

and the company expects it will be reduced by royalties to

$184,000 — not even enough to service that mine's debt. That

mine, really, since the day it opened up, hasn't made enough

profit to pay good interest on the money that was originally

put into the mine.

How can the Minister of Mines justify this legislation in

view of what is actually taking place to date? That's why we're

simply asking for another six months. Does he ever ask himself

when the creditors will get their money? Who is getting a fair

return on investment? Because copper prices were high in 1973,

does that really mean windfall profits?

Who would the windfall profits go to? The windfall profits

would go to mainly the small investors who want to keep their

money in British Columbia, who want to do a little gambling and

a little risking. The Minister stands up and he talks about the

barons of Howe Street. Maybe he doesn't realize that the

billions and billions of dollars mainly that have gone into

mining in British Columbia have come from small investors,

people like you and me, who want to invest in British

Columbia.

We hear lots of grandiose talk about why Canadians don't

own their own industry. Governments in Canada don't give them a

chance to own their own industry.

Maybe if this legislation is suspended, the government will

be able to wake up and look further than beyond its nose. I

think this government has its nose pressed against a mirror and

it keeps trying to convince itself that it is right.

This government was not elected to ruin the economy of

British Columbia. They do not have the mandate to do that. This

is why those involved in the mining industry must continue to

get their message out. This is why we need a six-month

suspension.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the mining industry of late has

been trying to tell a story, but it's very difficult for the

small industries connected with the mining industry to get

their story across.

I was interested in an

article issued by the United Steel

Workers that recently came over my desk. In the

article it

says:

"Huge increase in metal prices in 1973 shot net

after-tax profits for the British Columbia mining

industry to about $300 million last year."

The figures from the profits of the mining industry are not

even in yet so I don't know where the United Steel Workers got

their figure. But it goes on to say:

"Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act , now before the

British Columbia Legislature, seeks to protect the people of

B.C. from the gouging of their natural mineral resource by the

mining industry solely for profit-making. Very modest royalties

on mineral production, as contained in Bill 31 would guarantee

at least some of those profits would remain in the Province of

British Columbia for the benefit of the people of British

Columbia."

I wonder if the United Steel Workers would be interested in

keeping some of the funds they collect from the workers in

British Columbia in the Province of British Columbia for the

benefit of their own workers.

I'd like to just point out a few facts — and these are all

the reasons why this bill has got to be suspended. It's got to

be suspended; we must have time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be a

little clearer in showing why it's relevant to this

amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, Mr. Chairman. I'll just take

some 1972 figures because I don't think the Minister is aware

of the fantastic amount of money put into the economy of

British Columbia by the mining industry. I don't mean by mining

companies; I'm talking about the entire industry. These are

facts and figures which are true facts and figures from

Funds expended in the Province of British Columbia by the

mining industry were $731 million. That's a lot of money to put

in the economy — and supposing, that amount of money stops

going into the economy. Maybe in 1972 the government did not

get the rightful amount of taxes from the mining industry.

Maybe.

But why punish the entire economy of British Columbia? Why

punish the people who depend on this industry for their

live