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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

3927 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159). Hon. Mr.

Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3927

Assessment Act (Bill 15 I ). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3927

Institute of Technology (British Columbia) Act (Bill

134).

Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3927

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3927

Mr. Wallace — 3927

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 3928

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3928

Mr. Phillips — 3928

Ms. Brown — 3928

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3929

Mr. Rolston — 3931

Mr. Wallace — 3932

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3935

Division on adjournment of debate — 3936

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 3936

Mr. Gardom — 3941

Mr. Richter — 3943

Division on the amendment — 3945

Mr. Gibson — 3945

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Administrator: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act,

1974 .

Bill 159 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Second reading of Bill 151.

ASSESSMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is

to create a single assessment Act to supercede the existing

multiplicity of assessment legislation.

Statutes presently containing provisions relating to

assessment taxation are Assessment Equalization Act ,

Municipal Act , Taxation Act , Vancouver Charter and

Public Schools Act . Many sections of this bill are taken

verbatim with only minor variations from the existing statutes

but the bill is confined strictly to matters pertaining to

assessments. All references to taxation, including exemption

from taxation, have been omitted.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that because these

amendments deal with the specifics in the preceding Act the

best time to deal with it is in committee, where detailed

discussion is more appropriate.

I move second reading of Bill 151.

Motion approved.

Bill 151, Assessment 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 134, Mr.

Speaker.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

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

behind this bill is to establish the Institute of Technology in British Columbia

and give it autonomy — in other words, their own board of governors.

Prior to the presenting of this bill, as I think the Members

of this House are aware, the B.C. Institute of Technology was

directly under the provincial government. All employees were

civil servants. The thing which disturbed me particularly was

that I didn't feel that the operation was running quite as

efficiently as it could under this situation, because whenever

supplies were needed, et cetera, they only had one channel,

directly through to the government.

On the other hand, the creation of a board also will give an

opportunity to have faculty and students and staff represented

in the governing body. I think we will find that this will

create a more community-oriented type of institute and I am

most pleased to move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

words of the Minister of Education, but perhaps I could ask

when she sums up this debate that she be a little more precise

in the position that the staff will occupy at the BCIT as a

result of this bill.

As she knows and I know and, indeed, all Members know, we

have had a continuing and festering problem dealing with the

certification of the B.C. provincial government employees who

represent this particular group of people, who are essentially

teachers.

I see in

section 7 that there is reference to collective

bargaining, but I wonder whether Or not she might like to

indicate whether she's had discussions with the employees

concerned — in other words, the teachers of BCIT, whether they

have indicated their approval or this particular

section and

whether or not there are going to be continuing

discussions.

I appreciate the bill. I think it's a necessary thing and a

necessary step to take the BCIT out of its rather peculiar

position. I will want to discuss it further and bring forward

perhaps suggestions at committee stage, after I've had

discussions with the members of the teaching staff at BCIT.

During the 22 months of this government's life this has been

a continuing problem. I am a little disappointed that she

didn't hit it head on when she spoke introducing this bill.

Perhaps she'll deal with this question when she sums up.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just wanted to make a few

comments because this bill, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall) remembers, is the outcome of earlier comments that he

made that at a certain date in the future the staff of the

Institute of Technology would be taken out of the public

service employees out of Bill 75, and very clearly have their

own autonomy and have the

[ Page 3928 ]

opportunity to select their own bargaining unit. I've read

the letter which was circulated on May 28 to all the Members of

the Legislative Assembly, and I understand that subsequent to

the tabling of the bill the staff of the BCIT are not

convinced that the bill in fact very clearly takes them out of

the realm of the Public Service Act , and gives them in

fact the clear-cut assurance that they can select their own

bargaining unit and bargain collectively as an autonomous body

similar to the universities.

I listened to the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) ask the

question also, but I understand that the staff have met with

the Minister and have been given an assurance that in fact the

intent which was expressed by the Provincial Secretary back in

November, 1973, that when the BCIT became a fully

fledged institute with its own administrative structure similar

to a university the new Act would no longer apply and they

would be free to choose a bargaining agent independent of the

civil service….

I think this is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, and in

fact seems to be the central concern which has been expressed

by the staff of BCIT. As I say, in recent discussions with them

they feel that this bill must include an amendment which very

specifically states that the provisions of Bill 75 do not apply

and that the BCIT staff can apply at once for certification.

Apparently the legislation as it reads suggests that under such

a situation as this up to a period of 12 months after this bill

is passed they might still be subject to the provisions of Bill

75. As I said this afternoon, I'm not learned in the legal

profession, but I want the House and the Minister to know very

clearly from the discussions I've had with the staff that their

legal advice is to the effect that this bill, while well

motivated to give them the right to be an autonomous body and

to select a bargaining unit and to bargain collectively, in

fact does not provide what they believe the Minister

intended.

I understand that the Minister met with the staff and there

was hope that the Minister will bring in amendments to clarify

this issue that I've raised.

There are one or two other general points, Mr. Speaker,

which might better be covered in debate in committee. The

staff certainly are unhappy about the provisions of the

bill which don't specifically give definite direction about the

composition of the advisory committees and various other

aspects. I think this would be better dealt with under

committee debate.

I wonder if in closing second reading the Minister could

tell us first of all whether the staff are correct in their

apprehension that the bill does not meet the intent in terms of

their right to collective bargaining right away. And if this is

so, perhaps the Minister could tell the House whether she has

agreed to introduce the appropriate amendment.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that is quite correct, and the staff

are also correct. We met for a considerable time yesterday

afternoon — the staff representatives with the deputy Minister

of Labour. I want to assure the Member and others who are

interested that an amendment will be forthcoming to clear that

up.

Motion approved.

Bill 134, Institute of Technology (British Columbia)

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, to put those bills into

committee that need detailed debate, I now call on Bill

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

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

pleasure in moving second reading of this bill. You know, Sure

it's a tenants' charter of rights, it is also certainty for

landlords in their dealings with tenants, and in their

contractual relations. It is a break for the builders because

we do have provision whereby builders can build and receive a

fair return when they build rental accommodation. But I do

think that it is a bill which should be discussed in committee,

including the unjust eviction clauses, including the restraint

in terms of prices, which will appeal particularly to the

Conservatives because of Mr. Stanfield's recent statements, so

I move second reading.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we in

the official opposition certainly realize that there

should be a Landlord and Tenant Act . We recognize that

the landlords should have protection; we also recognize that

the tenants should have protection. But there are a couple of

sections in this bill that I don't say I agree with entirely,

and we are going to discuss that in the committee stage.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I couldn't allow this to

pass, Mr. Speaker, without saying a few words in support of

it.

This is a very good Act, it tries to be fair both to the

landlord and to the tenant, and to a large extent it seems to

succeed in doing this. I am a little bit disappointed that my

recommendation for collective bargaining was not included in

this Act, but it certainly is my hope that….

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Caucus leak?

[ Page 3929 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my bill is on the order paper, Bill

68, calling for collective….

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I can't do it. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: You are entitled to an advertising plug.

(Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: And I hope if the Attorney-General is considering

any amendments that he will certainly take a bill, which shall

remain nameless and numberless, into account when he brings

these amendments down.

I would also like to say a few words about security

deposits. I realize that there are from time to time one or two

tenants who might abuse an apartment, so they are necessary,

but I think that they tend to serve as a hardship on tenants

with fixed incomes. I think it is very difficult for a senior

citizen, for example, who is trying to live on just over $200 a

month, to find the equivalent of two or two-and-a-half months'

rent in order to deal with a security deposit. I certainly

would hope that the Attorney-General would consider amending

this Act to remove security deposits, if he considers bringing

in any amendments.

I think the main thing we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to

realize that this bill cannot be viewed in isolation. It has to

be tagged to the whole business of increasing housing, so I

would like, if the federal government is listening now that

there is an election on, to call on them to remove their 11 per

cent tax on building materials so we can do something….

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I would like to take this opportunity….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because if this bill is

to be really effective we shall have to start doing some real

building. Now that the federal government is asking us to

return them to government, this is their opportunity to put

their money where their mouth is, and remove this tax. Thank

you.

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

a pretty significant bill that has finally come to the floor of this House for

debate. I think it is absolutely astounding…the farcical introduction that

we heard from the Hon. Attorney-General and the hopeless attempt of the Member

for Vancouver-Burrard to support this legislation only indicates the trouble

which the government is facing in its legislation.

We are dealing with a subject which is of intense interest

to a large segment of the people of British Columbia, whether

they be landlords or tenants. The action which we are taking in

this legislation will have a significant effect upon both of

those groups in our society.

It may even be that the impact of this legislation upon

those who are tenants will be greater than what it will be on

landlords. I think it is astounding that this legislation

should come before us in this way and be treated with such…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Callous disregard.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Member …callous

disregard by the Minister who has the carriage of this

legislation, and other members of the government party.

One of the problems which we have in the crisis — I say

crisis, Mr. Speaker, in the full knowledge that politicians are

accused of speaking in hyperbole, but I think that when we have

vacancy rates as low as they are in the Province of British

Columbia, when there is virtually no rental accommodation

available to our people, young or old, we must speak of it as a

crisis.

This problem — this crisis — is only going to be resolved by

increasing the supply.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that a truism?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's a truism, and I will give you

another truism, Mr. Attorney-General: this kind of legislation

is not going to increase the supply because as surely as you

sit in your seat, Mr. Attorney-General, this legislation is not

going to increase the supply.

And I will give you another one, Mr. Speaker: responsible

examination of what is taking place in the Province of British

Columbia today indicates that rental accommodation on the

drawing boards and being considered by those people who are in

the business of providing rental accommodation, to the number

of 6,000 rental units has been cancelled in the Province of

British Columbia since the introduction of this

legislation.

Today there are under active consideration for development

as rental accommodation, 200 units.

We have a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who has

done nothing except to create confusion in the housing field.

He hasn't even made a competent survey of what our requirements

are, let alone what is taking place in the Province of British

Columbia to

[ Page 3930 ]

meet those requirements.

Here we are bringing forward a piece of legislation which

with all of this involvement is only going to intensify the

problem rather than to resolve it.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which has been on our books

for weeks, should have been brought forward for debate in

second reading shortly after its introduction in this House.

There is no demonstrable reason why it has sat until this late

date.

Having been brought forward for second reading, this

legislation, above all of the bills which have been introduced

in the session, should have been sent to a select standing

committee of this Legislature so that landlords and tenants

would have the opportunity to meet with Members of this House

and make a minute examination of the several sections and the

consequences which it would have for each of those groups.

We know that the landlord group has submitted proposals to

the Hon. Attorney-General, indicating the inconsistencies and

conflicts contained in the many sections. We know that the

tenant groups have done the same, and we have no amendments.

Obviously the government proposes to move with this legislation

as it sits before us at the moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not right.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon.

Attorney-General, having made such a brief introduction of this

legislation, is to suggest from his seat that he indeed does

have amendments designed to improve this legislation, then it

is certainly a farce that we are debating the principle of this

legislation without having any indication of the ways in which

the government proposes to change it.

We know, Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of legislation

introduced earlier in this House, that the government has had

the opportunity and has taken the Opportunity of a second look

at other bills. If you've taken a second look at this bill, Mr.

Attorney-General, and haven't had the kindness to advise this

House of changes which you propose, then truly you do us a

disservice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: No change in principle.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No change in principle. The principle is

involved in the details of this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: In second reading it always was.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the Premier carries on. We know

what second reading is all about. Even if he'd only been here one year, Mr.

Speaker, to the Hon. Premier, we know what second reading is all about. We also

fully recognize that the government brings in the amendments and those amendments

pass because of the docile back-bench that they have — in spite of representations

made by such Members as the Member for Burrard.

Mr. Speaker, we are here establishing a rentalsman which, if

the Members have read carefully the sections which deal with

his responsibilities, must lead them to the conclusion that the

person and his staff who are to discharge those

responsibilities must have the wisdom of Solomon and the

patience of Job.

We know that the government has already announced who the

rentalsman will be. We know that the government is already

advertising for the senior staff which that, officer

will require in order to conduct his responsibilities. That's

been going on for weeks. Why then has this legislation been

delayed for debate?

MR. WALLACE: Like the community resource boards: set them up

and then pass the bills.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

says to me: like the community resource boards — bring in the

legislation, move as if it were law, create in the community an

atmosphere of uncertainty, both for landlords and for tenants,

and then bring the bill on for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this legislation. I look

forward with interest to see this legislation succeed. But

there are inconsistencies in the many sections of this bill,

certainly so far as the rentalsman's responsibility is

concerned, which leave me in grave doubts as to the way in

which this legislation will serve those people who depend upon

it most — namely, landlords and tenants.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we've had other legislation brought

in this House in the last few days indicating that the

government is prepared to single out segments of our society

and provide them with subsidies in order that they can carry on

their responsibilities. We had one yesterday in the amendments

to the Energy Act , where the government is obviously

prepared, by the making of grants, to enable people in this

province to carry on their business.

But in this legislation Mr. Speaker, for some reason or

other the government, having singled out the landlords for

particular regulation, has not at the same time come forward

with any suggestion that those landlords or their tenants are

to be subsidized in any way in what is a joint responsibility

to supply and receive essential housing accommodation in the

Province of British Columbia.

For some reason or other this government is unwilling to

face up to its responsibilities and to

[ Page 3931 ]

attack one of the most serious problems we have in British

Columbia today — namely, the lack of housing accommodation for

the people who desire it. In particular, it's a lack of housing

accommodation for that segment of our society who prefer to be

tenants.

The government is absolutely unmindful of their plight and

with this legislation does nothing to resolve it.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, Mr. Speaker, I live in a

semi-rural, largely rural riding. In fact, in Mission City

there are only five apartments; I have more apartments in Maple

Ridge.

I want to assure that Member that there have been many

discussions by Members in our party — even backbenchers. Among

other things, I think this is a real attempt to establish

responsibility on both sides. In fact, though we're not

supposed to look at the details of the Act, I think it is

important to say at the very outset that we hope that the

relationship and the conditions of the relationship are

hammered out very clearly in this Act. We are, among other

things, wanting it to be in print — even posted — the kind of

relationship that will be worked out in the tenancy

agreement.

I want to say at the outset in this new Landlord and

Tenant Act that this, I hope, develops very clear-cut

ground-rules for landlords and tenants and that there is

confidence, that there are responsibilities and that these are

Worked out.

We're not supposed to look, but in

section 11 the tenancy

agreement is, I think, very clearly worked out. I hope that

there will be — for instance, in my area a fairly common

agreement, a somewhat universal agreement for, say, the Fraser

Valley or for metropolitan Vancouver so that in clear language

the conduct can be spelled out.

We hear so much. I must say that it was news to me — having

not lived in an apartment for a decade — in an area where there

are many apartments that there are such tragic evictions of

families, often not really knowing why they are being evicted.

So one of the sections spends a lot of time dealing with just

cause for eviction.

If a person is evicted — and often there are very good

reasons for a person being evicted, and in committee we'll look

at those reasons — at least the person should know; it should

be in writing.

So I'm hoping that that, along with other sections, you

know, establishes responsibility. The Member for West Vancouver

(Mr. L.A. Williams) and all the Members are alarmed that for

five years there's been very little in the way of rental

accommodation built in metropolitan Vancouver. We're told by….

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, there are a multitude of reasons, but the fact is

that 1969-70 seems to be statistically the last time that we were…. I believe

that 11,500 units were built at that time — and about 450 last year. Obviously

there's a very strange problem. We want to address ourselves. I believe that

section 28(l)(

c) addresses it, and again we'll look at that.

We have spent time with the people in management and

construction and certainly the tenant people. We are told that

this

section 1s encouraging to people building the rentals. But

there is both an escalation and a five-year clause to ensure a

decent rate of return. That will have to be defined.

At least this government, I think, in many public utterances

says that we realize if money…. In fact, we're told that

money is now worth about 10 or 10.25 per cent for 90-day money.

We realize that there's got to be a comparable return. If a

person's going to lay out a lot of money for an apartment, we

realize that a great deal more risk capital must go into

this.

I hope that this is true. We can talk about establishing a

relationship but, by George, at the end of the line we've got

to have an awful lot more rental accommodation.

We, I believe, are very fortunate in having a rentalsman.

We've been able to find a rentalsman. Admittedly, he's going to

have to have a great deal of patience, a great deal of wisdom.

At times it looks like a superhuman job. But he's going to have

people working for him. He's going to have deputies. He's going

to be able, I hope, to operate in a very fast, semi-judicial

way to bring a sense of relationship and responsibility and, I

hope, stimulate the people that are building these

facilities.

We're also open to municipalities that can, with the rental review board in an area, if they feel they can, manage to look

after the adjustments of rents themselves. Yet the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the final powers. So I would

like to say that there have been a lot of consultations — admittedly, three-and-a-half months of meeting groups, many,

many meetings out of this House. It's a very, very difficult

problem, a problem which many politicians, I don't think, can

claim to solve in a simplistic way.

I believe this is an attempt to at least establish a

relationship, a responsibility. I empathize with the landlord.

Many of us, I'm sure, have been called out to see people with

fourplexes and duplexes that are getting smashed; or they

haven't been able to evict people, often for very

understandable reasons.

We want to give fairness to the owners as well as to the

people who live in those facilities, not necessarily living

there from choice, but because financially there is really no

other choice for them.

So I support this legislation. I expect that there will be

amendments — the Attorney-General has promised that. There has

certainly been a lot of

[ Page 3932 ]

consultation. This is something where I think, politicians

in humility don't really seek any bowing points on this one,

because it is dealing with 200,000 people who are renting, and

I gather,100,000 people in large and in tiny rental

situations, or providing rental accommodation.

I support this legislation. I believe it is human. I

believe, above all things, that it is going to promote a

healthier, more responsible climate.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker….

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Be fair.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'll be fair, don't get excited. The Member

for Shuswap asked me to be fair, and that's what I'll try to

be.

The fact is that we're dealing with a human relationship

between a landlord and a tenant, and since there are so many

day-to-day influences which are very important to both the

landlord and tenant, let's say that it's very difficult to

adequately serve the interests of both these two parties. But I

respect this legislation in that regard; it obviously is an

attempt to balance the interests of these two parties.

I'm not saying, Mr. Speaker, that it achieves that goal, but

I am saying that it is a worthwhile effort in that

direction and that we should discuss it in some detail, not

necessarily on second reading.

But I was disappointed by the Attorney-General's very

cursory introduction of this bill on the pretext that,

of course, we would go into the necessary detail in

committee stage.

Now I don't know where the Attorney-General's been lately,

but it seems that provincially we're all agreed there's a

housing crisis. As recently as the 6 o'clock national CBC news

tonight it was announced that all three federal parties have

recognized that housing is the second most serious problem in

Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the first?

MR. WALLACE: Inflation. And I've got a few comments to make

about your small little remark about the Conservatives when you

introduced this bill for second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that if the Attorney-General is

paying attention to the very vital aspects of public affairs in

this province and in this country, he must surely realize, and

there's been a plethora of information in the past week or two

in the newspapers….

AN HON. MEMBER: A what?

MR. WALLACE: A plethora. I know you have trouble with my

means an abundance of information. As a minister of the cloth I

thought your Latin would serve you in good stead.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that ownership of accommodation is

all but impossible for citizens in Canada of average or less

than average income. And that is a shocking indictment of a

supposedly enlightened era when provincial and national

governments claim to be aware of and responsive to the basic

needs of food, shelter, clothing, health care, et cetera, of

citizens.

I read, for example, one of the latest housing proposals

that was put forward in the federal election in an endeavour to

help the housing situation and make house ownership possible

for young couples and other citizens, and you had to have an

income of $18,500 a year. Now I ask you, what percentage of

people in Canada, of anybody earning an income, is earning

$18,500 year?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I think that we have to try and rise

above the partisan aspect of this. In fact, I took trouble when

I made that statement a moment ago not to identify the

political party which was putting forward the proposal. But the

fact is that this is a fact of life in Canada today that the

ordinary, average income-earning person hasn't a hope of owning

a home under present circumstances.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Especially in

B.C.

MR. WALLACE: I don't know to what degree it will

particularly affect B.C., but the figures I've seen quoted for

other cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg

show the situation is really depressing when you stop to

picture yourself 20 or 30 years ago trying to get a home after

you were married.

I know that isn't specific to this bill, but it does relate

to the principle of this bill inasmuch as many married couples

who would want to own their homes have absolutely no

alternative but to rent, and this bill deals with the

relationship between a landlord and a person renting

accommodation. So if there ever was a time when the balance and

the validity of relationships between landlord and tenant was

important, surely the time is now. I'm not saying that it's a

good idea that we have to have this tremendous pressure on the

relationship simply because those who want to own homes have no

hope of doing so.

But again, without trying to even be partisan

[ Page 3933 ]

about this, these are the facts: people have tremendous

financial difficulty in owning a home and therefore the number

of people renting accommodation must progressively rise in our

present situation.

I just want to comment on the repetitively smart remarks

which the Attorney-General tries to make about the Conservative

national policy of incomes and price control. We've had two or

three little jibes from the Attorney-General in the last day or

two….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think you'll survive.

MR. WALLACE: I think I'll survive these jibes — yes, I think

so. But I think I'll also reply to them.

The rather smug way in which the Attorney-General tries to

suggest that because this kind of control is being brought in

that the Conservative Party would automatically agree with it….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You should.

MR. WALLACE: We will agree with your control problems when

you take the whole ball of wax and don't pick off bits and

pieces in isolation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want the whole thing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): How about the freedom of

Scotland?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, let's not get back to that. (Laughter.) The

Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) isn't here tonight, and having tackled a Strachan,

I'm not too keen to tackle a Macdonald on the same thing.

(Laughter.)

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, this balance between landlord

and tenant is important for the very, very frank reason I have

outlined.

One of the central thrusts of the Landlord and Tenant Act

is to give the rentalsman — and we will get into specific

sections later — but it gives the rentalsman the power to

receive an application, investigate here and determine Tent

increases. Even then we have the contradiction, which I think

was referred to by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams), that later in the bill we've got cabinet

power to overrule the rentalsman.

At any rate, the Minister must acknowledge that the central thrust of this

bill is rent control. We've had rent freeze; we've had a gasoline price increase;

now we're talking about some control over home heating-oil prices; and we have,

during these latter days and weeks of this session, a piecemeal approach in

an attempt, a well motivated but thoroughly misguided attempt, in my view, to

help the citizen who is absolutely imprisoned in the ever-increasing rate of

inflation in Canada, B.C. included.

I just don't feel that this piecemeal attempt, a bit here

and a bit there, this rent freeze today and gasoline prices

tomorrow…. As I asked this afternoon — are we going to get

into the control of food prices? — because surely food and

shelter have got to be the two basics, and we're busily

controlling or introducing substantial controls in the area of

shelter.

I just feel that one of the disadvantages of this bill is

that it is just a part of a much wider problem which maybe can

only be solved nationally. But if it can only be solved or

appreciably affected nationally, at least I think this Minister

might pay a little more respect to the logic and consistency of

the standard of the federal government, that in fact you cannot

isolate in this way rents or gasoline or any other very

essential product in isolation from all products and in

isolation from all forms of income.

This bill essentially attempts to give justice to the

tenant, but we have had no related legislation to give

incentive to the investor to build more accommodation. That's

why we have a problem. Supply and demand — it's that

simple.

We wouldn't have one-tenth of the problems we have in the

accommodation field for tenants if there were any kind of

choice of accommodation. There is a .3 per cent vacancy rate or

some such figure in the lower mainland for rental

accommodation. We needn't rehash the debate that we had on the

rent-freeze stabilization Act. But basically the same kind of

logic applies in this debate as applied in the rent-freeze

debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same kind of lack of logic.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I feel that regardless of the shortage of

accommodation there must always be a landlord and tenant Act

which, as I said at the outset, attempts to balance the

interests of both parties. I certainly buy that. But I repeat

that there should be companion legislation which will get to

the real root of the problem — that is, the necessary

incentives to the investor and to the construction industry to

go into the field of rental accommodation construction.

I think that the Attorney-General would agree…. At least,

I would ask him in winding up the debate: would it not make

sense, if there were a substantial vacancy rate and the tenant

had some reasonable choice for the Tents being asked, that this

would cut down on the incidence of gouging and of unfair play

by the landlord who knows very well that the tenant is seared

out of his pants because he knows that if he argues with the

landlord and gets evicted, where does he go?

[ Page 3934 ]

I've got one example right now, Mr. Speaker, as recently as

the other day. A lady phoned me who is in an Oak Bay apartment

with 30 or 40 suites. Twenty-seven of the tenants, I

understand, have been presented with a rent increase demand

that is illegal; it is more than 8 per cent.

I have spent quite a bit of time in the last two days trying

to get one of these tenants to give me the written proof of

this demand. I have a letter on my desk today from the original

lady who contacted me saying that she has contacted numerous

tenants in the apartment, and not one of them will provide the

written proof on which I would certainly be willing to bring

the matter to the attention of your department.

Interjections.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): That's why we need a

rentalsman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You need a place where people can go

easily for help in that kind of situation.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): She should go to the

Attorney-General. He won't talk to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member save his argument

for when he speaks?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm only trying to point out the

very serious nature of the accommodation problem and that the

reason for the problem is simply lack of rental units. While

this bill is intended to give justice to the landlord and the

tenant, I just happen to believe that the situation is so

serious and so bad that Solomon himself couldn't write this

bill to meet the needs of the present landlords and

tenants.

As the Member for Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says,

Solomon certainly wasn't around when this bill was written

anyway. But even if he were — and I realize that that is asking

rather a lot — he couldn't write a bill that would meet the

needs of the two parties in the present absence of an adequate

amount of accommodation.

I don't think that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) was exaggerating one little bit when he

used the word "crisis." It is a crisis. It is the number two

problem in our society today after inflation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's why we've got the bill.

MR. WALLACE: I just feel that the bill, well-motivated as it is, should

have associated legislation such as the removal of the 5 per cent sales tax,

or some more specific commitment with details. But then, of course, this government

is not very good at providing a lot of detail with its legislation; we've been

through that on the Energy Act.

There is not the detail on the 6 per cent mortgages that we

would like to know so that we can analyse how realistic or

otherwise the recent press release of the Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is.

We feel that the commitment by the Premier of this province

in favour of tax incentives to build apartments is welcome. But

all we've had from him is a statement in this House that he is

in favour of trying to resurrect that idea or aspect of federal

taxation which was removed by the federal government.

In this particular bill I just feel that even the best and

very wisest attempts are doomed to problems simply because the

real problem — which is to create rental accommodation — has

not in any way been tackled by this government.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, while we certainly should be

into other details and other parts of the bill, I do wonder

what the legality is of appointing a Rentalsman before the bill

is even passed. We've had a former example of confusion and

public dismay over the community resource board Act. We have

half-baked and ill-organized elections of citizens to boards.

They don't know how to get elected, whether they are eligible

or, indeed, what their functions are.

Mr. Speaker, this bill in some ways repeats the example of

the community resource board legislation. It's half implemented

before it even comes up for debate in the House.

I always assumed that implementation followed

proclamation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Sometimes you get bills that are never

implemented. This one is half implemented already.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: That's the whole point, Mr. Speaker. I'm just

wondering what would happen if there were some unforeseen

Circumstances. Our life is full of unforeseen circumstances, M

T. Attorney-General, as you well know.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a half-baked bill and it's half

implemented.

MRS. JORDAN: You're a lousy cook.

MR. WALLACE: If this bill, for some reason or another, were not finally

passed and proclaimed, who is going to pay the rentalsman $39,000 a year?

[ Page

3935 ]

MR. FRASER: The Attorney-General is going to pay him out of

his own pocket.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be a red-faced Liberal.

MR. WALLACE: He'll be a red-faced Liberal. I've heard of

red-necks, but this would be a red face.

I'm really serious, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know, and I

would like the Attorney-General to tell us when he winds up

second reading: has a specific commitment been made by this

government to Barrie Clark? What salary is he to be paid, and

what contractual agreement has been reached with him? Is some

very specific commitment has been made, how can you make that

commitment without the legislation even having been

debated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's subject to the legislation.

MR. WALLACE: You know, we've had some examples in the

department of the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) of people being engaged; and shortly

afterwards things don't work out. Then the taxpayer is faced

with a $70,000 bill to buy off the commissioner of education,

or Mr. Adams, or I don't know who else. Supposing something

went wrong with the legislation and we don't have a Rentalsman.

Who is going to pay Mr. Barrie Clark for the financial

commitment made to him?

These are some of the points about which I think this House

is entitled to know in the course of second reading and

certainly in the course of committee stage. We have a great

deal more to ask on specific aspects.

The final point brings us back to power again. We are always

talking about power in this House. I wonder if the Attorney-General, in winding up the debate, could reaffirm what seems

to be obvious in the bill.

In the final analysis, regardless of what the Rentalsman

says, the cabinet has the power, clearly described in

section

59, to overrule the rentalsman and make its own decisions about

rent increases. Could the Minister just confirm that?

Section

59, Mr. Minister.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I agree

with the Member for Cariboo for the first time tonight.

I rise in support of this bill. The need for this bill, of

course, was created by the friends of the opposition, by those

people that you have depended on for so many years. You know,

the good free-enterprise system; the private-enterprise system

that says supply and demand. But the supply didn't become short

in the last short while.

I keep wondering with awe when I listen to those speeches

over there about how suddenly we're short of housing in this

province. Suddenly. What a lot of hooey!

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't say that.

HON. MR. COCKE: The fact of the matter is that is what has

been indicated in those kind of speeches.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Listen to what was

said.

HON. MR. COCKE: Here's the headshrinker just back for an

interlude, telling me I'm mixed up. You haven't heard what

anybody has said in this House over the last few days.

MR. McGEER: I've been listening tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: If he was a headshrinker, he couldn't do

anything for you.

HON. MR. COCKE: This is the physiological headshrinker and

there's a psychological headshrinker. There are two different

kinds.

MR. FRASER: There's no headshrinker who could help you….

HON. MR. COCKE: You're a good judge of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we get back to

tenants?

HON. MR. COCKE: And how about landlords? We all have a great

concern.

It is this piecemeal system that we're trying to assist by

bringing in legislation that will give some semblance of order

in this whole area of landlord and tenancy. When I listen to

the Member for Oak Bay in support of his federal leader…. We

sometimes wonder how long he'll be his federal leader from all

of the movement that's going on across the floor. But, in any

event, when I hear him talking about rent freeze today and what

about food tomorrow, with his federal leader calling for some

kind of a freeze that he's not quite able to explain across the

board Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: If our federal leader is talking in terms of

rollback where necessary, he understands.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not necessarily rollback.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. He understands that crazy

system where sometimes. supply and

[ Page 3936 ]

demand does work. But one place it isn't working is right

now in this whole question of tenancy. That's why the

Landlord and Tenant Act , Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, There will be a Landlord and

Tenant Act , there will be a rentalsman in this province to

serve the needs of the people. There is support for that kind

of situation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's a disorderly House. On

that account, Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Couldn't slip it through, eh?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Hall

Sanford

Lauk

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Nicolson

Barrett

Cummings

Gabelmann

Dailly

Williams, R.A.

Lockstead

Strachan

Cocke

Gorst

Nimsick

King

Anderson, G.H.

Stupich

Lea

Barnes

Hartley

Young

Kelly

Calder

Radford

Webster

Nunweiler

Dent

Lewis

Brown

Liden

NAYS — 17

Chabot

McClelland

Gardom

Smith

Morrison

Gibson

Jordan

Schroeder

Wallace

Fraser

McGeer

Curtis

Phillips

Williams, L.A.

Rolston

Richter

Steves

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

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

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: We are on the amendment which would delete the word "now"

from the motion, and substitute therefore the words "in six months hence."

MRS. JORDAN: The last moments of this House, Mr. Speaker,

were so interesting that it is a little difficult to gather

one's thoughts on more serious subjects.

The position of the debate at this time, Mr. Speaker, as I

recall it, is an amendment to the main motion by the official

opposition to hoist the bill for six months. The Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) says that it is the story

so far.

I take heart, Mr. Speaker, because it makes me feel, with

his happy smile and saying that, that he is listening to the

debate, and that he is seriously giving consideration to doing

the right thing and the responsible thing in encouraging his

colleague, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), to hoist

the bill for six months. Is that Correct?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It won't be necessary

if you keep on talking.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't know whether that is a threat or a

promise.

There have been a number of arguments put forth, Mr.

Speaker, from many individual people in this province who are

not even directly involved in the mining industry, the many

allied businesses in this province that are indirectly involved

in the mining industry, from those workers in the mines

themselves and their families and from those who are in the

mining industry directly.

It is not, as has been suggested by the Minister and many of

the cabinet member§ of the cabinet bench, a matter of just

big companies. It is a much more fundamental issue that we are

concerned with. I would like to point out to the Minister that

he is not showing the recognition he should of the whole warp

and woof of the economy of British Columbia.

I pointed out the other day that this bill in itself has

been taken by this Minister in isolation from any consideration

of the whole economic pattern in British Columbia and, as I

mentioned, without any consideration to the economic picture,

nationally and internationally, and what is described now as

"jitters."

I explained to the Minister that this revolved around

considerable concern. I went into some detail about spiralling

interest rates that result in the impending drying up of

capital for major financing, and even more serious problems of

the drying up of capital for small business operations which

would, in relating to this bill which we are asking to have

delayed for six months, affect not only small mining companies

and small prospectors who need capital to carry on a more

intensified search, but many of the small businesses that are

related to the mining

[ Page 3937 ]

industry.

I pointed out to him that the prime interest rate is at a

record high at this time. It is a matter of serious concern — not only that the capital is drying up for short-term

financing, but that the high interest rate is making it

uneconomic for many small industries and many large industries,

even if they can get the capital, to borrow it on an economic

basis.

I pointed out to him that it was not only short-term

financing that was a matter of concern; it was the long-term

financing, which is usually done through bond issues and

stocks, and the fact that the bond issues today in high-risk

financing are not an attractive investment to large investors

or to small investors. This is having a direct action on the

appeal of stocks.

I was most interested, Mr. Speaker, to notice that I gave my

speech yesterday and based it on as recent information as I had

found on the weekend; and I see that today in The Daily

Colonist there is a headline: "For Students of Fiscal

Fiascos: Risk Capital Latest Crisis."

I would like to quote one or two paragraphs, because this

points out so clearly, right here in Victoria, what I was

talking about yesterday. It should be one more reason for the

Minister to listen not only to the criticism and the concerns

that the Member for North Okanagan has brought up regarding the

isolation of this bill in its thinking in relation to current

economic concerns well beyond the control of British

Columbia.

This

article is by Mr. George Gibson, and he opens by a most

timely suggestion:

"If you are tired of hearing about the energy crisis,

you may perhaps turn with relief, but with alarm, to a new problem in

the North American economy, the risk-capital crisis."

This is exactly what I am trying to point out to the

Minister, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman to whom he is referring in

his

article is a key figure in the U.S. investment industry,

Mr. John Whitehead of New York, who was speaking here in

Victoria at the Empress Hotel at a convention yesterday.

He made a number of points, but I would like to pick two or

three. He said — and this is quoting Mr. Whitehead from the

article:

"The entire world, and the United States in particular, is in the early stages of a severe capital

shortage, the serious effects of the oil shortage and other

shortages in paper, chemical and other products that our

economy is coping with today. This capital shortage is

reflected not by long lines at filling stations, but by

double-digit interest rates, and severely depressed stock

prices."

He goes on to say…and I would just remind the

Minister, Mr. Speaker, that historically Canada has followed in

the steps, or the wake, of the United States, because it is a much more influential economy than

we are. We are not yet in a position in Canada to withstand the

same shocks that affect the United States. So what is happening

there now may very well be applicable in Canada and in British

Columbia very shortly. That is a reason why the Minister should

withdraw the bill for six months: to examine such concerns as

this, that are very legitimate, and to study how his bill will be affected by the matters that we are discussing now.

"Our nation's needs have simply outstripped our people's

ability and willingness to invest. In addition, our capital

markets are being called upon to supply funds for investment in

a vast array of new types of projects and facilities. These

kinds of [illegible] investment opportunities should in any

normal environment be expected to result in long lines of

investors, eager to risk their savings in these new and

promising projects.

"But what do we find? We find that the rate of savings in

the U.S. has dropped to a new low, the lowest rate of savings

of any developed country in the free world. We find that such

savings as there are flow into safe havens — like guaranteed

savings accounts, life insurance, corporate pension funds, and

not into the risk securities."

That is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to point out

to the Minister yesterday — that these are very real instances.

High-risk capital, short-term capital, is becoming short, and

long-term capital is becoming short — and this at a time when

the mining industry in British Columbia, in fact all our basic

resource industries in British Columbia, should be encouraged

by this government to stabilize their positions financially and

stabilize their position in terms of ability to maintain

current employment and to expand that employment, if possible,

should there be a major correction in the economic picture

around it.

Mr. Minister, with this bill, the way it is written now, and

with these facts that we are presenting to you now, there is no

way that the mining industry and the related industries,

whatever sector they are in, can plan on a long-term basis not

only for expansion, but to make their operations more

efficient. Certainly in the mining industry this should be one

of our prime objectives, and it should be one of the

government's prime objectives: to try to achieve the ultimate

in the conservation of our resources, so that in extracting

them we are utilizing every possible bit.

This was the policy in the forest industry before and it is

a policy that the current government is carrying on, and they

should be commended for this. It is the policy, Mr. Minister,

that you should be following in the resource industry. But as

this bill,

[ Page 3938 ]

which we wish you to hold over and examine, appears to be

written it is not going to leave room for this type of very

conservative approach to mining that we need.

Mr. Whitehead goes on to say:

"We find that investors are discouraged by poor investment results, by an oppressive Watergate

psychology, by a ridiculously counter-productive capital gains

tax" — that is an interesting point — "by high interest rates

and by high inflation. Thus at a time when the need for new

capital is at an all-time peak the individual willingness to

invest has reached an all-time low."

Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be prepared to answer in

this motion: what is the picture in British Columbia? I pointed

out to the Minister, yesterday, that the latest report from

United States shows, in the first quarter of 1973, that the

cross-section of industries in British Columbia had only 17

cents in cash for each dollar. And that was down 3 cents from

1972, the last quarter.

When you take these figures and you listen to knowledgeable

international people who are aware of international financing,

are aware of international trade, I find it impossible to

understand why the Minister wants to press forward with this

bill in such a rush.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, on the order paper — Mr. Speaker, what's

on the order paper? This bill is going to affect the

fundamental direction of resource extraction and resource use

in the Province of British Columbia., We're talking about the need and the desire to develop

industries for secondary processing of our resources in British

Columbia.

How can you ask producers and workers to gamble their future

on a bill like this when what you need from them is a continued

and guaranteed source of supply if we're to have a secondary

processing industry? How can any company either directly

involved in mining, or related to mining, plan their long-term

financing under the best of circumstances without taking into

consideration the current circumstances with a bill that leaves

a great deal of doubt as to what in fact the taxation picture's

going to be?

They don't know when they go out to prospect, if they find a

resource and wish to develop it, what the attitude of the

government is going to be — whether the government is going to

take it over, pay for it, whether this bill is going to, in

effect, be a double royalty before any cost of production is

really considered. The Minister is putting them in an

impossible position.

Mr. Speaker, to a large degree the buoyancy of the economy

in any country or province, and in this case British Columbia,

depends a lot on what the consumer has in his pocket to spend,

because that's the mid-section that keeps the money flowing.

That's the individual…the worker is the individual who

circulates the money, and the Minister is looking at what he

calls windfall profits to companies, which in fact are

reflecting themselves in higher costs to the consumer.

We find another

article in the paper today, in the Sun ,

Tuesday, June 11, 1974, and its headline, which is a result of a

release from the federal government: "Continued Consumer Spending Aids

Canadian Economic Growth in 1974." Now, if the effect of this bill,

which we'd like to be examined More thoroughly, is a slowdown in

prospecting, then there's going to be a slowdown in the allied

industries. There's going to be a slowdown in the need for heavy-duty

mechanics, for truck drivers, for every aspect of secondary industries

related to mining, and to service industries related to mining. This is

going to mean the reflection of the take-home pay and the job

opportunities for many workers in British Columbia.

If the federal government is predicting that a good deal of

the economic growth in 1974 must be based on consumer spending,

then certainly this bill is in direct contrast to what the

federal government, in their wisdom and economic advice, are

telling the people of British Columbia.

One would hate to think that the Minister would wish to slow

the economy in this manner, and I'm sure he doesn't. But it's

important, Mr. Speaker, that he recognize that these are facts

which he obviously has not considered and which will play a

part in the overall economy of British Columbia.

They are facts that could be More thoroughly brought to his

attention by people more competent than myself in the field of

economics, in the field of retailing and the field of

governmental responsibility in the economic world. And he would

have the time and the opportunity to listen to what they

say.

Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to the Minister last night …

and I would like to just refer to it for a moment again because

it's apropos and he may have forgotten it. In fact he may not

be hearing, he's so busy talking to the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister listening? — because the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.Cocke) says the Minister of Mines

has heard it all before. What we want to know Mr. Speaker, is:

why isn't he listening? Why isn't he listening to not only the

Members of this Legislature but to the people of this province

whose

[ Page 3939 ]

future he's toying with, to economists. to federal

economists, to international monetary experts? Why isn't the

Minister listening?

The Minister of Health has already proved tonight that there

are times when he has difficulty finding out which end is up.

Surely we could hardly consider him a credible authority on

this bill and its effect on the mining industry, the economy of

British Columbia and the jobs of people. We must be much more

inclined and right, I'm sure, to listen to people who have

shown a good deal more credibility than the Minister of Health

showed tonight, and more than what the Minister of Mines is

showing in refusing to listen to rational and realistic

criticism and concern about this bill.

I want to point out to the Minister that if the secondary

thought of this bill is to involve the government in sectors of

the mining industry, then he cannot then turn a blind eye to

the national economic problems because the government is not in

the position where it has inexhaustible sources of funds in its

general revenue. Those funds come from the backs of people in

British Columbia, and those funds, Mr. Minister, are not to be

spent in dabbling in philosophical mining ventures. Those funds

are to provide services for people, and responsible

government.

Mr. Minister, if you involve yourself in the mining

industry, you will have to go to the capital markets of the

world. In so doing, you will face the same problems that I'm

outlining tonight — high interest rates, shortage of long-term

capital. You'll find yourself and the Province of British

Columbia at the mercy of the moneylenders of the world, and

that's not where the people of British Columbia want to be.

Failing that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have to tax more

heavily the working people of this province.

But if he would show a sense of responsibility, which I'm

sure he has, and a concern for this province, then he would

examine this bill over the next six months and adjust it as is

necessary in relation to what is happening elsewhere. British

Columbia is not an island unto itself; British Columbia is not

in a position anymore, to the degree that it was, that it's

going to be able to weather indefinitely a major economic

downturn. The Minister should be very much aware of this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an

error that was made in the House last night, as reported in the

paper. It relates to the fact of another area of concern by the

people of British Columbia and by the opposition in relation to

this bill which we wish to have hoisted and examined for six

months, and where the comments made by the Premier of this

province in this House on Friday where he not only toyed with

facts and figures, where he, in fact, was wrong.

In that debate in pointing out areas where the Premier was wrong, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the

Blues, if I may with your permission, page 890-1 when the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan is speaking. And the Member said:

… Mr. Speaker, that the Premier and the Minister of Finance said that Kaiser

Resources made $13 million in 1973 against $3.4 million in 1972 — an increase

of 282 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the record reveals that Kaiser reported losses

in 1972.

And in The Vancouver Sun today, under the heading of

the Sun Victoria Bureau there is a misstatement and a mistake

in the reporting which I believe should be corrected and in the

record.

The report goes on to say:

"She claimed Barrett said that Kaiser Resources made a

profit of $13 million in 1973, when the record reveals that Kaiser

recorded a loss in 1973."

I would hope that reporter is in the gallery; that's not

what I said and I think it's a very misleading statement in the

newspaper. I would hope it would be corrected. And I'm sure the

Speaker would be willing to allow the reporter to examine the

Blues.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I hold no animosity. It was a human frailty and

I certainly understand. But I think in a debate as serious as

this, perhaps it could be corrected.

I also would mention for the House's information that, in

trying to point out to the Minister of Mines the danger in

involving taxpayers' money in high-risk capital, I referred to

the trading of Kaiser shares on the market yesterday at $2.25.

In fact, that trading was at $4.50.

But the Minister should know that when Kaiser resources as

an investment went into the stock market, they opened to public

purchase at $12.50 a share. They reached a high, Mr. Minister,

of $22 a share, which meant that people bought shares at that

price — people in British Columbia because 25 per cent of

Kaiser is owned by Canadians and many of those are in British

Columbia. It reached a low, Mr. Minister, of $1.85, and that

was not too long ago. It is trading now at $4.50 plus

warrant.

The purpose of bringing this point to the Minister's

attention is to point out to him as graphically as one can that

mining ventures in themselves are high risks. Claim-staking by

the individual prospector is a long-term, high-risk situation.

Being in an allied business that is largely dependent on the

mining industry is also a risk situation. The people of British

Columbia do not feel that their tax moneys should be involved

in this type of high-risk operation.

I cite that example to point out to the Minister that,

whatever position you take in the mining

[ Page 3940 ]

industry — which I'm sure you would not take if you delayed

this bill for six months and analyzed the full position — it is

a risky one. This is just one example of what can happen to

shares. It's no joy to any British Columbian to feel that they

own a mine when, in fact, the returns from that mine really

aren't there and that they can garner fair returns from proper

and fair taxation.

There was one other comment the Premier made which was

wrong. He stated that Placer Development Ltd. made $71 million

in 1973. That was up 332 per cent from $16.6 million in 1972.

The fact of the case is that Placer's income was given the

boost from shares from Gibraltar. When he quotes the figures in

197 2, what the Premier hasn't told was that Gibraltar was only

in operation for nine months and, of that, five months were at

full capacity. They completed their first full year of

operation in 1973 and they did then indeed reap benefits from

the high return on copper and copper prices.

Where the Premier was wrong was that those profits were not

all from British Columbia. They were from one of their

subsidiary companies, Maracopper, in the Philippines. The

profits also reflected the sale of property.

The fact is that the Premier has stood in this House and

made not one human error, which we could all understand in one

debate, but many, three of which I have listed here. This shows

beyond a doubt that either the Premier simply doesn't know what

he's talking about and simply has no understanding of the

economic fabric of British Columbia or the problems and the

risks and the costs in mining and the jobs and the incomes that

are involved in related industries to mining, or he simply

doesn't care and has other plans in mind for the resource

industries of this province.

Either alternative is hardly one upon which a responsible

Minister of Mines would introduce a bill such as Bill 31. This

is another reason why we ask that it be withdrawn for six

months and examined in its full light.

We hear talk about the high returns to the mining industry.

I mentioned before and I mention again that I don't stand here

in a position of defending any mining company or the major

mining industry. I stand in defence of fair taxation; I stand

in defence of the need for stable, basic industries in this

province; I stand in defence of the right of allied industries

-small, large, medium — to be able to plan long-term financing

and to have a position in our economy.

I stand here for the right of people in British Columbia to

look to their government to lead to stability in all industries

at all times, particularly this industry and particularly in

light of the current world economic jitters. .

In speaking of the high profits which the Premier and Minister of Finance suggests

all companies, make, I would quote that Placer's return on their investment

was 15.9 per cent over a 10-year period.

You may recall that last year this government solicited the

services of one, Eric Kierans, a known nationalist and a man

who is known to feel that limited returns are very important.

Mr. Eric Kierans, the giant of the economic world that the

socialists admire so much, says a 15 per cent return in the

mining industry is very reasonable.

If 0.9 per cent return above 15 per cent is too much, then I

would ask the Minister what he does indeed consider a fair

return to any company that is in the mining industry or in the

allied or service industries dependent on mining.

Mr. Speaker, it might interest you to know that the mining

industry's general return in investment from 1967 to 1973 was

11.3 per cent.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development is

quite right; it's not bad. Your own leader at the national

level, David Lewis, has said as late as the other day in his

Maritimes tour in this federal election that 11 per cent return

for extractive industries is quite acceptable. Yes, Mr. Member,

he did say that — and isn't it extraordinary.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I assume he has the same policies when he

is speaking in the Maritimes as he has when he is speaking in

British Columbia or the Prairies. Or is this very

characteristic of the NDP? Maybe it is, Mr. Speaker. They have

one policy for one group of people and another policy for

another group of people. They have policy for one part of

Canada and another policy for another part of Canada. It's

"shaft-them-and-shift-them" NDP.

That's exactly what this bill is all about. That's exactly

why we ask this Minister to be responsible and reasonable and

to withdraw this bill and examine it more fully.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce) : Be realistic.

MRS. JORDAN: Unrealistic? Well, Mr. Minister of Industrial

Development — who is in his wrong seat — what do you call

realistic? What do you want to know about the job-creating

ability of mining and allied industries in this province that

would make them more acceptable to you? We shouldn't be telling

you how you should develop a secondary-processing and a

resource-processing industry in British Columbia; you should be

telling us, not junketing all over the world on economic

diplomacy.

This is one of the most severe criticisms against

[ Page

3941 ]

this government. It's yap, yap, yap; legislate, legislate,

legislate; control, control, control; but no production, no

action, no stability.

I'm being realistic, Mr. Member. I don't know what you read

before you go to bed at night but I know what I read. In these

days I read what is happening in the rest of the world. I have

a firm belief that world markets are very important to British

Columbia, that world markets are going to continue to provide

jobs in British Columbia, that world markets are going to

continue to provide the revenues for pollution control in

British Columbia and the world markets and the return from

those markets are going to continue to provide better health

care — not, Mr. Minister, to allow you to dabble in

philosophic, economic diplomacy.

It's time the Minister of Industrial Development, instead of

asking silly questions, got up and gave us in this

House some concrete examples of what he is doing and what jobs

he has helped create in British Columbia. What miners and

prospectors has he encouraged to go out? What little

businesses, grocery stores and shoe shops has he encouraged to

develop in British Columbia? The story out there is that this

government is discouraging them all. The capital is leaving

British Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The sort of nonsense we hear in this House from

this Minister tonight is one of the reasons that British

Columbia, which once had a very enviable reputation as a good

place to live, a good place to earn a fair income and a good

place to receive a fair profit for fair effort is no longer

that area.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: When your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) stands up and tells us that he's rotating 3,000

able-bodied teenagers….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with the amendment to

Bill 31.

MRS. JORDAN: Right on, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just speak to the amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: And this is why we should withhold Bill 31.

Those 3,000 able-bodied young people who are living on welfare

in British Columbia per month, living off the backs of the

working people of this province, should be able to look forward

to an exciting, working future in many of the service

industries, if not the mining industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, that's what the people are talking about — not

in here and not in the gallery. But you go to the rest of this

province and these are their concerns. I urge you once again to

listen to the debate, to the arguments put forth by all Members

of the opposition in this House, and try and understand and

show good judgment and show concern for the future of our

province.

MR. GARDOM: I have a few short comments to the

amendment.

It seems to me that the sensitivity and the sensibility of

this amendment is an attempt to prevent an abuse of power and

certainly prevent serious economic hazard not just to one of

our primary product industries — and we've got to remember that

we are a primary products province — but to the whole of B.C.

and the whole of its economy. The amendment is nothing more

than a genuine attempt to provide a pause and provide a

mechanism, hopefully for the introduction of reason and study

and more intensive and rational thought, to come up with a

solution — a solution that might provide greater equity and do

a better job and be more fair to all of the people of B.C., the

miners and the taxpayers and all of our citizens.

I say this is a golden opportunity in the time of our

province for such a hoist. There has never been really a time

quite like this before. We are living in a most amazing period

of fluctuations of costs, of prices, of incomes, and the supply

of commodities than we have ever experienced in B.C. It's a

phenomenon. I'm sure some people say it's a provincial

phenomenon, others that it's a national phenomenon, even others

that it's an international phenomenon, or any combination of

two or all of the three.

But we have to take one thing as fact, be it a phenomenon or

not: howsoever it is caused, it has produced and it has

resulted in an area, I'd say, of complete and day-to-day and

moment-to-moment uncertainty — most significantly in the mining

industry which is so heavily dependent upon export for its

existence. The fact that it is functioning and flourishing and,

indeed, existing in this province is obviously for the good of our prospectors and our miners and our transporters, and

refiners and suppliers. It's good for all of its work force and

all of the work force of the province and for all of our

residents and taxpayers and tax recipients.

There is a lot of talk by the opposition benches, and

particularly by the Hon. Minister, about whether or not, if it

doesn't come out of the ground, it can stay in the ground.

Well, minerals only come out of the ground, Mr. Minister, if it

is economic to get them out. But it doesn't provide jobs, it

doesn't provide income, it doesn't provide tax revenues or food

on the table for anyone if it doesn't come out of the

[ Page 3942 ]

ground. It's worth nothing under there, as the Hon. Member

on my right says.

The minerals will never come out of the ground unless it is

economic to bring them out, apart from the loss of jobs and the

loss of income and the loss of tax revenues and food on the

table, what also goes will be a loss in market, a loss in

know-how, the expertise, the talents, the technological skills

not only of the mining industry but also of any spinoff

products or spinoff industries and businesses and services.

So I say again that the reasons for a hoist are golden. We

have this extremely uncertain, problemed, provincial, national

and international economic situation. Let's see what the next

six months can do instead of trying to lock this industry

in.

Secondly, we have the benefit, Mr. Minister — and this is a

point I would indeed like to stress — we have the benefit of

learning and of gaining expertise without harm and even,

perhaps, irretrievable harm, from the results of the Ontario

experience and the input which hopefully will go into the

Manitoba study. All of that is without effort and all of it is

without cost to the Province of British Columbia. We can reap

rewards, Mr. Speaker, and certainly gain from the experience

and research from the Ontario decision and from the Manitoba

inquiry.

We should also be able to have some experience and have some

benefit from the manner in which their own plans may reflect

and live with — if they can — these current provincial, country

and worldwide conditions.

The Minister would also be able, Mr. Speaker, with a

six-month hoist, to consider the overall economic consequences

of the Ontario excess profits tax, not just the economic

consequences, not just to the mining industry, but in its total

sense, and to all of the spinoffs of the mining industry and

all of the taxation revenues in every form from that industry

and all of its spinoffs.

We could consider the thing from the overall socio-economic

consequences to those who are initially, directly and

specifically affected and also to those who are laterally,

indirectly and generally affected. Indeed, the same

consideration should be given to similar studies which should

be undertaken in the Province of B.C.

The Hon. Minister was involved in discussion with his

colleague. The point I was making, Mr. Minister, was that there

is so much to be gained in the Province of B.C. from the

Ontario experience and also from the results of the study of

the Manitoba experiment.

We have no certainty that the Manitoba legislation will come into effect. They

are prepared to sit back and see what the thing will do. We have the benefit

here in this province, without cost to us and without harm to us, to sit back

and see how successfully the Ontario legislation works, and from its overall

impact into the whole of the community. You also have the opportunity to gainsay

first-class information from the results of the inquiries that are obviously

going to be made in Manitoba.

More than that, it will give the B.C. residents breathing

ground to properly consider all of those points in these other

areas.

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

to lead, not to follow.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, you say you want to lead, Mr. Minister, but

you're leading with your chin. You've no idea how long the

fight is going to be or how many rounds you are going to be in

or how tough your opponent is. You even have no knowledge that

you're going to be facing the same kind of an opponent. That's

the whole point. You want to lead but you're just leading with

your chin. I suppose You're going to be waiting to be flattened

come the next election.

You can bring this legislation in. I think it's the faintest

of hope of the mining industry that they think you're going to

hoist this bill. Some of them still think that. I'm practical

enough to see that you're not going to do any hoisting. It

doesn't matter how much we may advocate that you do that. I

think that's regrettable. Once the socialistic mind, diminutive

as it may be, is made up, I can tell you that it plods on and

it's not likely to be too flexible. So the likelihood of any

amendment and the likelihood of any hoist of this legislation,

of Bill 31 in B.C. Just ain't going to happen. I say that to

the mining industry tonight.

I certainly think you should give an opportunity not only to

the industry who are most specifically interested and primarily

interested but you should give an opportunity to all of the

citizens of this province to see just what happens in the

Province of Ontario and what kind of expertise is fed into the

Province of Manitoba. Follow the Manitoba approach yourself

here. That would be the thing to do but you have not done this,

Mr. Minister.

This is a continuous failing of your government and of all

its portfolios. You have not given the people of British

Columbia any projections or in-depth information of the impact

or of the consequences of what I would say would be the

potentially crippling nature of this kind of legislation. You

have not done that. You should be able to say to the people of

British Columbia today that you support your bill and that

these are the projections as to how this thing will work; these

are the statistics you have received; this will be the total

impact on the whole of the community, taking into account the

loss in tax revenues from those companies, a large number of

which will, in great likelihood, have to go under. You should

be furnishing that information if you have the

[ Page 3943 ]

convictions of your statute, and I'm not suggesting you

don't have.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You say to come up to your office and you'll

show me. I think you should show it to all of the people of

this province. I'm delighted, Mr. Minister, to come and see you

at your office — you're a very pleasant individual. But I think

that information and those projections should be furnished to

everyone.

Apart from the very great political and philosophical

differences — which I would say today in the Province of B.C.

stands at about 75 to 25 against the swing-shift socialists

over there — there are no end of problems of economic good will

and the prosperity of all of our citizens, be they socialistic

or non-socialistic, which this legislation will affect.

You have not told them how it will affect them, Mr.

Minister. That's why I reiterate and agree with the individual

who moved this amendment that for the whole of the province — for everybody in the province, be they socialist, non-socialist

Or whatever they may be, all of our taxpayers and all of our

citizens — a six-month hoist is practical, reasonable and most

needful. I would say it is extremely genuine in the interests

of all concerned. That's why you should do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before I recognize the Member

for Boundary- Similkameen, the Member did speak before but was

unable to complete his remarks because of illness, I would ask

the House to give leave to him to…. Is it agreed?

Leave granted.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): When I so rudely

interrupted myself the other day with a little spree of

coughing…. I hope that won't occur tonight.

To continue with what I had to say the other day regarding

the amendment to the motion to hoist this bill for six months — Mr. Speaker, you know, I don't personally think that the

Minister could hoist this bill for six months because I don't

think he really has control of the bill; I think his cabinet

colleagues have control of the bill. I say that because the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) made it abundantly clear

the other day, when he was speaking to a group at the Empress

Hotel, that Bill 31 would not be withdrawn. I'm sure he had in

mind too that it would not be amended, although the Minister

did say that an amendment was going to be brought in.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well then, that's really not much help, is it?

An amendment is not going to change it.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Undoubtedly, no one can prove to you, Mr.

Minister, that you could be wrong, because your cabinet

colleagues would overrule you anyway. I just feel sorry for you

that you don't have complete control of your legislation.

I'm not going to reiterate the points that I made the other

day but I am going to say, Mr. Minister, that you were invited

to explain your bill to the public, but you decided not to do

that, Even though you did make press release' about the bill,

you could very easily have met the public had you the courage

to do so. The fact that you didn't meet the public left a great

deal of doubt in their minds as to the sincerity of the

legislation, and because of its vagueness, the industry has

become very sensitive.

Many of the statements you have made leave a great deal of

doubt in my mind as to whether or not you have really given it

the necessary study. This is why we are recommending that you

give this a six-month hoist — the fact of the vagueness which I

mentioned the other day, the discretionary powers which are not

definitively spelled out, and the very fact that if I wanted

today to go to the Securities Commission with a prospectus I

couldn't honestly give a factual prospectus because of the

vagueness of the terminology in your bill. This doesn't help

the industry one little bit as far as doing any exploration or

devising any programmes with which they could develop already

ascertained potential mineral claims that will have to have a

great deal of work done on them before they will ever be in a

position to have a feasibility study set out.

You mentioned in one of your statements that there was

wholesale waste previously in the mining industry.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I never said "wholesale waste" at any

time.

MR. RICHTER: I think you have to go back in Hansard

to your opening statement on the wholesale waste of mineral

resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I never said "wholesale waste" at any

time.

MR. RICHTER: We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I hope

you didn't say it because a person with your knowledge of the

mining industry…. You were virtually raised in the

industry. I don't know that it has done that much good for you.

You were raised in the industry but you went wrong, the same as

I did, by going into political life. I don't think

[ Page 3944 ]

that's done you any good either. I would suggest that you

should maybe get out of that at the earliest possible date.

It was quite amazing to me that on June 1 you were

advertising, through your Deputy Minister as chairman of a task

force, to study the whole ambit of copper processing and

smelting and so on. Of course, that is all incorporated in your

bill. You've already set out facts and figures, as you

ascertain them, in your bill — I presume that you hope they are

right. Now you're going to have a task force make a study of

it. Manitoba is making a study. Ontario has

an Act.

There is no particular harm in hoisting this bill for six

months. As I said previously, I know you can't do it because

your cabinet Ministers won't let you.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: That doesn't concur with what the Premier said.

The Premier said it was too low and you wouldn't let him make

it any higher. Let's get this straight, one way or the other.

Mr. Minister, you know you never had any dialogue with the

industry. You know that for sure. When we had the promulgation

of the reclamation legislation there were committees set up

both from your own department — or at that time it was my

department — and the industry. And good legislation was

promulgated on the basis of those studies.

The legislation and regulations that have come pursuant to

those studies is looked up to with high regard in many, many

parts of the world. In fact, the States of Tennessee and

Kentucky would have loved to have had that kind of legislation

instead of the mess they have now. We are getting very

commendable reports on the reclamation projects that are taking

place.

Also, Mr. Minister, you should study the experience of the

States of Michigan and Minnesota in relation to the same

proposals that you have here in this legislation which they

failed on. They've chased the mining industry completely out of

their states.

In developing any mine after discovery it takes a certain

amount of lead time. This lead time runs anywhere from five to

eight years. You know yourself, Mr. Minister, that you have

mines in this province presently in operation that haven't

sufficient ore bodies to go beyond 1975. These mines support

large work forces.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: We have a number of mines. You know them as

well as I do without me naming them all. There are some in the

northern part of the province, there are others in the Nicola

Valley and in the Ashcroft area. There are any number of

them.

You've got one in the Okanagan.

The ore bodies are progressively being depleted to the point

where, if they don't get busy with further exploration and

development…. And they have been up until the time this Act

was brought into this House; they were doing these kinds of

exploration and development work. Since the Act has come in,

they haven't continued — only in a very minor way.

We have to have new ore bodies coming on to give these

people additional work and to create the economy that is needed

in this province. You know yourself that the mining industry is

the No. 2 industry in this province. You have every opportunity

of making it much greater by bringing in legislation that is

not punitive and by giving the mining companies a chance to at

least make a profit. You should take your cut on net profits

rather than on the gross and you'll certainly have a very happy

situation to deal with.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Explain how this is punitive

legislation.

MR. RICHTER: I don't know what you want me to explain, Mr.

Minister. It's so obviously clear that a primary grade student

would be able to understand it. You must understand it

yourself.

For instance, you're taking it completely off the top before

expenses or before taxes. At least give them a chance to deduct

their taxes, their exploration costs and their other expenses,

salaries, et cetera, before you hit them below the belt.

The Mining Tax Act is a prime example. If you studied

that, you'll find they can make $10,000 profit before they pay

any tax. Certainly $ 10,000 is a very, very minimal amount as

far as a profit is concerned because these mines cost in the

hundreds of millions of dollars. Take Lornex and many of the

other mines which have gone over $100 million to put into

exploration or into development and into production.

The whole thrust of this bill is this magic word "royalty."

You could have very simply revised the Mining Tax Act .

You could also have made a very close study. It's still not

too late, Mr. Minister, to do that. Just hoist the bill for six

months or to the next session and then you can bring in a

completely new Act that would encourage the mining industry in

this province and keep an industry and jobs for those who are

working in this particular field.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I feel a breeze from somewhere up in the Nicola right now.

It's very easy to bring in legislation that will encourage the

mining industry in this province to the degree that we would

find it very closely

[ Page 3945 ]

crowding the forest industry as far as revenue income is

concerned.

Mr. Minister, while we have only been discussing the

amendment now, certainly I will have more to say when we get to

the main motion at that time.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Williams, L.A.

Smith

McClelland

Gardom

Jordan

Morrison

Gibson

Fraser

Schroeder

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Wallace

NAYS — 33

Hall

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Macdonald

Cummings

Lockstead

Dailly

Dent

Gorst

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Rolston

Nimsick

Cocke

Anderson, G.H.

Stupich

King

Barnes

Hartley

Lea

Steves

Calder

Young

Kelly

Nunweiler

Radford

Webster

Brown

Lauk

Lewis

Sanford

Nicolson

Liden

MR. SPEAKER: May I say that there is now debate on the main

motion.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Are you proposing to close the debate now on

the main motion?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano has the floor because the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) made the motion. I try my best to see

that each party gets some. representation during the day. The

last one to speak on this main motion was the Leader of the

Opposition. I am now calling upon the Member from the Liberal

group who wishes to speak.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was a near thing

when the Minister stood up there. I am glad he sat down and

admitted that there is to be at least some debate on the main

motion.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We have hardly started, Mr. Minister.

You know, so far there has been a little fun had on this

debate, Mr. Speaker, but that is all it has been.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You will have your chance later, Mr. Member.

So far it has just been a little fun by the Premier the

other day when he stood up here and said the things he had to

say, which were amusing, agreed, Mr. Speaker, but it was

irresponsible too. It was a comedy and a tragedy at the same

time.

The Hon. Members over there say "Shame," Mr. Speaker,

but a Premier you don't expect particularly to be able to use

numbers, yet when you think of how the Minister of Finance was

misusing numbers in this House, and giving completely the wrong

numbers, it seemed to me that was very wrong.

He talked about several companies and I'm not going to

particularly defend the great profits of the mining companies

in 1973. I say the people of British Columbia ought to have

more return out of the profits of the mining companies in an

unusual year like 1973. But at the same time I say it is not

competent of the Minister of Finance of this province to use

absolutely the wrong figures as to the profits of those

companies, because thereby in his high office he conveys the

wrong impression to the public. And on legislation of this

importance it is essential that the public should understand it

clearly.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: And he should understand it clearly, as says the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

Perhaps it's too much to expect, but the Premier and

Minister of Finance should understand it clearly, and he should

understand when he talks about a particular company like

Bralorne Resources, and talks about the enormous profits they

made out of mining in British Columbia in 1973, that they

didn't make a penny from mining in British Columbia in

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: And the Premier thought they did.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: They wrote off about $3 million as their share

for Bradina Resources.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They did that, Mr. Minister of

[ Page 3946 ]

Highways.

And they made some money in Alberta, but they didn't make

any money in British Columbia, and the Premier said they did

and I was surprised at that. Then he said he thought that

Kaiser Resources had gone from a profit of $4 million in 1972

up to $13 million in 1973, when in fact Kaiser Resources went

from a loss of $13 million in 1972 to a profit of $4 million in

1973. The numbers were just reversed.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no. Those are their numbers that I've

just given, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. The numbers

the Premier gave were the reverse numbers. That's why I was

saying there must be some confusion over there. Maybe the whole

of Bill 31 is backwards. Maybe they really don't mean what that

bill says. I think what we have to do is try and go through the

bill very carefully just to see if it really does mean what the

government says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. GIBSON: You look at the profits of Placer Development

which the Premier cited, and one of the Ministers — I forget

which one — said it would bring tears to glass eyes. Now, I'm

not going to get any tears to my eyes about the profits of

Placer Development. But the fact of the matter is that the

Premier claimed they had $70-some million of profits and

implied it was all out of British Columbia, when around $30

million was out of the Philippines, when around $12 million was

out of New Guinea — and that, to me, is misleading. I don't say

it is intentionally misleading. That's why I'm afraid; I'm

afraid that he might really not know those figures.

I'm afraid that the whole basis of this legislation is not

well founded. He talked about the profits of Cominco. Once

again, nobody is going to weep for Cominco and the poor little

CPR, as the Premier says, that company that the Minister of

Mines used to work for. But the Premier might at least have the

knowledge in citing their profits that a large part of them

come from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories — about which I'll have more to say later — that

a large

part comes from potash in Saskatchewan, and another

large

part comes from a fertilizer operation in Alberta, of

which another $129 million investment in Alberta fertilizer was

just announced. Another large

part is from the Black Angel mine

in Greenland.

In sum, the Premier was not properly representing to this

House and to the people of British Columbia exactly what the

profits of these companies might be.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Neither the Premier nor the Minister have taken

any account of the developments in the world around them on

this business of royalties.

Let me read a little report from the Canadian Press:

"The Manitoba government has decided not to proceed this

year with a bill to establish a new system for taxing mining companies, Mines

Minister Sidney Green announced Wednesday." And then later on he said:

"I am however willing and anxious to ensure that the tax is well understood and that opportunity is

given to deal with any misunderstanding or problem which may

arise relating to its implementation. In this particular case

the public has nothing to lose and everything to gain by some

delay in the passage of this bill."

That's pretty clear. Other jurisdictions have been wise

enough to learn that there are very serious problems in the

passage of this kind of legislation.

I gather, Mr. Speaker, that it would be agreeable to the

government House Leader if I moved to adjourn the debate until

the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada