1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 2535 ]

CONTENTS

April 25, 1974

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources estimates.

On vote 174.

Mr. Smith — 2535

Mr. Wallace — 2541

Mr. Fraser — 2549

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2552

Mr. Chabot — 2554

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2556

Mr. Chabot — 2556

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2556

Mr. Gibson — 2556

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2558

Mr. Smith — 2558

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2560

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 174: Minister's office, $68,724.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You know, Mr. Chairman,

it's amazing to see the smiles on the faces of the few Members

of cabinet who are here this evening, and the lesser Members of

the backbench that are not even represented in the House this

evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What vote are we on here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SMITH: "Order," the man says. It's obvious that

some of the Members are not prepared to discuss the estimates

of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. So I move

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

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will not accept the

motion.

MR. SMITH: This time you're wrong, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue with his

remarks? The Chair has made a ruling that it would not accept

the motion, considering that no business has taken place as

yet. Therefore, the motion is out of order.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You're outvoted, in

any event.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Not by much. Where are

all your Members?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I will accept your ruling.

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

MR. SMITH: But I suggest to you this, Mr. Chairman: when we

discuss the estimates of the second most important portfolio as

far as revenue to the Crown is concerned in the Province of

British Columbia, and the impact that it has on the people in

the Province of British Columbia, it's an absolute disgrace

that we have not the cabinet here in attendance and very little

of the backbench — very little of the backbench of the

government.

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

himself to the estimates?

MR. SMITH: I will address myself to the estimates, Mr.

Chairman; you had better believe I will.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): When?

MR. SMITH: Right now, Mr….

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you at dinner tonight?

MR. SMITH: You know, it's amazing to hear the comments of

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and the members of the

cabinet who don't even have the courtesy to tell us what the

orders of the day will be or what will be called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! Would the Hon.

Member address himself to vote 174, please?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will address myself to the votes of the

Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Come on now, Ed; be

fair.

MR. SMITH: You know that I've been more than fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: But somewhere along the line it has to be said

that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's going to say it?

MR. SMITH: …whatever we try to say on the floor of this

House is held up to ridicule by the Ministers. We've heard

statements from the Hon. Minister whose estimates are under

debate this

[ Page 2536 ]

afternoon and this evening that should be held up to

ridicule by everybody in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oooooohhhhh!

MR. SMITH: But what has happened…I'll suggest to the

Minister that not a word will be said about the statements that

he made in the press tomorrow. Not a word, not a word. And

that's okay, because we're accustomed to that kind of treatment

in this House by both the press and the Chairman and the people

who say they're the government of the Province of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Left-wing press.

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

address himself to the administrative responsibilities of the

Minister under vote 174?

MR. SMITH: I was about to get to that point, Mr.

Chairman.

Under the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources I'd like to suggest to the

Minister that there's a difference of opinion — and we

have a Minister applauding that — between ourselves and

the Members of government. I feel that the Minister….

HON. MR. LEA: You're the reason we won't put TV in the

House.

MR. SMITH: I feel that the Minister is handicapped in trying

to accomplish the goals of resource development in the Province

of British Columbia — because, after all, you're charged

with the development of mining and petroleum resources. You're

handicapped by the advice that you have received from the

people who are not professional in that field. And I'm not

talking about the long-time civil servants; I'm talking

about the political hacks that have been appointed.

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

By my department?

MR. SMITH: By yourself, yes, that's right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, my God!

MR. SMITH: You're handicapped by the other cabinet Ministers

who have a different plan regarding the Province of British

Columbia than you should have as Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

There are many ways to accomplish the desired goal of everybody in

the Province of British Columbia. That is to return to the people of

the province an equitable amount of dollars in the form of taxation for

their resources that we have here. You said yourself that they're

non-renewable resources. So let's talk about those non-renewable

resources for a little while.

Let's talk about the fact that in the mining industry many,

many new mines might have come into operation and would have

come into operation if…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If!

MR. SMITH: …it hadn't been…. I'll tell you; I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Might or would?

MR. SMITH: They would have come into operation if it had not

been for the policies of the NDP. They realize that your policy

is to remove the individual and the private mining firms from

the Province of British Columbia. I can't put it any plainer

than that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: You could if you tried.

MR. SMITH: The policy of the NDP is to remove these people

from the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. I

suggest to you that that's a sorry day, because that is not the

way to go if you expect the mining industry to play the

important part that it has in the economy of this province for

many, many years.

The government is entitled and the people of the Province of

British Columbia are entitled, through taxation, to share on an

equitable basis through the resources that we have in this

province. I don't disagree with that and nobody in the

opposition here disagrees with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes you do. Oh, yes, they do.

MR. SMITH: But there's a difference, Mr. Chairman, between

equitable taxation and punitive taxation, which results in the

removal of not only the industry but the people that work in

that industry in the Province of British Columbia.

If you're concerned about the fact that mining and minerals

are non-renewable resources and the resources that we

have eventually will be depleted…. And I agree that that

will happen, because mines will be mined to the extent that

they can be mined. And minerals will be depleted to the extent

that they can be depleted. Instead of the attack that you have

taken, all you had to do, if you were really concerned about

this and wanted to spread it out over a long period of time,

was limit the

[ Page 2537 ]

production in any given location the same as we have done in

the petroleum resource industry in this province.

HON. MR. LEA: Who's we?

MR. SMITH: The people of the province, my friend and the

experts in the field of petroleum production who work for this

government as they did for the former, not because you're NDP

or because we are Social Credit, but because they are

professional in the field that they represent.

They know what they're doing and they've gained from the

experience of other places in Canada. They have found that in

the petroleum industry you don't extract all you can

extract from a given petroleum find or a given natural gas find

as quickly as it is possible to do that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: The reason you don't do that is that there are

many problems involved. If they were allowed to do that, it

would probably destroy the asset and the mineral and the

petroleum resource you were trying to extract from the ground.

It would be no good to anyone anytime in the future. They

learned that the hard way because of the experience of other

areas of North America.

HON. MR. LEA: I'm glad the chief isn't here to hear you say

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get a haircut?

MR. SMITH: It is unfortunate the Minister of Highways

doesn't really realize what he is saying….

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get a head?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I guess it is, because this indicates how much

experience he has in this field. I am sure if the Minister

doesn't understand, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources doesn't understand what I am saying. There are many

members of his staff who do understand what I am saying.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He never will

understand.

MR. SMITH: If you are concerned, as we all should be, about

the depletion of that resource, you set up a system of extraction

which is based on a period not of five years but maybe 20 years, as you

do in the petroleum industry.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You are all for my production leases,

then, eh?

MR. SMITH: I'm for the moderation and the continuation of

the business of extracting minerals from the Province of

British Columbia…

AN HON. MEMBER: And giving them away.

MR. SMITH: …and the petroleum resources of the Province

of British Columbia. We happen to live in a part of the North

American continent which is favourable to the location of these

particular resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You would give them away.

MR. SMITH: The chit-chat that comes back to me from

across the House, particularly from the cabinet Ministers,

indicates the complete ignorance the cabinet Members have about

the resource industries in the Province of British Columbia. In

that respect, I sympathize with the Minister who is in charge

of Mines and Petroleum Resources. If you have no more support

in the programme you are trying to implement and if you are

listening to the advice of these people who chit-chat

back and forth to me across the floor of the House, then you

are in real trouble in the Province of British Columbia.

None of you have started to realize the fact that in this

area there are two things you must keep paramount in mind. You

have to continue the exploration for those resources wherever

they may be found, and make it attractive for people to do

that. The second thing is that you extract from the resources

when they are developed an equitable amount of taxation…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, go get a helicopter.

MR. SMITH: …so that the people of the Province of British

Columbia realize returns in the form of social services and

benefits that you and I and everybody else in this House wish

to provide.

It was said before on the floor of the House this afternoon

and I will say it again tonight: the attitude of the NDP is

that they want to go for the quick kill. You are prepared to

sacrifice everything for future generations to grab as much

revenue as you can right now. You are going to kill the goose

that lays the golden egg for the Province of British

Columbia.

I'm not an expert in the field of mineral production in the

province, but I know from this report that there are many, many

potential mines. If the Minister would like me to read the

number, I'll do

[ Page 2538 ]

it; but I think that's a waste of time because I'm sure he

has the report. In that report you will find, as I have, that

there are many, many potential mines which may or may not come

into production in the Province of British Columbia. It's

listed there; all the known discoveries and the people and the

mining companies who have discovered these and who are prepared

to develop them — in the event that they get fair

treatment. This is all they ask for: fair treatment from the

provincial government.

The funny thing is that they will develop those resources

without calling on the Province of British Columbia to

subsidize them, without calling on the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources to put up any particular amount of funds to

help them operate. They will raise their capital outside of

government finance. They are prepared to share in whatever

success they have with the people of British Columbia on an

equitable basis. I would like to stress that word "equitable"

because I think that is the key and that is where the NDP

differs with those of us in the official opposition.

We believe there is a point beyond which you cannot go as

government without destroying the industries that private

enterprise has created and the jobs that go with them.

Remember, Mr. Minister, if you destroy the industry, you

destroy the immediate jobs of thousands of people in the

Province of British Columbia and you destroy the jobs of many

more thousands who are not directly involved in the industry

but, because of their particular positions, render services to

the resource industry in this province.

Frankly, as a Member of the opposition and a person who has lived in

an area where resource industries have played a great

part in our

development, I am a little bit fed up with the attitude of the NDP. As

sure as I stand on my feet, you are out to destroy those industries in

the Province of British Columbia.

I can only conclude that you wish to destroy them so you can

take them over at your price. Then what are you going to do?

You are going to say: "Well, they couldn't cut it; they

couldn't do the things we wanted them to do so we had to take

them over. Now we are going to return to the people of the

province greater returns than they have ever seen before." That

is absolute nonsense. What will happen is, with the lack of

expertise and the lack of initiative that will come about in

that particular situation, the return to the people in the

Province of British Columbia will be far less than it has ever

been before.

None of us know and can accurately predict what will happen in the

field of resource development today and forecast one, two or three

years ahead — except to say this: the world is short of energy

resources. Hopefully, as a province which has an abundance of those

resources, the price will continue to escalate and, because of that, we

will be fortunate enough to reap an abundant harvest for the people of

this province.

We didn't put the resources or the minerals in the ground

and we didn't put the natural gas and the petroleum there. But

I can tell you this: when you deal with petroleum resources,

not only in British Columbia but in all of North America, you

can take a ruler and lay it on a map from the Gulf of Mexico

right through to the Mackenzie Delta in the north and you will

find 90 per cent of the major oil and natural gas discoveries

will be in an area within 50 to 150 miles of that line. That is

a phenomenon of nature we had nothing to do with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member relate

his remarks to the Minister's estimates?

MR. SMITH: I am, Mr. Chairman, but I'll tell you that if the

attitude that's expressed across the floor of that House is the

total attitude of the cabinet, then we're in sorry straits in

the Province of British Colombia. We're in sorry straits in the

Province of British Columbia. It's time that you as Minister

stood up and told some of your colleagues how far out they are

in their thinking because they're not even close to what they

should be thinking about resource development in the Province

of British Columbia.

I'm trying to explain for the benefit not only of the

Minister, who I think knows this, but for the benefit of the

other Members of this House, what has happened. We're in a

fortunate position. Twenty years ago, everyone in the Province

of British Columbia would have said that the greatest detriment

we have in this province is the mountain ranges that occupy

about 90 per cent of the land.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, don't get smart, my friend. I'm talking about

serious problems. If you don't want to listen go out and play

with whatever you want to play with, but don't try to discount

what I'm saying, because this is where the gut issues are going

to be discussed in the Province of British Columbia and this is

where they're going to be decided.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Don't be frivolous. You know, it's unfortunate

that…

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is

whining again.

[ Page 2539 ]

MR. SMITH: …we have to put up with that sort of garbage

in this House.

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

draw to the attention of the Hon. Member standing order 17 (2):

"When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him

and the Chair nor interrupt him except to raise a point of

order." I would ask the Members not to interrupt the speaker,

please.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Highways thinks he's in a whirlybird.

MR. SMITH: What I have to say I think is important, not only

to the people who sit in this House, but all of the people in

the Province of British Columbia, because the attitude that you

take and the policies that you adopt will mean a continuous

future and prosperity in the province, or they'll lead us down

to destruction in this province. I'm convinced of that, Mr.

Minister.

You can sit there and smile if you like, but I know what can

happen and how fragile the balance is between a viable, growing

economy and one that goes into a recession. There's a very fine

line of demarcation, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,

and I'm concerned that you have not learned in all the years

that you have been a Member of this House what that line is or

how to define it. But I do know that not only industry in the

Province of British Columbia, but many of the people in the

service of this province know what that line is and what you

can extract in the way of revenue without doing permanent and

irreparable damage to the economy of this province. All I'm

suggesting to the Minister tonight is that instead of taking

his advice from people who have no expertise or experience in

this field, he listen to some of the people who obviously must

have been in his office in the last year and will continue to

come to his office, provided he allows them to do so.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: My door is always open.

MR. SMITH: You set up a commission to investigate the

possibilities of a copper smelter in the Province of British

Columbia. Now for goodness' sake, if you want to do what you

should do as a Minister for the benefit of people in this

province, then send that commission out and ask them to listen

to the people who are engaged in resource development in the

province. They may not agree 100 per cent with what they say

and that's fine, but at least listen to them and take their

ideas and suggestions.

HON. MR. LEA: Did you do that, Ed?

MR. SMITH: Yes. Let me tell you that the Energy Commission,

which is not part of your responsibility, turned out a report

on the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia.

They went throughout the province and they held a tremendous

amount of public hearings, but at least 50 or 75 per cent of

the facts and the figures that were included in that report

came out of a report that was prepared a year earlier by the

Canadian Petroleum Association. It was almost word for word,

Mr. Minister. So in that respect, and for all of that

information that they accumulated, there was no reason for them

to go out, but I think that there is a reason in the mining

industry for people to go out and investigate what is going on

and what our future is, because we're not going to use the

minerals that are here in the Province of British Columbia.

Our main market is an export market and it probably always

will be with the population that we have and the projections of

the population. So we've got to figure out a way of returning

to the people of this province a fair return for the sale of

those resources and at the same time be competitive in the

world markets.

In that respect I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that the

commission that you are going to appoint has its work cut out

for it. I would hope there'd be no restriction on where they go

or what they listen to. I would hope that there's no

pre-prepared report set out by any member of your

department which will dictate to them the recommendations that

they must make when they return their report to the cabinet,

because this is the type of problem that we see in many of the

things that have happened in this province in the last 18

months, that many of the commissions that have been appointed

and many of the people who have gone out and supposedly

listened to the people of this province have been sent out on a

sham battle. The decisions were already made before they ever

went out into the field. That's unfortunate because I think

that the people collectively in the Province of British

Columbia in the resource industries have a few things that you

could profit by listening to. They can tell you things that are

based on experience.

Certainly there's a tendency perhaps sometimes to

over-exaggerate the problem, but if that is a small

fallacy on the part of the industry, there's a much greater

problem and fallacy on the part of the NDP. That is that you

are prepared not only to exploit the industry, but to

emasculate it to the extent that it will not exist in the

Province of British Columbia without ever knowing or ever

considering the ramifications and the complications of the

things that you do and you say in the public sector.

[ Page 2540 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No responsibility.

MR. SMITH: No responsibility, but we can and we have

developed a very viable economy in the province, against many

hazards, because there's no other province in Canada that has

the same problems we have of communication between one part of

the province and the other.

First of all, we have about 80 or 90 per cent of the

province covered by mountains. That certainly doesn't lend to

good communications. But the very fact they are there has

perhaps provided us with an opportunity no other part of Canada

has. Hundreds of thousands of years ago the mountain ranges

were created and came about in this particular part of Canada

as we know it. Because of that, there is an abundance of

mineral wealth. Immediately east of the mountain ranges in the

Province of British Columbia there is an abundance of petroleum

and natural gas that extends, as I said before, from the Gulf

of Mexico right through to the Mackenzie Delta.

As legislators, if we are prudent and wise, we will develop

those resources to the best interests of the people of British

Columbia. It doesn't mean takeover; all it means is that you

share equitably in the amount of revenue that may be available.

This may go up or down.

Fortunately, today it's on the increase, as we have seen in

the sale of natural gas in the last year. I'm the first one to

suggest the price of natural gas will probably increase.

Certainly, if you look at what has happened in the Province of

Alberta and the contracts they have negotiated in recent

months, we must consider that that particular energy resource

is worth more today than it was a year or two years ago.

Between the companies who are prepared to invest their money to

develop that resource and the province which wishes to extract

taxation on an equitable basis, we are in the driver's

seat.

The thing that bothers me most is that the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources, while he's prepared to accept one

concept with regard to the development of petroleum resources

in the province and the rate with which they will be removed

from the ground, be it either natural gas or oil, he's not

ready to accept the same concept with respect to mineral

development or the extraction of it.

If he is as concerned as he said he was about the extraction of

mineral resources in this province and that we are going to run out,

then the simple solution is to limit or set up a system of extraction,

particularly in the periods, as we are now, of high returns. But at

least give the companies the benefit of knowing that for as long as

that mine is capable of production they will be allowed to operate and

hopefully make a profit, which in turn will return to the taxpayers of

the province a substantial amount of revenue in the form of taxation.

But that is not the socialist way. I suggest to you tonight,

Mr. Minister, that the way you are going spells disaster to the

mining industry in this province. If it spells disaster to the

industry, it certainly must spell disaster to the people who

work in that industry and who know no other occupation or

vocation. I think you should give serious thought to that

problem because it is a problem in the Province of British

Columbia.

Between the petroleum industry and the mining industry in

this province, we have been fortunate enough to see private

enterprise inject and invest not a few hundred thousand

dollars, Mr. Minister, but several billion dollars. That didn't

cost you or I or the people who live here one red cent. They

invested that money on the expectation that somewhere down the

line they would be able to return to the people who raised the

capital for them a fair investment return on the money put in;

not extravagant, not over abundant, but a fair return.

The funny thing about it is this (it's not funny; it's sad):

in many industries in the resource area, many of the people who

have invested money have not received a return yet because the

industry is not built to that point. There is potential there,

particularly today when we are in the driver's seat. There's a

tremendous demand for mineral resources outside of Canada.

I think anyone has the right to invest in those sort of

things and expect a return. But as sure as I'm standing here,

Mr. Minister, if the return to an industry in the province and

through them to the people who are the shareholders in that

industry is less than, for instance, government bonds or

guaranteed securities at 6 or 7.5 or, today, 8 to 8.5 per cent,

then there's no attraction for anyone to invest in resource

industries in the province.

If an industry makes a profit — and many of them

hopefully do that (not all of them do) — you share

abundantly in that profit and so does everybody else in the

Province of British Columbia. But when they are unfortunate

enough to get into a position of a loss, you and I and every

other resident in this province say, "Tough, but we're not

going to pick up any part of that tab." The only conclusion I

can come to with the type of legislation we have seen and the

attitude of the Minister, even though it may not be his own

attitude but the attitude expressed collectively of the cabinet

in this province, is that you have never taken this point into

consideration. Somewhere along the line, slowly but surely, you

wish to remove these particular industries from the Province of

British Columbia and take them over at your price.

There are people in the province — I don't know how

many — who would agree with that philosophy and say

that's great. But they've never really looked

[ Page 2541 ]

beyond today, and I don't think you have either, Mr.

Minister. If you look beyond today, you would realize that the

expertise of these people who have devoted their lives to

certain industries in this province is the one thing that has

made and created a viable and a growing economy in the Province

of British Columbia. It has paid for all our social services,

including hospitals and schools. It has helped to provide a

better standard of living for the people in this province than

we should really be able to expect.

The last remark I must make to the Minister is this: in all

of this time, I have never heard the Minister make one remark

which would have supported those things which have put British

Columbia in the position it's in today. I don't think you

really realize what makes a province grow and what provides for

the people who are here the benefits we desire. I think we

realize that more than you do.

It's about time you started to realize that the resource

industries in the Province of British Columbia are not

something to be sucked clean by the profiteer because you don't

care about tomorrow. They're something we have that is very

fragile in many respects. But they can and they will continue

to produce the benefits that we have been fortunate enough to

see in this province for many years to come if you'd get off

this socialist philosophy and forget the Waffle Manifesto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay on vote 174.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That was very significant, Mr.

Chairman, that you're reminding me of the vote. I was

interested this afternoon that you kept talking about the

administrative responsibility of the Minister. This seemed to

me a very substantial divergence from custom because I always….

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): He hasn't got any. He hasn't got

any ability.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't talk about his ability, Mr. Member for

Cariboo. I was just saying that it seemed to me there was an

uneasy anxiety on the part of the Chairman to direct the

particular direction in which we might discuss this Minister's

vote. And how we can discuss any Minister's vote without

touching on policy or past legislation…. I clearly remember

a phrase you used this afternoon that we must not discuss

legislation past, present or future. Now how we can conduct our

responsibilities as opposition Members with no reference to

legislation past, present or future…!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just clarify this point

for the benefit of the Members.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you

would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that you may refer to

legislation. However, you may not discuss the merits of past

legislation, nor may you propose legislation, but rather you

are to deal with the Minister's responsibility of administering

his department and existing Acts that are under his particular

jurisdiction. Of course you have to touch on policy and on the

administrative matters that arise out of that legislation or

out of those Acts. But it's a case of not discussing the Acts

themselves.

MR. WALLACE: I think you're telling me to dance around Bill

31; that's probably what you're telling me to do. I was never

very successful as a dancer. I'm rather cloddish and

heavy-footed, even though I'm just a little guy.

The other problem I have here is that I have such a strong

personal liking for the Minister. He's such a benign, Santa

Claus kind of figure. I've got the same problem I had with

another Minister. But in this particular case I was even given

the privilege of being responsible for this Minister's health

care at one time. And now I have to stand up here and develop a

less amiable kind of approach to a man that I like very

much.

Anyway, I think his policies are all wrong. (Laughter.) I

think he's a fine man and I like him and I've enjoyed his

friendship and I hope I always will, but as Minister of Mines,

I think he's a disaster for British Columbia. And whether this

very fine man is just echoing what he's told to echo in

cabinet or whether in his administrative capacity as Minister

of Mines he is actually initiating policy of his own and

bringing in a kind of legislation which I think is very

damaging for British Columbia, I don't know.

Regardless of the way in which this policy is developed, I

do feel that in the Department of Mines the people of British

Columbia are witnessing the most clear-cut division

between your side of the House, Mr. Minister, and our side of

the House. I think every citizen in British Columbia believes

that we must have judicious use of our resources. Mr. Minister,

you said that in your opening remarks today, and I accept

them.

What I like to believe on our side of the House, which is so

different from what you believe, is that you don't seem to take

cognizance of some of basic elements of human nature. One of

these basic elements of human nature is that every single human

being who is interested in his initiative or his efforts likes

to be reasonably sure of some reward. The biggest disadvantage,

in my view, of the socialist philosophy is that you people

start off from the premise that there's something wrong about

wanting to make a financial profit. You make that so clear

[ Page 2542 ]

your mining legislation and in your attitude to the mining

industry in this province — and others, including

forestry.

I have no wish to repeat the magnum opus that we witnessed

from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

this afternoon. I'll try to be reasonably brief, Mr. Chairman.

I just pray to God that we don't have a recycling of that

Member's speech when we do get to Bill 31. (Laughter.)

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this

is a very important part of the British Columbia economy. The

mining industry, per se, provides provincial and national

wealth and it provides jobs and it provides secondary and

tertiary employment. It would be very wrong if anybody in this

House underestimated the very important place which mining

plays in the total economy of this province.

I've heard the Minister being quoted as saying that the

people in the mining industry are always crying wolf, that this

kind of protest which we're hearing from the people in the

mining industry in British Columbia in 1974 is so typical of

what they're always doing. They're always crying the blues and

they're always crying wolf.

I'd like to quote from a very well-produced magazine

which is entitled "B.C. Industry, the Business of British

Columbia," from the second quarter of 1973. There was a

very interesting piece of information there and I'll just

quote. It's talking about the predictability of mining, or the

lack of predictability, and the lack of being able to apply

reason, perhaps, to events that you cannot foresee.

"Efforts by Chile, Peru and Zambia to stabilize world

copper prices by the inter-governmental council of copper-exporting

countries, appear to have been less than successful. Experts as

recently as six months ago were predicting a world copper surplus

through mid-1975, yet prices shot from 48 cents per pound in

November, 1972, to 98 cents by July, 1973. And in the same period Chile

and Zambia, both with arbitrary mineral management programmes, suffered

substantial output shortfall — in Chile to the tune of 200,000 tons."

So we have experts….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you're behind the times. The fighting is

all in Portugal, my friend. Chile's a thing of the past. All

the fighting is in Portugal.

But this points out, I think, the very realistic fact that

it's a rather unpredictable industry and one cannot foretell — never

mind international changes — national and

provincial changes.

I know that it isn't customary to talk about the civil

service, Mr. Chairman, or civil servants, in this House. In the

remarks that I want to make I want to make it very plain that

I'm not being in any way critical of the civil service or civil

servants. Nevertheless, this isn't exactly a kindergarten in

which we're talking part. And when certain public statements

are made — and I notice you're getting very edgy, Mr.

Chairman, but I assure you that I will not transgress the

privileges of the House…. When we have public statements

which are most relevant to government policy, I think it's

important to quote them.

I would like to quote from the same magazine certain

comments by Mr. John McMynn, who incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is

quoted as being the man who will try to make Bill 64 palatable.

It's very interesting that Mr. McMynn, who is, as we all know,

the Deputy Minister, is quoted in this magazine interview as

saying:

"Obviously the industry isn't going to continue to

invest if

it cannot make a profit. Companies might just as well put their

money in the bank if that's the case."

This is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, very relevant to the

policy of the Department of Mines. The Deputy Minister goes on

to say:

"I would say that a company has to make 13 to 15 per

cent on

a mine — otherwise why do it? With a Canadian mine

averaging 10 years of life you've got to get your capital back

in less than that time. Equipment is worth nothing unless you

have a mine around it. You'll get 10 cents on the dollar for

it, if that."

Now, I respect these comments, because they sum up exactly

the philosophy we have on this side of the House and that we

have in this party, that mining (1) is a very important part of

our economy, and (2) depends on risk capital from the investor.

Investors only involve risk capital into mining if there is

some reasonable chance that tomorrow morning they won't wake up

and find some order-in-council which changes the

whole ground rules or changes their reasonable potential to

make a reasonable return on their money.

When I started out by saying that I think this Mines

Minister is a disaster, I was really trying to focus on the

fact that in the mining industry in this province right now,

despite this hideous bill that we can't mention or debate,

there has been a great deal of uncertainty and apprehension and

fear by the investor and by the established companies. Can you

blame them, Mr. Chairman? Can you blame them in the light of

the Waffle Manifesto, the general policy which this government

has outlined in relation to resources that more must be

recovered for the benefit of the state? And with the bill that

we can't mention, why should there be anything but apprehension

and

[ Page 2543 ]

fear in the minds of the investor?

I think even this Minister and certainly his Deputy Minister

realizes that the whole continuing success, if not the very

viability of the mining industry, depends on reasonable

confidence by the investor and that the legislation to be

produced by this Minister and his department must not be

punitive or remove a reasonable possibility that the investor

will get a reasonable return on his money.

What is a reasonable return? Well, I think later on in this

article — I can't just find the exact place — the

same Deputy Minister talks about first and second mortgages

realizing 10 to 12 per cent, and even Canada Savings Bonds

provide you with 7 per cent.

On that same theme, Mr. Chairman, I think we should just put

it on record that the average return from the mining industry

in the six years ending December 31, 1972, was 8.09 per cent,

which is about the same as Canada Savings Bonds. The Deputy

Minister, I think, is looking a little questionable about that.

I'm quoting from an editorial which was published in the

Northern Miner and republished in a Toronto

newspaper.

"In the six years ended December 31, 1972, the

industry's return on shareholders' equity averaged 8.09 per cent. In

1971 it suffered a loss of 0.4 per cent and in 1972 the return on the

shareholders' equity was 1.7 per cent."

All I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that if the Minister

and his department keep saying that the mining industry are

crying "Wolf," I think they've got every reason to cry

"Wolf" in the light of these kind of figures in conjunction

with the kind of legislation that we've been seeing.

The Minister incidentally also, in another quotation I have

here, in talking about Bill 44 said that the Minister and the

department was to go beyond mere administration of the

department and was to deal with resource management. I think

the Minister mentioned that in his introductory remarks today

too, that he considered it his responsibility to deal on a

wider front than the mere administration of the Department of

Mines, but to put forward ideas and concepts and policies on

the wider front, namely resource management.

Here again, I think we have the clearest definition between that

side of the House and this side of the House because we both believe

that many of these resources are not endless and that we have to show

prudence and consideration in not only the revenue we derive from them

but in the environmental impact of mining, whether it be chamber mining

or open-face mining or whatever. I think both sides of the House are

agreed on this, Mr. Chairman. We don't agree on too many things but we

seem to agree that resource management is a challenge of the 70s and

the 80s in the years ahead and that it should not just be a matter of

grabbing every bit of ore that's available and marketing it at the

highest dollar value. There's more to it than that and I think we're

all agreed on that. There again, the difference arises when we decide

how the ore should be mined and marketed.

I just feel that in discussing the difference we've got to

acknowledge the fact that this party and this side of the House

seem to believe much more in encouraging the initiative of the

individual — the little man. This is why this debate is

so ironic, Mr. Chairman, because that party was elected to

office for various reasons, but one of the reasons was the

tremendous emphasis they placed on the claim that they were

really the only political party that was interested in the

little man.

HON. MR. COCKE: They wanted to dump the Socreds too.

MR. WALLACE: That was another motive. It's quite true that

many well-meaning but misguided voters felt that they

wanted to dump the Socreds at any price — and what a

price! (Laughter.)

If I become too political I'll be ruled out of order. The

worst kind of speech to make in this House is a political

speech, I have discovered.

Really, one shouldn't be facetious about this because one of

the reasons you were elected, Mr. Minister of Mines, was that

you were a party which claimed to be very eager to look after

the interests of the little man in the light of history which

showed 20 years of a government who really didn't care very

much about the little man. They were interested in big moneys

and big companies and big business. With the utmost respect, it

looks to me like the leader of the present Social Credit Party

(Mr. Bennett) is in no way different from the predecessor in

that position, that it is only the dollar sign he's interested

in. I haven't seen too much evidence that he ever takes

part in

debates where the well-being of human beings is their

first interest.

MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

MR. WALLACE: It's obvious that I've touched a nerve in the

Cariboo. (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, before you touch that

button, I just think that Hansard will show that the

point I'm making is very valid.

To get back to the administrative responsibility of the

Minister of Mines….

MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

MR. WALLACE: The big difference lies in the manner in which

your party thinks a judicious use of resources should be made

and the way in which we regard it as the best method of it

being made. We are very concerned that you've clobbered the

little man. I

[ Page 2544 ]

don't want to refer to past legislation too much, Mr.

Chairman, because you've already given me guidance on that, but

with fees and rentals…. I forget all the different titles

that you use, bat the fact is you made it more expensive and

more difficult for the little prospector to go out and do the

job he has been doing for centuries. The fact is that the

little man is very important in the mining industry and while

it may be true that companies move in later on and buy out the

prospectors' claims, nevertheless the little man has a very

important role to play. This party was certainly concerned

about that.

The general philosophy of this Minister as related to mining

and other Ministers in the resource industry…. We can be

philosophical as much as we like but the practical facts and

the figures show that you are having a damaging effect on the

industry.

I'll quote the Minister himself. This is from his yearly

estimate of mineral production.

"Only one new mine opened in 1973. Currently no major

mines

are in the development stage. Increased quantity of production in 1974

is not anticipated. Any increase in value of production is contingent

on the continuation of current high metal prices and the economic well-being of mineral consuming nations, notably Japan."

The Minister himself, Mr. Chairman, is making it quite plain

that if world metal prices do not stay high — and you

cannot continue to depend on such nations as Japan — the

mining industry is in trouble.

The corollary to all that, Mr. Chairman, is that mineral

production in the Yukon in 1973 will increase from 102 million

to 135 million, and production in the Northwest Territories

will increase from 124 million to 145 million. I think figures

have been quoted earlier on today, and I won't repeat them, as

to mineral claims that Have been made in this province in 1973

as compared to 1972. Mineral exploration in 1973…. Despite

these high metal prices, the mineral production has dropped by

$12 million, a decrease of 32 per cent.

I am quoting from a report put out by the B.C. and Yukon

Chamber of Mines. I like to quote figures and back them up and

say where they came from, Mr. Chairman. I will just say that

these figures were arrived at from a canvass of large company

exploration budgets conducted during April and May and an

assessment of public company financing through the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. I am quoting from page 3 of the "Mining

Exploration and Development Review" which is dated January 1,

The point I am trying to make — and I will be very brief, Mr.

Chairman, because it has been made this afternoon several times — is

that we can philosophize all we like. We can have our own thinking as

to the proper way in which the resources should be used, but when you

get down to brass tacks and facts and figures, we have had a definite

decrease in production and exploration and the staking of claims.

Claim-staking between 1972 and 1973, Mr. Chairman, dropped by 55 per

cent.

Claim-staking in the Yukon went up 100 per cent, and

in the Northwest Territories it went up 300 per cent.

Now I don't think it matters really where you stand on the

political spectrum, Mr. Chairman. But anybody in a province

like British Columbia, with an expanding population and an

expanding world demand for metals…. For us to look at these

figures and recognize that while everything is on the downslide

in British Columbia, and everything is on the upswing in the

Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which are neighbouring

parts of the country, we have to ask the question: why? At

the At the same time, the report that I quoted from earlier by

the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines states that there is a

continuing world demand that has, as the Minister well knows,

contributed greatly to the high price for copper.

So in a world situation where the world is just asking for

mineral resources, here we are in a province rich in these

resources — and what do we find? Production is

decreasing; the staking of claims is decreasing. And while it

is decreasing in British Columbia, at our next door neighbour's

it is increasing. Now it is pretty difficult to avoid any other

conclusion than that this province is so blind in its ideology

that it is driving away the risk capital and the interest of

the mining industry in British Columbia. I don't know how you

can come to any other conclusion.

We have the comment from the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) that it's had its ups and downs. I agree that it has

its ups and its downs, but what one has to follow is a general

trend. This trend in 1973 was started in 1972, and it is quite

clear that in 1973 a restriction in the flow of capital

developed in this province.

I have quoted the diminution in exploration and in the

staking of claims, and there were no new mines scheduled for

production. There was uncertainty as to the future of the

industry itself. At this time last year we were emphasizing the

uncertainty. But if I can just tiptoe around a certain bill for

five seconds, Mr. Chairman, we've certainly got rid of one

aspect of the uncertainty.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Tiptoe

around the million dollar tax in Alberta — Conservative

rip-off!

MR. WALLACE: Well, Alberta is a very successful province.

One of the reasons way Alberta is so successful is that it has

a good Conservative

[ Page 2545 ]

government — that's right! There are two reasons….

Interjections.

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

the Chair, please? And would the Hon. Members not interrupt the

Member who lies the floor, please? Order!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be very happy to

continue to address the Chair, if you would just keep Little

Mountain quiet.

But in this situation that I have outlined where other

provinces and other territories are having a definite upswing

in exploration and claims taking, British Columbia's history is

one of decline. I think we have to recognize that one clear

reason is that the investor who is likely to put capital into

the mining industry in British Columbia is scared out of his

wits at the attitude both expressed verbally by Ministers of

this government and by the legislation which has been

introduced and is being introduced.

I find it very surprising, particularly in light of the

earlier quotation I made, that the Deputy Minister obviously

has the personal philosophy that unless the investor can

reasonably count on 12 to 30 per cent return on his money, he

won't put money into mining. I have always assumed that Deputy

Ministers had some sort of influence over Ministers, but I am a

little surprised that we have this situation developing in the

province today where we have a Deputy Minister whose interview

in this magazine, to my mind, marks him as a first rate,

Conservative kind of thinker.

And yet, here we have him advising the Minister of Mines.

The next thing I discover, Mr. Chairman, is….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Could you try and get a little order in the

House, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon? That wasn't a very

convincing call for order, Mr. Chairman., Not only do I find that the

philosophy espoused by the

Deputy Minister is very typical of the Conservative philosophy,

but I find that when we have to look into the advisability of

a copper smelter, one of the Members of the task force is a

former leader of the Conservative Party. This becomes more and

more confusing all the time, Mr. Chairman.

But it does show, Mr. Chairman, that this government

certainly looks for the best people to give it the best kind of

advice.

Anyway, it seems very clear that not only is this whole

industry very dependent on the willingness of people to risk

their money….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And their lives, too!

MR. WALLACE: And their lives — and I am going to get

to that in a minute. I'm glad you raised that, Mr. Chairman,

because I want to take issue with some of your statements about

mine safety. But I will get to that a little later.

I won't quote the whole paragraph as there are a lot of

figures, but in this same report by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber

of Mines…. My goodness, Roy, you really are wide awake for

this time of night. I didn't even think you would be here.

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

the Chair, please?

MR. WALLACE: Well, as I said earlier on, Mr. Member, I know

the Minister to be a very warm, human, natural individual and I

am sure he has the same demands on him that we all have on each

other.

This report that I quoted from earlier: "The hazards of

mining are apparent from a review of the annual report of the

B.C. Department of Mines." I don't want to go back to 1874, but

it does go there, and it says that during the period 1874 to

1953 — 20,000 mining prospects are described. It goes on

to talk about different exploration. I am not going to go right

down to the last figure, but the final conclusion is what it

comes to, Mr. Chairman. I think this is very interesting. It

says:

"It can be said that in the history of mining in

British Columbia, there have been about 80 mining companies which have been profitable to their shareholders."

That is less than one in 250 which has been a success. When

you realize that's the kind of potential prospect of success

which people have when they start putting their money into

mining, I think you have to realize that surely it must be one

of the most high risk….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: What about your Dairy Queen? There has been a

lot of money made off the Dairy Queen franchise, Roy. Four per

cent off the top, did you say this afternoon? That's probably

why you can afford to sit here and do nothing.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that if my income was 4

per cent off the top of a Dairy Queen franchise, I probably

would be very

[ Page 2546 ]

comfortably off too.

But, Mr. Chairman, you really should keel) better order in

this House. It makes speech-making very difficult. We're

having a change of Chairman. You had better look out, Roy.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, Mr. Chairman, we had a few

interruptions before you took the chair and I hope you're going

to keep the Dairy Queen Member quiet. The Minister is back in

his chair and looking more comfortable.

The only way the mining industry is going to continue to

survive in this province is that the tax, in whatever way,

shape or form, and the amount has to be reasonable. It has to

consider the fluctuating nature of the mining industry and the

tremendous risk involved in putting your money in mining.

It wouldn't matter which government it was — right,

left or up the middle — if this basic principle is not

followed…. Up the middle, down in the middle, on the left,

on the right; I don't think it would really matter which

government was in power. If it followed the kind of policies

your government is following, the mining industry is destined

for complete disaster. I've tried to point out that you can

argue with our philosophy and we can argue with yours, but if

you look at the facts and the figures and the diminution in

exploration and claim-staking which I've mentioned, it's

very difficult to come to any other conclusion.

Somebody mentioned the Waffle Manifesto. I think your party

is clearly dedicated to that. I know you didn't sign it but I

know a lot of people who wished they hadn't. That Waffle

Manifesto places tremendous emphasis on the power of the state

to control the means of production. I won't quote from it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's why Alberta is doing it so

strongly.

MR. WALLACE: Alberta happens to have certain other

advantages that this province doesn't have. One of them is a

brilliant Progressive Conservative Premier, which certainly

helps. We can talk about the Waffle Manifesto but we've got an

even more recent but equally clear-cut document in the

form of the Kierans report on the resource industries in

Manitoba. I won't quote great reams from the Kierans report,

but that report makes it quite plain that there's about three

or four options to private enterprise.

Very briefly, he talks about establishing Crown corporations. I

would have thought the examples we'd had in Saskatchewan as to the

abysmal failure of Crown corporations to try and do what private

enterprise has done for many years successfully would be enough to dull

the enthusiasm of even the most Red socialist. Establishing Crown

corporations. Investing in existing resource corporations. The other

interesting third option; greater revenues by increasing royalties,

taxing reserves, raising licensing fees and rentals, and imposing

heavier provincial income rates. Isn't that typical socialist approach?

Kill the goose that lays the golden egg. That seems to be the cry. That

is the kind of left-wing philosophy Kierans is promoting in Manitoba.

I suppose in the short run this Minister might even come

back here a year from now and show us that revenue has

increased. What I would like to know is what the picture will

be three or four or five years from now. The mining industry

isn't the kind of industry which changes its course or

financial success or lack of success in a short period of

time.

I again have to dance very carefully around Bill 31, but I

just say that one of the very serious implications of the

overall direction and philosophy of this government in the

mining industry is that it will take time for the industry to

go into retreat and regress. By that time, it may well be too

late. This attitude or this philosophy and policy that's

described by Kierans in Manitoba — and I repeated the

general ways in which he considers there should be more and

more and more extracted from the industry: increasing

royalties, raising licensing fees and rentals, and imposing a

heavier provincial income tax rate….

MR. D.E. LEWIS Muswap): A Liberal said that?

MR. WALLACE: He once was a Liberal. He sounds to me a little

pink. But if he was once a Liberal, I would suggest he is one

of these Liberals who in his later years is having hot flashes

and looking a little red.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not as pink as the Premier of Alberta.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the Premier of Alberta has no problems; he

has the situation well under hand. The only problem with the

other provinces is they just wish they had the natural

resources that Alberta has, and the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be serious.

MR. WALLACE: The Member says, "Be serious." I'm trying to be

very serious. We listened to the statistics and facts and

figures which other Members of the opposition parties have

quoted today. It's very important to realize that we can each

believe in our philosophy all we like. But the facts and the

figures make it very plain that interest, investments and

involvement in the mining industry in this province is already

beginning to decrease. In a later debate I'm

[ Page 2547 ]

sure we'll be able to produce reasons why we think that

gradual decrease which has occurred in the last 18 months will

suddenly take a nosedive. I think the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano and his lengthy oration….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You don't really believe that?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I do believe that. As far as I'm

concerned, if I personally had half-a-million

dollars to invest and I thought mining was where it should go,

I would take a very long look at British Columbia compared with

many other alternative options where mining exploration is

going on. I don't really know how the Minister could consider

it otherwise.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Go down to Chile and places like that.

MR. WALLACE: We have to express this concern in the

opposition because we feel that side of the House is so all

bound up in its ideology and the Kierans kind of thinking and

the Waffle Manifesto kind of thinking that it can't even see

the facts and the figures in 1972 and 1973. I repeated them;

the Minister has not tried to deny them. I think he knows the

statistics in his own department, and they show there is a

reduction in claim-staking and exploration in this

province with a corresponding increase in the Yukon and the

North West Territories.

I would just like to touch on one or two smaller points in

finishing. The Minister said he's very interested in mine

safety. He interjected a few comments a minute ago. Again,

let's not philosophize; let's talk about the facts and the

figures. In 1972 there were 17 fatalities in the mines, and

this represents an increase of six over 1971 and is greater

than the 10-year average of 14.6. I know you were

distracted by your friend with the tangled propeller over there

(Hon. Mr. Strachan). (Laughter.) Or your leaking oil or

whatever it was.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you go and. buy an ice cream cone,

Roy, and come back tomorrow.

I'm quoting from the annual report, 1972, page A205.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's just when I took over.

MR. WALLACE: Okay, well the Minister's obviously taking

refuge in someone else's statistics, but the fact is that in that year

there were 17 fatalities and these represented an increase of six over

1971 and is greater than the past 10-year average of 14.6.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was down to seven in 1973. Five,

believe me, five in 1973.

MR. WALLACE: In the words of the leader of the United Steel

Workers of America, Len Williams, who said that the working

conditions in B.C. mines are the most deadly in the country. He

said statistics show a death rate of 1.75 for every million

hours worked in B.C. mines. The Minister says that he has

improved this situation, Mr. Chairman, but here in The

Vancouver Sun , December 18, 1973, we have a big

headline which says that the union wants Nimsick ousted.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of you want Nimsick ousted.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we want the NDP ousted, of course, but

you have to chip away at it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, you

sat over here for 20-odd years before you made it and you

realize that we have the same problem now. I'm not planning to

be here for 20 years, but you have to start somewhere. I think

we are all agreed on that.

At any rate, this attitude by the United Steel Workers of

America was one suggesting real concern that the Minister of

Mines was not adequately aware of the dangers, or adequately

motivated to find out what the solutions were to this problem

and what policies would prevent these accidents recurring.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Give the follow-up on that one.

MR. WALLACE: We'll probably hear the follow-up from

you. I'm asking a question: what have you done in 18 months to

improve the situation which as recently as five months ago was

causing the union some very considerable concern?

It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, part of this quotation

from The Vancouver Sun . Again I say this with

the greatest respect for the Deputy, I'm just quoting; I'm not

attacking your Deputy, Mr. Minister. It says here in The

Vancouver Sun on December 18, 1973:

"The union has also been extremely critical of Deputy

Mines

Minister John McMynn and some of his inspectors, stating that

McMynn has been running the department because Nimsick doesn't

know the mining industry."

As I say, I'm in no way attacking the Deputy Minister, I'm

just reporting word for word the sentiments and concern of the

United Steelworkers.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's one man's opinion.

[ Page 2548 ]

MR. WALLACE: Well, it's more than one man's opinion. This

happened to be the opinion of both a gentleman by the name of

Mr. Falkowsky and also….

MR. CUMMINGS: Another Scotsman.

MR. WALLACE: I don't think he's a Scotsman with that name,

Roy, do you?

MR. CUMMINGS: From the Wallace clan.

MR. WALLACE: No the Wallaces….

MR. CUMMINGS: No loyalty.

MR. WALLACE: If it was MacFalkowsky….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that this was also the feeling of Cominco as

expressed in this article, that there was some lack of concern

about accidents that were happening in the mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Of Cominco?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Cominco confirmed that they won't let

Falkowsky in to conduct his own inspection because no useful

purpose would be served.

We've got a real triangle here: the Minister saying that the

safety situation in the mines is all right; we have the

mineworkers' union saying that there are serious problems; and

we have Cominco putting up the shutters so that the union can't

even carry out any investigation of its own.

There's another earlier clipping that talks about a fatal

accident at the Similkameen open pit copper mine on August

29, 1973, involving a man driving a truck, which the

union says both the company and an inspector declared safe

although another man quit his job rather than operate the

truck.

The Minister has stated earlier on today that most of these

accidents unfortunately are related to trucks. I felt that he

might have gone into more detail in telling us what measures

he's bringing in or has brought in to try and reduce this.

Another clipping I have here from November 5, 1973,

relates to workers at Cominco, in zinc tank rooms at the

smelter. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in his usual

efficient manner had directed that all these employees should

be X-rayed for respiratory problems. Maybe the Minister

of Mines could tell us what was discovered when you did

X-ray all these people. Is there a higher incidence of

problems among them?

Anyway, this was November 5, and I just ask the question

that the Minister of Health recognize the problems and the

danger to these workers. The questions are very simple and I

hope the Minister will answer them. Were these men all

X-rayed, every man-Jack of them?

HON. MR. COCKE: No, some of them wouldn't submit. Some of

them didn't go in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Member for Oak Bay

continue?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure the Minister of Mines will have a

caucus with the Minister of Health and will come up with the

statistics when I sit down. But if the individuals refused the

X-ray, that's a right and freedom that every individual

should have. Bat I would like to know how many of the total

were X-rayed, and of the percentage that was

X-rayed, what was found? Was there in fact a higher

incidence of respiratory problems as a result of the exposure

to these zinc contaminates?

Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman; the Minister has set up

one more task force to look into the advisability and

feasibility of a copper smelter.

I happen to think this province should pursue a policy of

processing its ore. I think it seems quite unreasonable that we

should ship out the ore to another country and import the

finished products when in fact we could be creating jobs by

having the processing and refining and the production of copper

products right here in British Columbia.

I also, I think, echo the thoughts of many citizens in

British Columbia when they wonder what the pollution

consequences of a smelter might be. I was very interested to

read a study that was done by the Pollution Control Branch in

this province. The report was issued November 30,

1973. It's entitled: Report on Pollution Control

Objectives. The conclusion on the front page by Mr. Rudsepp who

at that time was chairman of the Pollution Control Board, says:

"The board has accepted these objectives as amended herein as

the board's policy for pollution control in British Columbia's

mining, mine milling and smelting industries."

I wonder when the Minister responds to these comments could

he tell the House if in fact this study, which was completed as

recently as November last year, will be the guidelines by which

any decision to build a smelter in this province will be

decided. In other words, was this study done just as window

dressing to reassure the public? Or is it in fact outlining…. It's as a result of a public enquiry held by the Pollution

Control Branch, and issued, as I say, in December, 1973.

1 won't quote from it, but it goes into great detail as to

the basic standards that must be met by any member of the

mining, mine milling and

[ Page 2549 ]

smelting industries of British Columbia.

With this announcement today that we're looking at the

possibility of a copper smelter in British Columbia, I'd like

to ask the Minister: will the task force be made clearly aware

of this study which has been done, the conclusions drawing from

it and the objectives defined? Or will it in fact decide on the

smelter primarily on its economic basis?

There's one philosophy in this NDP which was very clear when

it sat here in this House in opposition, it was that it always

put human welfare ahead of dollar values. It was always highly

critical of the former administration which tended to think

only of dollar bills and not of the welfare of people. Whether

that is true or false really isn't the point.

While there may be economic advantages which the province

would derive from a copper smelter, can we be assured by the

Minister that the kind of work done by many very hardworking

and conscientious civil servants in the Pollution Control

Branch, as summed up in this document, will in fact be a very

basic guideline for the work to be carried out by this task

force?

MR. FRASER: I have a few remarks to make to the Minister.

Before I do that, I really have enjoyed with a lot of interest

the observations today of the Liberal and Conservative Parties

on mining. First of all, I'll deal with the Conservative Party.

I realize how much mining there is under the rose bushes of Oak

Bay and how knowledgeable they must be about that. I was quite

interested in that, and, of course, Saanich. But on the Liberal

side….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, I'm getting off the Liberals. I don't hold

the whole thing up for an hour talking about nothing; I'll get

it over with in a hurry. The Liberals are all talking about

mining and there isn't one of them who has had a bit of dirt

underneath their finger nails all their life — and

they're talking about mining. I've come from the riding of

Cariboo where mining all started in this province, Mr.

Minister, in 1861 by the one and only famous Billy Barker. I'd

like, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, to bring us forward

in mining in this province from 1861 to 1974, particularly for

the information of the Minister and the Liberal and

Conservative Parties.

HON. MR. COCKE: Let's have a moment of silence.

MR. FRASER: Who was Billy Barker? Billy Barker was the fellow

who is the reason for all of us being here tonight. You fat cats over

there in the government wouldn't even be sitting on those fat seats,

including that Minister, if it wasn't for Billy Barker finding gold in

Barkerville in 1861. I want to tell you something about Billy Barker

and his mining endeavours.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He's a good friend of mine.

MR. FRASER: I want to tell you something about Barkerville

tonight which started this whole province in the first place.

It's still in the riding of Cariboo. Do you want to know how

they vote in Barkerville? I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for long.

MR. FRASER: There are nine registered voters in the poll of

Barkerville in my riding of Cariboo. Until I ran, five NDPs and

four Social Crediters. With this Minister, they're going to

vote the next time nine Social Credit and nothing for anybody

else. I've got the word.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: I'm telling you that you people don't know

anything about mining, including that Minister. I'm going to

proceed to tell you. Anyway, Barkerville is still the gold

capital of the world but the Minister won't acknowledge it. I

want to tell him there is lots of gold there today; Billy

Barker only scratched the surface. There would be lots of

activity in Barkerville today if it wasn't for that Minister.

They're all scared stiff and they won't go in there.

I see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) smiling there and I want to say something about him.

Do you know what he decreed last week? He decreed there be no

more gold panning in Barkerville. Did you ever hear such a

ridiculous situation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cariboooo.

MR. FRASER: The gold capital of British Columbia and the

world, and that pollution-kook follower (Laughter), the

Minister of Recreation, says there will be no gold panning in

Barkerville. How ridiculous can we get? Just for a minute I

want to discuss gold panning. None of these people understand;

they've never had a gold pan in their hands. They don't know

what it's all about.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, they probably did it in Knott's Berry Farm

down in Los Angeles or somewhere. (Laughter.) But you haven't

done it in Barkerville.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

[ Page 2550 ]

MR. FRASER: I'm going to tell you something about it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Who are you

attacking — the NDP?

MR. FRASER: I'm attacking all you kooks who think you know

something about mining, Mr. Chairman, including the Liberals

and Conservatives under the rose bushes in Oak Bay. Who ever

found any gold there? If it wasn't for the gold they found in

Barkerville there'd be no Oak Bay, there'd be no Vancouver

South, there'd be no Fort Steele either, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: The mine would be better in Quesnel.

MR. FRASER: Yes, and no rose bushes either. But the

hurdy-gurdy girls and all Barkerville. Well, we're still

having some fun with that today up there. I'm not dealing with

Bill 31 hopefully, but everybody is quite afraid to go ahead,

even to pan gold today.

These pollution kooks really get me. Their big advocate

there is that guy who is going to have the whole country in a

park. We're going to eat porcupine pie, as I said earlier. I

really believe this. They don't want anything to go on because

the little placer miner is going to pollute the odd stream and

river and so on. All I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and

those wise guys over there, is that the run-offs of the

Fraser River and the Quesnel River put more pollution in the

streams than any placer miner ever did.

But what happens? That Minister has allowed these pollution

kooks to take over from his department. He issues a mining

licence to a placer miner but it isn't worth the paper it's

written on because the pollution kooks come along and

say, "Oh, you've dribbled a little bit of dirt down in the

stream and you're shut down. You're out of business." What a

ridiculous way to run a mining department. I'm dealing with the

Minister of Mines here. Placer mining is going to come to a

stop because of all the pollution kooks and we'll end up eating

porcupine pie because that's all that will be left to eat.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Right. I'm quite amazed at this mining

discussion here. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)

says there is lots of mining going on there. I have a message

today that 2,000 people in exploration out of the Kamloops area

alone are out of work, and I'd like to hear what he has to say

about that.

The other Member here involved with mining, in his riding is that

phantom Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). He was here an hour ago. He has

been gone for a month, Mr. Chairman. I understand he's going to take

your job as Chairman. He's been over in England taking a course in

chairmanship. I think my good friend, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent),

is going to lose his job.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: But why isn't he here talking about mining

activity in Atlin? Where is he? He's gone. He knew I was going

to get up and he left. I can't understand these people. They

are elected by these people to represent them and they say

nothing. Well, anyway, I'll speak on their behalf and on behalf

of Atlin and Kamloops and so on and so forth. I think they

certainly are letting down their ridings, Atlin and Kamloops

both, because they're certainly affected by this kooky

socialist legislation and their policy on mining.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a drink of water.

MR. FRASER: I don't need a drink of water. I've got a few

more things to say about mining here. Maybe I'll have one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making me thirsty.

MR. FRASER: Why aren't they here? Cariboo has always been

famous for mining. It still is; but Atlin, I think, has

probably more future in mining. I can't understand why that

Member doesn't get up here and say something.

I'd like to say something about the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke). He got up and made a great big speech the other day

about mining. He had the audacity to say that they need the

revenues from mining to look after nursing. Don't let the

public of this province buy that garbage from that Minister.

You have the money in the bank to get on with the job from all

this extra revenue you're trying to grab from the innocent

people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Don't give us that bunch of garbage, Mr.

Minister. That's absolutely what it was.

On mining in general, we know lots about it in Cariboo.

Right now ail the investment has come to a stop in this

province. I regret that and I think that Minister should regret

that. The only mining we have going on in the Cariboo now is

mines that are already invested in under a government they had

confidence in. They wouldn't be operating today if they knew

you guys were coming along, I'll tell you that. There will be

no more investment in mining in the Cariboo where there are

lots of minerals.

[ Page 2551 ]

You know, some of these city kooks here are talking about

invisible minerals and all that. We know in the Cariboo that

there are lots of minerals in the ground: silver, gold, copper,

all kinds of it. All they need is some incentive to go there

and develop it. Don't give us that bunk that you know it might

or might not be there. We know in the Cariboo that it's there.

But they won't go and look for it under the guidelines that

your government gives — and that is that as soon as you

find something you'll come and conscript it.

This reminds me of the army days, you know. We never had the

word conscription before until we had the socialist government

here with their mining legislation. Now we have it back again;

the word "conscription" is back. Conscript everybody that wants

to invest a buck, and take it away from him after he gambles

it. And that is not the way to treat the individual.

All kinds of individual citizens have been effected by your

kooky proposed and existing legislation — the individual

person, all kinds of individuals. Never mind those big

companies; they can look after themselves. As a matter a fact,

Mr. Chairman, I think they're in bed with you people anyway — but not

the individual shareholders, no way.

I realize that the Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman, seems to

really take a great privilege of sitting back and laughing

about this. He seems to accept the heavy responsibility that

he's brought onto this province and he really rejoices in it. I

just say to him: Shame! — shame on him, Mr. Chairman, for

the attitude that he takes about this.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What do you want me to do — cry?

MR. FRASER: I'd just like to comment on another thing, Mr.

Chairman. You won't allow us to talk about Bill 31, but the

Premier of this province can go out and talk in public about

it. The Minister can go out and talk about it. But in the most

hopefully democratic area you can have you've cut the

conversation right off, and I can't quite see that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The proper time to talk about Bill 31 is when

it's up for discussion.

MR. FRASER: Well, why do they talk about it all over the

province in British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may talk about it outside the House.

MR. FRASER: I'd just like to mention another thing about

comments made about a copper smelter in this province. Copper smelters

were laid on to go prior to the election of this government. I would

just like to say here and now that one of them was in that Minister's

riding and the other was in my riding of Cariboo.

We're now 50 years away from any copper smelter going ahead

in this province because of the election of that government, I

am talking about a pollution-free copper smelter. They

made all kinds of political mileage in 1972 that the prior

government would put them in and pollute the whole country.

They knew at the time it was a bunch of garbage, but in the

meantime they've chased it all away.

There will be no copper smelter in this province unless the

government builds it. And I wouldn't put it past them. I just

want to remind them that we know full well what happened to the

copper smelters following August, 1972. Where it was certainly

contemplated, there now won't be any copper smelter come into

this province.

I would just like to say that due to the

non-confidence of the investment public in mining — and not only in

the Cariboo but all over this province

on the exploration side — what has actually happened, and

is going on right now, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that it was

chipped off into so many secondary and tertiary industry levels

that it has already had a direct effect on little people in

this province.

I will relate to you an incident that just happened in the

Chilcotin part of the Cariboo riding., An exploration company

had a guide who has pack-horses and so on. He'll guide

for companies in the summer, and in the fall he's a game guide.

He had a party to go out with, starting on the

first of June this year, and it would have derived him $10,000

worth of revenue with a small firm. And it's been cancelled

because of your policies.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

So it's feeding right down to the little

person, never mind

the big companies who are quite…and I'm referring to

exploration that is happening. This person hires a lot of

natives, Mr. Chairman, and of course those natives won't have

any payroll either. I will have something to say about that

later to the Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Radford) in his

estimates. But it's really sad to see the effect.

I would just like to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that this

Minister is absolutely hopeless. He doesn't know what's going

on in his department and doesn't appear to be able to do

anything about it. Everything is going from B.C. to the Yukon,

and they're really rubbing their hands up there, I'll tell you,

getting the investment exploration and so on that we're chasing

out of here.

The multiplier effect is tremendous. I just mentioned a tip

of the iceberg, but it's going on all over the province. It

certainly is having its effect

[ Page 2552 ]

throughout, and it will continue to do so unless policy

changes go on.

I would just like to close on this final note and say that

this Minister really isn't in charge of his department, because

we have the resource Minister dictating to this Minister. This

Minister is a veteran politician, and I admire him for that.

I'd like to see him for once come back and tell that big boss

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

R.A. Williams) that you're running the mines department, not

him.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I think I should straighten

out a few questions.

That kooky legislation — placer mining legislation — that you're

talking about, where you've got to get a

permit from the Parks Board and from the fisheries: that's

kooky Social Credit legislation and we have carried it on.

(Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was talking about

processing and whether we were going to live up to the

standards outlined by the Pollution Control Board. We certainly

will. When they talk about the former government, the only way

that they could have let the smelter go ahead would have been

outside of the pollution control, with the tall stacks. We know

what happens then when sulphur is emitted into the air. So this

is the reason there hasn't been a smelter up there: because

they didn't see fit to take the sulphur out of it.

In regards to safety, I don't know whether the Hon. Member

was in here when I spoke on that at the start. I covered that

question in the statement that was in the paper in regard to

B.C. being the most deadly in the country for mining. That was

incorrect. I don't know where they got all their figures from,

but according to the statistics it is definitely incorrect. It

actually came out to 0.793 instead of 1.75.

The fatalities in 1970 were 13. The figure you got was in

1972 when I took over. We changed the mines regulations. We

brought in about 120 amendments to the mines regulations in

regard to safety. This year the fatalities are down to five…or seven, including two in the outside area of exploration. But

it has been cut down. With the regulations that we put into

force I'm in hopes that we will reach the zero point in

fatalities in the near future.

With the regulations we brought in and the improvements and

the co-operation between the employers, the employees,

and the inspectors that's going on, I'm sure that we're going

to reach the zero. I hope to reach the zero as soon as

possible, but you will always have the odd accident that will

happen.

The statement that you read from the paper was one man's opinion. If

you read this paper correctly, if you had read the whole thing

correctly instead of just excerpts, you would find that he went back

to, I think, 1965 with some of those accidents that he was talking

about, and criticizing the regulations.

Following that statement in the paper, the officials of the

steelworkers union did come out and state that this was one

man's opinion and not the opinion of the steelworkers union. So

you can take that paper and quote it any way you like, but with

all the changes we made in the regulations I am sure that you

will agree with me — and I know the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay wants to be fair about it — that we are doing things

to improve the safety conditions in the mines.

When they were talking about everything on the downslide in

B.C., they were talking about the reduction in production.

Well, I brought that question up here at the start, too. In

1972 the exploration was $30.3 million; in 1973 — and we

only have 79 per cent of the reports in yet — we have

$24.7 million. So when the reports all come in, I think that

exploration will be about the same.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's $31.3 million. You can quote the

B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines if you like, but these are the

statistics. I've just got it down as the exploration — expenditures on

exploration. I suppose it wouldn't be

development into the production of the mine, but it would be

just the exploration.

In regard to the staking of claims that you talked about

being cut down: when we brought the legislation in last year I

expected that people would be a lot more selective in staking

claims when the work requirements went up. Also, there was a

rental.

I had a man just yesterday talking to us — he said he

staked 500 claims one time; he went out and staked 500 claims.

Well, you could stake as many claims as you liked in all the

moose pasture you wanted to when you didn't have to pay any

rentals for it.

Now 500 claims is 25,000 acres of land. Show me the

prospector or the company that wants to tie up 25,000 acres of

mineral lands at one time. That is only done to keep others

from having an opportunity to go in there and explore for

mineral rights.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there are lots of requirements besides

that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So in regard to clobbering the little man,

I don't think there was any time the little man was clobbered

more than in the previous years, because the little man was

always gobbled up by the bigger fellow. Don't cry too much,

because the prospector, on many occasions, although he found

the ore, got very little out of it. And when you speak about

the….

[ Page 2553 ]

MR. FRASER: That's socialist garbage!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When you talked about Chile, Peru, Zambia…I don't know why you were comparing them to British

Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: I wasn't. I was just pointing out how

unpredictable that was — that prediction for a

surplus.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Zambia's shortfall was due to when the

tailing pond went back into the mine. That's one of the reasons

they went out. Their management was not under Zambia, but under

the Anglo-American or Roman-Antelope Group.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, there was a prediction by Price

Waterhouse two or three years ago that exploration — this

was before this government got in — that exploration was

going to go down, and the amount of money that was going to be

spent on it was going down. When you look at the staking of

claims, staking of claims has gone up and down. When a new find

is made, then you'll find people rushing in and staking all

sorts of claims. When there are no new ore bodies found, then

the staking of claims goes down.

As I said before, I expected that the claim-staking

would go down because they are more selective in their staking

of claims now than they were before. This is quite

possible.

Now in regard to investment of money, the Hon. Member for…. Oh, he's gone out; I guess that's North Peace River (Mr.

Smith). Investment capital in exploration is tax deductible.

It's the people of Canada that pay for the exploration and

development of these mines. It is tax deductible. Many oil

companies come from Alberta province and they explore for

minerals in this province. They develop claims and then they

deduct it from their profits in Alberta and they don't have to

pay any income tax.

MR. FRASER: Why don't you phone David Lewis and tell him to

do something about it?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When you talk about the losses not being

shared by the people, I wonder if any of you have lived in a

mining camp that has shut down, where the people who had

invested their life-savings in their homes had to leave

them and got practically nothing for them — in many

cases, nothing at all.

Don't ever tell me that the mining company takes all the brunt. The

man that goes down in the mine and the people that work in the mine,

they take a lot of it also. So if there are any losses, they are the

ones that really lose.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) talked

the same talk last year that he did this year when I increased

the royalties on oil to 40 per cent. He said that it was a

disaster for the oil industry. He said that they were going to

lose everything up there, and that we would restrict

production. He said it was all a myth. I agree with it now that

what he said was just a myth.

For the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson), I would like to say a few words. I wish his dad were

here, because he taught me the policies that I am putting

forward today. I remember the night that he made a great speech

in this House about the lumber companies and about how we

should have got a $100 million back from the lumber industry in

royalties and percentages.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He sure did fail his dad! He failed his

dad! When he talked about exploration — of course, I

corrected that. The exploration today doesn't concern Crown

grants. The United States is finding that they need metals from

other countries, because you go down through some of their

states and you'll see ghost towns, one after the other of

mines that have been worked out.

When you talk about the B.C. Rail and the expenditure to the

taxpayer of the province dependent on the mines, these are the

things that the people of British Columbia spend. We say that

we don't want to give our resources away — that they

should assist in the expenses that they incur. If you want to

read the story of copper, read Joralman's book. It is a very

good book and very interesting. I think you'd understand the

story of copper not only in the present day but from the time

it started.

On open-pit costs, he said that he was taking $5 a

ton. Open-pit costs are usually around about $2.50 a ton,

so the $5 would be giving them a 100 per cent profit.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I wasn't

talking costs; I was talking the value of ore.

HON. MR. NIMSICK : The copper smelter is 10 years behind and

should have been built years ago. The gloom and despair that he has brought about isn't warranted when you read the papers

these days about the high profits that are being made. I think

that the companies are doing very well. I'm glad to see them

make a profit because I know that the higher the profit and the

higher the price goes, the more money that we will get in the

Province of British Columbia.

I am not too worried about the Howe Street boys

[ Page 2554 ]

who operate in many cases, and stock mines that are not mines at

all. Sure, there is money made and lost, but it is more like

what happens down in Las Vegas.

The question of some of these things makes you wonder what

really happened. You were talking about figuring and the

figures you bring out. I don't know whether you've ever heard

the story about the company that wanted to hire an accountant.

To the first application they said, "What is two and two?" And

he said, "Four." So they went to the next fellow and said,

"What is two and two?" He said, "What answer do you want?" So

that is sometimes what happens; it depends on what figures you

want to put in.

MR. FRASER: What did you do with that $100 million?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So that's what happens in some cases.

Those are all the answers to the questions I've got. I'm very

pleased, though, that the chamber of mines put out a pamphlet

so that you've got something to work from. If you didn't have

that, you would have nothing to work from.

MR. CHABOT: I've listened very attentively to some of the

answers given by the Minister this afternoon regarding the

mining industry in this province. One I found extremely

peculiar was that dealing with the question of copper and the

world demand for copper. He suggested it wasn't necessary for

us to travel to the country of Japan to establish our markets;

Japan comes to us for copper. It wasn't necessary because of

the world shortage and world conditions and the problems

encountered by some of the countries because of political

policies. There has been a shortage of this particular metal

and, consequently, we don't have to travel to Japan.

However, we find today that we have a group of individuals

and the Premier of the province, the chief executive officer of

this province, in Japan. I was told during the estimates of the

Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), just prior

to the recess of this Legislature, that he was going to go to

Japan in an attempt to secure additional coal markets. We

already are shipping coal, of course. Kaiser Resources….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think he said coal markets.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, he did. Absolutely. I asked him that

question very specifically. He told me he was going to Japan with….

He talked about the steel smelter and his intention to attract Japanese

investment capital to British Columbia to establish a steel industry

here. I questioned him on the matter of coal and whether he would be

discussing the question of markets on coal with the Japanese. He said,

"Certainly; that's one of the reasons wily we're going to Japan."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're hammering on our door for

coal.

MR. CHABOT: There is a certain inconsistency between what

you're saying, Mr. Minister, and what the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is saying.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I do know about coal.

MR. CHABOT: I do too. I happen to come from that part of the

world, though probably not quite as close as you are, Mr.

Minister, to the coal fields of the Kootenays. Nevertheless,

the Minister very clearly stated he was going there in an

attempt to increase the kind of markets for the coal which we

have in abundance here in British Columbia. There is a very

serious inconsistency within that cabinet of yours, Mr.

Minister, dealing with your attitudes as to whether you should

travel the world markets to sell our mineral products we are

talking about right now.

You suggest we should let them come knocking at our door.

The Minister of Industrial Development, whose prime

responsibility is to establish markets and establish secondary

industry in the province, says he is going to Japan to find

markets for coal; yet you say they should come knocking on our

door. I think the cabinet has a responsibility to be more

consistent than what you have displayed here today.

The government hailed a great day just a few months ago

regarding the development of a coal field up in the Peace River

country — Sukunka coal. They talked about the

establishment of a coal port in Squamish. There were the

environmental studies taking place. The Premier was extremely

keen on Squamish over Prince Rupert, even though Prince Rupert

is substantially closer to Japan than Squamish is. The Premier,

because of the fact no doubt that he is the president of the

B.C. Railway, was most emphatic to move coal over that

railroad. That might have had some bearing on the fact that the

government was interested in taking a 40 per cent interest in

that coal field.

Yet we've heard very little for the last several months

about the potential and the future development of this coal

field. I think the, Minister who is involved in the development

of the natural resources and involved in the coal development

of British Columbia should indicate very clearly tonight

whether there has been any progress in recent months with the

potential development of Sukunka, whether the government is

going to take a 40 per cent interest, and where that particular

issue and that particular situation presently stands. Is it a

dead issue; is it a live

[ Page 2555 ]

issue; or is it a luke-warm issue, Mr. Minister? I

think you should tell us.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Luke-warm.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you say Luke-warm. Yet the Premier

stands in his place and says, "We're going to take a 40 per

cent interest; we're making the environmental studies. The coal

mast be moved over the BCR. It's only a matter of time until

this coal…."

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, Mr. Minister. I happen to have

the floor at this time. What we're discussing right now, Mr.

Minister, even though the heading on your estimates is Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, are the estimates of the

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Mr. Minister,

you've been here a few years; I think you've observed a few

things. I hope you've observed just what takes place in

estimates. What takes place in estimates is that the Member

stands in his place and asks the Minister certain questions.

It's customary, I think, in most instances for the Minister,

after the Member has made his statements, to stand and reply.

Whether he replies with knowledge or lack of knowledge is

immaterial, I guess.

I'm asking you to tell me just where we stand at the moment

in view of the fact that the Minister might be in Japan at this

very moment attempting to sell coal — not necessarily

Kaiser coal, not necessarily Fording River coal — but he

might be attempting to sell Sukunka coal. If so, you must be

apprised; you must be aware, no doubt, of what the

Minister is doing in Japan. If you don't, there's a serious

lack of communication within the executive council of British

Columbia.

Are they leaving you out from some of the major policy

decisions in this province? Is there a two-tier form of

government in British Columbia? Is there a little caucus of

cabinet Ministers who make the decisions? Is there another

group on the outside which are not informed of what that power

group is deciding in British Columbia? Is that the type of

government you have here?

I think you have a responsibility to tell us what is taking place.

The people out there in the province want to know what form of

government they have. They have some ideas of what type of government

you are delivering and they are very disillusioned. But, nevertheless,

I think they should know once and for all what really takes place in

cabinet — not necessarily the specifics of the cabinet decisions, but

who holds the power and what few Ministers control the decisions within

your cabinet. It appears there are Ministers who are more influential

than other Ministers. I think, Mr. Minister, you should stand in your

place and name those Ministers who make those decisions that have a

very serious impact upon the economic destiny not only of the mining

industry but of the whole economy of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of

this Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the true Minister of Mines? Stand

up.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I want to speak very briefly about Granduc

Mines. There was a very vicious attack against the operation of

the Granduc Mines delivered by the big guy from

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings). It's quite

obvious to me that he doesn't understand the trials and

tribulations the operators of that mine were faced with a few

years ago.

That mine happens to be in the riding of the Member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder). I'm sure he appreciates that Granduc copper

mine being there, creating the hundreds of jobs from which

people in his riding are benefiting.

A few years ago there was a very serious tragedy at that

mine. There was a slide just at the portal of the tunnel they

were driving. I forget how many miles that tunnel was — something in

the neighbourhood of 21 miles of tunnel….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Eleven miles.

MR. CHABOT: Eleven miles, the Minister tells me. I think I'm

confused with the number of people who were killed because

about 21 miners were killed in that tragedy. Because of that

slide, it was necessary to refinance the operation of the

future development of that mine.

It was necessary as well for Granduc Mines to look for

additional capital. They couldn't find that capital in Canada;

they had to go to the United States to continue the development

of that mine. Without the investment capital from American

Smelting and Refinery that mine might never have been open

today. Those hundreds of jobs up in the constituency of Atlin….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's got nothing to do with this

vote.

MR. CHABOT: It certainly has. We're discussing Granduc Mines

and the production of copper in this province. The Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain — the big Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — attacked

Granduc Mines. He said

[ Page 2556 ]

it shouldn't be here because it's American financed. It

helped open the constituency of the Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder) by creating jobs for people.

I wonder if the Minister supports the kind of attack made

against this major copper producer in this province, the kind

of attack made by the Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain. At the moment the government is jeopardizing the

copper industry and jeopardizing the future of Granduc Mines,

and I wonder if he will tell me whether he supports the vicious

position taken by the Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say

that the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain made a

statement of the ownership of the mines. I didn't notice any

vicious attack on those mining companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member for Columbia River

continues I might point out that I did rule out of order the

comments by the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

inasmuch as he couldn't relate them to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister's estimates. I would direct

the same comment to the Member for Columbia River. Would he

please relate his remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister?

MR. CHABOT: Certainly. My question is very simple. Is the

Minister determines to destroy the economic viability of

Granduc Mines? Is that his intention? Is the reason for his

direction an attempt to destroy by his policies, legislation,

and direction Granduc Mines? It has American financing which

they had to secure in order to keep the development of the mine

in progress.

I was wondering if the Minister would elaborate a little

further on the question of Sukunka coal which I put to him a

few moments ago. Not only am I concerned and the people of

British Columbia, but I think those people who are more closely

located to the coal fields are very interested in finding out

just where the development of this potential coal mine

presently stands.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is a quick answer. My nature isn't to

destroy anything, and the Hon. Member knows that. I don't

intend to destroy the Granduc mine or any other mine in the

Province of British Columbia.

Sukunka is still a live issue, but not as lively as it was a

little while ago. I don't know what he means about the markets

for coal, but I'm sure we can find lots of markets for coal

when we're ready to ship the coal.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to hash over the

answers the Minister gave to my remarks earlier on. We obviously

disagree on a lot of things.

I do want to correct one thing he said. He said that I spoke

of cost of ore as $5 a ton. I wasn't speaking of costs, Mr.

Minister. I was saying that minimum value for ore is $5 a ton.

Cost of mining, I appreciate, in an open-pit circumstance

is much closer to $2 a ton.

Mr. Minister, you said just before you sat down a while ago

that you were glad the chamber of mines put out a pamphlet so

the opposition would have something to work with in dealing

with your estimates. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,

I'm glad it does, too.

Why does your annual report take so long to get out? When do

we expect the 1973 reports? — maybe October or November,

1974. How late is it going to be? Why is it that other

departments can get their annual reports out much more quickly

than your department? Surely these statistics are collected on

a current basis. I would have thought it could be put together

more quickly. If it's a question of staff, Mr. Minister, come

to the House and ask for the staff. I'm sure it would be met

with warmth.

The Minister thought that the decline in claim-staking

was not something that reflected the decline in exploration

expenditures in the industry or exploration trends, but rather

just something to be expected because of legislation he had

brought in having to do with rentals on claims and so on. He

said it was common to tie up all kinds of land and just sit on

it and hold it. But what about the work requirements, Mr.

Minister? He didn't mention those.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I did.

MR. GIBSON: I didn't hear you mention those. The work

requirements are far more significant than the rental you

impose. You've imposed a rental of $10 a claim — which

rental I disagree with, incidentally. I'd rather see that money

going into exploration work, rather than into the coffers of

the government, which are already over brimming. Surely you

should have mentioned the work requirement. So I don't really

think that that rental was a significant factor in the

declining claim-staking. I think it was more the policies

of your government.

At the same time you said that the claim-staking was

down because there's no particular rush going on now; there's

no particular attraction. Well, Mr. Minister, I don't know,

we're in the middle of the best prices and profits this

industry has ever seen, and yet exploration and staking is

down. That just doesn't go together to me. What that says to me

is that the prospectors and the people that go out to find

things are scared, scared of your government.

You spoke of exploration expenditures, Mr.

[ Page 2557 ]

Minister. I am very puzzled with the figures you were using.

You were using somewhere a figure, I think, of $24 million

worth of exploration expenditures.

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

I heard your father give the same speech in the former government.

MR. GIBSON: He wasn't using the same annual report, Mr.

Minister, because we have a bit newer one now — not much

newer but a bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: The exploration expenditure in 1972, which is

from your annual report of 1972, on prospecting and exploration

on undeclared mines — in other words, off-property

exploration, not on developed-property exploration — is $39 million.

That coincides with the figures given

by the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines for 1972.

These off-property exploration figures, I would

submit, are the most significant ones because that is the new

exploration that's going on. It's not the exploration that's

being done on declared or operating mines or development on

declared or operating mines. That's essentially an improvement

of existing properties. The undeclared mines or the

off-property exploration is what's finding the new

mineral wealth of British Columbia. So that was $39 million in

It was $28 million in 1973, according to the

B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines. We have no figures from you

because the annual report hasn't been published yet. Now the

B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines projects — and their

projections have been pretty darned good — for 1974

something in the neighbourhood of $14 or $15 million. That's

another drop, another disastrous drop, of more than 50 per cent

after a drop from $39 million down to $28 million.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They predicted that the price of copper

wasn't going up, too, a couple of years ago.

MR. GIBSON: They may be able to predict the exploration a

little bit better than the price of copper. The price of copper

is hard to predict, as you know, Mr. Minister.

So it seems to me that the Minister hasn't made a very good

case for not saying that the exploration in the industry is in

an absolute nosedive.

I'd like the Minister to comment a bit on the growing

bureaucracy of the regulations of his department. And I want to

read to him a copy of a letter to the Minister.

"I have just finished reading over your new

regulations," — this is dated March 18, 1974 — "regarding assessment

work under the new Mineral Act .

Whoever drew the regulations up sure

didn't think of the poor prospector. Apart from the bureaucratic

mish-mash, I can cope with it to a certain degree as I have a good

education. But what about the less educated prospectors? The poor

people will surely be weeded out on their assessment reports. I can see

very clearly what's going to happen: letters, reports and more letters

from the Victoria Mines department. More time and money will be spent

on such bureaucratic nonsense and so more taxation on the people.

"I've been a prospector in B.C. for over 20 years, and

never

before have I seen the prospector get such severe treatment.

Higher staking fees, recording fees, grouping fees, company

licences will accomplish what they've set out to do, and that

is to weed out the prospector and the small mining company.

"The new mining laws are really severe on the

prospector.

Thousand of mineral claims will lapse" — as they have,

Mr. Minister — "and not be renewed because of heavy cost

and bureaucratic regulations governing assessment work. Perhaps

this is what the Mines department wants. If so, keep it up;

you're on the right track."

That's a letter from Salmon Arm, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No, it's not a Mr. Abbott; it's not him —

somebody else. I'd like the Minister to comment on the

unquestionably more onerous quantity of red tape and

regulations that his department has put in. Then I'd like him

to comment on something else. We've been pretty much strictly

on the hardrock side so far. Their was some talk earlier on

about the petroleum side. I'm not sure if the Minister made a

remark that it was staying up there, but he couldn't have.

Listen to these figures. First of all, here's a report put out

by the Department of Mines. In the newspaper here, April 11,

1974:

"Natural gas production in B.C. decreased in January

compared to a year earlier, according to figures released by

the provincial Mines department. The average daily production

of marketable natural gas in January was about 1,150,000 cubic

feet. In January, 1973, the average production was about

1,275,000 cubic feet. Throughout 1973, gas production was

consistently up over 1972 figures."

So what happened in 1974? In January of 1974 it went down.

Crude oil production was exactly the same in January as a year

earlier. It should have been

[ Page 2558 ]

up in this time of an oil crisis but it was exactly the

same: about 61,000 barrels a day. But footage drilled decreased

from about 140,000 feet to about 115,000 feet.

There's one report which indicates that, in the petroleum

side of things, matters are not improving. In petroleum, just

as in hard- rock mining, exploration is the lifeblood of

the business. Here's some more disturbing figures. This is a

report of April 16, 1974:

"Oil and gas well drilling in 1973 showed a sharp

increase

in Canada over 1972, but was down substantially in B.C.

"The number of wells drilled in B.C. was down 29.1 per

cent

to 165 from 213 while footage was down 24.3 per cent to 867,921

feet from 1,146,657 feet.

"For all of Canada, the number of wells drilled was up

20.7

per cent to 4,621 from 3,827 while footage was up 17.8 per

cent."

Later on it's noted that new field wildcats in B.C. were

down 40.9 per cent to 13 from 22; and in footage, 35.4 per cent

down to 115,000 from 178,000. Mr. Minister, these new wildcats

are again the really new exploration, the real lifeblood.

Beyond that, the total exploratory wells were down 19.4 per

cent, down to 100 from 124,

whereas Alberta was up 38.3 per

cent. Development drilling in British Columbia was down as

well; down 30.1 per cent to 65 wells from 93, and in footage

down 31.8 per cent. In Alberta, it was up 38.2 per cent. So

there again, down 30 per cent in B.C.; up 38 per cent in

Alberta.

Now, Mr. Minister, I realize that our hydrocarbons are

not as prolific and abundant as Alberta, at least so far. But I

really do have to ask you for an explanation of these figures.

You have argued that your policies were such as to encourage

this side of the industry as well, and yet again here we have

not only a decline in production but a substantial decline in

the exploration work.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Firstly, I'd like to say in regard to the

figures on exploration, if you look at page A9 and you add A

and B together on undeclared mines, you will total about

31.3.

MR. GIBSON: How was that again?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: On the physical work and surveys: 31.3.

You total 29 million and 1,191,000, you'll come to 31.3.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I see. I was even giving you the benefit of

the administration costs.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So that question is answered. In regards

to the annual report, we're going to make every effort to have

it out a lot earlier. The annual report of Mines is a very

extensive report and I think everybody should appreciate the information carried in

the annual report. It goes back over the years. You can get a

picture of the whole mining industry for many years back which

you can't do in any other report I know of. I don't like to

discontinue that type of report. The reports we get in to add

to the statistics from the companies take a certain amount of

time. But we do hope the next report will be out quite a bit

ahead of any past report.

There are no recording fees; that's included in the

rental.

The $200 work requirement of the claim. I brought that up

and I don't think that is out of line when you consider that

$100 came from 1891. The dollar has changed considerably. Now

they can charge up almost everything, even their prospecting

time, to their work on the claims. So I think we've benefited

the prospector in that regard.

In regard to oil and gas, we had trouble in the Beaver River

gas fields which did cut down production on gas.

In regard to the drilling, it depends on the number of rigs

you can get. Our last sale was highest per acre we ever had. I

don't know whether they were short of gas rigs. Sometimes it

depends on the winter as to how council drilling they can do up

in the north. They can only do their drilling during the cold

weather when it is frozen over. That's all I can answer on that

question.

MR. SMITH: I would just like to speak briefly on the matter

of exploration for petroleum products, natural gas and oil in

the Province of British Columbia. The Minister who has just

taken his place suggested that the amount of exploration is

dependent upon the number of drilling rigs which are available

at any given time. It would seem to me that the Minister has a

very short memory.

It was only about a year ago when I stood in my place in

this House and told the Minister what was happening with

respect to the exploration for natural gas and oil in the

Province of British Columbia. At that time I told the Minister

that in all of Canada there were only a certain number of

drilling rigs available to do all the exploration work that

would be done, regardless of where it was to take place in the

Canadian west. From the information I had and from what I could

see was going on in the northeastern part of British Columbia,

the drilling contractors who had drilling rigs available were

bidding their rigs out to the Province of Alberta, the North

West Territories or the Yukon.

The reason for that was clearly and definitively spelled out

by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and myself

on the floor of this House. That is because of the attitude

expressed by the Minister and by the cabinet with respect to

drilling activity in the Province of British Columbia. The

[ Page 2559 ]

drilling companies decided at that point that there was

really not too much future for them in the Province of British

Columbia.

I've got to admit that the price to the producers has been

increased as a result of an increased export price for natural

gas. But believe me, Mr. Minister, the year and a half the

amount of drilling dipped down in the Province of British

Columbia has done irreparable damage to our drilling programme

in this province. The people who are responsible for that

happening is the government of this province and, above all,

you as a Minister who represents Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

There seems to be a tendency on the part of the Minister and

the other Ministers of the Crown to discount anything said by

the Members of the official opposition. But the things we have

said and the picture we have tried to paint about the things I

know best, because I l