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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3831 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting

Routine proceedings

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 103).

Third reading — 3831

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 121).

Third reading — 3831

Trade Practices Act (Bill 126).

Third reading — 3831

Companies Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 127).

Third reading — 3831

Human Resources Facilities Development Act (Bill 82).

Committee stage, report and third reading — 3831

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 152).

Committee stage, report and third reading — 3831

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3831

Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

114).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3832

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3832

Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act (Bill 133).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3833

Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 140).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3833

An Act to Ratify an Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day

of November, 1964, Between the City of Prince Rupert,

Canadian National Railway Company, and Her Majesty the Queen in

Her Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment Act,

1974 (Bill 145).

Second reading — 3833

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 138). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3833

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act (Bill 147).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3834

Logging Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 149). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3834

Strata Titles Act (Bill 14 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3834

Mining Royalties Act (Bill 3 1). Second reading.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3834

Hon- Mr. Barrett — 3836

Mr. Richter — 3840

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3841

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3844

Mr. Fraser — 3846

Hon, Mr. Hartley — 3850

Mr. Dent — 3851

Mr. McClelland — 3851

Hon. Mr. King — 3852

Mr. Chabot — 3854

Petition Driver's certificate premiums. Mr. Smith — 3857

Routine proceedings

Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 154). Hon.

Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 3857

FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that the

House proceed to public bills and orders. Report on Bill 103,

Mr. Speaker.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 103 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 121, Mr. Speaker.

LAND REGISTRY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 121 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 126, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Bill 126 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 127, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 127 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RESOURCES

FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): 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 82, Human Resources Facilities Development Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 152, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 152; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): 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 152, Municipalities Enabling and Validating

Amendment Act , 1974, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to increase

the credit allowed for logging tax paid against income tax

payable is necessary to keep the credit allowed current with

income tax rates payable in 1974. The bill therefore proposes

to adjust the offset allowed for logging tax paid to match the

change in the corporate income tax rate payable in 1974.

In addition, the amendment has been requested by the

federal-provincial agreement, which would simplify the

calculation of instalment payments required to be made through

the current year by individual corporations who do not have

income tax deducted at their source.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Bryson. (Laughter.)

[ Page

3832 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's too early in the morning.

This amendment is very good, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we accept the

bill and will be voting in favour of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately I've lost the opportunity of

giving a detailed analysis. (Laughter.) I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 102, Income Tax 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 114, Mr.

Speaker.

ACCELERATED PARK DEVELOPMENT

FUND AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in 1971 the

Legislature of the day passed the Accelerated Park

Development Fund Act , which provided a sum of $15 million

for park development work over and above the regular amounts

provided in the estimates for expenditures.

This was to speed up the development of the province's

recreational areas. In 1972, this wonderful new

government passed an additional $10 million to add to the

existing Act. Now, in 1973, after having doubled that

Minister's budget — he's not here today; he's out spending it

and building parks in the province — we are adding another $5

million.

I now move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We have no wish to delay

passage of this bill which obviously is going through. We have

our traditional objections to the use of funds which I think we

should express at this time.

We feel the Premier's objection to funds when he was in

opposition made a great deal more sense than his support of

funds now that he has taken power. That is our view. We have

expressed it before and, as it has been often repeated in this

House, I have no intention of going further at this time.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the statements made by the Liberal leader.

This is not the kind of bill the principle of which you are either for or against.

On the other hand, we are for it. But I don't want to interpret that you are

against it. (Laughter.) If you can interpret that out of the Blues then you

would be a step ahead.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 114, Accelerated Park Development Fund 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 133, Mr.

Speaker.

LEASEHOLD AND CONVERSION

MORTGAGE LOAN ACT

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the

Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act is two-fold

in scope. It provides for conversion loans for the conversion

of existing residential dwellings in approved areas. The target

for this year would be to enable 3,000 of these conversions to

take place and to provide mortgage moneys for these

conversions. In a time when we are faced with many of the

problems of urbanization, this is an opportunity to take

advantage of existing urbanization without creating further

problems of transportation infrastructure.

We have had preliminary discussions with some of the

municipalities to be involved. It is receiving a fair amount of

interest.

Under the leasehold mortgage Act, this would allow us to

give first mortgages on Crown land which is being leased, There

will be two types of interest rates available: There will be

the specified interest rate not to exceed that of Central

Mortgage and Housing or NHA residential rates. Also, on the

basis of adjusted family income, there will be lower interest

rates set by regulation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: At least as low as 6 per cent, Mr.

Member. This is what is meant by the eligible interest rate, so

that will be at lower than the market CMHC rate.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 133, Household and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act ,

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

for consideration at

[ Page 3833 ]

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 140, Mr.

Speaker.

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The amendments to the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act would change the definition of eligible

apartment residence, requiring its incorporation under the

cooperative Associations Act for it to be eligible. We

find this necessary because people are using the availability

of government grants and second mortgages as a selling point in

rather dubious types of conversion, selling unspecified numbers

of shares in a rather questionable manner. There is no way we

can check up on these things when the conversions are done

under the Companies Act or if such a conversion were

done under a 99-year lease.

There are other measures being taken in other bills under

the Real Estate Act . This is, I believe, consistent with

that and it doesn't prohibit other types of conversion from

taking place. That is, it does not limit conversions to strata

titles; it does not prevent people who have been in a converted

apartment residence from taking advantage of this. It will

require that they become associated under the Co-operative

Associations Act and then we will have some way of

controlling which can be changed to the detriment of the people

in this. This is a technical change.

The other major change would be a change of eligibility

requirement. I might say that in the previous bill, Bill 133,

the eligibility requirements for a supplement are similar to

the ones we find in this for the grant. We have had a great

deal of difficulty with people in the armed services, in the

RCMP or something, or people who were born and have lived in

British Columbia having to move out of the province for a few

years and then returning. We have changed the eligibility

requirements in order to open this up and make it more fair to

the people of British Columbia.

I move second reading Motion approved.

Bill 140, Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act ,

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 145, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO RATIFY AN AGREEMENT

BEARING DATE THE 16th DAY

OF NOVEMBER, 1964, BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT,

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN HER RIGHT

OF HER PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to An

Act to Ratify an Agreement …. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's all in order; all parties have

agreed to Bill 145. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 145,

An Act to Ratify An Agreement Bearing Date the

16th Day of November, 1964, between the City of Prince Rupert,

Canadian National Railway Company and Her Majesty the Queen in

Her Right of Her Province 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 138, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Speaker these are some housekeeping amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act , I find

that the explanatory notes are probably the best explanatory notes I have ever

noticed in the House. Here are a number of items:

It eliminates the problem of moving unlicensed vehicles.

It eliminates the need for tourist vehicles to have

registration stickers.

It eliminates the need for a holder of a learner's driver's

licence for a driver's insurance certificate.

It makes it easier for dealers who have dealer plates to

turn them in once they have overcome their time of greatest use

and get refunds. Generally, it is first-rate legislation for

housekeeping.

I move second reading.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Perhaps I should bring this

up in committee. Yes, I will bring it up in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the best speech you've ever made.

[ Page

3834 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 138, Motor-vehicle 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 147, Mr.

Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the special committee

appointed by the Legislature to review assessment procedures

unanimously called for creation of a province-wide assessment

authority independent of taxation function, either municipal or

provincial, whose control must be such that it will result

unmistakably in complete independence. I want to thank the

House for bringing forth this bill in such a non-partisan way,

and I look forward in committee stage to discussing any

particular aspect of this bill. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 147, Assessment Authority of British Columbia

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

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 149, Mr.

Speaker.

LOGGING TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this logging tax Act is the

result of what the task force that reviewed the Crown timber

disposal recommended. The task force recommended amendments to

the Logging Tax Act and Income Tax Act to allow

logging operators to write off all logging tax paid against

income tax payable.

The amendments proposed here implement these

recommendations. They reduce the rate of tax from 15 per cent

to 10 per cent and adopt the definition of logging income used

in the federal Income Tax Act to allow full credit of

logging tax paid against federal income tax payable. The

resultant loss in provincial revenues will be offset by an

adjustment in royalty rates as recommended by the same task

force.

I'd like to thank Mr. Peter Pearse, who headed up that task force. Fortunately

for us, he was an unsuccessful contestant for a Liberal nomination in Vancouver.

Having lost that nomination, he became available to the government with his

expertise and came forward with these wonderful policies and recommendations.

I know we will see the complete acceptance of the Liberal group in this House.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 149, Logging Tax 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 141, Mr.

Speaker.

STRATA TITLES ACT

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is basically a new

Strata Titles Act . It does encompass quite a few parts

of the previous Act unchanged, but it's essentially a new

Act.

It accomplishes four main purposes. It provides for

protection of owners of strata lots and for smoother running of

the strata corporation. It updates the former Act to

accommodate the expansion and sophistication of recent

condominium developments.

It brings in two entirely new procedures.

Part 2 permits the

phasing of strata plans, and that is the completion of strata

buildings by phase.

Part 3 permits the building of strata plans

on land leased from the Crown or from other public authorities.

I move second reading.

Motion approved, Bill 141, Strata Titles Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 3 1.

MINING ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound adjourned the debate on the amendment that

would, in effect, substitute the words "six months hence" for

the word "now" in the main motion.

On the amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr., Speaker,

on the amendment, I suggest to the Premier and to the Minister

of Mines, wherever he may be, that there is real wisdom in

deferring consideration of this legislation for the limited

period

[ Page 3835 ]

of six months. I do not intend to deal with my principal

objection, which is to the creation of a royalty, but rather to

the implications of introducing and passing this legislation

now.

When the Minister opened the debate on second reading, he

was kind enough to refer to remarks that I had made earlier in

this House in the course of a debate with the Minister of

Finance. I don't think it was really a debate — it was an

appropriate exchange of opinions across the floor in which the

Minister of Finance and I are in complete agreement. Those

remarks, Mr. Speaker, dealt with the right of the provinces to

gain the revenues from provincial resources. I don't intend to

repeat those remarks again except to say that I remain

unaltered in my view that the provincial government should be

the master of its own resource revenues.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the opening of the debate, the

Minister made reference to intents of the national government

as expressed in the recent budget to preclude the deduction of

royalties or other taxes levied by provinces on their resources

in the determination of what might be income taxable under the

federal statutes.

Whatever one may feel about the position which I take

regarding provincial and federal revenue resources, it is folly

to ignore the possibility, indeed the stated intention on the

part of the present federal government to interfere in that

particular field. We are obviously heading for a confrontation

between Ottawa and the provinces and British Columbia in

particular with respect to these revenue sources.

I hope that in the days and months that are to come when

that confrontation takes place and when there are meetings

between the federal government and the provincial governments,

once and for all we will see these revenue sources clearly

defined as a provincial right. But until that takes place,

until that constitutional problem is resolved, I think it the

utmost of folly for the government to proceed with legislation

of this kind. Whether or not you accept entirely the position

which has been taken by industry that with this royalty bill

and with the impact of the stated intentions of the national

government the total tax rate would be about 104 per cent,

nonetheless the implications are such that industries like the

mining industry will be in fact taxed out of existence. Mining

is our second industry in British Columbia.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) last night in his remarks

on this debate gave evidence that the number of claims in British Columbia has

dropped significantly. We all know from communications which we have had from

constituents and others in this province that exploration is grinding to a halt

and that this is having serious implications on the service industries throughout

the province. Therefore to persist at this particular time and until this tax

problem between the two levels of government is resolved is only to ensure that

exploration will continue to be depressed, that the discovery of new mines will

be delayed, that the development of mines will be hindered, and that those citizens

in the Province of British Columbia, whether they are directly engaged in mining

or whether their enterprise is of a service nature attached to the exploration

and development of the mining industry, will be seriously affected.

It's a little short of irresponsible, in the face of this

situation, for the government to persist — and I say this

entirely separate from the views I have upon the principle of

the legislation as such. We can debate that later.

It is folly to take one of our major resource industries and

to whipsaw that industry between the fiscal desires of two

levels of government in Canada. As I say, I think the Province

of British Columbia is entitled to the major share of tax

revenues from provincial resources. That is my position. But

you cannot deny that the federal government constitutionally

also has a right to make a demand upon the incomes from those

endeavors. To take the industry and to grind it between those

two levels of government in a debate in which the industry has

no control must be foolhardy on the part of the Minister who

has stated in this House and elsewhere that this resource is

the people's and that it should be developed for the benefit of

the people of British Columbia.

What is happening to the industry by reason of this

legislation and other actions of government is contrary to the

best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I would hope that the government will see some wisdom in

deferring consideration of this bill, allowing the mining

industry in all of its segments, for the time being, to be

freed from the concerns which this legislation raises, and that

the government of British Columbia would meet at the earliest

possible moment with the Minister of Finance of Canada (Hon.

Mr. Turner) and resolve this tax problem which has such serious

consequences for the mining industry. In doing so, they will

only be benefiting British Columbia with respect to this

industry but, I suggest, they will be serving a similar purpose

for our other natural resource industries as well.

The implications are quite clear: as provincial demands for

revenue continue, as we continue as we are in this province to

make increasing demands upon the natural resource segment, we

come closer to the day, in the forest industry for example,

where the national government will take the same action that

they propose to take with regard to the mining industry. That

will be the next one, the next industry which will be affected

by a debate and a conflict between two levels of government in

Canada.

[ Page 3836 ]

I think it is of critical importance that this contest

between these two levels of government be resolved at the

earliest possible moment. There is no reason that this industry

should suffer from that controversy.

I think the government should lift this bill, accept this

amendment, postpone it for six months, by which time the

national election will be over. Whichever party forms the

government and whoever will be the Prime Minister and Minister

of Finance will then have the opportunity of meeting with the

Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Mines and

their support staff of British Columbia to resolve this problem

which is not the creation of industry but by which industry is

most seriously affected.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to two points

on why the government is opposed to the motion to delay the

implementation of royalties on mines in the Province of British

Columbia.

First of all, I wish to continue my exchange of opinions

regarding relationships with the federal government and the

British North America Ac t with the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). He states that there

is no basic difference of opinion and philosophy and attitude

in terms of the law that exists.

The law that exists, Mr. Speaker, makes it very clear that

the provincial government does indeed have not only the

authority but the responsibility to maintain its presence in

the resource field. To suggest that we should await the outcome

of the federal election to discuss this contest that he's

describing would be to concede that somehow there is indeed a

contest, when in fact by law — and I'm not a lawyer but you are — there is no contest.

The facts are that we have the responsibility under the

British North America Act for the husbanding of the

resources of this province. To give the impression that somehow

we would await the outcome of the federal election to tussle

with the federal administration as to what type of taxing

authority would take place on the resources would be a tacit

admission that somehow we don't accept the strength of the BNA.

I reject that completely.

My Conservative colleague (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) in the

Province of Alberta has had enough trouble in attempting to

define the limitations of the federal authority in regard to

his resources in that province. Aside from my own

political-philosophical differences from my Conservative

colleague, I must say that I stand behind him 100 per cent in

his argument about the constitutional responsibility he has as

the Premier of Alberta in defending his right to tax his

resources.

If you come to me with the proposition, as I've outlined already, that all

non-renewable resources, beginning with natural gas and oil, were to become

publicly-owned under the federal government, then I would have no hesitation

in accepting your argument and surrendering provincial authority by way of mandate.

I would go back to the people of the province and ask them to agree. But I am

convinced that all oil and natural gas in this country should be publicly-owned.

I would accept that as a challenge politically for an election, but we have

no federal leadership prepared to do that.

As long as these resources are in private hands, many of

which are foreign private hands, there is no way the Government

of British Columbia will allow any federal government to

intrude beyond the British North America Act .

So, Mr. Member, I suggest to you that regardless of whether

it's Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum that wins — my party

unfortunately won't get enough seats; I hope they become the

official opposition — but whether it's the Tweedle-Dee Liberals

or the Tweedle-Dum Tories, they are both committed to private

foreign ownership of these resources. As long as that situation

remains in this country, then we have a responsibility as the

Government of British Columbia to ensure that the BNA Act is

protected here in this province and the taxation rights do not

leave the people of this province.

Now, having said that, to hoist the bill in the face of the

kind of federal situation we have now would be to say to any

federal government that succeeds in this election, "You do

whatever you want, boys. We haven't got a policy of our own and

we're not prepared to stand up and defend the BNA Act". I want

to tell you now: I am a Canadian, a Canadian first. But under

the existing law it is our responsibility to protect British

Columbia's interests that have been delegated by the BNA Act,

and that's what we intend to do.

Any weakening on this bill by any MLA on the argument that

we should await the outcome of the federal election can be

interpreted as an attempt to weaken the BNA Act. I completely

reject it. I completely reject that particular argument.

Now, for the Socreds to start talking, that's nonsense.

That's a whole new entry into the federal field by them. They

have no history of a position, so their interjections aren't

even worthy of comment.

I dismiss that approach as being very, very dangerous to our

own authority under the BNA Act.

A number of other arguments have been used as a reason to

hoist this bill, Mr. Speaker. One of the arguments used was

that the mining companies are all of a sudden decreasing their

investment because of Bill 31.

Interjection.

[ Page

3837 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the lawyers call that a "canard."

I used to think that was only known as a shipping line. But

apparently it has something to do with a little bit of a story

that's used as a dodge or a front or a red herring — with no

pun intended to the Cunard line, spelled differently.

I'd like to point out to the Member of the opposition, who

obviously likes to stick to facts, that the mining industry

proposed back in 1971 to cut back in this province. They said

so in a report known as the Mining Industry Report, 1971, by

Price-Waterhouse.

We weren't even in government in 1971, much to the regret of

the majority of the citizens of this province. Nonetheless, we

were not the government. In 1971 with the Price-Waterhouse

report the mining industry said: "We're easing up, boys."

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Even in 1968.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In 1971, the report showed that $1 billion

was invested between 1962 and 1971; and 73 per cent of this was

invested between 1968 and 1971.

Planned capital expenditure is shown from 1973 to 1976 as

being $102 million. This was only a 14 per cent increase over

the four preceding years. It's nothing.

It's the way that the Liberal Party is attempting to pull

figures out of a hat to fight a bill while they front for the

mining companies, when the mining companies themselves before

we were elected, before the socialist hordes were at the gates,

before the people's government was running the business for the

people, said: "We're slowing down."

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of record

can't be eradicated. It can't be juggled; it can't be punched

through holes; it can't be hidden away. The fact is that the

mining company said back then in 1971: "We're cutting down."

Now, Mr. Speaker, to have that bunch over there…. Really,

they're all one bunch together when it comes to a bill like

this. They'd all like to give the mines back to the private

owners, the way they've been doing it for 100 years in the

province.

The history of this province by Margaret Ormsby, by Michael

Robbin, by anyone who'd done an authoritative study of this

province, has indicated that the biggest give-away gangs that

ever existed were the self-perpetuating, free-enterprise,

establishment governments in this province. Whatever the mining

companies wanted, they got.

MR. D.E. LEWIS: (Shuswap): Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Buttle Lake…poison our atmosphere…in the

park; anything, they got it. In 1971, after having got for over 100 years, they're

going to get. They planned to get and their getting was getting out. But they

didn't know that the prices were going to go up then. They had no idea, after

they made these investments, of the exorbitant profits they were going to make.

They were being open and honest in 1971, saying, "We've got to scale down."

Now let's look at what a delay would mean in terms of

returning revenue to the people of this province for six

months. Let's take a look. For those of you who have read in

the newspapers those huge full-page advertisements crying on

behalf of the mining companies…. I haven't seen anything

quite as pitiful as that since the old United Appeal ads. You

would think that the mining companies of this province were in

need of my care as a social worker, rather than an accountant.

Let's take a look.

In 1973, the net profits of the mining industry in one year

in this province were $300 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get your figures?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's $300 million. From the mining

companies themselves. I like to stick to the mining companies

themselves, Mr. Speaker. I don't want anyone to believe that

the mining companies would tell fibs.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): State your

source exactly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Price Waterhouse said in 1971 that the

industry was getting down. Now we'll go through this. Kaiser

Resources in their annual report, 1972, shows a profit of $3.4

million. In 1973 the profit went from $3.4 million to $13

million — an increase in only one year.

Get that, all you trade unionists out there, all you civil

servants, all you working people, all you pensioners. Don't ask

for more money from the government. Don't ask for more money

from your employer. Just do like Kaiser did; one year they had

an increase of 282 per cent.

MR. GIBSON: How much had they lost before that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, how much had they lost before that!

One could even weep across the nation for the poor mining

companies. One gets the impression from the Liberals that the

only reason the mining companies are in business is for the

opportunity to continue to lose money.

Bralorne Resources: in 1972 a skimpy $649,000 in profit. In

1973 they went up to $2.3 million — an increase of only 254 per

cent in one year.

MR. A.R. FRASER (Cariboo): Your arithmetic is

[ Page 3838 ]

wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: My arithmetic's wrong? I confess, I'm

quoting from their own annual reports, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Up the percentage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Placer Development, 1972; $16.6 million

they made in profit. Under the socialists in 1973 they made $71

million.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): It's enough to bring

tears to glass eyes. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Placer Development's profit went up under

the socialists in one year by 332 per cent. I can see them in

the board rooms rubbing their hands and saying: "Bring on more

socialism; we never had it so good."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not their fault they're under

socialism.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not their fault that they're making

these huge profits. That resource was placed in the ground by

God, not by Bralorne Resources.

Craigmont Mines, 1972 — $2.5 million; 1973 — $10 million.

They only have an increase of 300 per cent in one year, and you

want us to delay this bill where this modest Minister is asking

for a very modest return. If anything, we should be asking for

twice as much, Mr. Minister — twice as much.

Cominco: why, that poor little struggling subsidiary of that

poverty-stricken company known as the CPR, the CPR that was

given a 10-mile wide strip right across this nations, free, by

governments just like you people, because you believe in the

myth of the golden spike — right in the heart — poor little

Cominco…. What happened to poor little Cominco? The CPR,

that poverty-stricken corporation that has nothing but my

sympathy, in 1972 made $20 million; in 1973 their profit was

$42.8 million, an increase of 114 per cent.

That's an increase of 114 per cent, Mr. Speaker. In this day

and age let the public of this province know that with profits

like that old-age pensioners who are pensioned off by Cominco

have to parade in front of that company's office in Trail to

ask for a mere pittance, a few crumbs, from this company that

made $42 million off the people of this province.

You stand in this House and tell us to delay while those people have to picket

in front of Cominco offices asking for a better pension. They struggled and

sweated and created this massive wealth for that company; and their reward is

the freedom to picket in front of the company asking for a better pension, while

they ripped off from those pensioners enough money to enhance their $42 million

profit.

Noranda Mines: I want every British Columbian to know that

in this House today the Socreds, the Liberals and the Tories

are defending Kaiser, Bralorne, Placer, Craigmont, Cominco,

Noranda and Bethlehem. They're up against it. They're defending

all those corporations against whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all taxpayers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you know who they're defending them

against? The people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The odds are against the people, Mr.

Speaker, but I think the people are going to win this time. I

think the people are going to win.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it upsets the establishment

Vancouver group. I know it frays on your cuff.

That's what happens to Bond Street linen when you have to do

a little bit longer work than normal. (Laughter.) We've been

here a little longer than normal and the cuffs get a little

frayed.

Mr. Speaker, we get the impression from that group over

there that it was a miracle that the capitalists came down from

New York, from London and from other parts of the world on a

cloud of gold to help us poor citizens of this province.

You, Mr. Member, of all people — the next national leader of

the Social Credit Party. Of all people! He's going from

disaster to disaster. Of all people! He spoke for a party that

once believed in monetary reform and fighting for the little

people. How can you sit there with that group which claims…with millionaires now in your group? When Social Credit has

millionaires joining its ranks, something has gone wrong with

the old funny money. How can you sit there and allow your great

party…

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, I'm sorry, you're right. Order.

It's not a great party; you are a once-great party….to be

used as a front by the mining companies of this province.

Now for the scare. Oh no — we have a new 57-vote slide-in

winner, a 57-sliding-his-way-into-office winner, telling us….

. land-slide Gibson — just enough strength left to plunge the

dagger in. He's here, and what is he telling us? — Oh! the

mines are going to close down. He's been going all over the

province leaving the impression with the workers that the mines

are going to close down.

I want to read from a Cominco bulletin. God help me from

reading from a Cominco bulletin, Mr.

[ Page 3839 ]

Speaker, but I must do it on occasion to be fair. This is

what this Cominco bulletin says, Marcy 29, 1974: "To our B.C.

employees…" — I've got a special message for you gang.

It's got nice printing — head office. The head office is down

in Vancouver; it doesn't want to get too close to the pollution

up by Trail, you know. It might choke the board room a little

bit. You know, the only lead poisoning is up at the mines. The

lead poisoning in the board is in the other end of the anatomy.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, what does it say? It says right here: "How will the Cominco employees

be affected by Bill 31?" Do you know who wrote this letter? Jerry Hobbs. Good

old Jerry! He was up speaking at the chamber of commerce in Dawson Creek the

other day, warning of the evils of Bill 31, whipping up the 140 delegates from

the Chamber of Commerce, telling those poor little shopkeepers how they are

going to lose while he had $42 million in profit last year. This is what he

said in his letter — signed by Jerry Hobbs:

"How will we as Cominco employees be affected by Bill

31? First, let me assure you that, barring anything unforeseen, your

company sees no curtailment of existing operations in B.C. If Bill 31

is passed."

Now what do you know? We got the impression that the mines

were going to close, that disaster was going to strike, and

here is Jerry Hobbs saying that there is no danger whatsoever

to their jobs under Bill 31.

Now, match this up with good old Jerry saying to the

workers, "It's okay gang, don't listen to what I say in Dawson

Creek. Don't leave town, we're makin' too much money. I've got

a speech to make up in Dawson Creek but in the meantime, stick

around gang, the mine's still got to operate."

What is that mild Minister asking for? What does that modest

man who has had 25 years experience in the House want?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Santa Claus? Do you know what he

discovered, Mr. Speaker? He discovered that the ordinary people

of this province pay a sales tax — 5 per cent. Do you know what

this Minister is proposing, which the mining companies are

opposed to? He wants the mining companies to pay a 5 per cent

royalty, equivalent to the sales tax, on their purchases of our

ores.

Mr. Minister, I'm almost embarrassed to admit that is all we

are asking for. It is a historical disgrace that the mining

companies have not been paying at least that 5 per cent all

these years.

While running that letter to its employees, Cominco is part

of the mining group that was placing these ads — "The Mining

Crisis in British Columbia." Jobs! (Laughter.) I hate to repeat that in-House joke, but

jobs! nonetheless. There it is. There they are. It says: "the

Mining Crisis in British Columbia — Jobs."

They've done more to help the layout men in newspapers in

between elections than any other group I know. Look at this

one: "Has he a job today? tomorrow? New mines." Yet, under Bill

31 it is all happening — the whole world is caving in.

Interjections and laughter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look at this one: "Bill 31 is supposed to

give British Columbians the biggest share of our mineral

resources. In fact, it will wipe out jobs, payrolls, even whole

communities!" Jobs! (Laughter.) Where do we read that page? We

have the picture of the former miner — "will he be a vanishing

breed?"

All the while, these people are telling their employees,

"Don't worry gang, Bill 31 won't affect you. Please don't leave

town. Please don't leave your job. We are making so much money

we can't afford to have you leave town. Ignore the ads because

we are just involved in politics against the people's

government in Victoria. That's got nothing to do with you.

While these ads were appearing in March 27, 28 and 29 in the

higher priced

section of the newspapers, while these ads were

attempting to scare the people of this province, while this

political front in conjunction with their friends in the

opposition were making all of these moves, and while certain

MLAs were running around making speeches with the Yukon and

B.C. Chamber of Mines, what do we find on page 61 of the same

editions of the newspaper — back in the back pages for the

little folks to see? Under "employment opportunities" it says

here: "mining and lumbering." Up at Kaiser they need a first

aid attendant. The Jordan River mines need two long-hole

drillers. Noranda Mines needs millwrights and electricians.

Cassiar Asbestos needs maintenance electricians, millwrights

and mechanics. Lornex needs industrial instrumentations,

industrial electricians, machinists, millwrights, pipe fitters

and welders. Noranda Mines needs a Bell copper division

instrument technician. ABC Employment, "we hire anybody for

anything," says they need aircraft operators, rotary

drillers, HC mechanics and millwrights.

The same day the ads are running that the mining industry is

going to close down, they are running ad after ad advertising

to hire people to come and work in the mines.

All they are hoping is that the business community in

downtown Vancouver can hold hands with the opposition and read

the big ads, but that the workers will still read the small

ones and still come to work.

I didn't want to bring this up. (Laughter.)

[ Page 3840 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You're really not supposed to read papers in

the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know, Mr. Speaker. I didn't want to

bring it up because after doing this today I'm sure that every

single public relations man for the mining companies will be

fired. The job of the public relations man, one of which I

don't have because I don't need one, is to try to make somebody

believe something that isn't quite so. But don't be so dumb,

don't be so stupid as to hire a public relations man who is

placing an ad in one

section of the paper saying that the jobs

will go, and then ads in another

section of the paper saying,

"Come on up here gang, we need you to go to work."

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the ICBC ad?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, you don't want to talk

about Bill 31 anymore. (Laughter.)

Mr. Member, through you, I will spread forgiveness and light

throughout this province if you recant today. I will not tell

how you have been taken in to support an amendment by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) who's not here today and

who doesn't show up very often.

So, Mr. Speaker, let it be understood that by voting for

this amendment to delay this bill, it means that every single

day we delay is a day further from proper chronic care in this

province. That's what it means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Every single day you delay….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't ask them to be

silent. These are guilt-inspired interruptions. Thank goodness

it's a Friday morning so it won't get in the weekend

papers.

Mr. Speaker, every single day we delay…. We are asking

just what the ordinary people have with the sales tax — five

per cent. The Minister should be mildly chastised for not

asking for enough, but I'll take his word for it. I still don't

think you're asking for enough — 25 years ago when you were

more radical, you would have asked for more. (Laughter.) But

I'm taking his advice, Mr. Speaker.

But we can not delay and I say to you that this amendment is

purely a device to protect those companies from paying their

fair share. That's all it is, and we're against it absolutely.

We want a return for the people of this province.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): It's been very entertaining

here this morning with the display that the Minister of Finance has put on in

relation to Bill 31. I don't know how anyone could be so humorous on such a

serious matter. However, the Minister of Finance can put on quite

an act.

I'm rather surprised because this is a very serious matter.

It goes without saying that the bill in itself, which the

amendment was moved on, was conceived and promulgated strictly

on a philosophy. Now as I see the situation, and I've studied

it closely and I did when I was Minister of Mines, the matter

of obtaining a greater return from the resource is not opposed.

And certainly if the Minister of Mines had studied the matter

and amended the Minister Tax Act , in a fashion by which

it would have a bearing on the net profits, then I don't think

we would be having this debate here today.

Certainly the mining industry didn't oppose paying 15 per

cent on net profits over $10,000 and we could have very easily

incorporated amendments into the Mining Tax Act which

would take care of this very well. We would have received an

additional return which the government seems to be bent on

obtaining for the simple reason that they are past masters at

expending the taxpayers' money and seem to be insistent on

getting more than they do under the present tax system for

which the mines are paying a very substantial tax bill.

However, the Minister has mentioned on a number of occasions

what the mining companies are going to expend, and the Premier

gave us a good demonstration here this morning by flopping a

newspaper on his head and comparing ads. Naturally, in speaking

of the ads for jobs, no the mining companies haven't closed

down. They have intimated that they're going to continue on,

but that's not the problem. The problem is creating an

incentive or creating an opportunity for the discovery of more

minerals because when a mine runs out….

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

is royalties.

MR. RICHTER: The problem is not the royalty, Mr. Minister,

and you know it's not the royalty because you could have

obtained a very substantial return from the mineral resources

of this province by way of amending the Minister Tax

Act . You know that.

What's the difference? It's a dollar on either side. But on

one side, certainly as far as the federal government is

concerned, they don't enter into this at this time. They can by

way of legislation, but that is a matter which is in abeyance

until such time as a federal government is elected, and the

necessity of discussing, if you have to discuss at that time,

is the matter of an increase in the Mining Tax Act .

But on a royalty basis, then you might run into a

[ Page 3841 ]

few problems there with the federal government. However, the

thing is, this is provincial legislation and this is going to

be an impost imposed by the provincial government on the mining

companies, big, small or indifferent. It will also affect the

many, many other trades such as in the field of equipment, the

field of geology, the outcome of opportunities for engineers,

all of which receive a remuneration for their endeavours, and

they pay income tax, they pay sales tax and you name it. And

the corporations pay corporation taxes.

Now, it's very, very simple to devise legislation which

would have been past this House already. And the Premier

talking about every day that is wasted is a day we miss as far

as chronic care, that's nonsense. This is a retroactive bill.

It goes back to January 1 of 1974. Let's not have this

nonsensical chit-chat from the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Would you want it delayed for six

months??

MR. RICHTER: Well, supposing it is delayed six months. At

least you would bring in an acceptable piece of legislation, a

realistic piece of legislation and it could still be

retroactive, Mr. Minister. You have brought in legislation

that's retroactive for more than one year. You brought in

legislation that was retroactive back to 1971 and 1972.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You know better than that.

MR. RICHTER: I know very well your government did it because

I had to pay the additional taxes, and so did you, by way of

income.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was federal.

MR. RICHTER: That was not federal. Had this government not

brought in the necessary legislation here, it would not have

applied, and you know it. Even your Minister of Public Works… I saw him hurrying off to the tax department.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Where are you

going spieling? Where do you go to spiel?

MR. RICHTER: I'm not going spieling anywhere, my friend.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: There's an ad that says Frank Richter's

going to spiel in Ashcroft.

MR. RICHTER: That's a wonderful place to spiel. Now, I'm not

going to spiel there now because I've already been there and

spieled, my friend. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: You're deader than a doornail. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you spiel the goods?

MR. RICHTER: I really spilled the beans up there — too

bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're dead if you ride up that way.

MR. RICHTER: As far as the legislation is concerned, the

need for an amendment is because the terms are very, very vague

and its application leaves a lot to be desired as far as

clarity is concerned.

If I hadn't gone to Ashcroft I wouldn't have caught this

cold, either; it's so chilly up there.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

However, we're finding that it is not only the mining

industry that is opposing the legislation, we have many others.

Civil liberties groups are opposing it and we have various

other groups who are concerned with their future in this

province. I'm concerned. The only support that I can see is the

support that has been given by also another advertisement. This

is put out by the steelworkers. I'm not opposed to the

steelworkers, but they're opposed to the Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're not opposed to the bill.

MR. RICHTER: No, they are the only ones who are supporting

it. But they are opposed to the Minister, because they picketed

his mine-rescue competitions in Kamloops. This is the very area

which the Minister should have done something — explain to these

people that what he was doing was in their interest.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I must sit down. I just can't go on

with my voice the way it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I am not an expert on this but

it occurs to me that the Hon. Member would want to continue

later if that would be all right and if the House agrees. In

the meantime, I would recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We completely agree that the Member is

having a little trouble with his voice and a cough. He should

be entitled to take the floor again.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a classic speech from the

[ Page 3842 ]

Premier. He was in great good spirits. He has passed a great

number of bills this morning, and we all helped. He feels that

it is now time to give us a little bit of theatre, and he gave

a great performance. But if you start looking at what he said

in terms of the amendment before us, it doesn't go very

far.

First, to talk of the federal-provincial conflict: obviously

there is a provincial jurisdiction here that is extensive. But

quite clearly there is also a federal ability to tax as well

which has been extended over the years and has been used over

the years and may well have been extended in the last two or

three months dealing with oil and gas.

It's a grey area. To suggest that it is exclusive in

obviously wrong. The Premier has talked to Premier Lougheed of

Alberta. He has suggested that he has supported him on his

position regarding resources. Yet constantly he has blamed the

federal government for not getting more in terms of keeping

down the Canadian price. So even he, in his statements, has

been quite contradictory on the question of federal involvement

in resource policy and resource taxation.

The reference to public ownership to federal government is

really not a factor which affects this particular amendment or

this particular bill.

The resources: certainly many of the companies are in

private hands. But, as we all know, they are fully controlled

by legislation — federal and provincial and sometimes municipal

as well. To suggest that because there is private ownership of

companies and therefore they can do precisely what they want is

just perfectly absurd. What we are seeing instead is the

sacrifice of an industry — using it as a pawn in a battle in

the federal-provincial tax tug-of-war.

I really think it is the wrong thing to do because, clearly,

in this area there is obviously some federal jurisdiction.

Until that is resolved a little more amicably, perhaps by

sitting around a table, perhaps by legal means, a declaratory

judgment of some sort in this area, we are not going to do

anything but harm the industry by pressing on with legislation

such as this.

We have had a large number of figures, Mr. Speaker, about

the profits of companies. The estimates of the bill, of course,

and the reason why we want the bill to be given a six-month

delay, is the fact that it is not a profits tax. My Hon. friend

from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has made clear time

after time that increases in profit taxes would be welcomed by

us in this House, taxes specifically on the mining industry. We

have recommended that. He, indeed, has gone through the

arithmetic to show how the amount of revenue raised could be

equivalent to the mining royalty.

We really feel that the Premier, in his constant references to

profits of various companies — Placer, Cominco, Bralorne, Kaiser, and

the rest is only emphasizing that the way for the people to get more

back from the operations of these companies or more from the operations

of these companies is by way of getting a high profit industry and

taxing it in an equivalent or similar fashion. You go after the

profits, not after the royalty, because the royalty does nothing

whatsoever to improve the profit position. I'll get into that in a

moment.

I think all his figures outlining profitability of companies

only proves that really and truly he is confused as to what a

royalty is and to what a profit tax is. Here in this bill and

in this amendment we are talking about royalties. It is a tax.

It raises money.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's paying a price for a product.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a price on a product, but

essentially it's the government taking money on that product

from the companies concerned. It has an effect which is other

than its financial effect upon the government revenues, which

is different and more pervasive perhaps than just the amount of

money that gets into the provincial Treasury as a result of the

tax. That's the whole issue here.

We know that the companies are making profit. I'm not

unhappy. It shows that they are able to pay the high wages. It

shows that we are able to tax them in a pretty hefty fashion.

It shows that British Columbians can benefit from those

profits. But to suggest somehow that, "They make profits;

therefore a royalty is a good tax," is to confuse the

two different types of approaches of raising revenue for the

provincial Treasury.

I don't wish to go into this at length because we are

obviously going to have to go into it again when the bill is

under discussion, but the reference to profit taxes by the

Premier only indicate, in my view, that royalty is not the

avenue to use in terms of taxing the mining companies. It is a

profits tax. We've gone into that time after time.

Mr. Speaker, the references made in terms of an industry

damaged was essentially to the mining exploration and

development industry. I've said before and I'll say again that

my personal belief is that companies such as Kaiser, Cominco

and the rest are big enough to take care of themselves.

Generally speaking, although they may have their profits and

their operations affected, they will survive. It's the smaller

people who are going to get it in the neck as a result of

reducing activity in exploration and development.

The Premier made much of the fact that there was a statement

made by the association, I believe it was — no, it was the

association, not the chamber — that there had been a reduction

in exploration and development even before Bill 31 came in.

That's perfectly true. The graphs that were put up

yesterday

[ Page 3843 ]

by my friend for Vancouver–Point Grey started well before

the new NDP government or, indeed, before the introduction of

Bill 31.

We know full well that that is the case. But to say that

because there has been a reduction before that is the whole

cause of the reduction at the present time is to ignore the

present situation and the information from the industry, which

is being put forward in a well-meaning fashion by people who

obviously have their own private concerns but many of whom are

more dispassionate in that they work for the university or they

work outside of the direct industry and their income is not

dependent upon the operations of any particular company.

There is a lot of information to suggest that Bill 31 has

substantially reduced mining exploration, staking of claims and

development over and above what would have happened had this

type of legislation not been introduced.

I do feel that in the debate we are tending to miss the

point by going on at length on some of the tangential issues

which really are not relevant as to whether or not this bill

should be hoisted for six months.

It's fine to talk about pensioners, great to talk about

chronic care being held up, but we all know that that really

isn't the case. What we have to do is maximize the provincial

return from these companies and the industry and keep it

healthy. It is the side effect of royalties, as opposed to

profit taxes, which we have disputed. to suggest otherwise

really shows that the Premier and many Members of the

government side have missed the point on this.

Taxation of any sort is generally fairly complex. It is an

extremely difficult subject. We've all had some experience as

politicians in dealing with this. The fact of the matter is, to

try and oversimplify it and refuse to acknowledge the problems

that exist, I think, is quite the wrong way to go about it.

It's not a subject for the type of emotional speeches that the

Premier gave. I appreciated it. We all enjoyed it. But it is

irrelevant to the bill and it is irrelevant to the

amendment.

The amendment is why we should be having a six-month hoist.

I think that the first reason is to prevent that type of

federal-provincial conflict which the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) talked about. There is

no need to use this industry simply as a bargaining counter or

a football in a game of football. There is no need for the

industry to be used in the game in that way. It's more

important in terms of jobs, it's more important in terms of its

return to the provincial Treasury, than has been suggested by

the Premier — and certainly more important, I feel, than a

strictly federal-provincial game would indicate.

I would like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to one other thing that worries me most

of all with this particular piece of legislation and why again I think we need

a six-month hoist for further study. "It has been said" — and I'm quoting an

article by Bob Shaw of The Province business section, April 8, 1974. He in turn

referring to discussions and material presented to him by Dr. John Evans, professor

and head of the UBC department of mining engineering.

Because we are always having the motives of people who even

consider and examine Bill 31 attacked by the government, I

would just like to say that he has stressed several times that

he speaks because he knows the mining industry, but: "I hold no

allegiances to mining companies nor to the mine work forces,

nor have I any political affiliation. I stress that."

There is no way that the distinction between royalty and

profit taxes and the advisability or otherwise of bringing in

royalties at this time can be properly discussed unless we get

away from the broad brush-stroke, the political approach, the

claims that Bill 31 embodies all that is good, including

chronic care, pensions and everything else. That is not the way

we are going to be able to examine and decide as to what this

particular piece of legislation will do.

Back to Bob Shaw's article. He talks about the price of ore

and copper and the effects that the price has on the mineable

reserves. As the price goes down, the amount of ore that you

can mine obviously goes down as well because the cost of

extraction is the major factor in where the cut-off point

comes.

He gives details on the effect of a royalty reducing the

amount of ore, mineable ore, and turning it into waste rock. He

has a diagram, which has been presented in the House before, I

believe, which shows the mine in terms of a centre core of

high-grade ore from which other ores surrounding it goes out in

decreasing value to the point where you simply have rock or ore

of such low quality that it's not mineable under the present

economic circumstances, in particular, price and tax.

He points out that what we have with the royalty is

substantial reduction in the amount of ore that will be taken

out of the ground with any one particular mine. The centre core

will be taken out, the highest grades will be taken out and the

remainder will be left.

Because really and truly up to now, no one, from his side at

least, has answered this question at all satisfactorily, I

would urge the Minister to consider that. I personally believe

that it's the wrong thing to do, as a conservationist, to try

and simply take the best quality ores and leave the remainder

in the ground. It's wrong because you're wasting your

resources. It's wrong because it may lead to the opening up of

more smaller mines simply for high-grading purposes and not a

steady programme of exploitation of these mines over a long

period. The tendency will be to wait, as has happened so often

[ Page 3844 ]

the case of gold, for price changes, then run in there as

fast as you can to take advantage of it — take simply the

highest grade ore that's available at the point…

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, but it will give you the chance to

study it, Mr. Minister, because you haven't studied it up to

now, according to what you have said. I've listened to you.

I've tried hard to read the statements that you've made. My

friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has done this

with even more care and attention than I have and we are still

very puzzled by your failure to deal with this specific

question, therefore we think that six months might just be

enough time for you to have a small break, to get away from

this subject, back to it and analyse it in some detail. If you

do, I think you'll come to the same type of conclusion as

Professor John Evans came to. You are reducing the mineable

ore. The result is, from the conservation point of view, a

substantial loss of revenue, a substantial loss of ore and far

more destruction on the environmental side than what might

otherwise be the case.

You're going to create, idly in this area, a bit of a boom

or bust. You're going to encourage the opening of existing and

known mines — you've already done a tremendous amount of damage

to exploration — but you'll probably encourage high-grading of

existing properties for a relatively short period of time.

There will be far more rock containing copper simply abandoned

because it is no longer a marketable product because it no

longer has enough copper in it to justify the payment of the

royalty as well as all the other costs.

You're going to create a situation where the conservation

aspect, which should be to exploit as fully and as properly

every ore body that you have in accordance with time frames

which you think are realistic, you're going to change that so

that you are exploiting far less and you're going to

essentially be high-grading.

This problem I raise at this time because you haven't

answered it in any of your replies to questions. You have not

answered it in your public speeches. You have, indeed, followed

the same type of pattern as the Premier and ignored one of the

most fundamental problems dealing with the difference between

royalty and profit taxes.

As the Minister has failed to deal with this problem, as the

speech of the Premier has totally avoided or ignored the

question as to the effect of royalties as opposed to profit

taxes, this is why we support the concept of a six-month

hoist.

The bill itself is going to have a lot of side effects in addition to the one

that you have in mind, which is raising revenue. We think there are other and

better ways of raising the same amount of revenue from the same industry without

these adverse side effects. Therefore, we most strongly urge you to consider

this amendment for a six-month hoist. You can always put in a bill with retroactive

provisions — you've done that so often before, we'll no longer be complaining

about that — and you can have it in place for the same length of time. But for

you to go ahead with a bill which is essentially bad in principle, we think

would be a serious mistake at this time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, just a

few short remarks to point out the reasons I feel that it

shouldn't be hoisted for six months or, indeed, at all. In so

doing, I'd like to delve a little bit into what's been said by

other people in supporting the amendment.

The one thing that I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, is

when we wanted to save the community of Prince Rupert and the

northwestern part of the province by going in and saving

Col-Cel, by purchasing it and putting it into public ownership,

the arguments from the other side were: you don't have to own

industry in order to control it, in order to make money; you

can do it by legislation by way of taxes.

Then when we turn around and start to go by the way of

legislation and taxes in order to raise money for the people of

British Columbia, they say that you can't do that because if

you do that then the mining companies or other industries will

go broke and everyone will lose their jobs.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me that no matter

which way we go to try and get money from the private sector,

it's going to be opposed by the opposition, because that's the

way their philosophy seems to work.

Now, they keep trying to confuse, at least it seems to me,

the difference between profits and money. They seem to want to

infer that profits are not money. When the Premier pointed out,

when he was speaking, that they're making a great deal of

profit so they can afford to pay royalties, they tried to point

out that profits aren't necessarily money — that because

they're making a lot of profit, it doesn't mean they can

necessarily afford to pay taxes or royalties. I just find a lot

of trouble trying to come to rationalization on that kind of

theory.

I'd like to bring up one specific item of why I think it's

imperative to put this bill through right away. There's only

one mine in my constituency, that's the mine at Tasu on the

Queen Charlotte Islands. About three weeks ago I was going to

go there and meet the Lieutenant-Governor for a tour. I knew

that in this mining community Bill 31 would probably be brought

up while I was visiting, so I did some research on the Tasu

Mine, just so I would be prepared to answer specific questions

to my

[ Page 3845 ]

constituents while I was there. Unfortunately, I didn't get

in because of bad weather, but I did have the research

ready.

Now, the former Minister of Mines, the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), said that there's no need

to change anything, that mining companies and the industries

were, under the old structure, paying their fair share.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And they were happy.

HON. MR. LEA: And they were happy. I'm sure they were happy

and I'd like to just share with you some of the reasons why I

think they were very, very happy.

Under the present structure, that's pre Bill 31, or pre

mining legislation by this government, the Tasu Mine, by a

special contractual arrangement with the previous

administration, were paying $1 a ton on concentrate. However,

it was deemed that only 50 per cent of that concentrate was

iron ore, so they would only pay 50 cents a ton, although

mining people tell us it was something closer to 65 per cent

iron ore, but they pay $1 a ton.

Now, when he was speaking, it was pointed out by the

Premier, by the mining industry, that they wouldn't close their

present operations down. The opposition says, "Yes, but they

won't do any further exploration, so in time everything's going

to close down."

Now the kind of incentives that these people, the

opposition, talk about…. You see, it is already down to 50

cents a ton on this concentrate from Tasu. Now it goes down to

25 cents a ton if they do exploration work — that's an

incentive. I think everybody on the opposition side agrees

that's an incentive, right? The only thing is, under their

contractual arrangement, and it must be nice, they don't

necessarily have to do any exploration work. All they have to

do is just have a geologist on the staff, and not necessarily

at the site where the mine is operating. He could be down on

Howe Street selling penny stock in his spare time. They don't

have to do anything, but they get another 50 per cent off that

50 cents, so they end up paying 25 cents a ton.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I have to have this money so I can patch

those potholes, Mr. Member. I am sure you're going to go back

to your riding and say: "I support Bill 31 because I want the

potholes patched in my riding."

Now Tasu made $14,012,999 profit in the year 1973. On that

they paid $146,799, that's under the previous administration's

contract with them, a percentage of 1 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not their total tax.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, it's their total taxes for the goods

they have taken from the people of British Columbia. We're

selling that to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Income tax.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, everybody pays income tax. I'm sure that

if the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

owned something and was going to sell it, he'd want to sell it

for some money. That makes sense. Now you own, along with the

rest of us in British Columbia, the ore in the ground. Doesn't

it make sense, Mr. Speaker, that we sell that for some money?

One per cent doesn't seem an awful lot. So we're really going

to put it up by this new legislation.

In 1974, under this new legislation, if that mine were to

make the same amount of money — and probably they won't,

probably they'll make a little more — if they were to make that

same amount of money, they'd pay $276,162 — 2 per cent. A good

reason why we should not support this amendment.

In the year 1965 it was exactly the same in terms of dollars

from that mine. They would pay $612,985 on close to $15 million — 5 per cent. Five per cent! Now they are still left with quite

a bit of money as profit. Profit is money. Also they have that

old thing where they get a little off for exploration and they

don't have to do any.

Now I believe that these are very good reasons why we should

not support the amendment, because I believe that every time,

every day, every month that goes by we're losing money that

really should be going to the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: Now he talked about the prospectors. They try

to leave the aura in the House that the prospector is a little

old guy with a beard and a loaded up Socred (Laughter) heading

up into the hills. Not necessarily. Usually the prospectors are

very, very sophisticated, technology-oriented, with aircraft

and all of the new things that go with mining companies. I come

from a mining area. I've lived in mining areas all my life and

I've only seen in my whole life two prospectors who ever made

any money. Only two.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's tough.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, it's tough. When you get through with

those mining companies they're darned tough, I'll tell you

that. So let's not cry for the little prospector. The little

prospector's been getting it in the ear from the mining

companies for as long as I

[ Page 3846 ]

can remember and before that. This Minister brought in aid

to the little prospector, something that that old

administration never did do.

I'd like to wind up on the real reason why this amendment's

been put forward. I like to consider myself, Mr. Speaker, a

pragmatist when it comes to politics. I believe that those

people who paid for my campaign can expect something back from

me. That's really where it is. And do you know who paid for my

campaign and those of the other Members on this side of the

House? Workers coming in giving $10, the little people walking

by the office and coming in and giving $10, $20, $5, $1, and

you know….

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right, for my next campaign. A little

man from the Province of British Columbia — a $2 contribution.

Thank you. Those are the kind of contributions we on this side

of the House get to run our campaigns from working people in

this province. We owe them something and are paying them now

with Bill 31. I'm going to tell you that if the big companies

paid for the campaigns of this party, then it would be

incumbent on us to pay them back. How would we pay them back?

We'd pay them back by being over there supporting that

amendment. That's how you pay them back. We owe the people of

this province something and we're going to pay them back by

bringing in Bill 31. You owe the people who paid for your

campaign something, you support the amendment. And that's

really where it's at.

MR. FRASER: I just have a few words to say on the motion to

hoist this for six months. It should be hoisted forever, so I

certainly make it clear that I am in favour of the hoist. That

last performance is rather difficult to follow, but I wish he'd

go fix some potholes instead of making holes around here.

HON. MR. LEA: Support Bill 31 then.

MR. FRASER: No way!

I don't want to get off the main subject here. I want to

talk about the Minister who is in charge of Bill 31 for a

minute. I've always had the highest respect for him as an

individual. He's a veteran of this House and I appreciate that

fact. You know, he is just delighted with this Bill 31. He's

been sitting here grinning like a Cheshire cat for two weeks. I

want to say it's the summit of this Minister's career and from

now on it's all going to be downhill for this Minister once

Bill 31 becomes law.

The Minister in his remarks when he introduced the bill, as I recall, was talking

about employment and that the mining industry doesn't engender any employment.

Of course directly it does — about 15,000 — but I don't think the government

people over there understand the indirect effects that mining has on the economy

of British Columbia. Directly and indirectly we're probably talking about 100,000

people here.

I would just like to give you an example of why this bill

should be hoisted forever, not just six months, Mr. Chairman.

My riding of Cariboo has been famous for mining for the last

100 years or so. As a matter of fact if it wasn't for the gold

rush in the 1860s these fellows here wouldn't be sitting in

their plush offices as they are today in Victoria. So don't

believe that we aren't interested in mining. We have some

copper mining — which I'll get to in a minute — but I'm going to

talk about the effect it has on small, innocent people.

There is a man who packs for a living. You don't know what

that's all about, but he ran horses and he packed in for mining

companies, exploration companies, and he had a contract to pack

out…with 30 head of horses. When Bill 31 came in he lost

all that and now he's probably going to apply to the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for something to eat. So it

has side effects all the way. Other Members have said so, and I

don't know how we get through to these people to convince them

that this is not right.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that certainly with the higher

price of metals the people of the province should get more

revenue. Copper has gone from 35 or 40 cents a pound. I don't

know how high it got, probably to $1.20, and I think the mining

people and everybody in the province agrees that we certainly

should have more with inflation prices on metals. What we're

really saying as to why this should be hoisted is that it

should be on a taxation basis and not on royalties. There's a

great difference and it's a most unfair way to assess the

public levy by a royalty route rather than a taxation

route.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I realize the

Liberals here are in a tough position on this amendment, as

well as overall, because one of the reasons that we have a

federal election is on the Liberals' mining legislation

in Ottawa. I don't see how they can get up here and make

speeches against Bill 31 when the record of their party is

quite clear that if parliament hadn't gone down the levies they

would have put through the tax rate would have been about 102

per cent. So I think the Liberal Party is just a lot of

doubletalk as far as opposition to this is concerned, in view

of their federal record.

I am amazed that certain MLAs here haven't got into the

debate to try and hoist this bill for six months, which is what

we're talking about, because it certainly affects their riding,

and I refer to the Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet riding (Hon.

Mr. Hartley). There's a big sign up in his riding, a big

four-by-eight that was put up….

[ Page 3847 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, no! I didn't say we put it up! There's a big

sign up on the hill into Ashcroft. You know what it says, Mr.

Chairman? "The future ghost town of British Columbia." That's

what it says, and I didn't put it up.

HON. MR. LEA: Who's going to get the votes in there when

you're a ghost town?

MR. FRASER: Well, it's a sure thing that the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) isn't. He's had the biscuit in

Ashcroft, Merritt, Lillooet — all those places — over Bill 31.

Why isn't he up here standing on his hind legs and saying

something about it? He's scared to say anything about it

here.

HON. MR. LEA: They want to see you in Clinton.

MR. FRASER: Oh, they do, eh? Well, I was there a lot only

about two weeks ago, Mr. Premier. I'll worry about Clinton.

Never mind.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, he spent two weeks there one night!

(Laughter).

MR. FRASER: Yes. Getting back to the silent people here who

represent people, you're talking about how you represent

people. Great representation, I'll tell you.

What about that Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)?

Where is he? The silent Member for Kamloops. Here he is. I

thought he was gone.

The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). Come on, tell us what they

think about it in Atlin, Frank! Come on! We want to hear from

you on Bill 31. Don't take any notes from him, either. Use

your own speech.

Now the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly). I'd like to hear

from him. They are a little upset up there too. I understand

they've got a petition up there with 4,000 names on it and he

only got 2,000 votes in the last election. The petition says

they want him to resign. Well, Bill 31 is one of the reasons

they want him to resign.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, you don't mean that.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to say something else. I wish that

Minister would come in here and pay attention.

That Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) should go home and

look after those tired roosters he's got up there.

I would like to refer to a union which came out in favour of

Bill 31. I think it's called the Steelworkers Union. I want to

tell you what happened there.

We have Gibraltar Mines in my riding in the Cariboo out at Williams Lake. We're

proud of Gibraltar Mines and what it's done there, the employment it has provided

and the mixed economy it has provided. But the Steelworkers Union represents

that mine; and I got a petition from all the workers at Gibraltar Mines to stop

Bill 31. I'm amazed to find out and read in the newspapers that the Steelworkers

Union are in favour of Bill 31. What a bunch of double-talk!

Do you know that that was one man of the Steelworkers Union

that made that press release? It wasn't the working men, the

members of the union itself that do the work, because at the

same time they sent me a petition that they wanted Bill 31

stopped. So you know, you get so much confusion over facts.

As I said, we have Gibraltar Mines in the Cariboo out at

Williams Lake and we're proud of it, what it has done for the

community at Williams Lake; it's given it a mixed economy. It

is a large beef-raising country, large lumbering; and now with

mining they have an excellent mix, and everybody is proud of

Gibraltar Mines.

A lot of the citizens of our province don't consider that

profit is a swear word like these stupid socialists think it

is. That word profit is a swear word in their vocabulary, and I

can't understand it.

MR. LEWIS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. FRASER: You're not the Chairman yet. I don't have to

take orders from you.

The Gibraltar people, the ones that I know, and the

Gibraltar Mines are good corporate citizens in the Cariboo

riding and everybody is proud of them. We're also happy they're

making money. What's wrong with that?

Another thing I'd like to point out in this debate, whether

it has or not…. The Minister will tell me; at least he

sits in here once in a while. It is the fact that the Premier

of this province should stop this construction of the British

Columbia Railroad right today. They are going up to Dees Lake

and that. With Bill 31 there's no exploration, there'll be no

metals for that railroad to haul out of there. You're wasting

public funds by that extension now, in view of Bill 31. It

should be halted right now.

The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams)

during his debate said there was no timber along the line and

that the prior administration were dummies for ever making the

extension up there. There are minerals there but nobody is

going in there to get them out. So what's that railroad going

to haul out of there — a bunch of hot air from the socialists?

It won't make much money at that. So stop the construction of

that line right now, because exploration has stopped there.

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) knows all about it. I'd

like to hear what he's got to say about it.

[ Page 3848 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Why doesn't he speak

up?

MR. FRASER: Why doesn't he get up here and say something

about it?

Another thing I'd like to refer to, Mr. Speaker, is this: this Premier, when

he was doing the doodle-dance here about an hour ago and running around with

a paper hat on his head, said: "You know, Bill 31 is a great thing and we need

it to get chronic care in this province." What a bunch of bunk! Bunk, Mr. Premier

— bunk!

You've got the money right now to go ahead with the

chronic-care programme. You don't have to go and fleece all the

ordinary citizens and the corporate citizens with your crazy

Bill 31, I'll tell you. Don't peddle that stuff around this

province. You've got all kinds of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about his surplus?

MR. FRASER: Yes, what about it? Go and dig in there. And

while I'm on the subject of money, I want to know from the

Minister of Mines what he did with that $100 million he lost.

He lost $100 million in estimation of this Bill 31. I want to

know…. Did he furnish his office with it? What did he do?

He said it would take in $20 million and the industry said it

would take in $125 million; so you've got it somewhere. Now

come on; put your cards on the table here. Tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your blood pressure.

MR. FRASER: Oh, my blood pressure's fine. There won't be any

by-election in Cariboo, I assure you of that. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: We wouldn't run against you.

MR. FRASER: Thanks a lot. Would you get that on the record

there?

To go back to all the welter of accusations, Mr. Speaker, I

want to read from a professional engineer from Merritt. Mr.

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), do you know where

Merritt is? Yes, well I'm going to read what he has to say,

because I agree with what he says.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I can't help that.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Peter McNelly?

MR. FRASER: Yes, what about him?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Premier, sit down; I've got the floor.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Stop that chirp-chirp from over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd just like to remind the Members that

it's the Member for Cariboo who's speaking.

MR. FRASER: Anyway, back to the hoisting of this for six

months. It should be hoisted forever, Mr. Speaker — not six

months but forever. I want to go back to that. I got on the

subject of the Minister of Mines, that this was the summit of

his career. I think that he should be hoisted as well, along

with Bill 31, and set out to pasture. If this is the best kind

of legislation he can bring in, he doesn't deserve to be around

here any more.

MR. CHABOT: He couldn't even keep track of nuts and bolts

for Cominco.

MR. FRASER: Right, he even lost those. He's lost $100

million here already that he can't account for.

"To add to the effect of this rip-off, Bill 44 — that's the

bill we passed last year — also went so far as to deprive the

staker and developer of a secure title to the mineral property

upon which he might have spent thousands or even millions of

dollars to prove the presence of an ore body.

"Having hamstrung the prospector and put the developer into

a limbo of uncertainty designed to incapacitate the small

operator, Bill 31 is introduced to finish off the big

operators. Look at the destructive effect of this

ill-considered and sloppily drawn bill and trace the disastrous

result into our own lives.

"Bill 31, which imposes exorbitant royalties on mineral products without specifying the products to be affected, is

ill-considered in its intent and badly drawn. By omitting a

clear statement as to what metals it will apply, it fails even

to specify the errors of its own jurisdiction. It leaves to

Ministerial discretion the area of application as well as the

mechanics of enforcement.

"Bill 31 also opens wide the door to corruption. Where the

opportunity for corruption is offered, corruption occurs. It

imposes royalties on the basis of the market

[ Page 3849 ]

price of a metal regardless of whether or not the production

is profitable. These exorbitant royalties then become an operating charge and

raise drastically the cost of metal production.

"The bill will make it uneconomic to mine billions of tons

of what is now low-grade ore and turn that valuable ore into

waste."

I would like to say here, Mr. Speaker — this is quite an

important part of the bill, and I don't think a lot of the

public understands — that all the copper mines that are in

British Columbia today have been developed on low-grade copper.

I want to congratulate the industry for being as successful as

they are, because in the world of metals it's a low-grade

copper, and they've done an excellent job in finding a way to

mine this and make a profit and provide a living for many

thousands of citizens.

"As a result, this will prevent many potential mining

operations from coming into production." That's for sure. We

are already seeing the results of that. The exploration has

dropped off and we're certainly not going to see another mine

developed in the Province of British Columbia as long as Bill

31 in its present form is the law of the land, which

unfortunately I think it might be.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, sure I'll bet. But don't you bet me with

the $100 million you took. You know, that's not yours to bet

with in the first place, Mr. Minister.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. FRASER:

"By causing cutbacks in operation, companies will close down

prematurely and, cause many viable prospects to lie idle. It

will contribute directly to unemployment. Turning much valuable

ore into waste, it will curtail the production of vital metals

and thus cause artificial shortages. Bill 31 will therefore

contribute directly to inflation. The present concept of

royalties should be abandoned and Bill 31 withdrawn."

We're saying it should be hoisted for now. On this hoist

business on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out

that it certainly fits into the timing 'of everything. As I

said earlier, the federal Liberals want a nice mining industry

at the federal level. They got in trouble, their budget failed

and we're now deciding that as Canadians in a federal

election.

For that reason and that reason alone, with the provincial-federal conflict

obviously here, this bill should be withdrawn. We can have the federal election,

get a new government — that won't be Liberal, by the way, Mr. Speaker — and

see what the new government does about all this conflict of jurisdiction, with

the effect being that it hurts all the citizens of this great province and,

indirectly, the whole of Canada.

I have one more small thing I want to get on

the record here in support of the hoist and in support of what I said about

the British Columbia Railway — the construction of that line extension to be

stopped. This letter says the following:

"The tax map gives the names and locations of two producing

mines, two proven ore bodies and 10 potential ore bodies in the

northwest part of British Columbia along with road and railroad

locations. Granduc's freight is handled by water transportation

through Stewart, but freights for the other 13 properties could

tie in with the British Columbia and Canadian National

Railways. "Outgoing asbestos from Cassiar is approximately

140,000 tons per year. The proven ore bodies of Stikine Copper

and Liard Copper could produce over 600,000 tons of concentrate

per year. "Ingoing freight would be considerable. The times

would depend to a great extent on the source of power generated

for the operations. If it were for coal or oil generators there

would be a large freight moving to the properties. "The Stikine

and Liard Copper properties have sufficient reserves to warrant

production at a total rate of 80,000 tons per day for at least

20 years. They would directly employ at least 1,700 people and

require a new town site of 5,000 people. "At "At present and as a direct result of the threat of Bill 31,

no further work is planned for Stikine Copper. Liard will carry

out only a token programme for the same reason. A large

drilling programme planned for the Sustut property has been

drastically curtailed. Seven of the other ore bodies will have

no development this year."

All because of Bill 31, MT. Speaker.

"The time lag from the decision to place a mining property

in production until actual production takes place is usually

four to five years. With the exception of the asbestos from

Cassiar, it is obvious that no mineral revenue will come to the

British Columbia Railway for many years."

Again, I remind the Premier that I want him today to issue

an order to stop the construction of this line. It apparently

is going to be built and isn't going to have anything to haul.

It's basically a resource railroad but nobody is going to get

the resources out so. Why go on with the construction of the

railroad into that part of the country?

I would just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I

[ Page 3850 ]

would like to see this Minister hoisted for six months or

longer and this bill hoisted forever. I'll conclude my remarks

on that. It's a bad piece of legislation.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm really very, very much surprised at

the attitude of the opposition Members who have spoken this

morning and on previous occasions on Bill 31. I'm really,

really surprised. After all, as the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) mentioned, we have had mining for over 100 years in

this province in Lillooet and in the Cariboo. A glorious

history, a history we can be very well proud of.

They stand up and say they want no royalties but a profit

tax, when over the years the Social Credit government, the

Liberal government and the Conservative government have given

tax concessions, tax-free periods and accelerated depreciation

so that those giant corporations are giant corporations because

they have failed to act as good corporate citizens in this

province and in this nation. They have given away their

resources.

My friend in the Cariboo, yes, he has mines, and there are

mines in Yale- Lillooet. But he also has ranches. His ranchers

should know this, and I hope the press will see that they do

know this. The ranchers have bought the commodities they must

have to stay in business. For a rancher to go into business, he

has to have water to water his meadows to make hay. He has to

have range leases so that his cattle can go into the hills and

eat the grass. To have the water he has a water rights lease

that he pays an annual rent or an annual royalty. He pays for

those water rights.

MR. WALLACE: What has this to do with the amendment?

MR. FRASER: Garbage, that's what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: You are going to relate this to the bill,

aren't you?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You'll say it is garbage but the ranchers

in your districts don't say it's garbage. The ranchers say, "We

pay royalties for the grass and for the water." This is the way

the ranchers in your riding pay for the royalties on their

grass, Mr. Member for Cariboo. They pay so much per head of

cattle and so much per month. As the price of beef goes up, the

range fees escalate.

This is precisely what we are saying to the mining

companies. If it's fair for the little ranchers to pay

royalties on their grass and their water, to pay 5 per cent

sales tax on the various needs of their home and their family,

and, if they have a good year, to pay a profit, it is fair for

the great corporations that these people have protected for all

too long.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you're on the record.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You bet I'm on the record.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can tell you this. A month ago, on April

24 when I was in Ashcroft, representatives of Lornex mining,

Bethlehem Copper, the mining industry and many of the miners

packed that hall. It was the biggest meeting I've had. I

explained it at greater length than I've done here. When I was

through there was not a single question. The paper so records

it.

Those people across there, Mr. Speaker, could see that Bill

31 was a dead issue in Ashcroft.

MR. FRASER: You're a dead issue, you hit the head there.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Social Credit ran an ad in the local

paper saying that the Hon. Frank Richter is coming up to

Ashcroft to spiel on Bill 31. So he spiels.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In my usual disguise as Member for

Yale-Lillooet. When that meeting was over, there was not a

single question asked on Bill 31.

The new Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

went up there. What did he do? Sure, he was in there beating

the drum for the great mining corporations but not for the

little people. I'm prepared to stand on a platform in Ashcroft,

in Merritt, up in Bralorne, Lillooet, Princeton or any platform

in this province and defend the rights of the little people to

sell the resources of this province.

MR. FRASER: I'll join you on the same platform.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I challenge you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You people have been charging the little

people. You tripled the royalties on the water rights three

years ago to the ranchers. You raised them from 300 per cent

to 1,000 per cent and you're still arguing that the mine

companies should go Scot free.

Mr. Member for Cariboo, when your rancher constituents know

how you've let them down, you won't be quite as welcome as you

have been in the

[ Page

3851 ]

past. You've let them down. You have certainly let down the

ranchers in your riding and throughout British Columbia.

Remember, your government was here for 20 years and brought in

and increased the 5 per cent sales tax so when a working man

has to buy the necessary commodities to maintain life for

himself, his wife and family he paid through the nose.

All we are doing is saying that fair is fair. If the

ranchers pay for the grass, if the working man pays the tax to

keep his home together, then the mining corporations, for the

first time, will start to buy the necessary commodities — the

copper, lead, zinc and nickel — from us, the representatives of

the people.

I am prepared to meet those parties across there on this

issue in an election anytime.

MR. FRASER: Good, good, good.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): My constituency is one of the ones

affected by this bill to some extent. I agree that this is a

very serious problem. That is why I stand in opposition to this

amendment. The quicker we get this bill implemented so that the

mining companies can be proved to be wrong, the better.

MR. McCLELLAND: It is unfortunate that this government can't

see past the end of its nose in reference to the mining

industry in British Columbia.

I would suggest that this bill, rather being called Bill 31,

should be called the "Yukon Development Act" because that is

exactly what it is going to do — develop the mining industry in

the Yukon. That is where they are all going to go once they

leave British Columbia.

There will be a total loss of exploration money, a loss

which we are beginning to see in British Columbia right now.

It's starting; the exodus is beginning. It won't stop unless

this government does hoist this bill for six months and have

another look at it.

It's nonsense to say that the mining industry of the

province has contributed nothing to the economy of British

Columbia. I don't understand how the Minister and the Premier

could say that when B.C. gets more for its resources than any

other jurisdiction in Canada. That's on the record as well. The

mining industry in this province has contributed millions of

dollars in direct taxes to government, and has helped to build

the great wealth of this province in the salaries of thousands

and thousands of employees in secondary industries and support

services.

While I don't profess to be any kind of an expert on mining, I do have a lot

of concern about those secondary industries because they get hurt, even in my

community where there are no mines. If you ruin those secondary industries and

those support services, then my constituents begin to feel the pinch as well.

That's why I'm so concerned about Bill 31 and why I believe it should be hoisted.

You hear so many strange things coming from this government — like "Leave the ore in the ground. It'll stay there forever

as far as we're concerned."

That doesn't make any kind of economic or social sense, in

my opinion. If you leave it in the ground it is just so much

rock; it doesn't mean anything to anybody. It has no value to

the people of British Columbia or anybody else. It won't

provide a plugged nickel for chronic care or hospital beds or

classrooms, or any other kind of social service, as long as it

is in the ground. It doesn't start to pay any benefit until

somebody begins to utilize the ore.

This bill will ensure that the good companies in the mining

industry in British Columbia go elsewhere. The ones which are

left will be nothing more than high-graders who will come in

and take the cream in those kind of high-grade operations that

can still be profitable under these kinds of royalties. Then

they'll pull out, never to return. You never will get that

low-grade ore out of the ground.

The Minister seems worried that shareholders and employees

and others would have the cheek to write to their MLAs. What

cheek that they should write to their MLAs because they're

concerned about Bill 31! Why don't you want the people to take

part, Mr. Minister, in the political process? They're worried;

that's why they're writing letters to their MLAs. They're

worried about this Minister and they're worried about the

future of this province as well.

There isn't any question — no question whatsoever — in the

minds of any Member of this House, I'm sure, that the resources

and the Minerals belong to the people. No question. The people

deserve to share in the profits created by the exploration of

all of our resources, but that's no reason to sink an industry

through your eagerness to confiscate through the back door.

That's about what this bill amounts to.

The resource industries of this province can't function any

longer in the kind of atmosphere of uncertainty in which this

government is forcing them to function, The question I think

the people of British Columbia are asking is: what is the grand

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as recommended

to an NDP convention in 1971, intend to continue to

deliberately foster this uncertainty in the marketplace, to

frighten away investors? Is that the design — to lower the

values, to depress the stock? I'd suggest that is what is

happening in British Columbia today. That's the way the

resource industries will be nationalized by this government, as

was one of the major planks in that position paper given to

your 1971 convention.

I spoke for a moment about the kind of problems that are

going to be created among the people who supply equipment,

among the people who supply service and supply certain kinds of

support for the

[ Page 3852 ]

mining industry. There are lots of them in every kind of

constituency in the province, regardless of whether or not that

constituency has an operating mine.

We have a documented list of a number of companies which are

being hurt. I won't go through them all, but there are people

like Northern Mountain Helicopters. They say:

"Our company has lost more than $60,000 in contracts to date

because of this government's policy."

Canadian Industry Limited:

"As a company deeply involved in the mining business, we are

severely disturbed. At a time when we should be having a mining

boom, we are now having a mining recession."

Westminster Auto Leasing of New Westminster, a wholly-owned

B.C. company employing a staff of 23 engaged in the leasing of

cars and trucks in the province:

"Last year we had a fleet of over 50 trucks on rental to

companies involved in the mining industry in B.C. This year, up

until Bill 31, we had expected an increase in business of over

60 per cent."

Instead, as a result of Bill 31, a decrease of 60 per cent

in that company's business.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, get rid of it then. You have that

opportunity. If the Minister wants to stand up right now and

say that he will pull Bill 31 for good, we'll be glad to sit

down and not discuss it any longer because that's all we really

want from that Minister. If you want to resign at the same

time, that'll suit us just fine too.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why? Don't you think I'm a good

Minister?

MR. McCLELLAND: No. I wish I could say you were, Mr.

Minister, but I don't think you're a very good Minister.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's what I asked him to do, to withdraw

the bill, but he refuses to do it.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is that right? If that is true, I would like

the House to make the Minister feel very welcome and enjoyable

on his 25th anniversary. I think that's magnificent.

Twenty-fifth anniversary of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been here 25 years.

MR. McCLELLAND: Too long, Mr. Speaker.

Finning Tractor and Equipment: 300 of that company's 1,600

employees are employed as a direct result of service to the

mining industry.

"In our opinion, if Bill 31 is implemented, it will

not only curtail the growth of recent years but will also cause a

diminishing requirement for our goods and services."

Crown Tire Service in Vancouver, the same kind of story.

Jones Tent & Awning: of all the companies that would

seem to be unrelated but are hurt by this bill, here is a

company that says it gains a great deal of its livelihood

supplying equipment and bush clothing to the individual

prospector and the larger national and international mining

companies.

"The year 1973 saw a very drastic drop in our trade.

There is no doubt in our minds that Bill 31, as it is presently

constituted, will have the effect of eliminating much of our business."

That was

1973, and now 1974.

Okanagan Helicopters Ltd., Vancouver Island Helicopters

Ltd., all of these companies are secondary industries and

support services. The Association of Professional Engineers — all of them severely damaged because of the result of Bill 31

because the mining industry is directly responsible for the

employment of, I believe, something like 16,000 people in this

province who are working directly in mining, and another 30,000

to 35,000 to 40,000 who are employed as a result of the mining

industry.

That's the reason so many ordinary British Columbians, who

don't know anything about mining, are extremely concerned about

Bill 31.

I wouldn't intend to try and talk about the technical

details of Bill 31, but I am amazed, when you start to look

down the long, long list of people who stand to lose from Bill

31. I'm amazed and concerned about their future, not just the

people in the mining industry, but people in all walks of life

in British Columbia.

If the Minister isn't concerned about the mining companies

and the mining industry, stop for a moment and think about

those 35,000 to 40,000 people who you are scuttling by this

Bill 31.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I would like to say a

few words on the amendment put forward by the opposition

people, particularly as it relates to their concern for

employment in the province.

Like the last speaker, the Member for Langley, I am

certainly no expert in the area of mining. But my department

does have a great deal to do with the manpower and provisions

in the province, the employment opportunities in the province.

I think it is worthwhile to have a look at what is happening in

this important area.

[ Page 3853 ]

At the present time, the manpower development branch of the

department is collaborating in employment studies with certain

mines in the northern part of the province which are having a

very difficult time retaining a stable work force. The rate of

manpower turnover in some of the northern mines is as high as

400 per cent. Those mining companies are now in the process of

undertaking very detailed and very costly studies to determine

how they might develop a more secure work force. There are very

costly surveys which involve such things as plant renovation,

which involves such things as the expenditure of capital funds

to make the mining communities more attractive places to live

for the work force so that they might stay and provide more

stable employment in the mining industry.

That hardly indicates an industry which is on the brink of

disaster, as the opposition people would indicate. That hardly

suggests that the mining company has any really basic fear

about the long-term security of the work force in the mining

industry. These things are going on now.

The Premier, when he spoke, outlined the ads that are daily

in the major newspapers of this province applying for qualified

people in the mining field. The manpower studies which they,

themselves, are taking and the representations which they have

made to my department for cooperation are certainly

indications that the position put forward by the opposition

that employment will dry up is a sham which is put forward to

achieve some other goal. I suggest it is a political one.

There is a great deal of hysteria about the drying up of

employment in mines. This is rather new-found, as far as I can

determine, with respect to the opposition. My riding also is an

historic mining area of the province. It is completely spotted

with ghost towns that were abandoned by mining industries once

in their view it became questionable in terms of profit to

maintain that community. They abandoned these towns without

respect to any relocation costs for workers, without respect

for any assistance in finding new employment for the work force

and assisting them with mobility costs and so on. The village

of Sandon is now a ghost town. I think there are two people

there. At one time, in the early part of this century, there

were 10,000 people in the village of Sandon.

New Denver is a village in the south part of my riding which

is a very marginal community. Mines open and close there

without any respect to the social security of the community,

without any advance warning, without any provision for

relocation costs to the workers who lose their job without

notice.

This government has done something about securing employment opportunities

for the workers of this province. We have provided technological change clauses

which require a lead-time notice due to closures of not only mines but other

industries as well.

If the opposition, particularly the Social Credit opposition

who governed this province for 20 years, were genuine in that

concern for displaced workers, then surely they would have

taken the step, which this government has done in just two

short years, of introducing technological change provisions

which bring some benefit and some security to the workers of

the province.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the record is a

pretty dismal one as far as the Social Credit people are

concerned. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is a man

from the Interior, from the southeastern sector of the

Province, a railroad worker who now espouses concern for the

employment opportunities of people in the mines.

What about the history of Kaiser Resources? The largest

single employment factor from the development of the Kaiser

Resources' mine in the east Kootenays were the jobs that

accrued to the railway workers in the haul of that coal. Over

300 jobs in the Province were related to hauling that coal from

Elkford to Vancouver. The Social Credit government granted a

charter to an American railway company to siphon off that

complete coal haul and transport it south of the border to the

detriment of the workers of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. KING: The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that

I won my last election campaign on that issue. I certainly

welcome that debate.

By golly, if their concern is to be accepted as genuine now

for any effect on employment opportunities, it hardly squares

with their action in allowing, 11 times, the granting of the

charter to the Kootenay and Elk Railway to siphon off the coal

and the minerals from this province to be handled through the

USA.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) says

we should refer to the bill as the "Yukon Development Act."

Under the previous administration it would have been referred

to as the "USA Development Act" because they were prepared to

not only allow the profits from the minerals of this province

to be siphoned off across the border but they were prepared to

have the jobs go the same route.

That little Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) stands up

and shouts "Jobs." By golly, he wasn't there fighting when he

was a Member of the cabinet for the job security of the people

in his own

[ Page 3854 ]

area.

MR. CHABOT: I was in Revelstoke….

HON. MR. KING: He was in Revelstoke and he got chased out by

an angry group of workers. He hasn't shown his face in that

city again. I might add that my predecessor, who failed to take

a position on that issue, hasn't shown his face in Revelstoke

again either.

This is the record of the Social Credit people. It's an

empty charade for them to stand up now and attempt to take a

sincere posture of concern for the workers of this province

when they never showed any concern in the past about doing

anything positive in that regard.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, their emotional outbursts and their

hysteria is all geared to their concern and their obligations

to the mining companies, not for the workers of this province.

Let the record show that they have been consistent in that one

regard. They have been the spokesmen for the mining

corporations of this Province and every other major corporation

in this province. The people will get the message. I'm sure we

will see the results in the next election campaign.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I like the pious posturing of the

Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Hon. Mr. King) who did not speak

to the amendment before us at this time. All he wanted to talk

about was the old political nonsense that he peddled in the

Revelstoke-Slocan area during the last election — the political

twisting of the facts as he carried out in the last election.

You would almost think, in discussing the amendment here, he

was fighting the last campaign, telling the same old story, the

old twisted and distorted facts by the Member for

Revelstoke-Slocan. He didn't tell the facts.

He suggested the majority of the jobs created by the Kaiser

Resources industry were transportation jobs. He knows full well

that is not true. He knows full well that the majority of those

jobs are in the extracting of the coal in the Fernie area. They

are not in transportation. He knows that full well.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): His job depends on

transportation.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly his job depends on transportation.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, it's his bread and butter and bread and

butter for many others.

He knows full well that the story he was telling about Kaiser and about the

government's position regarding the transportation of coal was not the truth.

He knew that full well.

HON. MR. KING: You're contradicting your own Member. He said

there are more jobs generated from outside the mining industry

than from within.

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that there were more jobs

generated within the mining industry than through the

transportation jobs.

HON. MR. KING: Do your homework.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I wish every British Columbian had an

opportunity to see the Premier's performance this morning. I

wish they could really see the Premier in full flight, with his

paper hat, the throwing of his paper behind his back, the phony

tears dropping, his raising and lowering of his voice, and the

waving of his arms. It would have been a great thing for the

people to see the Premier as he really is.

He had the audacity to suggest that the reason for this

legislation is to provide chronic care in British Columbia.

Here is a government that has taken over a Crown corporation,

Ocean Falls, which lost $850,000 of taxpayers' money. He claims

he needs money through this legislation while the brokers

selling the newsprint made millions of dollars. Had the

government been as intelligent as they attempt to lead the

people to believe they are, they would have made those millions

of dollars for the people to provide chronic care. But no, some

New York brokers made these millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I point out, when you point

out for order on a matter like that, you are entitled to speak,

as the Hon. Member is speaking, on that point on alternative

means of raising money.

Would the Hon. Member proceed without that interruption?

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that the reasons the Premier

raised for the need of additional revenue from the mining

industry are not valid, certainly not valid, when they're

giving away tens of millions of dollars to a New York brokerage

firm on the sale of newsprint from Ocean Falls, while the

taxpayers are picking up the bill to the tune of $850,000 last

year.

No, Mr. Speaker, there's a need for the hoisting of this

legislation. There's a need for the hoisting of this

cancerous-type legislation, this cancerous legislation that

will virtually destroy not the existing mining enterprise in

British Columbia, but destroy the future

[ Page 3855 ]

growth. It will reduce the potential for survival of

existing mines as well.

It's been reported that the mine which the Minister of Mines

knows so well — that bad old Cominco from Kimberley — has a

life expectancy based on its ore reserves of 45 years. This

legislation will kill that town 15 years quicker by the

introduction of this legislation, by turning the low-grade Ore

into waste rock. Yet the Minister is not concerned about those

workers, who he was employed with for some 40 years, when their

jobs are going to disappear.

Interjection: .

MR. CHABOT: That's right. He's got his job and he has his

pension from Cominco as well, that terrible corporate citizen.

He's enjoying a pension. He's enjoying a pension from Cominco

after the years he's spent attempting to keep track of the nuts

and bolts in the warehouse for Cominco.

He's enjoying the benefits, but he suggests now, probably

because of his age, that some of his former friends — and I

really mean that, former friends — and former co-workers….

He's not concerned about them. He's not concerned that they

might have to move from Kimberley sooner than expected because

of his actions and the actions of that government over

there.

I say "former friends" because that Member has lost a lot of