1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1975

[ Page

1501 ]

CONTENTS

Police Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Macdonald Introduction and

first reading — 1501

Indian Reserve Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act (Bill 64). Mr. Gardom. Introduction

and first reading — 1501

Motion Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance. Mr.

Phillips — 1501

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1501

Mr. Phillips — 1502

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1502

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1502

Mr. Speaker — 1503

Mr. Phillips — 1503

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates

On a point of order. Mr. McClelland — 1503

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1504

Mr. Bennett — 1504

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1504

Mr. Chabot — 1504

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1505

On vote 168. Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1505

Mr. Smith — 1508

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1513

Mr. Gibson — 1514

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1520

Mr., Fraser — 1520

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1522

Mr. McGeer — 1522

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1525

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 1525

Mr. Phillips — 1528

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1975

The House met at 10 a. m.

Prayers

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today are some friends, Roy and Carol Timmins, from Vancouver. I ask the House

to make them welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, it's my

pleasure to introduce to the House this morning a young

agricultural couple from east Kelowna, Mr. and Mrs. Richard

Bulloch, and Mrs. Bulloch's sister from Vancouver, who is a

student in a Vancouver high school. This is one of the first

family visits for them to the Legislature. They are most

intrigued with the actions but, of course, very disappointed

that we aren't debating agriculture. I would ask the House to

welcome them very warmly.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, just on

a point of order. I notice the public galleries are empty

today. Yet as I walked by there was a sign saying: "Public

galleries full." Is there some explanation for this?

MR. SPEAKER: It's rather a surprise. That's news to me. I'll

certainly look into it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Not that I know of, but I'll certainly look

into the problem.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly look into it. I haven't been

aware of that.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 46, Police Amendment

Act, 1975, 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.

INDIAN RESERVE MINERAL

RESOURCES ACT REPEAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 64, Indian Reserve Mineral Resources Act Repeal

Act, 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.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise

to move the adjournment of this House for the purpose of

discussing a matter of urgent public importance under standing

order 35.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would supply me

with a statement on the matter and tell the House briefly what

the statement is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly evident that

two of the most reassured rights of parliament are being eroded

and, in some instances, denied to the Members of this

Legislature — namely, the right to examine Ministers'

estimates for the purpose of establishing accountability and

the right to be satisfied that expenditures are justified

before passing an estimate.

The time allocation traditionally given to the opposition

for these fundamental responsibilities of opposition Members in

this assembly is being deliberately and systematically eroded

by government backbenchers offering, probably under

instruction, 30-minute speeches in praise of the government

Minister under attack or scrutiny.

The official opposition is prepared at this time to move a

motion for the. purpose of amending the standing orders

forthwith in order that the traditional rights of parliament

can be restored to this assembly and the limitation of debate

of estimates eliminated.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35, the

adjournment of this House for the purpose of discussing this

urgent matter of public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, I think the Hon. Member knows

that I have to consider the urgency of debate at this time of

the question that the Hon. Member has raised. I point out to

him that this House adopted rules of order on a report from a

committee which took a total of 135 hours as allocated for the

discussion of estimates in Committee of the Whole House, and

also 45 sittings.

Now if the Hon. Member were telling me that we had reached

the 45th sitting or had reached the 134th hour, then I would be

prepared to concede that the question of urgency would

certainly have raised its head if the House wished to change

the rules. But since neither of those eventualities has

occurred — and I may point out that past experience has shown a

total of 38 sittings have occurred in previous years in

estimates, from my experience in the House — that urgency of

debate, which is the only thing that the Speaker has to

consider in ruling on the matter you've raised, does not appear

to have happened at this moment.

That, therefore, gives the Hon. Member and the

[ Page 1502 ]

House the opportunity to make whatever arrangements they

wish, including a notice of motion or debate on the question of

any alteration in the rules of the House. But I cannot under

the circumstances see that there is the urgency of debate that

the Hon. Member suggests because, with the number of hours that

are still left to debate, one would assume that the House will

come to some sensible arrangement in regard to the allocation

of the time by a matter of courtesy between the various

parties.

I cannot, therefore, find that the Hon. Member's motion

would be at this time in order — I should say acceptable —

because of that rule that binds me on urgency to debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your very sincere

comments on this matter. The matter is raised in urgency

because of the happenings in this Legislature during the past

week where the opposition is being.... As an instance, last

evening two and one-half hours were allowed to discuss the

estimates of the Minister of Housing, which is an expenditure

of $90 million. We have had closure upon closure forced on us

this week by the government, by decree, without consultation

with the opposition, stating that we shall use one session to

discuss the estimates of each Minister.

I think therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is definitely a

matter of urgent public importance because it is in essence

closure on closure. There was no discussion from the government

benches with the opposition, and two and a half hours or four

hours to discuss very important Ministers' estimates is in

essence not what was discussed when the original motion was

brought into this House. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a

matter of urgent public importance because it is not the

opposition who are being closed out but the taxpayers of this

province who are being closed out of having the opportunity to

scrutinize the spending of the various Ministers' departments.

It is the right of parliament, it is the right of the

opposition to scrutinize these spendings, and we are not being

given the opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Therefore it's very

urgent.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your contribution.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I recognize the concern of the

Member, but I oppose that there is any emergency because I repeat this

statement: we will accept any

schedule given to us by the opposition

within the time frame of the 135 hours. Any Minister they wish to call,

any Minister they don't wish to call, any order they wish to present to

us, any method that they want to use the 135 hours is freely theirs.

That offer is made and we have not to this date heard from the

opposition as to what Minister they wish to call, what Minister they

wish to question. If they feel a sense of urgency, let them tell us

which Minister they want and we will give them that Minister. That's

all we ask.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to

challenge your ruling on this.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. You can't challenge the Speaker's

ruling on a question which is upon him in the rules to

determine. It is whether in my opinion it is a matter of

urgency. Therefore, the House cannot, in the circumstances,

substitute its opinion for that of Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Name any Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: You want us to vote closure on ourselves.

That's what you want.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The same point of order raised

by the Hon. Member and the Premier. We have made every effort

in the past week to meet....

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are responding to your letter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but you haven't yet. You're simply

stated in this House...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we just got it yesterday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...that the 135-hour rule simply must

remain, regardless. It is a perfectly simple matter to alter

that by a unanimous decision of the House. We can waive that

rule. We can revert to the procedure for estimates which is

appropriate for our traditions in B.C...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No way; you wasted a whole sitting that

way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and which will allow proper

investigation of Ministerial estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What Minister do you want? Name the

Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've made your speech, Mr. Premier. I'm

in the process of making mine.

[ Page 1503 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've attempted very much to be

reasonable in this whole matter. The Premier knows full well

that the letter contained alternate recommendations to him.

We've been assured by the government House Leader that they'll

be taken seriously. Now we discover that the 135-hour rule

simply has to remain, no matter what. That's the critical

problem, and if the Premier will not face up to it, the rest of

us are going to have to.

You cannot fit three quarts into a half-gallon jar; you

cannot fit the estimates of all Ministers into that 135 hours

total time. Therefore, we urge the Premier to recognize that

last year when this thing was discussed, last year when every

single opposition Member who spoke against this particular

rule, you deliberately hand-tied the opposition in a way that

they could not even carry out their functions as they did under

the former Premier, bad though it might have been at that time.

It's worse now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Members would

not debate the merits of the issue because that is a matter

that can be taken up on a motion. There's lots of time still to

take the matter up on motion to set up the committee again and

proceed on further investigation of the problem.

Secondly, the other reason why it isn't urgent to debate it

at this moment, without anything before the House to debate, is

because, as I understand from what statements have been made,

negotiations of some kind axe being undertaken and the Hon.

Member who's speaking has written a letter on this subject to

the government. I suggest that the Hon. Member proceed with the

negotiations or with a notice of motion, or do it in a formal

and proper fashion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to proceed

with negotiations. The problem at the present time is that the

government is proceeding with stalling, not negotiations.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Until, we get this matter settled, we're

not going to get the whole question of estimates properly

handled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The matter is now out of order and I

would ask the Hon. Members to refrain from continued

speaking.

Hon. Member, what is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: The point of order is this: the Premier just stood on

the floor of this Legislature and complained about the amount of time that it

took in his estimates....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you made the point, Mr. Premier. You

made the point; hear me out. When I asked that Premier several

times about the British Columbia Railway...two days after his

estimates were done he made another loan to the British

Columbia Railway for $20 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why we can't bring up a

schedule

because we just don't know what's going to come up...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...or whether we're going to get the answers

or not — that's why.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Would the Hon. Members

please return to order?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please

return to order?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the Chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 168: Minister's office, $103,728.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley on a point of

order.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, the Premier

just made an offer to the Members of the opposition that we

could call for any Minister we wish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to make a request that the

Housing Minister's estimates come up

[ Page 1504 ]

again this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter for the

committee to consider.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering vote

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter to raise

with the Chairman of the committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering vote

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Although I realize

this is not the order now, I would like to make this comment:

the Premier, yes, said that you would be able to bring forward

your

schedule on the order in which you wish to see them

called, but that did not mean on the floor of this House. You

have an opportunity to meet with the Whips together with the

House leaders. The Hon. Liberal leader will be receiving his

response on Monday.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier

just said that we could name any Minister on a daily basis; not

a

schedule but on a daily basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: We've just told him the Minister for today...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: ...the Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Now that offer was made frivolously; it wasn't

an offer....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members remain seated until the point of

order has been made?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once the committee has embarked upon its business it

is not the matter for the committee to consider the business. The business which

is before the committee is vote 168. This is not a matter on which to raise

points of order as to what the business should be. This is a matter to be settled

by the House Leader, in consultation if necessary, if she wishes, with representatives

of other parties. It is not the business of the committee. Therefore, I would

ask that we proceed with the committee, vote 168.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier made his offer and we

called for the Minister before the...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: ...orders of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: So that we may take the Premier's offer, I move

that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order number 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

House, shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of the debate,

or of the House during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress or

do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he

may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to

propose the question to the House." — or to the committee.

The Chair elects to decline to put the motion to adjourn. We

will proceed with vote 168.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I can't really believe that you would suggest that

that's an abuse of the rules because all we're trying to do is

accommodate the kind of offer that was made by the Premier — by

the House Leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: It's not an abuse of the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is business before the committee. It is

not knowledge of the committee how this business arises.

[ Page 1505 ]

MR. CHABOT: The business hasn't commenced yet. No one's been

recognized as far as votes are concerned, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote is before the committee. That

is the business of the committee, and I would therefore ask for

debate on vote 168.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your decision in that

respect.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of the Whole

House, considering vote number 168, there was a motion made by

the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Chairman do now

leave the chair. The stated purpose was so that other

arrangements could be made as to the order of business. The

Chairman declined to put the motion, under standing order

number 44 as an abuse of the rules.

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

was the wrong motion. I think the motion was that the committee

rise and report....

MR. SPEAKER: Committee, yes. I think that's correct. That

the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit

again, I believe was the motion. Shall the ruling of the Chair

be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 27

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Cocke

King

Lea

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman, the time is very limited for discussing

individual Ministers. While in the past by tradition the

courtesy has been extended to the Chair to recognize the

Minister for a brief opening statement, that tradition has been

willfully violated in the past few days by some Ministers who

read a prepared text which quite appropriately might have been

given during the budget. I don't think the Ministers should be

allowed the latitude to give a budget speech during this

limited time of debate. I get a little nervous when I see a

podium appearing in front of the Minister of Mines before he

has answered a single question. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you

would...Ministers of the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member make his point of order?

The Hon. Minister of Mines. There is no point of order.

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

there's no one more sorry that I am that my time has been cut down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then do something about it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I said that my time was cut down by the

arguments....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: My time has been cut down by the argument

that has been going on for the last half hour.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister be

seated for a moment?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Only the government can

have the floor — that's the problem. Diamond Leo....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[ Page 1506 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister

proceeds, I would draw attention of the Hon. Members to that

standing order which requires that Members not interrupt the

Hon. Member who has the floor. Would the Hon. Minister

continue, please?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman and Hon. Members, I have

always taken the attitude in years gone by that at the

beginning of the estimates a Minister could make a statement so

that many of the questions that will be asked may be already

answered and they won't need to ask them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can presume some of the questions you

are going to ask. One of the questions I'd like to clear up is

the brainwashing that has been going on in the Province of

British Columbia in regard to the percentages of taxes and

revenue that the government have taken from the mining

industry.

Mr. Chairman, I have before me a statement that says: "Capital is on Strike."

These words are not mine, but those of Cominco's Gerald Hobbs. Mr. Hobbs'

article

appeared in the April issue of Business Week in "Business in B.C." I do wish

to take issue with Mr. Hobbs' right to make this statement, but it surprises

me somewhat that this seems to define a definite confrontation between private

enterprise and the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You started it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Dale Martin, who prefaced the article,

states:

"To many, it is inconceivable that he or anyone else should

have to defend private enterprise at all. To my mind, this is a

little confusing when we look back over history and see how

many times governments have had to bail out private enterprise

to keep the economy going. Mr. Hobbs states capital is created

only when a society consumes less than it produces."

If this is

correct, then the 1930s must have been bonanza years for

capital. There was a surplus of almost every mentionable item

of production. But people were going without these surplus

products because they could not afford to buy them due to the

fact that private enterprise had failed to provide them with

employment.

Mr. Hobbs also states that society's prosperity depends on the efficiency with

which its capital is used and not on who owns the capital. This is very true.

It is due to the way in which capital has been used that governments have had

to step in and set up guidelines aimed at the needs of society and future generations.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What question did you

answer?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: An analogy to this is the energy crisis

through which we are presently going. Private enterprise has

had a free hand over the years in developing and distributing

this non-replenishable petroleum resource. They have done

everything possible to encourage people to use as much of the

product as possible whether or not it was put to necessary use

or wasted. Now, all of a sudden, we think we can see the end of

the line. The government had to step in to set up guidelines

for the future development and use of this resource.

Mr. Hobbs states:

"Today capital is not reporting for work in the traditional

way. It is on strike. There may be no placards, pickets or

raucous headlines, but it is plain that capital is not

satisfied with its wages, conditions of work or job security."

Surely Mr. Hobbs is not complaining about the wages his own

company made in 1974 when their profits increased to $84

million from $43 million in 1973.

MR. GIBSON: Give us some B.C. figures.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Hobbs states: "Left to itself,

business can adapt to changing conditions and work to the

benefit of all." If this sentence is correct, why is it that

governments have to step in on cases such as Can-Cel, Ocean

Falls, the CPR ferries, and why has the government received

applications from many other industries, both in and out of the

mining field, to subsidize them in order that they may keep

operating? I have had several of them come to me asking for

that very subsidization in order to keep operating.

Further along in the article, Mr. Hobbs states:

"Our best performing companies, strangely, are not

considered as part of our national assets. Governments want to

manage, coach, referee and play simultaneously."

This statement is rather meaningless since governments have

already moved in where private enterprises failed to take into

consideration the needs of the people, both present and

future.

Quoting further from this article:

"With a history of stable government and a reasonable tax

climate, Canada developed one of the most sophisticated,

productive mining industries in the world."

Surely Mr. Hobbs does not feel that the three-year tax-free

climate which encouraged the exploitation of much of our

natural resources at a faster rate than was in the best

interests of the people should have

[ Page 1507 ]

continued.

He also states: "What must concern us now is the use to

which our mineral harvests are currently being put." I would

like to ask Mr. Hobbs if the legislation written up at the

present time in the Mines department does not consider this

very important item. One of the sections of the Mineral Act

requires that an application must be made for a production

lease before a mine goes into production. The reason for this

is to see that the guidelines laid down by the department on

behalf of the people will be followed. These non-replenishable resources are very important to the country as a whole. To

leave capital complete freedom as to how they are going to be

exploited is something that may have prevailed in the past but

must not continue into the future.

The next-most-important item of change to which the mining

industry seems to object is the Mineral Royalties Act and the

Mineral Land Tax Act. This is quite evident when Mr. Hobbs

states, "Capital is still on strike while inflation and

excessive taxation persists."

I've been a little perturbed about the continual pressure

that the mining companies have put on in regard to what they

call exorbitant taxes. They have had it as high as 104 per cent

in their figuring. I'm sure that somebody will probably bring

up that figure today, but I doubt whether they will after they

hear what I've got to finish on.

"...under which they cannot operate." Look at the

statement made by their own accountants, Price Waterhouse and

Co., regarding the effect that the Mineral Royalties Act and

Mineral Land Tax Act had on the profit picture during 1974.

From a letter from Price Waterhouse to the mining association,

dated March 12, 1975:

"In addition to the above, you asked us to estimate the

effect of the recently introduced British Columbia Mineral Land

Tax Act and British Columbia Mineral Royalties Act on the 1974

return on investment figures.

"Based on information received by

participating companies, we would estimate...."

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, earlier today

I called your attention to what I considered to be an abuse by

Ministers in reading speeches during the limited time of

estimates. May I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to page 404

of May, Parliamentary Practice , 18th edition. It says:

"A Member is not permitted to read his speech...."

Mr. Chairman, we have a very limited time for consideration of the estimates

of the Minister of Mines. He's reading a speech, Mr. Chairman; he's not answering

questions which have been put by Members. It's very clear that there is a government

device at work to limit the amount of time that Members can

ask questions — not just by passing rules unilaterally, but by

instructing Ministers to come into this House and use up the

limited time with prepared speeches which they're reading.

Mr. Chairman, I insist that you instruct that Minister to

stop reading speeches forthwith.

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

point out to the Hon. Member that it has been the tradition in

this House that when a Minister's estimates come up and he's

making his opening remarks he may refer to notes or may read

something in order to make a point clear.

However, the point is well taken that an entire speech

should not be read, and I would say to the Hon. Minister that

while he may use his notes and refer to the notes he should try

not to be tied entirely to them.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, would he at least tell us who the

author of the speech is?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I am the author.

"Based on information received by participating companies,

we would estimate that the introduction of the two Acts led to

a reduction in return on investment of about two to two and

one-half percentage points."

Surely this industry that has been so prosperous under

previous legislation could not be strangled to death by two to

two and a half percentage points.

Mr. Speaker, since I do not have a complete report for 1974,

let us analyse the 1973 report put out by Price Waterhouse, the

mining association's own appointed chartered accountants. They

state in this report....

AN HON. MEMBER: Author! Author!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Here is the Price Waterhouse report.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who wrote that line?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They state in this report, and it has

found its way into the press, that the mines in British

Columbia have contributed $128 million in taxes to the three

levels of government...

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Exclamation

point.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $157 million, Leo.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...federal, provincial and municipal, of

which $65 million goes to the province.

[ Page 1508 ]

What do they include in this $65 million?

MR. GIBSON: Question mark.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Corporate income tax, B.C. mining tax,

B.C. corporation capital tax, social services tax, property

tax, property and school taxes combined, gas and fuel oil tax,

Crown grant payments, production royalties tax, workers'

compensation assessments, et cetera.

MR. GARDOM: Pause for applause.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: To me the first three items are

legitimate, but the balance was deducted in their cost

accounting as part of the operational expenses. I am sure any

one of us could come up with a similar shopping list of our own

taxes if we so wished.

In this 1973 report they state that the mining companies

paid $44.6 million to the municipalities. This includes

property tax, school tax, property and school tax combined,

business licences....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman,

perhaps you could inform me whether the time of this speech is

being taken out of the allocation for budget time or the

allocation for estimates time, because it's clearly a budget

speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is not a point of order.

However, I would ask the Hon. Minister to try to avoid

discussing matters pertaining to legislation or policy, and

rather discuss the administrative aspects of his

department.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got some figures here. Under the

highlights in this report they state that the net earnings for

1973 were $231 million. This is after all taxes have been paid.

They cannot state what their taxable income was due to the fact

that much of it would be deducted as expenses. Nevertheless,

let us assume that the $128 million was all taxes. Then, by

simple arithmetic, the taxable income would be the sum of the

net income of $231 million, plus the total taxes of $128

million, a total taxable income of $359 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never figured it out by yourself.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This figures out to 18 per cent of taxable

income to the province, 2 per cent of taxable income to the

municipalities and 16 per cent of the taxable income to the

federal government.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You don't even know

what you're talking about!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...a total of 36 per cent for the three

levels of government and leaving a net income of $31 million.

It is easy for the mining companies to say they pay 46 per cent

federal tax, 15 per cent mining tax and 10 per cent corporation

tax and then add them all together. But on what figures are

these percentages based? It is easy to total all these figures

and make it look astronomical to the ordinary person. Why not

tell the whole story? Maybe it is as Mr. Hobbs states that

capital is on strike. I am sure it is not on account of the

taxes and royalties but rather that capital is averse to the

people of British Columbia having any say in the management of

these non-replenishable resources.

If there are any questions, I would appreciate having

them.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, we've just

seen another attempt by a cabinet Minister to make a complete

mockery out of the parliamentary process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the vote, please?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will. The Hon. Minister, when he rose in

his place, said he had a few remarks to address to the members

of this committee so that he would be able to anticipate in

advance or answer in advance questions that we might have to

put to him as Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. He

gave not one little scrap of information to this committee that

has not already been circulated to every Member of this House.

If he wants to read a report from Price Waterhouse...this

letter is in the hands of everybody who has been in this

Legislative Assembly. What kind of gobbledegook is that, Mr.

Minister? I'm a little surprised at the attitude taken by

yourself.

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

the questions you were going to ask?

MR. SMITH: When we get to your estimates you can speak, Mr.

Minister.

Let me say that it's making a mockery out of the debate of

estimates. You put a Minister on the floor of the House for a

few hours...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member...?

[ Page 1509 ]

MR. SMITH: ...before you ever have the opportunity to

question him in detail.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Again I would request that the Hon. Member confine his

remarks to the vote that we have before us — vote 168.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to the vote even though

we know that the Minister will take a free ride. He'll sit here

and listen to a few hours of debate, never really get down to

the contentious points of his portfolio, then slip out and

bring another Minister on at the next sitting of this

House.

The first observation I have to make, Mr. Chairman, is this:

what a difference a year makes! What a difference a year makes — or a little better than a year. Last May — and into early

June, 1974 — we were debating Bill 31, the British Columbia

Mineral Royalties Act. Despite all of the pleas of the industry,

the prospectors, the geologists, the engineers, the B.C. and

Yukon Chamber of Mines and the mining association of this

province, the Minister, presumably on the recommendation of his

henchman Hart Horn, turned a deaf ear to those earnest

concerns of a great many of the people of the Province of

British Columbia and ramrodded a bill through the House which

has been responsible for the decimation of the mining business

in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Name one mine that closed because of Bill

MR. SMITH: We'll get to that, Mr. Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: Name 20 that didn't open.

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look at the record of what has

happened in the mining industry in this province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SMITH: It's a record you can't be proud of, Mr. Minister, if you

are fulfilling the obligations of your portfolio. You know what the record is

because it's been brought to your attention enough times. I'll repeat it for

you today because you don't seem to understand what it means in terms of jobs,

in terms of security for people in the Province of British Columbia.

What is the record? No new mines opening in this province

since 1972 — none. No new jobs created, although there is

potential for new mines in the Province of British Columbia.

Other mines have either curtailed their operation or they've

closed down entirely. Did you ever ask yourself why? Have you

ever tried to explain to this committee why that has happened

in the Province of British Columbia when the reverse is true in

other parts of Canada, particularly the North West Territories

and the Yukon? No. You've not even concerned yourself with it.

You've used a lot of cheap phrases to try to gloss over the

real problem that is involved in the mining industry today and

say it's because of world prices of copper.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: What is it? What's the cost? Tell us.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it's government policy more than

anything else that has been responsible for the decline in the

mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. It's

directly attributable to the mining legislation that you put

through this House in the past two years. There is no other

reason, Mr. Minister — no other reason. The capital has dried

up. Sure, it has dried up. You got up and said, "Capital is on

strike," and read from a quotation. It's not on strike,

Mr. Minister.

I'll tell you what's happened in the Province of British

Columbia. Capital has packed up its bag and it's walking out.

Why? Because of the vendetta of the present government in power

combined with the legislation which you put in, which is

punitive in its attempt to grab every dollar you can get right

now, irrespective of what the future for the industry is down

the road.

You want those dollars now at whatever cost — and the cost is

tremendous in terms of jobs and in terms of vitality of a good

industry which should be on a continuous basis and growing in

the Province of British Columbia.

Let's take a look at what has happened. Mining exploration

in this province is down over 50 per cent. Doesn't that cause

you any concern? I certainly would if you were sitting on this

side of the House, Mr. Minister; you'd be up screaming to high

heaven about that — calling it ridiculous. And it is ridiculous

because it was never necessary in the first place.

What are the facts? In 1972 the mining industry spent $38

million in exploration in this province. In 1974, $19.4

million. Doesn't that cause you any concern?

Claims staked: down over 80 per cent — from

[ Page 1510 ]

78,000 in 1972 to 16,600 in 1974.

Development expenditures on new mines have declined 98 per

cent — from $70 million in 1972 to approximately $1 million in

1974. That's in a two-year period, Mr. Minister. Doesn't that

cause you any concern as Minister? Are you prepared to sit

there and accept that and say that it is all the problem of

multinational corporations, of big business, of capital, of

everybody else but your department and your administration of

your department? Why don't you look at where the real problem

lies and be large enough, big enough, to admit that you've made

a few mistakes in the type of legislation that you've passed

through this House?

It's time that you sat down with industry, with

representatives of the prospectors, with people who have spent

their lifetime in this sort of business, and find out what the

real problem is. What do you do? You take these people in; you

have a short meeting with them. You listen to them for 10

minutes and give them the back of your hand as soon as they get

outside of the door.

The last time they met with you they had reason to believe

they were making some progress. The day after they left you

indicated to the press that, really, you didn't believe much of

what they had to say to you. Is that any way to solve a

problem?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look at it. Maybe while we're in

committee, even though we have only a few short hours this

morning to discuss your estimates M. Minister, you'll get up

and tell us, as members of this committee, why there's been

such a decline in exploration and mining activity in the

Province of British Columbia and what you intend to do, as

Minister, to correct those problems. Give us your solutions.

Don't keep looking for a scapegoat; give us solutions to what's

going to get the industry back into a viable position in the

Province of British Columbia.

It's estimated that in the last two years at least 5,000

people lost jobs as a result of either closures or cutbacks in

the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. You

have a record of what's happened.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: How many of them are out of work right

now?

MR. SMITH: Those are a part of the 102-odd thousand people

on unemployment right now. It's not a record that you can be

proud of.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: How many miners can you name who are out

of work?

MR. SMITH: How many people, other than people directly

engaged in the mining, are out of work as a result of your

policies? How many geologists? How many prospectors? How many

engineers have had either to look for work somewhere else or go

to some other part of Canada or the Yukon in order to maintain

a livable income for themselves and their families? How many?

They're part of that group; don't ever think that they are

not.

Any time an industry which has been viable and vibrant in

the Province of British Columbia is forced to close down

completely or cut back, people lose jobs, and they must go

somewhere else to seek employment or find some employment in

some other type of work, if it's available. They are part of

the 102,000 people that we should be finding jobs for in the

province right at the moment.

Let's take a look at the sorry record we have before us

today. In 1973 the closures of mines included Bradina, at Owen

Lake near Houston; Canex, Salmo, British Columbia; King

Resources Co. at Mt. Copeland near Revelstoke; Placett Oil Co.

at Bull River near Cranbrook. Closed down; complete

closures.

True, in the same year we had a few re-openings — that was

1973, Mr. Minister. But we still had a net loss of jobs in the

mining industry that year.

In the same year, exploration and development: down, down,

down. Doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't that tell you

something about the activity we can expect as a result of

exploration and development when the graph is going down

instead of up? It should.

In 1974 the closures included Anaconda Canada at Britannia;

Jordan River Mines at Jordan River; Giant Mascot at Hope,

British Columbia. And we had cutbacks at Granduc and the

Similkameen Mining Co. Another net loss of jobs as a result of

mining closures or cutbacks. That should have told you

something.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old story.

MR. SMITH: In 1974 and 1975, this year, Consolidated

Churchill Copper out of Fort Nelson closed down completely.

They have had to do that in the last month, laying off 108

people who were directly employed by them, and a number of

other people who were employed in hauling concentrate from the

mine to Fort Nelson. That's probably a total of 150 people in a

small but growing community, or one which was growing, as a

direct result of the closure of Consolidated Churchill.

Reeves Macdonald mines at Remac, B.C., closed down. We've

had other cutbacks this year in Gibraltar, Lornex, and Western

Mines.

Reopenings in 1975 — none. Have you ever stopped to

calculate not only the loss of jobs but the loss of income to

people collectively in the Province

[ Page

1511 ]

of British Columbia as the result of the spin-off from the

mining industry into other endeavours? Certainly if you have

these people in your department who can calculate when the

price of copper has gone up or down and how much that is going

to amount to in terms of dollars into the Treasury, they should

be capable of calculating the direct loss to the people who

would be employed in the mining industry in the Province of

British Columbia if it were not for policies such as you have

introduced.

It is a sorry record, a sorry record, Mr. Minister. All you

have to do is take a look at the graphs that have been prepared

for you. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to read

them.

Claim-staking in British Columbia between 1968 and 1974

peaked in 1969, went down in 1970 and 1971, hit another high in

1972 and, since then, has shown a drastic reduction. Take a

look at the graph. You must have a copy of it. It is almost

straight downhill. As a matter of fact, if it was a toboggan

slide, you would never stop, Mr. Minister. You would probably

go right through to the centre of the earth when you did hit

bottom; it's that steep.

Exploration and development spending in the same period,

between 1968 and 1974, hit a high in 1971 of $300 million. In

1974 it was back down to less than $50 million. Doesn't that

tell you anything about the legislation that these people have

to live with? It should. If it is not a cause of concern to

you, Mr. Minister, then you don't understand the responsibility

of the job you have; and the best thing you could do for the

people of British Columbia would be to seek retirement. You

have had a long, distinguished career in the political field

and perhaps that is the best solution in terms of the good for

the greatest number of people in British Columbia.

Either you do not understand what is happening in the mining

industry or you seek to ignore it and overlook it — one or the

other. It can't be both. It would be a little surprising to me,

with the background you have, if you didn't understand that

when the mines close down, when exploration goes from $300

million down to less than $50 million in a period of two short

years, there is something drastically wrong. There certainly is

in the mining industry in British Columbia today.

A number of people have come up with suggestions, including

the British Columbia-Yukon Chamber of Mines, regarding the

solution to the problem. They have made some suggestions. You

have them before you. They have outlined the problem They have

suggested that in their minds the solution to the problem is

first of all for the government to state clearly and explicitly

their policy for mining in the Province of British

Columbia.

It is time for government to assure mining that there is a place for them and

their initiative in the province, that there is a place for them to invest not

only their dollars but their talents for the benefit of all

British Columbians. But as long as the legislation which is

presently in force stays on the books in this province, you

will never, never, never restore any confidence to the mining

industry and those people they employ in the Province of

British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is that far, far too much is left to

Ministerial discretion. You can issue a production permit or

you can withhold it. You can withdraw it after it has been

issued on your own say-so. You don't have to call together a

commission. You don't even have to justify why you are doing

it, except to yourself.

What kind of security of tenure is that? On one hand you

encourage people — or at least we would hope you would

encourage people — to come in and invest money in the Province

of British Columbia in a highly speculative type of business.

Mining is no sure cinch for anyone. On the other hand you say:

"Well, you may or you may not get a production permit.

Circumstances may require me to withdraw it." What kind of

tenure is that?

Suppose you were in the process of developing a mine and you

went into the office of a bank or a credit union and told them

that you have the ore. You know that; your tests show it is

there. You've done the survey work that was required, drilled

all the holes. You know it is a good body of ore. It's a

substantial body of ore. "I need, Mr. Chairman of the bank, Mr.

Bank Manager, $50 million, or $10 million, or $5 million, to

combine with the capital that I am able to raise through the

sale of shares in my company to develop this site." Guess what

the answer would be today. "I'm sorry; as long as the existing

legislation is this province hangs over your head and you

cannot predict what will happen with respect to Ministerial

discretion, we have no money for you."

You wonder why capital has gone on strike. It hasn't gone on

strike; it's left the Province of British Columbia.

You referred to the return to mining companies. Who are

mining companies? Are they not a collection of people who have

bought shares in all types of different mines in the Province

of British Columbia? Hopefully those people will receive a

dividend from the shares they have bought, and hopefully they

will increase in value. Is that not one of the things that we

would like to see happen in the Province of British

Columbia?

If that is not true, Mr. Minister, why has the government

purchased shares in corporations in the Province of British

Columbia with the pension funds of your own employees? Is it

not to create an equity portfolio for the employees of the

Province of British Columbia ? Is that not part of the

situation in the province? I would say that it was. At least

this is the excuse that is being used.

No, it's a sorry record, a very sorry record, Mr.

[ Page 1512 ]

Minister, and I think you have to answer not only to the

Members of this committee but to the people of the Province of

British Columbia respecting that record.

I suggest to you that the outline given to you by the

British Columbia-Yukon Chamber of Mines respecting solutions to

the problems is really not a solution at all, not the long-term

solution, because they are suggesting that somehow or somewhere

the government should be able to, on its own, come up with

policies which would protect both the people of British

Columbia, who have an equity in a non-replenishable and a

non-renewable resource, a substantial equity, and the companies

who would wish to develop that resource on their behalf.

I think, Mr. Minister, that it goes much, much further than

that. It is time, for the Province of British Columbia and the

people who live here, for your department to consider very

seriously a royal commission on the mining industry in this

province. It would seem to me that you have to take the

solutions out of the political arena and create a commission,

completely non-political, of experienced people who would be

prepared to be arbitrators in this whole matter, be prepared to

listen not only to the position of government and the position

of mining companies but also to the little people who are

affected by this particular type of legislation.

It is also time that the provincial government, not only in

this province but in other parts of Canada, and the federal

government quit bouncing the ball back and forth from one side

of the net to the other and determine for the good of all

Canadians a resource development and taxation policy that will

provide for adequate revenue to the people who own the resource — which is Canadians collectively — and still allow enough

latitude for development of those resources by the capital that

is flowing out in ever-increasing quantities from the Province

of British Columbia.

It is not good enough any more for you to stand in your

place or, when the House is not in session, blame the mining

companies for everything under the sun. Tell them that they're

not paying enough taxes, that they're not creating any

employment in the Province of British Columbia, that all the

companies are foreign-owned, that they're ravaging the land and

the sea and the air and the water. These are the types of

things that have been said repeatedly — perhaps not by

yourself, Mr. Minister, but by people within government circles

in this province. Certainly if you have any influence over

those people, you should take them aside and say: "Look what

you're doing in terms of destroying a very viable industry in

the province."

I suggest to you that it's time the mining companies did more than try to defend

themselves and the industry. On one hand you have government, who seem to be

involved in a vendetta against investment in this province; on the other hand

you have the organizations representing mining industry, including the Mining

Association of Canada, the provincial mining association, the chamber of mines,

the prospectors' association, members of the Canadian Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, and officers and officials of mining companies, trying to say what

government has said is not correct.

There's accusation and counter-accusation to the extent that

there's a lawsuit at the present time before the courts in the

Province of British Columbia brought against the provincial

government, as you well know, by the mining companies operating

in this province. While I don't intend you to reflect on it,

it's a fact of life; it's there as a result of the legislation

that we presently have on our books.

There's been little real regard for what both provincial and

federal governments are doing to industry in the province — and

we'll deal mainly with mining industry at the moment — by

trying to find a way of grabbing ever-greater amounts of tax,

one not paying any regard to the other. This is why you have

reports before you that the industry, if taxes to the ultimate

limit by both federal and provincial standards, would result in

mining companies paying out 105 per cent of their gross in

taxes.

For you to suggest that the only taxes you're concerned with

are the ones that the mining industry pays directly to the

Province of British Columbia in terms of royalties and income

tax is a ludicrous statement. Ludicrous!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They added them all together.

MR. SMITH: You did and then suggested that they shouldn't

really show those other expenses that they have. Are they not

taxes? Are they not paying them? And does the provincial

government not get a share of them, either directly or

directly? It's a sorry day, Mr. Minister, when you understand

no more about economics than to suggest that only the direct

taxation of the provincial government is the only concern you

have...

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't!

MR. SMITH: ...in the operation of a business. That was the

inference I got from your remarks. If that's not a correct

inference, then I think you have a duty to this committee to

get up on the floor of the House when your time comes and tell

us about it. Get up and tell us about it.

What I am suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, is this: we need

a royal commission into the mining industry in the Province of

British Columbia.

I'd like to close by quoting from a commission

[ Page 1513 ]

that operated in the United States in 1970, a commission

appointed to study the mining industry in the United States

which reached a conclusion in 1970 that I believe deserves

consideration in Canada.

"Our standards of living, our national defence and our

survival as a leading nation are heavily dependent upon the

availability of fuel and non-fuel minerals. Consequently, the

commission favours an over-riding national policy that invites,

encourages and supports, not merely permits" — I'll reiterate

that: "encourages and supports, not merely permits" — "the

discovery and development of domestic resources."

If you're really concerned about the industry, then get on

with the appointment of a royal commission, completely separate

and apart from the political arena. Then at least you will be

remembered as a mining Minister who did something to try to

solve a very critical problem in this province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say to the Hon.

Member that there was a time I asked for a royal commission

when I was on that side of the House. Because the government of

the day wouldn't change its policies, I asked for a royal

commission. But today, with the policies that we've got.... He

didn't define any policy that is set out today that is

wrong.

We had three companies in the office just yesterday that

proposed to spend millions in exploration this year.

MR. SMITH: How many million?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No mine closed which wasn't at the bottom

of its reserve. We have had 475 mines close in the last 100

years.

MR. SMITH: What about Churchill Copper?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Churchill mines closed because the price

of copper was down.

When you talk about closing of mines...you just get the

list. In the United States there is a whole list of them

closing up. Even Anaconda closed one in Butte and they are

closing another one in Butte. They closed Britannia because

they were out of ore. In Canada we've closed some. The

Philippines, Australia, New Guinea, Cyprus, Chile, Peru and

Zambia are all cutting back. Don't tell me that Granduc and

these places have cut back because of us; they've cut back

because of the price of copper and because the Japanese asked

for a cutback in the purchasing of ore. So don't talk about

that.

When you talk about claims, I don't think that the staking of claims is any

criterion as to the progress of the mining industry. Don't forget that in 1971

the mining industry was told by its own accountants that there would be a downtrend

in 1973. And there was.

Mineral claims staked in 1969 were 84,000, but that same

year there were 47,000 forfeited; 1970 there were 69,000 staked

and 67,000 forfeited; 1971 57,000 were staked and 65,000

forfeited; 1972 78,000 were staked and 63,000 forfeited; 1973

35,000 staked and 78,000 forfeited; 1974 35,000 were forfeited

in six months.

There was an awful lot of frivolous staking going on. They

staked it and they did work that covered maybe seven or eight

years ahead; the claim was frozen from then on. Then just

because we put a $10 rental on it, they dropped a lot of

claims this year. That's one of the reasons they are more

careful and more particular in their staking. But I don't think

the staking of claims has anything to do with the mining

situation in the Province of British Columbia.

Last year with the prospectors' assistance Act we had 200

applications of which 70 of them were successful. So don't

think that prospecting has stopped.

Cutbacks: cutbacks all the way through. Closures: none of

the closures you brought up were closed on account of any of

those bills.

At the end you were talking about a royal commission they

had in the United States. They recommended the very thing that

we are recommending in Canada. Don't forget, the Canadian

government is very interested in setting up a mining policy for

all of Canada where the people will have some say in the

exploitation and the depletion of the resource. This is one of

the reasons why we do it.

With all due regard to the chamber of mines, when they were

sitting in my office I asked them for detailed figures as to

how they would solve their problem. When I read their brief,

there was no real suggestion there that could alter anything.

It may be, as Mr. Hobbs states, that the capital is just

determined to try and break the back of the legislation. This

is what it may be. I don't think that is a proper attitude for

the mining industry to take.

When you talk about taxes, in my opening remarks I included

all the taxes, even the employees' Canada Pension Plan and

unemployment insurance. I added them all together, and

altogether the industry only paid 18 per cent to the provincial

government, 16 per cent to the federal government and 2 per

cent to the municipalities. That's including everything that

they are paying to the workers as well. So, don't tell me that

I didn't state that quite categorically.

I said that while a lot of these things are deducted as

expenses, let's take them as taxes and project it and see what

kind of percentages the companies pay. That is exactly what I

said at the start.

The production lease is one thing they are worried about.

When you stated that the Minister has got discretion, that when

they go to the bank they can't

[ Page 1514 ]

get money, they go to the bank with the production lease.

The production lease is already signed when they go to the

bank. There is no discretion or indiscretion there on the part

of the Minister that prevents them from getting the money;

they've got the production lease. Last year I said that if they

fulfilled the requirements, they would be able to get a

production lease. It wasn't me; it was Shell.

I think that what hurts them most is the fact that the

mining industry says that it should have the sole decision as

to how this non-replenishable resource is going to be depleted

in the Province of British Columbia. This is what they want.

They want us to do away with the production leases altogether.

I say that this just cannot happen.

MR. GIBSON: As we continue under the new closure rules of

the new dictatorial party, debating today the estimates of the

Minister of Mines, we have had one opposition speaker; we're

having another one now and then, presumably, a third one and

then a government speaker. I'm afraid that will be it for this

department and a Minister who, perhaps of all the Ministers of

that government, should be the most unpopular Minister in this

province. I don't mean personally; he's one of the most

charming people I know. I mean in his official duties he should

be the most unpopular. I have a lot of thought after the

performance last night as to whether it should be the Minister

of Mines or the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I came

to the conclusion that the Minister of Housing is merely

passively incompetent; the Minister of Mines is actively

incompetent. He has actively caused the problems that are

confronting British Columbians in that industry.

I notice as I left the buildings last night, looking at the

lovely lights, that there's one dome not lit up. It's the dome

above the Minister's office. I think his party is trying to

tell him something.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're sinking a shaft down there right

now.

MR. GIBSON: Is there a shaft of light coming down from the

sky there, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Chairman, the estimates we are debating in the

Department of Mines this year are double those of last year.

Let us ask ourselves: is it because the activity in the mining

industry is double what it was last year? No, that is not the

reason.

What is the shape of the industry? The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith) went through some of the statistics which have been put together by the

B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, an excellent organization, I might say, whose

grant, I hope, this year is not going to be reduced. I hope and trust that the

grant of this chamber of mines that has the intestinal fortitude to criticize

the Minister is not going to be reduced on that account — there are rumours

around.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What would you do?

MR. GIBSON: I'd give them more money, Mr. Minister, to carry

out the good work they're doing as some kind of a counterforce

as to what must be the most ill-informed administration of

mines this province has ever seen.

Claim-staking down 80 per cent: that figure has been cited.

The Minister told us that wasn't important — claim-staking not

important in the mining industry. Just like planting seeds

isn't important in the agricultural industry — the same thing.

If you don't have some claims, you're not going to have any

mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But if you plant all your seeds on stone,

you are not going to grow anything.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister knows that perfectly well, or he

should but maybe doesn't. That's possible, Mr. Chairman. It may

be possible that he understands that little about the mining

industry. The fact that development expenditures are down by 98

per cent...Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I've ever heard

another statistic in this province where something was down by

98 per cent. Development expenditures are the ones that take

the mine from the process of being a prospect to the place

where it's providing jobs. There have been no jobs created in

that mining industry.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): The jobs are

on Howe Street.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member for ice cream stands over here

says: "Jobs are on Howe Street." There are people who work on

Howe Street — that's right, Mr. Member. You can make an honest

living on Howe Street, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: An honest one?

MR. GIBSON: You can make as honest a living on Howe Street

as you can in this chamber, and maybe more productive in the

case of some Members.

Development expenditure dropped 98 per cent; people moving

out of this province. The Hon. Member for Peace River again

said that we need a royal commission. We don't need a royal

commission, Mr. Chairman, we need a new Minister.

What is the state of the industry? Here is a picture of some

drilling equipment being towed out of the Stikine River show.

It shows a tug towing a barge with the equipment aboard, and

the cut line is: "They got torpedoed by Bill 31." That's part

of the state of

[ Page 1515 ]

the industry.

Bralome gold mines put off.... If you talk to the NDP they

say that the whole problem of the mining industry in British

Columbia is copper prices. How about Bralome gold mines? That's

a gold mine.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They spent $2 million.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: They spent $2 million renovating that mine; then

they decided not to go ahead and open it because of the mineral

land tax. That's the state of the industry in this

province.

The Minister says: "Mining problems in B.C. are on the way

out." Here's a quote: "As long as none of us panic, I'm sure

that all the problems will soon disappear."

MR. PHILLIPS: He couldn't even manage a vacant apartment

building, much less a mine.

MR. GIBSON: That Minister ought to do a little bit of

panicking.

The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was yelling

about Lornex, Mr. Chairman. Here's a clipping about Lornex —

February 22. "Lornex Mining Corp. announced Friday it will lay

off 100 workers at its copper mine in the Highland Valley." How

about that, Mr. Minister of Public Works? Are you proud of

that? It's part of your work, part of the work of your

government.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister says claims don't matter. The

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) says the Province of

Ontario is doing a lousy job in housing. How about mining?

There were 22,000 claims recorded in 1974, an increase of

nearly 4,000 over the 1973 total. Claim-staking is up

everywhere in Canada. It's up in the Yukon and the North West

Territories; it's up in Washington and Montana and Idaho. They

have the same copper prices as we have in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're even going down to Reno. They have

more chance down there on the tables than they have in

mining.

MR. GIBSON: What happened to Granduc? I'm going to get into the Granduc

situation a bit more later. I wish the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) were

here, He knows the story about Granduc. He knows the 400 constituents he has

that are out of work.

Here's a headline: "Despair, Frustration Haunt Mining Men."

December 4, 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from Spokane?

MR. GIBSON: "A group of experienced, highly regarded mining

engineers and geologists which gathered recently for a

discussion of the B.C. mining outlook with a couple of

Province reporters talked of despair, frustration and

uncertainty." That's no exaggeration, Mr. Chairman. It's the

feeling in the industry. How else would you feel when all your

life you've been involved in trying to do something to wrest

the wealth of this province out of the ground for the benefit

of British Columbians, and for the benefit of yourself a little

bit too, when as a prospector you have some claims you've been

sitting on, maybe, in the Highland Valley for 20 years and

keeping in good standing, doing your work, tramping over that

ground in the summer and the winter, and a time comes along in

the Province of British Columbia and in the history of the

world when that deposit could be developed, and a government

comes out of the blue that makes it impossible, and steals the

jobs from thousands of British Columbians?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We'll get onto Valley Copper in a minute. For

example, at 50,000 tons a day, 2,000 men would be involved in

the construction,800 or 900 men involved in running it. With

100,000 unemployed in British Columbia, we could use that kind

of work, and that Valley Copper mine would be going into

production right now — and you know it, Mr. Minister — if it

weren't for your policies.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What about the

Turner budget? Are you attacking that too?

MR. GIBSON: This isn't a Turner budget, Mr.

Attorney-General. This is Minister of Mines — vintage Minister

of Mines.

There's another headline here: "B.C. Mineral Output

Declines." B.C. mineral output actually declined in the year of

our Lord 1974, Mr. Attorney-General. How do you explain that

one?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that the Turner budget?

MR. GIBSON: No, sir, that's not the Turner budget. The Hon.

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Parliament

Buildings, Victoria, is the address.

[ Page 1516 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's let the Hon. Member make

his speech without too much interruption.

MR. GIBSON: But the Minister can take some comfort. He has

succeeded in doing a part of what he wanted to do, and that is

to tremendously reduce the profits of firms in the mining

industry.

Clipping of April 17 this year: "Gibraltar Net Takes

Plunge." Net profits of $44,000 for the three months ended

March 31 compared with $10.7 million for the same period in

A quote here from the report: "The full effect of royalty

and tax legislation introduced in 1974 has resulted in a

disproportionately high tax rate, exceeding 90 per cent of

pre-tax earnings." For fair taxation, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, 90 per cent seems a trifle high.

MR. CUMMINGS: You're getting as bad as a lawyer — do you

know that?

MR. GIBSON: And here are all the other company reports:

"Brenda Earnings Die." "Placer Profits Decline." "Firm Lost $13

Million on Granduc."

The Hon. Minister was good enough to tell the House that the

profits of Cominco were away up. He's very concerned about

Cominco because he used to work there and he's a little bit of

an expert on the company. If he studied the company he'd know

that only around $6 million of those profits came out of

British Columbia mines.

MR. FRASER: All he did was count the nuts and bolts.

MR. GIBSON: What he has done is push that Canadian company

into putting a lot of their capital and development outside of

this province instead of staying and providing jobs for British

Columbians where it should be.

You know, there are a lot of NDP fallacies that lie behind

all this, Mr. Chairman. The first one is they believe that a

royalty will increase returns to the public Treasury.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They really believe that, Mr. Member. All they care about

is dollars in the public Treasury so they can spend it on their boondoggles,

they don't care about jobs for British Columbians. They got about $27 million,

according to the report of the Mining Association of B.C. which the Minister

cites with such praise. They got about $27 million in 1974 out of the combined

mineral land tax and mineral royalty.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That is more than overburdened by the jobs lost

by British Columbians, that $27 million. If there were 2,000

jobs lost, you could say that about balanced off, but there's

more than that. There's been about 5,000 jobs lost. You didn't

even break even, and you put people out of work. You are not

even making a profit on your activities of putting people out

of work.

MR. CUMMINGS: Are you going to blame us for world

depression, too?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're depressing, Roy.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain asks if we are going to blame him for world

depression. No, I'll just blame you for B.C. depression. Your

extent of incompetence hasn't reached the world level yet, and

I trust it never will.

The NDP fallacy is that their programmes help conservation

in the mineral resources of this province. I'll tell you what

it does. Their programmes insist on high-grading. When you

impose a royalty, that means that the firm high-grades. They

are forced into high-grading. They are forced into bad mining

practices. They are forced into working that deposit out more

quickly and taking out the high grade, because they can no

longer afford to take out the marginal ore on the wall of the

pit.

Not only that in terms of bad conservation practices — what

does the Minister know about what's going on in the field of

undersea mining these days? What does he know about that? Does

he know that Inco is saying that they can expect nodules to be

mined in the 1980s, undersea nodules, for nickel and

copper?

Does he know that the secretary-general of the United

Nations had a statement made on July 15, 1974, to the United

Nations conference on trade and development? Listen to this:

"It is quite clear that the new supplies that will come from

the exploitation of seabed resources will have to be taken into

account in working out a comprehensive commodity strategy."

Then later on.

"For example, the UNCTAD-secretariat-based study relating

to three of the minerals concerned, cobalt, manganese and copper, indicate that

a very modest volume of seabed output in 1980, the export earnings of the developing

countries in that year would be lower than in the absence of seabed mining by

$360 million."

[ Page

1517 ]

That applies to British Columbia also, Mr. Minister. So if

you continue to keep our industry in the area where development

is not proceeding, where expertise is leaving this province,

you are the greatest conservationist of all, because you are

going to make sure that that metal stays in the ground forever,

or at least for the next couple of generations — which, as far

as this government is concerned is forever.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It does no good to the people of British

Columbia who need jobs today, Mr. Member.

MR. CUMMINGS: We'll have the government for a couple of

generations.

MR. GIBSON: Then the next NDP fallacy is that a royalty is

just a cost of supply; you have to pay for it just like any

other supply, just like the analogy the Minister used once, I

think, about having popcorn for your popcorn stand. Maybe he

understands popcorn, but he sure doesn't understand mining. The

right analogy to use is the farmer that puts the seed in the

field to raise the corn. You don't charge him a royalty on that

work he did to bring that corn to fruition. You charge him a

tax on his profits.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You charge him a tax on his profits.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's one of the Members, Mr. Chairman, that's

going down the tube because of this legislation, so well he

should be concerned about it.

Minerals, Mr. Chairman, were created by God and discovered

by man. If you do not give the discoverer some credit and some

right to a return on the effort of that discovery, then you

will have no more discoveries. It is not going to do you any

good, as Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, to know

that statistically there is a lot of copper in B.C., if you

don't know within the nearest 100 miles where it is. You have

to have that.

The NDP has another fallacy that what's going on now

couldn't be this cherubic Minister. It has to be the price of

copper. That's what it is, Mr. Chairman, according to the NDP:

just the price of copper.

That's completely wrong. The price of copper doesn't discourage exploration.

That's the problem: the lack of exploration. Exploration is going on all around

this country, except British Columbia. And in the best year of copper prices

in history, the first half of 1974 when you were putting your iniquitous legislation

through this House, exploration was at a low in British Columbia and at a high

everywhere else. It's not the price, Mr. Minister; it's you.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You!

MR. GIBSON: You said it was the price of copper, If it was

the price of copper, then what is wrong with the mining in this

province of gold, silver and zinc? They are at high prices. It

is not the price? it's the Minister. It's the government.

Who does all of this hurt, Mr. Chairman? It doesn't hurt the

government and the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

They've got their jobs. They've got 28 per cent more staff.

They've got double their budget. They've got a salary

contingency of 1.3 million; they're in good shape. It doesn't

hurt the big companies as much as the little companies. The big

companies can transfer their exploration staff somewhere else.

They are the ones who employ the men, Mr. Minister, and that's

what I am concerned about.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm saying it doesn't hurt the companies; it hurts the employees.

Don't you understand that? The companies just move out

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Then why don't the companies go

to work?

MR. GIBSON: What happens with their men?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It hurts the prospectors with claims. It hurts

the small companies with claims. It hurts the small

shareholders. It hurts the working miners. It hurts the mining

towns. It hurts the exploration people. It hurts the geologists

and technicians and motel operators and rental operators, and

all these people who lend services to the industry.

HON. MR. LEA: Then speak to the mining companies.

MR. GIBSON: It even hurts the financial industries on Howe

Street that the Hon. Second Member for Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) so despises.

MR. CUMMINGS: The sky is falling in on you.

MR. GIBSON: Just a couple of case examples for you, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, just in case the overall

picture hasn't sunk in. Look at the Afton copper property just

outside of Kamloops. Where's the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr.

G.H. Anderson)? I hope he takes

part in this debate.

[ Page 1518 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's hiding.

MR. GIBSON: You know, the operators of that property, or the

would-be operators, desperately want to develop it. You just

have to read their statements. They don't dare to develop it

because of this government. That would produce 800 jobs in

construction right now in the town of Kamloops. That would

produce 300 continual operating jobs, but there's no guarantee

that a company investing in British Columbia can get their

money out. Members of that government understand it. The Hon.

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

Williams), when he builds a condominium, he understands that he

can get his money out before he has to pay any taxes on it. No

sirree, there's not that privilege for anyone bold enough, or

stupid enough, to create jobs in the mining industry in British

Columbia.

How about Bralorne? It's a mine that should be reopened...

AN HON. MEMBER: How old is it?

MR. GIBSON: ...a mine into which a couple of million

dollars has been put to bring it back to a stage where it can

be reopened, and now they can't reopen it because of the

Mineral Land Tax Act and what it would do to the costs of that

mine. You know it, Mr. Minister. Don't shake your head.

Look at Valley Copper. A 50,000-ton-a-day operation, it

should be. A couple of thousand men are needed to build it,800

to operate it — needed jobs in the Highland Valley, jobs that

aren't going to come about. I have a quotation here from the

president of that company from a day or two ago. The president

of that company, Mr. Rothman, April 17 clipping. He said: "No

serious planning can be done for the deposit until the taxation

and royalty situation changes." That's what he said, Mr.

Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And then you say the same thing and the

whole thing is turned off.

MR. GIBSON: Look at Granduc....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're part of the problem.

MR. GIBSON: You're the problem, Mr. Attorney-General, you and your government.

Look at Granduc and the town of Stewart. I have sympathy for

that Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) whose throat has been

cut by you and your policies, Mr. Minister. There's political

blood on the floor up in the town of Stewart, I'll tell

you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. GIBSON: The mayor of Stewart, who was, I'm told, a

former good New Democrat.

HON. MR. LEA: The Liberals don't understand.

MR. GIBSON:

" 'The people,' says McLeod, 'are losing confidence not in

themselves, but in the provincial government. If it wasn't for

the mineral royalties legislation we could have a boom.'

Government reaction to the efforts of McLeod by telephone and

letter to convince Premier Barrett and his Minister of Mines of

Stewart's desperate need have been unpromising. 'Stubborn and

entirely negative' are the terms McLeod uses. 'The Barrett

government has taken the phone off the hook as far as Stewart

is concerned,' says Gary Hubbard, the town's first and only

pharmacist."

What's the situation with Granduc Mines? Well, the first

part of the situation is that they're running at a loss — a

considerable loss — so they had to lay off about 400 men. Then

they lost about half their reserves below the 2,600 foot

haulage level because the cost structure has risen to the point

that they aren't economic anymore. It's a nice example of the

Mineral Land Tax Act turning ore into waste rock.

Now this company has $145 million in that property, more or

less. They have provided jobs in a remote part of B.C. for

several years. Mr. Minister, under your legislation they will

never get that money out — never. There is no theoretical

chance they'll get that money out because their break-even

point is above the point where your super royalty cuts in.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's no super-royalty on that now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says there's no

super-royalty. You mean to tell me, Mr. Minister, that when you

get over — what is it, about 76 or 77 cents now — you mean you

don't have to give 50 per cent of the net to the government? Of

course you do.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's not even 76 cents; I think it's

higher than that now.

MR. GIBSON: No sir, it's not, Mr. Minister. It's

64-point-something, cents times 1.2 where your super-royalty

cuts in, unless it's a new mine, in which case it's 135 per

cent. You ought to know your own legislation and regulations

for goodness' sake.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Less smelter returns — you've got to

subtract.

[ Page 1519 ]

MR. GIBSON: Oh sure, that's after the computation is done.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, it's a higher price than 76 cents.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about net smelter returns, for

goodness' sake, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why didn't you say so then?

MR. GIBSON: I did say so.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, you didn't say that.

MR. GIBSON: I just said it now. So for every dollar they

earn over that price level, they pay 99.5 cents in taxes. You

know that, Mr. Minister. You know that once the super-royalty

cuts in, that's what happens — for every dollar, 99.5 cents in

taxes. So there's no theoretical possibility. That's the fair

deal you're giving to people who would create jobs in the

Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not correct.

MR. GIBSON: That hurts all British Columbians.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You're hurting B.C. by that false

information.

MR. GIBSON: You stand up any day and give your own talk, Mr.

Minister of Public Works....

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: I just have a few more minutes, so I have to

pass on to some other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the empty building.

MR. GIBSON: I want to say very briefly, because I know the

Minister will want to correct this, that he has misled this

House on two occasions about royalties. He has misled this

House on the so-called "royalty" paid by Granduc Mines, which

in fact is a 22.5 per cent royalty on profits, not on gross

value as he said. He misled this House when he implied that in

the Yukon and the North West Territories the royalty payable

was on gross value, when again it is not. It is substantially

on net profits. I would like the Minister to acknowledge that

when he stands up.

I have a copy of the Canada mining regulations here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

whether he is suggesting that the Hon. Member was deliberately

misleading the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister was not

deliberately misleading the House, because he doesn't know

enough about mining to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Acknowledge that you made a mistake.

MR. GIBSON: He inadvertently misled the House, and I would

like him to clear that up.

Does the Minister appreciate that the $10 claim he put in on

rental is causing people in this province to lose their

claim?

MR. CUMMINGS: How many mines in the Yukon are making a

profit?

MR. GIBSON: Claims by free miners holding free miners'

certificates have been cancelled. Some were cancelled last

fall. One of the gentlemen concerned received a form letter

from the Minister's department in February saying: "Don't

forget to pay this fee or your claim will be cancelled." It had

been cancelled six months before. This man had gradually built

up these claims over a number of years and was going to quit

his present job and go up to work them, and now he has lost

them.

MR. CUMMINGS: How many mines in the Yukon are making a

profit? Tell us.

MR. GIBSON: Does the Minister know the difficulties that the

modified grid system is causing some of the older prospectors

in this province? What does he plan to do about it?

The Minister will stay Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources for the next year and it will be a disaster.

Exploration will stay down because basically he won't change

the rules, and he calls the chamber of mines and the BCMA a

bunch of nit-pickers when they come into his office. I have the

clipping right here. "Nit-picking, says Nimsick."

High-grading will continue because royalties force it.

Private development will stay at a standstill. The government

will attempt to more closely regulate mining practices. The

government will announce joint ventures with private companies.

They will go into the exploration business themselves. We see

padding in this set of estimates which is enough to fund a

small exploration programme. That's their game for sure, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to tell them that government will be just as wasteful

in the exploration field and more wasteful than they are in the

kinds of fields about which they are at least supposed to know

something. They will

[ Page 1520 ]

all say that it is because private enterprise has failed,

when in fact they have hit private enterprise over the head so

hard that it has no chance in mining in this province any more

for the good of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A 5 per cent royalty, that's all.

MR. GIBSON: And a super-royalty, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't apply anywhere now.

MR. GIBSON: What do you mean, it's not applying? Granduc is

paying super-royalties on its gold values and it is losing

money. That shows how much you know about mines.

There is some good news, Mr. Chairman — not for you, but for

the province. These policies are going to defeat the FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1975 Hon.

Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr.

Dent), the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), the Hon. Member

for Fort George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), the Hon. Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Hon. Member for

Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), the Hon. Member for

Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley)....

MR. FRASER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I am sorry to have to include your riding in

there, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are we!

MR. GIBSON: That's what's happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes the majority — right on mining

alone.

MR. GIBSON: But for that good news the price is too high.

The price being asked is the destruction of the vitality of an

industry in British Columbia which is our No. 2 industry — an

industry which provides regional development and jobs for

people all over this province, which has been building up over

generations, particularly the last generation, the finest group

of miners anywhere in the world; and it is now being

dismantled. That Minister should resign right now, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I would just like to answer the questions

as they come along, if I can.

When you were speaking of comparing Ontario with British Columbia, you said

that they had staked 22,000. Last year we staked 16,000 and, population-wise,

we are a far smaller province in mining.

But in regard to Cominco, you stated that only a certain

percentage of the profits are produced in British Columbia. But

it was the incentive, the initiative of the products from

British Columbia that built Cominco all over the world. They

used the profits from their mines here in order to build all

over the world. That is all I've got to say about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: High-grading ore?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What do you mean? I'm just telling a fact.

It was the Sullivan Mine. They are a company in this province

and that's the basis of all their activities.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The copper cutback in different places?

Sure, the Japanese have made them cut back in the mines.

But you're talking about high-grading. High-grading is not

going on right now. When there's a pocket of minerals, they're

an average all the way through.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't tell me that there hasn't been

high-grading in years gone by and that it is just since the

royalties came in.

The canceling of claims. It was in the Act that they had to

pay their rental if they cancelled the claim.

The grid system was one question that was taken up with the

chamber of mines and the mining companies throughout this

province and the prospectors. It was discussed for a long time

before the modified grid system was brought into use.

I think that's about all the questions. You haven't answered

me anything in regard to the percentage of the profits that are

paid by the companies in this province. I think that you're

just beating the wind or putting up straw men and knocking them

down when you're talking about the mining industry. It's mostly

hearsay evidence that you're trying to give. You haven't got

the facts.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words

about the mining industry, or what's left of it, in the

Province of British Columbia. We talk a lot about copper mining

but I'd like to hear the Minister say what he thinks about the

gold-mining industry. With the price at an all-time high, I

wonder

[ Page 1521 ]

why we haven't got gold mining going. It's my information,

Mr. Minister, that they aren't going into gold production

because of the Mineral Royalties Act, Bill 3 1.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I beg your pardon.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Oh, up in Wells-Barkerville, where gold was

originally discovered in this province in 1858, there's still

lots of it there. They won't go into production — I'm not going

to name companies; you know who they are — because of the

Mineral Royalties Act. We have people up there unemployed.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, no. You're way out, you're way out. Not

Wingdam. No, not Wingdam — Wells. They won't go ahead to put

these mines in production at the highest price gold has ever

been. Of course, we have the copper mines that are cutting

back. The ones that are producing are cutting back and we have

ore bodies that are not being developed, as the prior speaker

mentioned. Valley Copper is one good example but there are a

lot more than that.

In debate a week or so ago, the Minister of Mines handed me

a pamphlet. It tells all the wonderful things in here that he's

done. But, Mr. Minister, you spoiled this by putting your great

big mazonk right near the front. That would turn anybody off;

they wouldn't read any further.

There are a lot of interesting things in here, again, as far

as the Cariboo is concerned. I don't even like to see the

Cariboo mentioned in your literature that goes out from your

office but here it is right in here. It says: "The first big

wave of immigration into the province came in response to the

cry of gold heard throughout the Cariboo in the late 1850s,

" which I just referred to. Take that out of your next

edition; I don't want Cariboo affiliated with your

literature.

The other thing — I don't think it's been mentioned here —

is this mineral tax that this government has put on. We have

this government putting a mineral tax on lands of mineral

claims and we have another government department trying to

encourage....

I'd just like to read from a letter that was sent to a

gentleman by the name of Mr. Hart Horn from a well-established

cattle rancher in the Cariboo to show the conflict that your

department causes with other departments of government. I'll

just read from excerpts, Mr. Chairman. I can't read it all;

it's a long letter. It starts off by saying:

"On reading this letter, please bear in mind that I am fully

aware" — as I say, it was written to Hart Horn — "that you are not responsible

for the legislation creating a tax on mineral rights on agricultural land. I

am writing to you only because your name appeared on the bottom of my notification

of this tax. I am sincerely hoping that you will see to it that my letter reaches

the desk of those who are responsible.

"It appears to me the legislation in question totally

ignores the essential difference between mineral rights granted

on producing agricultural land and mineral rights held for

mining or speculative purposes on other types of land. With the

extensive land classification programmes in B.C., which must be

nearing completion by now, there should be little difficulty in

differentiating between the two. It is part of our history that

mineral rights were originally granted on agricultural land as

an incentive to early settlers when there was a tremendous need

to encourage people to actually take Lip land, start farming

and start producing food for the many thousands of people,

mainly miners and prospectors, in the interior of B.C.

"Having mineral rights on his land gave the early farming

rancher a very necessary protection against indiscriminate

prospecting, which could easily put his land right out of

production. There were very few activities which were less

compatible with any form of agriculture than prospecting.

"It is sad to say, and without going into any details which

even someone with no appreciation for agriculture can imagine,

the same is true today, which some ranchers have already found

out.

"It is because of the very aspect of protection which

mineral rights offer that agricultural land, which included

time, was considered more valuable by an bona fide farmer or

rancher. The increased value has been reflected in every sale

and purchase of land. It is this same aspect of protection

which makes farmers and ranchers must reluctant to give them

away on land for which they pay a premium price because of it.

It is obvious to think that somewhere some B.C. farmer or

rancher is growing a crop or raising beef on a hidden gold mine

of untold wealth."

He goes on to say:

"I feel the situation is very similar to legislation which

would impose a tax on the front door of all houses. The only

alternative to paying this tax would be to remove the front

door and leave the house wide open for all who wish to enter.

The majority who enter might

[ Page 1522 ]

well do no damage whatever, but there would always be that fringe

minority who would ignore both law and convention and would successfully make

life in that house unlivable. "I cannot help but find the Mineral Land Tax Act,

as it applies to the agricultural land of farmers and ranchers, to be very extraordinary

legislation to come from a government which has tried to present itself as the

friend and protector of the farmer, and has been most anxious to preserve what

little agricultural land this province has. This legislation would seem to serve

the very opposite purpose."

Do you see the conflict that you caused by your crazy laws,

even with your colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), who has tried to do something for the farmer?

Whatever he's done, your department has torn down with this

ridiculous legislation.

I just want to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, about the

copper smelter, and that is referred to in this little item

here, the Minister's brochure. But I want to repeat again, Mr.

Chairman, that there will never be a copper smelter built in

this province while the NDP are the government of British

Columbia unless the government builds it — and the last thing

the people of British Columbia want them to do is for the

government to build a smelter. So I don't think we need to have

any doubts about where a smelter will be. There won't be one

here with the legislation of this government hammering the

industry over the head. They certainly aren't going to invest

another nickel in mining ore, and certainly not in the building

of a copper smelter, until the atmosphere is changed completely

in this province.

The task force is still in being, I guess, but I would be

anxious to see what they recommend, and obviously they will

recommend that the government build the smelter. As far as the

government building a smelter is concerned, the people of

British Columbia feel this government has already gone into far

too many activities and they see that they can't manage what

they are already in. To have them go into anything like a

copper smelter is absolutely, ridiculous.

There is a lot of mining — and I refer to gold mining — that

could be taking place in this province, Mr. Chairman, if it

weren't for the legislation that you have on the books. There

is no doubt in the minds of a lot of people in British Columbia

that they will not go ahead with any further activity in this

until this legislation is wiped from the statutes of this

province.

I believe the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned something

about exploration. Well, there are 5,000 people out of work because of no exploration

in this province, at the last count, and there are going to be a lot more. This

government should hang their head in shame for that reason. Why can't they?

We know why they are not exploring. You have another reason. They are exploring

everywhere else in the western world. The activity is all up, except in British

Columbia, and you people can certainly take the credit for bringing that to

a dead halt.

I would like to hear from the Minister, just in closing —

maybe he said it before, but when is the task force on the

copper smelter going to report, in the opinion of the Minister?

I would like to hear that from him.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Two points. One was the Mineral Land Tax

Act. That would affect the Cariboo. There are a few farms that

do have mineral rights and it is a privilege that many people

today buying land and many people for years now have never had.

It dates away back.

In order to keep that privilege, all they've got to pay is

25 cents an acre. I mean, they've got to pay a lot more than

that for surface rights, but for mineral rights.... And if

they don't want to hold it, we'll evaluate it for them as to

whether they've got any evaluation of minerals. Then they can

drop it and let it revert back to the Crown, and they don't

have to pay the 25 cents.

But if we were to exempt those people, we'd have to exempt

somebody else, and the first thing you know you'd have to

exempt the CPR and the big railroad companies as well. I think

that that is that answered.

The other question was a copper task force. When I appointed

the copper task force, I gave them a job to do. I'm waiting now

from day to day and I hope that in the not-too-distant future

they will bring their report to me. But I haven't involved

myself in the copper task force; that's the job I gave them to

do and that's the job I intend them to do. But when it comes

out, we'll know. As I say, I feel that it's not going to be too

long.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources. We've heard quite a great deal

this morning about the rather grim situation the mining

industry is in in British Columbia. I'd like to divert the

Minister's attention for a few moments, if I may, to petroleum

resources. Mr. Chairman, in the long term we're in an even

grimmer position with respect to our petroleum resources, and

I'd like to ask the Minister a question or two about what he

proposes to do about our future in this industry.

I might preface my questions, Mr. Chairman, with a remark or

two about the current status of our petroleum exploration in

northern British Columbia.

I think there's someone in the corridor out for the

Minister's scalp, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) Well, if

[ Page 1523 ]

the guests in the corridors don't get the Minister, I'm sure

that the public will scalp him at the next election.

Mr. Chairman, I was privileged to attend the conference of

First Ministers in Ottawa where the situation regarding the

petroleum resources of Canada was discussed. British Columbia,

in common with the other producing provinces, has lost a year

of exploration as a result of policies implemented by the

federal and provincial governments, in which each government

selected industry as the whipping boy. We've done the northern

part of our province great harm as a result of this, because

the exploration companies, which are mostly Canadian, have

moved to the United States. They've just picked up their rigs

and left.

It's true that the clients for these Canadian exploration

companies are the multinationals. But they've gone to serve the

multinationals in other countries, because our own Canadian

government has driven these Canadian companies to foreign

territory. The analogy, of course, Mr. Chairman, is with our

mining industry where there was recently a public offering in

British Columbia for one of our Canadian mining corporations,

and the public of British Columbia were invited to raise money

to develop a copper property in Mexico — to provide jobs for

Mexicans and to sell copper concentrate to our customer,

Japan.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair]

This is the policy of the provincial government: to make it

more attractive for Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian

investors to provide jobs in foreign countries like South

Africa, Mexico, the United States, Brazil, Australia, New

Zealand to develop minerals in those countries to sell to our

traditional customers.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are you off petroleum now and on

minerals?

MR. McGEER: There's an analogy which I'm trying to point

out, Mr. Chairman. It's already been canvassed that this has

taken place in the mining industry. We can thank you for that,

Mr. Minister. We can thank your staff for destroying Canadian

jobs and encouraging Canadian investors to seek their future

elsewhere. It's also happened in the petroleum industry, where

most of the North American exploration companies are

Canadian-owned, have done the majority of their work in the

past in Canada and are now in the process of dismantling this

exploration in favour of the United States.

This was made quite clear at the energy conference, but not by our Premier.

Our Premier only indulged in an attack on the multinationals and completely

neglected the role he and his Ministers had played in driving vital industry

out of our province.

What was pointed out by every responsible province, not

including British Columbia, was that our energy supplies are

limited in the petroleum and natural gas field. We are going to

run out soon, and there is no prospect at all of Canada

discovering replacement oil and replacement natural gas at

anywhere near thy current cost of discovery and production.

We may be selling $2 per mcf natural gas to the United

States before too long. We're currently selling $1 per mcf

natural gas. We will never ever be able to get that gas that

cheaply in the future.

I'm proud of one thing, and that is the Premier in his brief

did mention a policy of the provincial Liberal Party to seek as

soon as possible the termination of these natural gas contracts

because, however profitable it may seem to be financially and

politically to derive revenue from sales of natural gas to the

United States, it will seem, a few years from now, as though we

had given it away.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Chairman, right away the Minister

of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) simply does not understand

that whatever price you get today when these supplies run out

is going to seem like a fire sale giveaway. That's why that

Minister must be defeated, must be taken out of responsible

office, because he does not understand, any more than the

Minister of Mines understands, or any more than the Premier

understands.

The consuming provinces of Canada, which include among them

the less prosperous ones, like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia,

are willing to concede the need for price increases for oil and

natural gas in Canada. They had the transfer of payments taking

place from the less wealthy provinces to the more endowed, but

only with the understanding that the revenues be ploughed back

into the development of new sources of energy in these same

fields, or alternative sources of energy.

The Premier was very wise not once to mention when he was in

Ottawa that he wished to use the previous revenue to supply the

cities and municipalities of this province for services which

should be supplied through other sources of revenue. Not once

did he mention that the policies of his government have driven

Canadian exploration companies out of our province and out of

our country. Not once did he mention the decrease in

exploration for new energy resources in our country at a time

when they were never more desperately needed.

The Premier claimed a victory in Ottawa but I tell

[ Page 1524 ]

you it was a Pyrrhic victory, if he thinks it's going to

serve the long-term needs of this province when they're turning

their backs on our prime responsibility, which is to discover

new sources of energy and alternative sources of energy.

It was even a Pyrrhic victory politically, because if we

think we can sell off a depleting resource to the Americans,

cream off the profit and not plough that profit back into

future exploration in this province, we're wrong, and we're

going to be trumped by the federal government.

The federal government, Mr. Chairman — and I would support

them in this — will not stand for energy profits on the sale of

a depleting resource being used for purposes that have no

long-term benefit in the energy field for this province or for

the Canadian people. We are flying in the face of what must be

the No. 1 national priority, which is making Canada as a nation

self-sufficient in energy resources and insulated from the

international cartel that now controls energy prices.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier attacked the multinationals in a

brief that was filled with half-truths. It was not the

multinationals that turned the world into turmoil by

unilaterally increasing prices; it was governments. If the

world is turned into economic chaos because of the disruptions

that are caused, don't blame the multinational companies; blame

governments, Mr. Chairman. Governments are responsible for

inflation. Governments are responsible for requiring these

transfer payments to the oil-producing countries that cannot be

met without producing unemployment and the kind of adjustments

that are impossible to make in the short term.

If we are to avoid the consequences of this, it must be

governments and government action — not the action of private

corporations — to bring readjustment. But every move that has

been made by government — including the government here in B.C. — is working in the reverse direction. It was the socialist

Premier of Saskatchewan (Hon. Mr. Blakeney) who pointed out to

the other Premiers and to the people of Canada that the reason

there was no exploration going on was not because of lack of

funds in the hands of those who had traditionally undertaken

this exploration; it was because of governments, Mr. Chairman —

governments that would not spell out for the people who

actually do the work what the long-term ground rules were going

to be.

It's uncertainty, occasioned by irresponsibility of those

who are in power. I have no hesitation in charging total

irresponsibility on the part of that Minister of Mines and on

the part of the Premier of the Province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Don't forget the Attorney-General.

MR. McGEER: I won't forget the Attorney-General. How could one, Mr.

Chairman. And I don't absolve the federal government either, though I must say

that at that federal-provincial conference, when the arguments were powerfully

being made by the provinces who are suffering the brunt of irresponsibility

from other governments, the federal officials began to take notice. They said:

"Why should there be a price increase?" — the governments of Ontario and Nova

Scotia. You said you needed that price increase to explore for oil and new natural

gas. The producing provinces have creamed $1.5 billion in one year, the federal

government $600 million. What has that brought us? It's brought us less exploration

than before.

So these tremendous transfer payments that are being made to

governments, including our own here in B.C. are not producing

more for the future, but producing less. Here we have revenues

from petroleum resources in B.C. estimated in our books to go

up from $78 million to $230 million. What are the people of

British Columbia getting for their future — more, Mr. Chairman?

No, they're getting less. It has cost jobs in the northern part

of B.C. It has cost Canadian companies the right to work and

earn a living in their own country. It has cost our children

resources that they are desperately going to need, and the

Premier is boasting about it, and the Minister of Mines is

boasting about it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name one Canadian company.

MR. McGEER: I can name you a dozen. I'll give you a list,

Mr. Attorney-General. I'm not going to do it now, because our

time — because of the unilateral rules that your group has

presented — is so limited.

I could tell you if there were unlimited debate, as there

used to be under the government that you said was so bad,

Social Credit. We'd have time to do this kind of thing, we'd

have time to hold all of you to account for irresponsible

spending that has caused an increase in our budget of nearly 50

per cent in a single year. But when it comes to jobs, when it

comes to work, when it comes to productivity, when it comes to

building our future, we've got less than we ever had

before.

I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do to save

petroleum exploration, what he proposes to do to build a future

supply, whether or not he's willing to accept as a principle,

even for himself if not for the rest of the Treasury benches,

that what we said a year go should be done with all the extra

revenue that he derives from natural gas sales to the United

States. That's to plough it back in where it's needed,

exploring the north. Spend all of it up there.

[ Page 1525 ]

the natural gas supplies for the future.

Get into petrochemical industries to make better use of what

we have now. Propane as heat, Mr. Chairman, is worth very

little. Converted into tetrafluoroethylene, which makes Teflon,

it's worth $15 a pound.

I used to work at one time in the chemical industry, and all

of the big plants that were being built were built close to

natural gas supplies. Hexamethylene-diamine plants for nylon,

methionine plants for feed of domestic animals, polyethylene

plants for plastics — these things are all built close to

natural gas supplies because you can increase the value of

natural gas a hundred and a thousand fold by doing these things

with it. Du Pont, the company I worked for, started out in

Bell, West Virginia, making these things from coal, but it's

uneconomic. You can't compete with people who can make these

same things from natural gas.

So what are we doing with ours? We're selling it across the

border to light stoves, and we're taking the money and using it

to satisfy promises to mayors of British Columbia. It's shallow

and it's short-sighted, but I must say it's consistent with the

things that that party used to say in opposition. You only had

to listen carefully to realize that in taking out vengeance on

the natural resource industries of this province they would

destroy our future. The public didn't listen. I'm not sure, Mr.

Chairman, the media even listened — the ones that were there

then — because they certainly didn't get that message across to

the public. The public has had to learn this not from promises

that were made, but from hard experience. The policies have to

change, Mr. Chairman. Not only must they change — and I hope

people listen to this — but devices must be found politically so

that they never again recur.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Fascism, eh?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the people who are destroying our

existing industries and compromising our future industries are

not governing on the behalf of the majority of the people of

British Columbia. You're here governing for less than 40 per

cent of the population. You're not seeing your responsibility

to all the people of this province, or to future

generations.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose my questions have been lengthy, but

I think the Minister deserves to give this House an explanation

of how he intends to bring drilling rigs back to British

Columbia, how much money he intends to spend in the north on

seeing that our future supplies are satisfied, and what he

intends to do as a Minister to try and end this suicidal

nonsense of selling off a limited supply of something that will

be preciously valuable in the future because it cannot be

replaced at anywhere near the same cost.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll answer a few of those questions

because the time is getting shorter. You can't have it both

ways, Mr. Member. On the one hand you say that we don't get

enough for our natural gas, we shouldn't ship it out, that it's

a non-replenishable resource.

On the other hand you are criticizing the Minister for

trying to manage all the non-replenishable resources on behalf

of the people. You can't have it both ways.

You didn't say anything when we were getting 25 cents per

thousand cubic feet for gas.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Or 17 cents.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Or 17 cents. You said nothing. If it was

either the Liberals or the Social Credit over here, we still

would be selling our natural gas for 17 cents; but we are

getting more. You say we are not getting enough and we should

stop selling it altogether.

MR. McGEER: You've driven the exploration companies out of

the north.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Listen, we never drove them out of the

north. They are making more money than they ever did in

exploration work and hunting for oil and gas. This is what is

driving them out: capital is on strike. One of your top men

says that he says here: "Capital is not reporting for work in

the traditional way. It is on strike. There may be no placards,

pickets or raucous headlines, but it is plain that capital is

not satisfied with its wages."

Capital is on strike. Do you mean to tell me that we should

give away our resources so that capital can go back to work? I

don't believe you agree with that.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: We should be exploring.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We shouldn't give away our resources.

Down at the end of the line the multinational companies want

the whole thing. If they can get the whole thing, they will

give the intermediate guys the right to work and to explore for

natural gas and oil. This is exactly what is happening today.

The big companies are on strike and they are forcing these rigs

and that not to work; they won't give them the jobs. Maybe

eventually we'll just have to do the work ourselves if they

want to continue to be on strike. That's what might happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I am not

[ Page 1526 ]

filibustering; I will be very brief. But I think we have to

get certain basic facts on royalties straight.

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Loudmouth, you held us up last night.

You might just sit back and be quiet now.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of empty office space — that's

what you are.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now on royalties, for years...

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...the government, you will remember....

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to the standing order

which requires that Members not interrupt the person who has

the floor. I would ask him to extend that courtesy to another

Hon. Member.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: For years this government and other

governments throughout Canada have been collecting royalties on

renewable resources. We have collected royalties from the

ranchers up in the Cariboo and in the Nicola Valley for every

blade of grass that their cows eat on the range. We collect the

royalty because we sell that grass. That's what a royalty is; a

royalty is selling a commodity. That crew over there want us to

continue to be part of the giveaway gang. But we are not part

of the giveaway gang. We are good business people and we are

selling our resources for the highest price and the best

price.

On grass we charge so much per head per month, related to the price of beef.

When the price of beef goes up there is an escalation clause that the price

of grass goes up too. If the price of beef falls off, the price of grass comes

down. This is a

schedule worked out by the cattlemen's association in conjunction

with the range department of this province.

The same thing applies with the water. If a rancher is going

to grow good alfalfa, good hay...he has a water-rights lease.

He buys the water. This government sells the water