1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2561 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Statutes Act (Bill 111). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2561

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources estimates.

On vote 174. Mr. Gibson — 2579

Mr. Bennett — 2561 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2580

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2563 Mr. Gibson — 2580

Mr. Bennett — 2565 Mr. Wallace — 2581

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2566 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2582

Mr. Bennett — 2566 Mr. Wallace — 2582

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2566 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2582

Mr. Bennett — 2567, Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2583

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2569 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2588

Mr. Dent — 2569 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2588

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2570 On vote 175.

Mr. Bennett — 2570 Mr. Bennett — 2589

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2571 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2589

Mr. Gardom — 2571 Mr. Gibson — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2572 On vote 176.

Mr. Gardom — 2572 Mr. Gibson — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2573 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Mr. Gardom — 2573 On vote 177.

Mr. Phillips — 2573 Mr. Fraser — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2575 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Mr. Phillips — 2575 Mr. Gibson — 2590

Hon. Mr. Lea — 2576 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2576 Mr. Richter — 2590

Mr. Phillips — 2576 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2578 On vote 179.

Mr. Phillips — 2578 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2591

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2578 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2591

Mr. Phillips — 2579 Mr. McClelland — 2591

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATUTES ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statutes

Act.

Bill 111 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

have just a few questions I'd like to ask the Minister

regarding some of the statements he made yesterday, and a few

comments on his department. I don't want to deal specifically

with mining in depth because I'm sure it will come up under

Bill 3 1, and the balance of money the Minister wishes to

extract.

What we're concerned about really is not the tax dollars

during the Minister's estimates, but how he sees mining as an

integrated base for British Columbia, not only for what it

provides today but also what it provides for the future. The

Minister talks about immediate revenues and leaving the

minerals in the ground if they don't pay. But what is the

alternative and what is our obligation to the immediate future

in lead time in developing new ore bodies and developing new

mines as a taxation base? This is where I see the Minister's

failure to recognize his responsibility.

Certainly we know the existing mines are providing taxes,

are providing jobs and are providing the economy with a great

spurt due to the world record ore prices. This is fine. But

what about the lack of immediate activity, the lack of activity

we've had in the last 18 months, the lack of the activity in

the future, or the lack of activity because of the concern in

the mining industry? You know the amount of lead time, Mr.

Minister, that it takes to explore and develop a mine, bring it

on stream so that it provides those jobs, so it provides the

economy with profits and with taxes.

I'd like to know what's happening to specific properties

that appeared ready to go, like Placer Development's Berg

property. What's happened to these properties when we have

world record ore prices at a time when we would expect that

British Columbia, like all other jurisdictions, would be going

full tilt into bringing these projects on stream? We would

expect B.C., like other jurisdictions, to be going full tilt

into exploration instead of actually having a decline in the

number of permits and people actively seeking new minerals.

I'd like to ask the Minister how he feels he's meeting his

commitment to the responsibility for the development of an

economic base, not just for his government, but for the

government that will replace you and the government that

follows, so that they will have the base that will provide not

only tax revenues but also jobs and activity that go beyond the

mere collection of government revenues.

I think the philosophy the Minister has is looking at mines

merely as they relate to the direct payment to the government.

But you must realize, Mr. Minister, that in the economic stream

people receive benefits from areas of economic activity other

than direct government services.

In fact, many people will argue that the economy as it's

generated outside the government sphere, if this economic

activity is active and full, people can provide for themselves

many of the services the Minister feels he is going to have to

do with the government.

We are not just talking about mining or resource management

as it affects government revenues, but how it affects the

economy in general. If you don't have the jobs available in the

mining industry how will the government find not only the

revenues but also the jobs to place those people who cannot

find employment in what may be a declining industry?

What does the Minister indicate? Where are we going to find

the economic base to pay for those increased services which

this government and future governments wish to bring in for the

benefit of the people if, in fact, this has happened? We've had

a hiatus on mineral development in this province — not

only for 18 months, but it appears for the this year and the

year following. There doesn't seem to be any anticipation from

mining companies that they will be bringing on stream many of

these properties that I'd like to bring up today.

There is the Liard property of Silver Standard; there's

Hudson's Bay Mining Stikine Property. What is happening to

these properties under normal conditions, under other

jurisdictions where there isn't the insecurity, where they

don't feel the fear? Instead of looking for co- operation

from the government and from the Department of Mines the people

involved in the industry feel fear and don't bring into

production and on stream projects and mining activity that

[ Page 2562 ]

would normally expect in this time of world high prices.

You've got to take the responsibility, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, for anticipating that future governments

will require this pace to meet the services, to meet the funds

and to provide jobs for the people of this province.

You say there's an alternative that if you can't get what

you want, you'll leave the minerals in the ground. Well, that's

very well, except in this age of technological change, Mr.

Minister, we have seen many minerals or ores come in and out of

use. And those that aren't developed, those that aren't used,

become useless as a base for generating profits or as an

economic advantage for the people of the province.

I talk about things like tungsten which doesn't have the

impact on the economy. I talk about molybdenum which isn't

enjoying the high prices of the other ores that are on the

world market because it's now overproduced.

When you talk about mines making tremendous profits —

and we talked about Brenda Mines — Brenda Mines is in

difficulty because most of its profit is tied up in large

inventories of molybdenum, and molybdenum seems to have a very

poor future on the pricing market of the world. These mines

were brought in as partial copper and moly mines, yet we've

seen moly as a mineral worth dollars to the province decline in

value in what would normally be record booming times. What

assurance does the Minister have that what minerals we accept

as useful today and as having economic value, that they will

have a use tomorrow?

When you leave them in the ground, Mr. Minister, instead of

extracting them and generating cash, they don't earn interest.

If they become out of fashion or out of use, you have lost for

all time for the people of this province the economic value and

what they can create in the way of providing dollars for future

industries which may or may not relate to mining.

What we're really talking about is what research has your department done in

trying to anticipate those minerals that B.C. now has and their future prospects

for continued use. What research has your department done in the way of projections

on the world pricing and world markets with relation to other governments, and

what minerals we may have that may be declining in value that are developed

in this province? What we're worried about, Mr. Minister, is that if the performance

of your department of actually developing...and the long lead time necessary

to bring these projects on stream, if it continues for the rest of your term

we will have a blank spot in B.C.'s mineral development, a blank spot of three

or four years, depending on when you next come up for election, that can't be

replaced. You know yourself the amount of time it takes to redevelop these projects

and get them on stream might make us miss what normally is a high price market

in the world economy.

You've been a Member of this Legislature for many years. You

come from a mining area and you know the difficulties in the

days when there wasn't a good world price on many of the

minerals that B.C. is now enjoying the fruits of, when there

was a problem even getting mines started. People talk about

40-cent copper, you know yourself that there were days

when 40-cent copper was but a pie in the sky dream and

that we couldn't develop these mines because we didn't have a

market, a profitable market for the mineral. You must know that

on the world market copper is triple the original 40 cents we

used to dream about, almost triple, and that this condition may

or may not last.

I'm asking what research your department has done in

predicting the continuation of this price, the continuation of

the use of copper, and whether your department can give us

assurance that the many projects.... I think there's eight of

them for sure that probably would have been, under a different

economic atmosphere, brought into production in B.C.

The Alice Arm property and Falconbridge property at Sustut,

Noranda's Morrison Lake property and the Granby's Huckleberry

property, all of these projects appeared ready to go. In other

jurisdictions they're rushing through projects which were not

as far along in development as these to bring them on stream to

take advantage of these prices. Why aren't these being

developed in B.C.? Do you take the responsibility for these not

having come in? Do you take the responsibility because the

climate for mining, the climate for the extracting of ores is

not good in B.C.?

The fact that you've come into office almost simultaneously

with the change in world prices, yet B.C.'s exploration and

B.C.'s new mining activity have declined at the same time, must

be in direct relationship to your stewardship of this

department. The responsibility is yours to tell us what plans

and what projections you are making to ensure that the

governments that follow you will be able to continue to use

this as an economic base to provide some of the services in the

future. I listened to some of your arguments yesterday and in

quoting statistics, I believe one of your statistics was to

show the labour relation to the mining industry, and that we

have a slightly declining labour force compared to dollar

value. There again, I would relate, Mr. Minister, that it's

apples and oranges because of the inflationary cost and the

change of world prices, the labour content should be related to

tonnage and not to dollars. A lot of that increase, jumping

from $392 million to $1 billion, is based on the change in

price of copper, which has changed drastically during the

last

[ Page 2563 ]

year in the world.

If you're going to give comparisons to the Legislature, then

you should relate it to a more meaningful set of statistics

which is people to tonnage.

We would naturally expect that with technology this would be

declining, because if we're going to be competitive and take

the benefit of technological change, we are going to have some

decline in the rate of labour to tonnage, but don't relate it

to dollars when we've had a drastic change in dollars on the

world market.

The other thing I was going to mention is that you mentioned

the great rip-off that certain companies made on their

development costs by writing them off against their profits. I

think you've got this usual hang-up that there are five or six

major mining companies that are able to do this. But you should

know better than anyone in this House the thousands of small companies and individuals that do exploration and do

preparatory work but never bring a mine or a claim into

fruition and never have a profit on which they have to write

those costs off against. You should know very well that the whole industry has some

gigantic rip-off in which all exploration and preparatory

work is completely exempt because it's written off against

profits. Surely, you know very well that there are more than

the five or six major mining companies. In fact, the people

we're concerned about is that base of prospectors and small

mining companies that do all the lead work and the initial work

before the major companies come in and take over. Many of these

projects and many of these people never get a chance to bring

their property into any sort of development where it becomes

part of a project, where it is written off against profits.

You know very well that much of the exploration in British

Columbia is never written off against any profits in any

company. And you should know it better than anyone else in this

House, coming from a mining area and being involved with the

industry over the years.

I also was concerned about your statements about the steel

mill yesterday because I feel that a steel mill of some size

would be of advantage to B.C. I do feel, because you are

Minister of Mines and certainly we know that nobody would have

more interest in developing a steel industry in B.C. than the

Minister of Mines, that you were part of the discussion either

before or part of the delegation to Japan. The very fact that

they weren't able to develop a steel mill, the very fact that

the government is coming home empty handed, that we aren't

going to have a steel mill in this province is disappointing to

us.

I feel the Minister has more of a responsibility to explain to this Legislature

whether he has actively worked with the Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce and with the Premier in preparation of trying to attract

a steel mill to this province. As we know, the west coast of the United States,

in California, didn't really develop secondary industry until they got a steel

industry during the Second World War. Although they had a larger population

base and it took a war to attract it, I think in B.C., with its growth rate

and with the type of trading that we may be able to do, that a limited steel

mill would be a great attraction for us having a start on good basic secondary

industry in this province. I feel it's important.

Secondly, we talked about copper and a copper smelter. There

again, with the large amount of copper produced in B.C., which

is the bulk of our minerals, I feel the Minister did not give

adequate explanation yesterday as to not why he lost it, but

what you're actually doing and what you're going to do —

over and above this task force. What happened to the two that

were scheduled for B.C.? When you mentioned pollution control,

what design and what type are you recommending, and where the

difference has been in the design of copper smelters over this

last year over the two that were apparently slated for British

Columbia? You haven't fully explained this to the Legislature,

Mr. Minister, what change in the design of smelter that you're

recommending to this task force that they bring in for British

Columbia.

Those are just a few of the questions that we're concerned

about. Before I continue, I'd just like you to answer a few of

those. Then I'd like an opportunity to speak again.

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

Chairman, first I would like to say before I reply to the Hon. Member, I noticed

that yesterday in a quick off-the-cuff reply I did use the word "Japs" and

immediately changed it to Japanese. Now, I've been long enough in this House

to know that there are cases where people make statements across the floor which

are picked up very quickly by the newspapers and they don't put the following

statement in, they put the one thing in. But politics is a funny thing. Politics

is something where, especially from the opposition, if our arguments aren't

good, we grab onto anything we can. The press grabbed that statement very quickly.

If it's necessary, I apologize for using the word "Japs"

when I said it. I apologize in that case for using the word

"Japs" because I connected it immediately. I hope the press

will also be as willing to put my apology into their

papers.

We know the record of the New Democratic Party, back to 1941

when the people who are on that side of the House today, the

parties that represent that side of the House today....

[ Page 2564 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon, Minister speaking

on a point of order?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm just correcting a statement that was

made yesterday which I think is correct. But I will say that

the New Democratic Party has got a record second to none in

regard to fighting on behalf of the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon.

Minister to confine his remarks to his estimates. If he's

making a point of order, I think that the point of order was

made. I would ask him now to continue with his estimates.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I just wanted to say that I had corrected

it and it never was in the press that way. They put it in the

press to try and undermine a party that has fought for those

people for many, many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In reply to the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett), they were here for 20 years and they

never took a real assessment of the mineral potential of the

Province of British Columbia. For the first time we are taking

that assessment of the potential of the Province of British

Columbia.

In regard to the task force, I would be premature in making

statements today on what we expect the task force to be

investigating, in regard to pollution and other items. The

pollution board did put out a report. The talk of the smelter

that was going to be started — that's just not so. The

smelter was not going to be started.

They had a public hearing and they never got it off the

ground because the only way that they could make it feasible

was to have the tall-stack smelter which would destroy

the countryside. We didn't go for that, and I'm sure that the

previous government wouldn't have gone for it either. The

future will tell what we're going to do in regard to the copper

smelter.

The steel mill. Yes, I'd like to see a steel mill in the

Province of British Columbia but, again, it takes time to get

such an item under operation. We spoke of steel mills for many

years. You can go all the way back to 1912 when they had a

royal commission on a steel mill for British Columbia. I don't

know whether they were trying to keep the production of steel

down in the eastern part of Canada and that's the reason that

we've never had a steel mill. Nevertheless, now that steel is

short maybe we can go ahead with the steel mill.

You talk about minerals left in the ground. We have plenty of reserves already

blocked out for many years, as far as copper goes, if we want to. When you talk

about nobody wanting to go ahead, I notice in The Northern Miner — and I quote

from Afton Mines:

"N.B. Keever Jr., president, told The Northern Miner he

is preparing to file the government's required notice in the British Columbia

Gazette that it intends to apply for a production lease. Afton is planning a

7,000-ton-a-day open-pit operation at its copper property near Kamloops."

I'm sure that Highland Valley will be going ahead very

shortly.

When you talk about not being interested, I think we've got

to consider the future as well as the present, and I don't

think in terms of just a dollar bill. There are many people

today who probably would have been glad to have left the ore in

the ground until the prices became higher, but they didn't do

it.

When you look back over the years, there was a time that

everybody thought that coal was going to be of no value. Today

it is of greater value than at any other time. These resources

don't rot in the ground. There is a move on throughout Canada

that we should be depleting these natural resources in

accordance to a plan over the future years.

We don't need to rush to get rid of all our resources just

because the price is high today. This is a mistake. This is

because all that society today in most cases thinks of is the

immediate dollar bill. They're not thinking of the needs of the

people or the future needs of the people.

I'm sure that when you go down through Nevada and these

places and see all the ghost towns and all the mines that have

been depleted, you will notice there that the United States

wishes now that they had been a little more careful with the

depletion of their natural resources so that they wouldn't be

so dependent on exploiting foreign resources in order to keep

their type of society going.

I don't worry too much about how fast you get them out of

the ground. The panic to get rid of them shouldn't be towards

the dollar bill; it should be towards what the needs are of the

people today and the needs of the future generation.

You talk about the miners. I quoted yesterday the amount of

copper that had been depleted in the Province of British

Columbia since 1858. Just about 10 per cent of that since 1958

was depleted last year, and yet we didn't increase the number

of workers.

We haven't enough miners. The ladies had to fill the breach

in the mining industry in British Columbia. We have quite a

number of women working on trucks in the mining operations

today because we haven't enough miners.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Oh, what

[ Page 2565 ]

an attitude. They want to get them out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're short of miners. There are many

areas where their quota has not been filled, and the ladies

came in and filled the breach. I have no objection to that at

all. But to try and tell me that we've lost employment! B.C.

never had it better than they have it today, and we've never

produced more metals than we are at the present time.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No thanks to you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's the future, and as for the Stikine

property, we've got to build the BCR to there before the

Stikine property can come into operation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Why did

they cancel the drilling on that property?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You know that as well as I do.

MR. GIBSON: Who's drilling on that property?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I talked to the Stikine copper people and

they know pretty well what they've got. It takes three to five

years to bring a mine into production, I'll agree. But this is

something that the private interests will have to deal

with.

There are some properties ready to go into production. But,

as I said before, I don't think that the economy of British

Columbia has suffered because we have not rushed out to try to

deplete the ore as quickly as possible just because the price

is high. This to me is a wrong attitude to take — to get

the dollars right now.

We did that with the forestry years ago and finally we had

to manage the forests. We've even had to cut back on the

forests because we overcut. The day may come when we might have

to decide that we've got to go easier on the depletion of some

of these natural resources in order to be able to look ahead

and say that we will still have natural resources for the

future. I'm rather amazed at some of the statements made

— as if we should get rid of everything right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Nobody said that. You're twisting it

around.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: These things don't rot in the ground. They

don't rot there, you know. As long as our economy is going and

everybody is doing fine, I don't see the worry that we should

bring all these operations into production right now.

Don't forget that if you bring three or four more mines into

production and build communities and everything and maybe start

to flood the market even with some of these things, it costs

the public a great amount of money for social amenities. Mines

have shut down year after year. We have four or five or six

mines every year that are running out of ore.

So that's all I can say, and I think that that answers your

questions as to my philosophy.

MR. BENNETT: Well, with all respect to the Minister, he

didn't answer my question. I wasn't saying to mine. I asked

what you are doing to plan the mining activity for the future,

because the mines that are in existence today that are bringing

prices and helping Canada solve its balance of payments and

bringing us foreign dollars were developed long before this

Minister came to office.

What I said is that the high world prices that have

developed since you came to office, which our province can take

advantage of.... What are you doing there? There has been no

new mining activity, although many were slated and had their

work done. There were eight definite projects and at least

another half dozen that could have been brought on stream that

haven't, that normally would in any other jurisdiction during a

period like this.

What is your plan for bringing them on to provide an

economic base for future governments? Fine, you're living off

the economy generated from facilities developed long before you

came to office.

What are you doing to continue the development so that

succeeding governments have the same opportunity that you have?

Certainly we're taking advantage of world record prices. The

British Columbia economy is booming because of our forestry and

ore prices in the world. These projects were developed far in

advance of your coming to office, but nothing has happened

since you've taken the position of Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. BENNETT: No projects have been developed.

I hope you don't take any evidence from the Minister for

ICBC (Hon. Mr. Strachan) because I'd hate to see the mining

industry deteriorate to that level of competence and

management. But what are you doing and what are your plans and

what are your projections on the use of copper? What are your

projections on prices? I'll ask the same questions I asked.

Just where are you taking it? I don't want to hear your speech

about leaving the minerals in the ground. Tell us, on a

projected basis, what you are doing as Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well....

[ Page 2566 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He doesn't like the

answer, that's all.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We produced more copper last year than we

ever did. These new mines that are coming on to force, if we

were to operate them today, we wouldn't have enough miners to

operate them. My opinion is this. You take Highland Valley,

Bethlehem Copper, and Afton. I would like to see the day when

that could be an economic unit so that when we build a

community for that area we will make it last as long as

possible — not try and mine things out in 10 years when

you could make it feasible for 30 or 40 years. We've got to

plan these things so that, when you build a community and

schools and hospitals, they will last as long as possible. We

don't want ghost towns; we want to make these towns viable and

bring happiness to people. Unless we make the people happy and

meet the needs of the people, there's no use depleting the

reserves of our country.

I say we have got to plan. This is why I brought in the

production lease. I don't want a company to go in and, just

because the price is high, deplete a mine as quickly as

possible. I want them to deplete it in accordance with the

social and economic affairs around it and to make that mine

last as long as possible.

What need have we got right now for more mines? Is there any

great need? I'm not suggesting mines can't come into

production. They can apply for a production lease and it looks

as though there are some of them who are going to apply for

production leases to go into production.

Two years ago or a year ago there was a statement made that

the price of copper was going to be low. This is one of the

reasons why these mines have not come into production: the

price has been low. I imagine these companies are watching very

carefully the world prices so they don't bring it into

production and then find the price has gone again.

Don't try and tell me we've got to develop everything right

now just because the price is high and to bring a balance of

payments. These mines must be developed as a base for the

economy of British Columbia. Then we must try and develop

secondary industry so we'll get the maximum amount of good for

the people of British Columbia out of every ton of ore we take

out of the ground. Once it's taken out, it's gone forever.

Don't worry too much about the economy of British Columbia. It

was never booming better than it is today, and it will continue

to boom in spite of your hopes that it goes down.

In years to come, your children will look back. If you've depleted all these

resources and they're having trouble finding them, probably they will look back

and say, "What kind of people did we have back in those days who had so little

thought for the future?"

MR. BENNETT: He still didn't answer my question. I asked you

what projections you had on world prices on which you based the

lack of activity in B.C. You're making an excuse for having no

activity. Every other jurisdiction, with experts like you have

to advise them, are bringing into production mineral ore

deposits to take advantage of these prices. They have a plan to

bring them on.

What I've got to say is in British Columbia, since you've

come to office, even with this surge in prices, no major mines

have opened or developed although many had their feasibilities

and their preliminary work done and were prepared to do so.

I asked you: What is your projection on world copper price?

You suggested it might fall. What is your department's

projection? What research have you done? On what basis are you

going to allow these mines to come on stream, as you said, on a

gradual basis? Would you give me the advantage of the research

your department has done or is this just an excuse you get up

and say for things not happening? Would you give the

Legislature the benefit of the detailed research you have done

specifically to hold these projects up? What research have you

done and what projections do you have on the continuing prices

for copper?

We were talking about a steel mill, and you said you were

interested. But back last August, the trade Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk)

was announcing that date on the steel mill — "Steel Decision Due in

Mid-August" — on the type of steel that would

be developed in this province and an announcement on the negotiations

for a steel mill. That was in 1973. All of the preliminary work on

design, apparently with consultation, as you say you had, has taken

place with the Minister. Would you please advise us in this Legislature

the type and the tonnage of steel mill that will be brought into B.C.

and bring us up to date on why we haven't got the steel mill now? This

was all announced for last August. As you say, you just told us you

were part of the negotiations and the preparations for the steel mill.

Could you advise us as to the type of steel mill, how much tonnage, and

where it will be located?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The steel mill proposition is still in the

planning stages so I'm not going to make any definite statement

as to the size of the steel mill. If you're reading out of the

press, all you need to do is give the press a few words and, as

regards to a steel mill, they can make a story out of it.

Interjections.

[ Page 2567 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We've been talking about a steel mill, but

the previous government contributed millions of dollars towards

a steel....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Do you want the answer or do you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they don't want you to answer.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The previous government gave millions of

dollars to Cominco to set up a steel mill at Kimberley, and

they did. When they got through with the subsidy, the steel

mill was closed down. They had some problems there and they

closed it down, so there was no steel mill there. Before we

have a steel mill, a certain amount of planning has got to go

into that.

When you talk about copper and the planned depletion, this

is the first time we've got an economic planning division in

the Mines department. This just came into force January 1. How

fast do you think we can have the plans out in regards for

economic planning? If the private companies which have these

copper bodies are ready to go, if they're reticent about going

ahead with them, I'm not here to force them to go ahead and

develop those mines. I don't intend to subsidize them in order

to get them to deplete the ore of this province. We're going to

do it for the needs of the people and it's not going to be done

to make profits for a few individuals or for some

multinational company outside.

When you're talking of the small operators who have claims,

they go to the large companies to develop their claim and take

options on them. The expenses those companies put on they

delete from their profits of other companies. Practically all

your mining in this province is done by large companies outside

the basic amounts. The prospector goes out sometimes and finds

a mine. The company gets hold of it. It's not a real mine but

they'll put it on the stock market. There's more money made and

lost on the stock market in regards to those mines than ever

gets into the ground.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I said we have the economic planning

division now. It was just started in January and you never had

it before. The previous government did no planning in mining;

everything was done by the private sector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I stopped it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't talk nonsense.

HON. MR, NIMSICK: I gave you the figures for last year, and

the exploration did not go down to any great extent last year.

The number of claims you were talking about, I gave you that

answer last night. I don't intend to repeat myself today. Your

arguments as to how fast we're going to deplete the resource

will depend on the policy of the private sector that has the

bodies of ore. If they don't want to bring them into line right

now, fine and dandy. Maybe they figure the price is going to be

higher later on and they'll make a better deal out of it.

Our economy is doing very well. I don't see the necessity of

depleting our ore or getting into a panic about depleting our

natural resources. The natural resource is the very basis of

our society. When you look at the United States and how they

depleted their resources and came to Canada and other parts of

the world wanting to deplete other resources in order to keep

their standard of living going, let's try and protect our

standard of living in Canada by seeing that these resources

will not be depleted in a short time and that we will have a

future to our society.

MR. BENNETT: We're in the Minister's estimates and we can't

discuss legislation dealing with Bill 31, a proposed mining

legislation. But one of the things you are involved in is the

preparation of a steel mill. You stand up here and you say

you're not prepared to tell the Legislature anything about a

steel mill, the type of mill you're asking for or the tonnage.

You say you were in full consultation with the Minister of

Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk). Yet you won't enlighten

the Legislature on what type of steel mill you're trying to

attract to B.C. when the type was announced. The Minister said

they would have a deadline and they would have the type and

tonnage of mill that was going to be brought into this province

last August. You won't share this information with the

Legislature. What do you want us to discuss under your

estimates?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You question Lauk on that.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Minister, if you won't answer, then the

suspicion is true that neither the Premier nor the Minister of

Industrial Development trust your opinion or decision and that

you haven't been part of any discussions on a steel mill. It

wasn't just that you couldn't play rugby that you didn't go to

Japan; it was the very fact of the type of misinformation and

intemperate statement you made in this Legislature yesterday

and today that would disrupt any negotiations in the country

like the Japan. I'm not smearing; I'm trying to get some

answers about steel mills.

[ Page 2568 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! Sit down!

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: As a matter of fact, it might be a good idea if

the Minister of transportation got out....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I feel the Legislature should be privy to

information on a steel mill. The Minister of Mines should have

an integral part of the planning of the steel mill and the type

and design and tonnage and where it will be located. Surely the

Minister could tell us the location of the steel mill, at

least.

Surely you were privy to the negotiations and preparation of

this government before they went to Japan. Surely they had all

that decided before they went to negotiate with the Japanese.

Or is it a fact that there is no steel mill and none of this

work was done, that there is no location, that the design

hasn't been selected, and the steel mill talk was a

cover-up for a joyride to Japan? Surely you can enlighten

us, Mr. Minister, on just what is being done in preparation for

a steel industry in B.C.

We know we have a partial steel mill in B.C. It's a good

industry to have because it's recycling. You talked about

minerals being wasted earlier. Minerals, after they are

extracted from the ground, aren't lost forever. Copper is

recycled; the by-products of iron ore into steel are

recycled. Many of the products are not lost forever to the

world economy. And British Columbia isn't just the sole owner

of their own resources; they have stewardship not only for our

own people but for the world.

The type of provincialism and nationalism of building a wall

around your province, locking up your resources, is what causes

war. Other areas and populations and emerging nations have use

for these products and need them to develop. Do you think they

enjoy you saying, "Well, we're well enough off; we will not

share, even for a value (and you don't trade for dollars; you

trade for other goods) the type of resources that are needed by

the population by the world as a whole because I'm going to sit

on these resources." I don't think so, Mr. Minister.

What you are suggesting is, "Do nothing and you can't be

criticized. Do nothing and tell everybody it's good planning.

Do nothing and say we're leaving the resources in the ground

and they'll never be used."

If that decision had been taken years ago, we wouldn't have a steel industry

in the world; there would be no train tracks. The CPR wouldn't have gone out

west and there would be no B.C. There would be no electricity; there would be

no development in the world. A lot of the areas wouldn't be developed. Now,

Mr. Minister, you don't just leave minerals in the ground. There has to be a

balance of development to meet today's needs and a balance of planning for the

future.

All we've done — to get three political speeches from

you — is ask you what your plan is. What research has

your department done in assessing the time table for

extraction, in assessing the world markets on copper? Give us

your projections. And over and above copper, we're dealing with

a lot of other minerals, some not as commonly known but things

like antimony and bismuth and cadmium — all sorts of

minerals that may or may not be in B.C. and may be developed.

Tell us about the department; tell us what inventory you

believe we have in B.C. from your department. What are your

department's plans for developing these minerals in the

future?

What about the definition of what is a mineral? We'd like

some insight during your estimates so that we don't transgress

on legislation proposals for this Legislature about what your

department is doing. What technical research are you doing?

What plans do you have for the mineral industry in B.C.?

It's evident that nothing has happened since you've come

into office. You talk about the great economy from the minerals

in B.C., but those were from developments before you got here.

We'd like to know, after 20 months of inactivity from you, what

you are planning to do. Obviously, through action, your plans

aren't evident to this Legislature or this province. We'd like

to know.

Then you went on, in answer to my earlier question as to

your statement yesterday about exploration being written off by

the major companies, and you said, "All companies get tied up

with majors and they absorb those early exploration costs."

That's not true. You know better than to say a statement like

that in this Legislature.

The bulk of small prospectors and the bulk of small

companies never get taken over by a major, never get taken over

by any company that has a profit base on which to write off

those earlier expenses. When you start to cloud the issue by

talking about promotions on Howe Street you really show your

ignorance of the way the market works. Those companies in stock

promotion have nothing to do with those companies earning a

profit to write off those explorations. That's merely the

trading of those shares. But those exploration costs remain in

those companies and the company has to operate and earn a

profit. It has nothing to do with the trading value of

shares.

I think you should still correct your statement of yesterday

that the bulk of the exploration costs are absorbed into

profits and getting a profit holiday for the mining companies

of this country. It's not true. I

[ Page 2569 ]

know many small prospectors who, weekends and holidays, year

after year in this province, many from your area, who don't put

a figure on their time, who have worked in this industry, who

are discouraged now, who have never received any cost back and

have never been able to write off those hours seeking to

develop minerals for the benefit of this province and for

themselves to make profit. They have never written off those

costs. Surely they are not going to be comfortable with your

statement that the big companies are picking up their losses

and writing them off, because they're not. That's the type of

people we're talking about and those are the answers we're

asking for.

Could the Minister please tell us just what his department

has in the way of a mineral inventory, what minerals he's going

to encourage to be brought on stream, what projection he has

for the copper? Is he holding these mines up on purpose? If

this is part of some grand strategy, would you make us privy to

the information that brought you to this conclusion?

What do you think world prices will go on copper? For the

reason you said, they'll probably drop in a couple of

years.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've answered the questions time and

again. You don't like the answers that I give you.

I'm not going to say every little prospector, because every

little prospector isn't a mine. This is the reason the big

operators don't come in and do anything there except maybe come

in and put in a diamond drill hole and say, "Well, you've got

nothing there. "But don't forget the cost of that diamond

drill hole is charged against the profits of that larger

company.

The larger reserves. I told you we have an economic planning

division, something the previous government never had. It has

just come into operation in the first of January. How fast do

you think that I can get all the information that you are

asking for right off the bat?

Our potential in copper is 2,500 million tons. Our copper

reserves in the producing mines are 1,400 million tons. The

rate of production of copper potential could amount to 150

years at the present rates. But the demand is going to triple

before the year 2000. We're not too worried about these private

industries.

If they want to wait a year or two years before they bring a

mine into production, that's their business, not mine because

I'm not going to dictate their policy unless you're suggesting

that we nationalize the mines and operate them ourselves. I'm

sure you're not suggesting that; you've accused us of that, but

you're suggesting such a move.

MR. BENNETT: Are you suggesting you're not going to?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You're the ones who are trying to put

words in my mouth. At the present rate zinc will last 61 years,

lead will last 35 years, molybdenum 165 years — that's in

the Province of British Columbia. But when we take it across

Canada, even copper, lead and zinc, from the information that I

got when I was in Ottawa, they say with the triple of

production, by the year 2000 we will be running shy of some of

these minerals and maybe we should take an assessment as to how

fast we should deplete these minerals. So don't try and twist

things up the way you're doing now.

I answered the questions with regard to economic planning.

The planning was just instituted the first of the year. We're

taking an inventory of our minerals — that's an ongoing

proposition now. It was never done by the previous government.

You left everything to the private sector to handle. Now that

we're trying to do it, you are trying to say that in two years

we should have it all done. This is impossible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four months.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can't expect this done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, that's what we've done. We've put an

economic planning division in order to make an assessment of

all the potential minerals we've got in the province so we will

know as near as possible how fast we should deplete them in

order to carry on that industry, just the same as in any other

thing. This is an industry that once you deplete it, it's gone

forever and you're not going to replace it.

MR. CHABOT: How do you find inventory if you don't

explore?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In regard to the steel mill, you asked the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) all about that the other day. I'll say that the

Industrial Development department has done a lot of work on

this steel mill proposition, that's why they went to Japan. I'm

not going to make any report on the steel mill until the

Premier gets back. He can make the report as to what progress

has been made.

AN HON. MEMBER: There'll be no report — you've got to

make some report.

MR. CHABOT: You're hopeless.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would like to direct a

[ Page

2570 ]

question to the Hon. Minister of Mines concerning a press

report this morning which is of some interest and concern to me

as the MLA for that area. The heading is: "Mill on the way to

Smithers." That's enough to make any MLA sit up and take

notice, especially if he's never heard anything about it.

"An ore concentrator with a milling capacity of 100 to 300

tons a day is on its way to Smithers to be set up for custom

concentrating of ores from small mining properties.

"James Rutherford, Vancouver consulting geologist, and a

group of associates bought the mill at Colville, Washington,

near Spokane, where it has been used for custom milling. 'The

mill is now on flat cars, northbound from the CNR yards at Port

Mann, and we intend to erect it near Smithers,' said

Rutherford. 'It will be the only custom mill in B.C. Mills at

mines often mill ore on a custom basis, but are not solely

doing custom business.'

"Rutherford said that he believes that there will be plenty

of business available as there are 304 mineral properties on

map 69-1, which covers the possible trade area.

'There's only about one property in four that's registered

on the map, there must be at least 1,000 potential customers,'

he said. 'Some of the business could come from bulk sampling of

ore bodies,' he explained. 'Other properties could come under a

section of the Mineral Act which permits production up

to $100,000 a year without a full production lease.'

'Originally, we would expect to operate at 100 to 200 tons a

day ore throughput, but this mill can run over 300 tons. We can

also buy another mill and mate them to run over 500 tons. We

have the necessary funding but we hope to involve people in the

area and the mill should be erected in the fall,' Rutherford

said.

"He said his group and a group called Community Milling

Company Limited believe they can employ about 50 men

permanently and up to 100 seasonally."

Mr. Minister, we're very concerned about this. There are

people greatly concerned about development plans in the

northwest because already there will shortly be a new sawmill

brought into Smithers. One of the great concerns of many of the

people in the area is the fact that so much development is

taking place without any sort of what we consider adequate

planning in advance.

The area is booming. It's booming already in the forest

industry and, clearly, it's going to boom in the ore industry

as well. We're genuinely concerned about the lack of planning

taking place to prepare for this tremendous boom.

I'm sorry to hear the Leader of the Opposition make his comments because we're

having enough trouble now trying to keep up with the tremendous development.

If his ideas were put into force, the whole country would sort of be gobbled

up in short order. We like it up there the way it is; it's beautiful, clean,

open country. The people on the ground want to have a hand in the planning,

so I would direct a question to the Hon. Minister: could he comment on this

project and indicate what planning is taking place?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is a release in the paper —

these people have not applied for a production lease at this

time. I see many headlines in the paper and I wouldn't always

take them at their face value.

This may be so, but I'm sure that before they go into

production, they are going to have to apply to the department

and then I could give you a complete report as to what is going

on up at Smithers. But right now it would be impossible for me

to say anything because to reply just to a headline in a paper

wouldn't be proper.

MR. BENNETT: On one other fast and loose statement from the

Minister, again, when he talked about ghost towns. Ghost towns

are a thing of the past in B.C. and have been for years

because it hasn't been a policy for years to build a town right

at the mine site.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: How about Bluebell?

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about mines that have been brought

in in the last decade. I'm not talking about old towns that

were developed, old gold towns.

Even the projections relating to properties that were ready

for development till you created the climate that stopped them,

all of the town sites were developed in existing towns,

sometimes as far as 80 miles away from the mine site. I think

it's wrong for the Minister to suggest that there hasn't been

the planning and it hasn't been the intention of governments in

other areas. This has been part of modern-line planning,

that the town sites have been developed within existing areas

with an economic base. It's been years since they were

developing towns at the mine sites.

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

Lake, it's on line. Do your homework.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have order, please?

MR. BENNETT: The Minister's statement was brought in

strictly in relationship to the mining properties which I asked

him specifically why they

[ Page 2571 ]

weren't developed. I asked about eight specific properties

and in all cases the town sites relating to those properties

were to be developed in a mixed economic base, not on the mine

site. It's in the relationship of those eight sites that I

asked the Minister why they weren't being brought into

production, and the Minister said he didn't want those mines to

become ghost towns. Those mining sites were the Berg property,

Liard, Ruby Creek, Alice Arm — none of those had

projected towns at the mine site.

Those properties we were discussing, Mr. Minister. Those

were the properties on which you made the statement that you

didn't want them to become ghost towns. There was no suggestion

I've ever seen that the development of those properties, under

modern development, wouldn't have established the communities

in existing areas where they have a mixed economic base away

from the mine site. I'd like to clear up this point, have you

clear it up, unless you have information that those properties

were going to develop on site and were in danger of becoming

ghost towns.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't say that those properties were in

danger. You said there are no ghost towns. How about Riondel?

How about Logan Lake which was built on the copper property at

Endako, I believe. Not Endako — Lornex. These are built

on those places and I'd like to see them last as long as

possible and be developed. But when you're talking about these

other places, there have been ghost towns all over this

province from mining. But as long as this government is in

power, we don't intend to allow ghost towns if possible. You're

trying to drag a red herring across the trail.

You're asking questions where the only ones that have the

knowledge of whether they want to come into production or not

are the people that own the claim. They haven't applied for a

production lease in most of these cases.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't apply for the production lease.

They have to come to the department for the production

lease.

MR. BENNETT: You've scared them about what you are going to

do.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What are we going to do? Unless you want

us to nationalize the mines and put them into production

ourselves....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We don't intend to nationalize the mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We have no intention of nationalizing the

mines.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I think that you are just trying to

make a case out of something that's very weak. I know that on

behalf of the mining industry you've got to make this estimate

— to look as though you're really fighting on behalf of

the mining industry. You have to make a good case, even if your

arguments are very weak. Even if the information that you have

is not correct, you'll still make it to let the mining industry

think that the opposition is really working on their

behalf.

You know that the statements I've made in regard to the

depletion of these resources are correct. The mining industry

has had its periods of time that things have been good, and

other times that have been bad. But the forecast now is just

the same as in the oil and the gas: all these resources are

going to be more valuable.

That's the reason the federal government stopped the

three-year tax period, which ends at the end of

this year. Up until now there were mines that were depleted as

much as possible within that three-year tax-free

period. We don't intend that that happen again.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's federal. It's not provincial.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was provincial for a while.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I just want

to ask the Hon. Minister a few questions to see if his policy

and attitude to the Indian Reserves Mineral Resources

Act , which apparently this government is continuing to

support.... It's one of the most blatantly discriminatory

pieces of legislation in Canada. It's restrictive and it's

unfair. It's racist and it was entered into without Indian

consent.

The Hon. Minister asked once, when I was making statements

along these lines before in the House, if I would explain to

the House what the Act does, and I'd be delighted to do that.

What it does, Mr. Chairman, is give the provincial government

charge of the development of minerals and mineral claims, both

precious and base, in, on or under Indian reserves in B.C.

Even worse than that, it gives the Minister of Mines the

right to collect not just royalties or fees or taxes, but the

right to collect all revenues — 100 per

[ Page 2572 ]

cent of revenues — from the prospecting or staking or

leasing or selling of minerals in any form from mineral

reserves, and in any manner whatsoever.

Then, what happens to those revenues? Are they returned to

the Indian people? They are not. They are divided equally

between the provincial government and the federal government.

So the net effect is that this Indian asset has completely been

dissipated to the provincial and to the federal government

50-50 under this legislation, which is the only

legislation of its kind in the Dominion of Canada.

It came in in 1943. In my view, it's statutory theft, and I

think the Hon. Minister should do the very right and correct

thing and see that it is repealed.

I know that in 1968, Mr. Chairman, the federal government

announced regulations which gave reserve Indians power to take

a very active

part in the management of their mineral reserves

throughout the country. Band councils were able to grant leases

and permits of their minerals, and incentives were also

provided for mining exploration purposes.

But those regulations that were passed by the federal

government in 1968 cannot and do not apply to reserves in the

Province of British Columbia by virtue of this very

preposterous statute. As I said, it's the only one of its kind

in the Dominion of Canada.

You've heard me raise the point before. You mentioned, when

I last discussed it when you had received your portfolio, that

you were of the opinion at that time that there was some sort

of consultation taking place between the federal government and

the provincial government.

I think the time for consultation has come to an end. You've

got to do the fair thing for the reserve Indians in the

Province of B.C. and you've got to repeal this statute.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, in regard to this Indian

Act, we've had discussions with the federal government and

representatives of the native Indians, and I asked the federal

government to give me a full report. It's currently under

negotiations now.

MR. GARDOM: But it's your statute.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was a statute that was put on due to

the federal government, and I don't intend to relinquish that

statute until I know that the Indians are going to get the

benefit. I'm not going to turn that 50 per cent over to the

federal government unless the benefits go to the native

Indians. At the present time the revenue has only been a few

hundred dollars off any Indian reserve, so it hasn't amounted

to anything over the years.

As far as getting rid of the Act — in saying that I get rid of the Act — I

told the federal government that I want a complete report as to what the whole

situation is and how it relates to the native Indians. I'm not going to turn

an Act over to the federal government holus-bolus without knowing what's going

to happen to it.

MR. GARDOM: But I think you're missing the point. I'm asking

you to turn the mineral reserves on Indian reserves in the

Province of British Columbia over to the Indian people. They're

the people who should own it.

It's true that there haven't been too many revenues from

this source because exploration has been shunned by virtue of

this preposterous statute.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The federal government has control of the

mineral resources. The Act gave us the right to do the

developing and to collect their fees off those mineral

resources. But if we let that Act go, the mineral rights go

back to the federal government, because they are the ones that

control the reserves. The Indians do not get it.

This is what I asked the federal government: have they

turned over to the native Indians the mineral rights on their

reserves? But they haven't done it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think the Hon. Minister.... It would assist him

if he would read the Act at some point.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did read it.

MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the ownership of the metals, the

Act states: "Whereas the precious metals in, upon or under the

lands comprising such reserves are not incidents of such lands,

but belong beneficially to the Crown in the right of the

Province of British Columbia." So your premise is

incorrect.

But at least I get from the statements you have been making

to the House this afternoon that your sentiments, I hope, and

mine are the same — and I'd like you to state if your

sentiments are the same as mine — are that, in your view,

these mineral rights on Indian reserves should belong 100 per

cent to the reserve Indians.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: With the negotiations that are going on I

make no further statement in regard to the whole thing, because....

MR. GARDOM: What is your policy? You're just posturing. You

said the federal government had the minerals and that's wrong,

and now you're waffling in your policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't have a policy.

[ Page 2573 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The federal government said that they get

50 per cent of all the revenue.

MR. GARDOM: Your Act — the B.C. Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But that was

an Act put in due to another

Act that the federal government had. This is what they tell me.

So negotiations are going on. And when we got though with that,

we will know. But it is not a burning issue at all. At the

present time there is no revenue from the mineral rights on the

reserves — only a few hundred dollars.

MR. GARDOM: Who's doing the negotiating?

Because you said negotiations were going on a year ago. You

said that on April 5, 1973.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, you know how slow the federal

government is.

MR. GARDOM: Who is doing the negotiating?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, my Associate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister not

speak from his chair, please?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: My Associate Deputy has been in on it and

I've been in on it myself. But it's about three or four months

ago since they sat in my office. I asked for a report and I

haven't had it yet; that's how slow the federal government has

been in replying.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I've no intention in defending the

celerity of the federal government. But I do very much again

wish to state that I find it unfortunate that you're not

prepared today to give an assurance of policy from yourself to

the reserve Indians in the Province of British Columbia that

you are going to back them 100 per cent to see that the mineral

rights on Indian reserve belong to the Indian people.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: If you don't do that, I think that's

shameful.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When negotiations are going on I'm not

prepared to make that statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister what plans

he has in mind to assist all of the small industries which are spin-off industries

of the major mining industry with the problems that they are today encountering.

I have a file full of correspondence from geologists,

engineers, small manufacturing companies. Oh, sure, bring in

the stockbrokers, always try and get that airy-fairy deal

so that you can mislead the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please!

MR. PHILLIPS: What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is what the

Minister is going to do to help these people today, because

many of them are going broke. Mr. Chairman, the reason they are

going broke is because there is no money going to be spent, or

very little money going to be spent on the exploration for

minerals in this province. And it is due, Mr. Chairman,

strictly because of the policies of that Minister.

The Minister stands up on the floor of the House and he is

arrogant and says he knows all the answers and gives us

airy-fairy talk about leaving the minerals in the ground,

but...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Listen to who's

calling who arrogant!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...that same Minister becomes a coward when

it comes to facing these people.

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

Withdraw!

MR. PHILLIPS: He becomes a coward when it comes to facing

these people!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to be more careful in his

choice of words so that they be more acceptable in a

parliamentary situation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he is practising cowardice, then.

HON. MR. COCKE: You're practising "big mouthery"!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he's...he's...practising

poltroonery!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? What?

MR. PHILLIPS: Poltroonery! That's what he's practising, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Define it and spell

it.

[ Page 2574 ]

language, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert — do you want

me to tell you what a poltroon is?

AN HON. MEMBER: A poltroon?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah. It's a guy who is arrogant and a coward

all in the same breath. That's what it is.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shushwap): You ought to know.

MR. PHILLIPS: These small people in the mining industry, Mr.

Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member for South Peace River that personal attacks against

Ministers or against Members are not acceptable in

parliament.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about his policies, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may refer to policies, but he

should not direct his comments directly to the Minister or to

any other Member of the House in that manner.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I have made a personal attack on the

Minister, I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw. But I

want to know why this Minister who is so sure of his policies

would not travel to Vancouver in January of 1973 to face these

very people, these small people in the mining industry and

industries associated with the mining industry, and the

prospectors. Why wouldn't this Minister, who is so sure on the

floor of this House of his policies, go face these people

— 1,000 of them assembled in the Hotel Vancouver? Why

wouldn't he go over and explain his policies to them?

I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you why

— it's because he can't justify his policies. He was

afraid of meeting these very people that he's hurting, face to

face — afraid to meet them, Mr. Chairman, face to face

and listen to their problems and to discuss their problems with

them.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That was Bill 31.

MR. PHILLIPS: Never mind Bill 31!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's what you are talking about.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking about Bill 31 — I'm

talking about a meeting, Mr. Chairman, that took place in

January, 1973.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I was there.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were not there, Mr. Chairman! You were not

there, because I was there and you were not there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister not

speak from his seat, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to know why, Mr. Chairman, this

Minister, whose government policy it was to have discussions

with industry before they brought out new policies, to open

government.... Then again, Mr. Chairman, in January of 1974,

there was another meeting of over 1,000 of these concerned,

small individuals in the mining industry. Where was the

Minister? Hiding in his office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw that remark. I think it was a most unfortunate

remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the remark. He was hiding behind

his assistants, then.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to stand up and tell

this Legislature why he wouldn't go over and meet these people

— people who are today going bankrupt in this province,

small people, people whose life's work has been put into the

mining industry, people that that Minister's policies, Mr.

Chairman, is today killing.

MR. CUMMINGS: Name them.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to go through the file of

correspondence? I'll gladly take the time to read the letters.

They're here.

Not only is the Minister of Mines blind to the fact of what

is going on in his Department — the rest of the Ministers

are blind. What a double-headed policy they've got, Mr.

Chairman — the Premier and Minister of Industrial

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) journeying to Japan to find markets

for our minerals, and the Minister of Mines saying we will

leave the minerals in the ground.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines is hurting many, many

small individuals and many, many small businesses in British

Columbia today. I want to know why he wouldn't meet with these

people when they call a meeting and invite him over to explain

his policies, so they can have an opportunity to tell him what

is happening in the industry.

We had in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, one of the

greatest mining industries of any jurisdiction in Canada

— not only one of the greatest mining industries but one

of the greatest sources of technology of the mining industry in

all of the world, settled right here in British Columbia, the

greatest source of technology for exploration and development

of new mines of any place in the world.

[ Page 2575 ]

Where are these people going today, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: To play rugby.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are either going broke or they are

travelling to eastern Canada or they are having to move to the

States or they are going to other countries in the world. I

want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that you don't build up

knowledge, technical know how like we have here in British

Columbia with knowledgeable people, experts in their field

— you don't build them up overnight, Mr. Chairman. It

will take years and years and years to repair the damage in the

mining industry in British Columbia that this Minister is

creating by his idiotic, stupid policies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about his policies and they are

idiotic and they are stupid, Mr. Chairman. And they are

short-sighted, Mr. Chairman.

What has happened in other jurisdictions in the world where

this great socialist philosophy has come into the mining

industry? The mining industry is dried up. That's why there is

a shortage of minerals in the world today.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there are many known mines in British

Columbia today — mines that were explored years and years

and years ago. They should be inventoried, but we must

continue, for the good of mankind, to search out for new

minerals and new mines.

Mr. Chairman, what is the earthly sense of building the

British Columbia Railway to that area behind the Alaska

panhandle if those mines are not going to be developed? That

was the original intent for building the railway — as a

resource railway.

Now the policies of this government are going to curtail the

development of those mines, so you might as well curtail the

extension of the British Columbia Railway.

I would like the Minister to tell me how he is going to help

these small individual companies, individuals in the

spin-off industries of the Department of Mines. What are

you going to do? How are you going to help them today —

the ones that are going broke? Mr. Chairman, I am sure the

Minister has many letters himself. What policy are you going to

bring in to retain those people in British Columbia? How are

you going to answer them? What are you going to do for them?

Maybe the Minister would like to answer that question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I have had some letters; he has had

some letters. There's none of them gone broke that I know of, so don't ask me

what I am going to do for the private enterprise. What do you want me to do?

Do you want me to keep them in business if they are threatened? I don't think

they are so threatened. They are wanting to get a message across — that is what

they are trying to do.

You said that I wasn't at the meeting in January, 1973. You

were there and I was there and I was the spokesman for the

meeting in January, 1973. It was broadcast afterwards —

my statements made.

Don't tell me I've been afraid to go to these places. This

last meeting they had, I had other things to do. I felt I was

going to violate the privileges of the House by not giving the

opposition the chance to debate this issue. You wouldn't have

the arguments you have today if I had gone over there to that

meeting because the people would have been convinced I was

right and you wouldn't have any of these arguments.

Don't tell me my door hasn't been open. I've met every

mining official; I've met every prospector; I've never turned a

person away from my office at any time. I've discussed

everything with them. I'm sure every mining company in British

Columbia will vouch for this: my door is one door that has been

wide open at all times to the industry.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Mines was not at the meeting.

Maybe it wasn't January; maybe it was early February of 1973.

There were over 1,000 prospectors....

AN HON. MEMBER: I was there at the chamber of mines.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were not there. I have the complete tape

of that entire meeting and you were not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was it held?

MR. PHILLIPS: It was held in the Hotel Vancouver ballroom.

You were not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

MR. PHILLIPS: 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't think the Hon. Member

needs to doubt the word of the Minister. If the Minister was at

the meeting of January, 1973, then we should accept the word of

the Hon. Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you this. The

meeting I was at of over 1,000 prospectors and small business

people in the mining industry, held in the Hotel Vancouver, was

one of the largest meetings that was ever there. There was over

1,100 people there, and, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was not

[ Page 2576 ]

at that meeting. I don't care how many times he says he was

there, he was not there. I was not at any meeting of people

associated with the mining industry that was attended by the

Minister. So if he says I was there, I was not there at any

meeting he was with. Let's get that perfectly clear. He was

condemned by the meeting for not being there.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not last year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, let's get the record straight. If you

want me to call somebody a liar, I'll do it, but it's a

fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: Are you talking about 1974 or

1973?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There seems to be some

confusion about this and before we get into a cross....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace

River if perhaps he could get the date and get this thing

settled before we get into any hassle.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe I could help clear it up because I was

there and listened to the Minister when he was speaking. It was

recorded and played the next day on CBC radio. So possibly if

the Hon. Member from across the way would apply through proper

channels to have that tape, maybe it would help him out a

bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. My direction to the Hon. Member

for South Peace River is that there appears to be some

possibility of some misunderstanding or confusion. I would ask

him to clear this matter up with the Minister before he makes

any further charges across the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the Minister where the meeting

is that he's referring to.

HON. MR. LEA: The Vancouver Hotel, in the ballroom.

MR. PHILLIPS: What date?

HON. MR. LEA: I'm not sure but we can find out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, let's put it this way: I was there and

heard the Minister speak; he was there and didn't hear the

Minister speak. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Before the debate, Mr. Chairman, I shall

produce the date of the meeting and unequivocal evidence that,

at the meeting I'm referring to, the Minister was not

there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the most

confusing place to be is in this chamber when that Member goes

making charges that are rather vague. He doesn't even know

where he was, when he was, or if there was a meeting in a

particular month. Now, if he comes up with a specific meeting,

then the Minister could answer the question. This crazy stuff

should not be tolerated in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River has indicated that he would produce the date of the

meeting. At this point, I would ask him to move on to another

point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the meeting was not held in

January; it was held in early March.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe it was in Calgary, right?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it wasn't held in Calgary. I'm not

concerned about the Minister of Health and what he has to say.

The exact date of the meeting is not the point we're arguing

here, Mr. Chairman. The point we're arguing is that there was a

meeting in March of 1973; it was the largest meeting

of persons associated with the mining industry ever held prior

to that date in history. That Minister was invited to attend

that meeting and he didn't attend the meeting.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Okay, you made

your point. What's your next point?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite capable of making my points, Mr.

Attorney-General, and I don't need any assistance from

you.

HON. MR. COCKE: You needed a lot of help on that one, my

friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you draw that yappy Minister of Health

to order. He's always yapping over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 17 (2), I'd ask

the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person

[ Page 2577 ]

who has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says his door is always open. His

door is always open and his mind is always closed. I remember

standing in my place here in the Legislature last year; the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself were giving

facts and figures that drilling in the Peace River area for

petroleum products was on the decline and that drill rigs were

moving out. The Minister of Finance and Premier (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) got up and said we didn't know what we were talking

about; we didn't have any idea. Produce some facts and figures.

I don't know what yearbook he got them out of, but drilling was

indeed on the increase. Both the Member for North Peace and

myself predicted that exploration for petroleum products in the

province would decline, and the Minister said, "Oh, you're

crazy, you're stupid." Just as much as to say, "You don't know

what you're talking about."

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You intimated it.

I want to tell you the facts. These are the facts a year

after the prediction.

Oh, yes, I must also say that on an open-line

programme with Mr. Webster last September, when these figures

were again brought up, the Minister of Finance, the Premier,

said that's so much capitalist propaganda.

But what are the facts, Mr. Chairman? I want to quote you

the facts from an article, "B.C. Drilling Takes a Dive". I

suppose the Minister of Mines will probably get up and justify

this because of some airy-fairy reason, but the reason is

strictly because of his policies and the policies of the

Attorney-General and Minister of energy. What are the

facts? The facts don't lie, but that government is blind to

cold, hard facts.

I'm going to quote from this article:

"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"

— in 1972 — "1,146,657 feet."

Now, I'd like the Minister of Mines to tell me that's wrong,

that's capitalist propaganda. I suppose he'll get up and tell

me that drilling was on the increase. That was in a year when

there was a prediction that the price of petroleum products

would be on the increase.

Now, I'd like to go on:

"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 at 16,776,595

feet from 14,236,842 feet.

"The report was issued in Calgary by Hans Maciej,

chairman of the Canadian Committee on Statistics of Drilling. This is a

joint effort of the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Canadian Oil

Scouts Association and various provincial and federal government

departments.

"Alberta accounted for 76 per cent of all drilling in Canada,

both in wells and footage. Wells were up 31.5 per cent at 3,517 from 2,675,

while footage was up 26.5 per cent at 12,729,622 feet from 10,066,042.

Now I'd like the Minister to tell me why drilling and

exploration and production for petroleum products would be down

in 1973 in the Province of British Columbia. New field wildcats

in B.C. were down 40.9 per cent to 13 per cent from 22 per

cent. And it happens to be that wildcat wells are really the

ones that find the production fields. Yet new field wildcats in

British Columbia were down 40 per cent last year over 1972. I'd

like the Minister to justify that.

The footage in wildcat wells was down 35 per cent to 115,204

from 178,206 the year previous. Now the ironic part of this is

that this is what was predicted by the Member for North Peace

(Mr. Smith) and myself. And what did the Members opposite say?

They said, Mr. Chairman, that we were preaching doom and

gloom.

Oh, yes, we were preaching doom and gloom; it wouldn't

happen. The Premier made special speeches on the floor of this

House to tell us that exploration for oil and wells drilled

would be upped in 1973. But the facts don't bear it out.

Neither will the facts in years to come bear out the policies

as being good for the people of British Columbia in their

mining industry. The same thing is going to happen.

That's why I am concerned here today for the people in those

industries — the small businessmen, the geologists, the

engineers, the expertise that has taken years and years to

build up in this province.

I just have one further comment on development drilling in

British Columbia. I hate to belabour this point, Mr. Chairman,

but had we not been told that we were preaching doom and gloom

and that this wouldn't come to be because of their policies I

wouldn't take this time to point out the facts to the

government. But I don't suppose they'll even listen to facts,

nor will they change their policies. They live and breathe one

policy and it's all written in the Waffle Manifesto. It's all

written in the Waffle Manifesto.

"Development drilling in B.C. was down 30.1 per cent

to 65 wells from 93, and in footage down 31.8 per cent to 301,421 from

441,987 feet. In Alberta, it was up 38.2 per cent........"

Is this a sort of a trend we're going to have, Mr.

[ Page 2578 ]

Chairman? Because of a free enterprise government in the

Province of Alberta they have close to a 5 per cent vacancy in

the apartments. Their mining industry is carrying on.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's that yappy Minister. Well, I know

that his Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is trying

to get all the people to B.C. And I know that that government

has brought all the socialist supporters from all over Canada

to British Columbia.

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

his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the

Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you ask the Hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) to keep his remarks to himself, Mr.

Chairman?

I'm going to take my seat and I would like the Minister to

explain to me how he can justify the fact that drilling in

British Columbia took a dive in 1973.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the Minister is speechless. He can't

justify it, Mr. Chairman. Is the Minister going to answer my

question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I accept the fact that during 1973 there

was a decrease in the amount of drilling. Don't forget that the

whole situation was in a turmoil throughout the whole of Canada

for awhile, and this may have been its reason. Now I can't give

you exact reasons, but at the present time we are back to

normal again this winter. In 1973 there was a decrease and I

haven't got all the reasons, but now this year it has gone up

and it is higher, way higher, that it was last year at this

time.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says that the petroleum industry

in all of Canada was in a turmoil last year. I'll have to

reread part of this article. "Oil and gas well-drilling

in 1973 showed a sharp increase in Canada over 1972, but was

down substantially in British Columbia." The Minister now

doesn't know why. But he accepts the fact, he finally accepts

the fact, after telling the Member for North Peace and myself

that, "Oh, we were preaching doom and gloom."

I'll tell you why drilling is down in British Columbia

— why it was down last year.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the Minister of Energy, and he's

really the kingpin. All the Minister of Petroleum does is carry

out his orders. As a matter of fact, I don't think he runs his

department at all. I wonder how he does run his department,

because he gets orders from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett); he gets orders from the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald); and his real orders come from the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to

the administrative responsibilities of the Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what his

administrative responsibility is. I don't know how he runs his

department because he gets orders from so many other people in

the cabinet.

I'll tell you why the drilling was down last year in British

Columbia. Because of the policies of the socialist government

— that's why. Just as we predicted, you frightened the

oil companies out of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're coming back now because they've

got no place to go.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they're coming back. Have you got in bed

with them again?

Mr. Chairman, I'd' like to move on to another subject. I

would like to ask the Minister if there are any known sources

of columbium in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What?

MR. PHILLIPS: Columbium.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Nothing that's economically feasible at

the present time.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are no known sources that are

economically feasible?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The department has no record of this in

British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has the Department of Mines made knowledge

available to prospectors who should be looking for this very

important mineral? Have you told your prospectors about it and

educated them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That question there.... I don't know what

they have directed the prospectors. I have expertise in my

department that does this. So if it's such an important factor

and if we haven't got it.... Even with our aluminum...we've got to ship

[ Page 2579 ]

in the bauxite that makes aluminum. We haven't got any of

that in British Columbia either.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just thought that where

British Columbia has its Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) in Japan seeking a steel

mill, and since this particular mineral is so important in the

processing of steel, I thought that maybe the Minister might

have had some sources of it in British Columbia. If not, I

thought at least he would be putting out the word that it

should be searched for in British Columbia.

In the Province of Quebec there is a new mine, or a new mine

coming on development — Niobic. The Quebec government is

in partnership with a private company to develop this mine for

this particular mineral. I thought maybe the Minister might

have some sources of this mineral in British Columbia due to

the fact that it's so important now in new processes for

steel.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Mines what

progress is being made to develop the Sukunka coal.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I answered that yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you didn't answer it to my

satisfaction.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): He said it was lukewarm.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. WALLACE: He said it was lukewarm.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, in the Peace River area, Mr. Chairman,

there are probably more and larger deposits of good coking coal

than there are anywhere else in North America. There is a world

demand for good coking coal now. If you are developing a steel

industry in British Columbia, you should have some definite

plans to develop this coking coal, because it is the finest

coking coal in the world. The deposits are larger than anywhere

else in the world.

So has the Minister any definite plans? Is he consulting

with anybody? Do you know what the Premier is doing? Were they

discussing this in Japan? Are you dealing with other countries

than the Japanese?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Negotiations in regard to Sukunka are

still going on. That's all I can answer about Sukunka. We can't

go and sell coal when we haven't finished the negotiations as

to what participation we have into it. I answered that

yesterday. You asked me yesterday if it was hot, or lukewarm,

or cold.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't ask you yesterday.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, it was asked over there, and I

answered the question at the time.

Now, in regard to the rare minerals, we have an information

circular out on rare minerals at the present time. There are a

few prospects that may be in the offing around

— Revelstoke — that is the only place that we know

of any indication of columbium.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. chairman, I would just like to ask the

Minister what he feels about the fact that there was a

tremendous increase in expenditure on exploration for minerals

in the Yukon last year, while the money spent for exploration

in British Columbia was down. While you were meeting with your

cohorts from the rest of Canada, talking about the development

of minerals, I presume you were talking about them on a

Canadian basis, and yet the activity in the Yukon is far

greater than it is in British Columbia. How do you justify

that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, unless you have facts to show it, I

don't know whether I am dealing with British Columbia, and I

don't relate what I do in British Columbia or what is being

done in British Columbia with the Yukon or the other parts of

Canada. I know years ago they always used to use all the

provinces in Canada to try and justify a position. They might

have had a find in the Yukon — maybe they had rushes of

doing work there. But I am not dealing with the Yukon; I am

dealing with British Columbia. So I don't see why I should

relate what is going on in British Columbia.... British

Columbia leads Canada as far as economic development goes and

good times. So that argument wouldn't hold water.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want to comment briefly on the

tunnel-vision statement just made by the Minister. He is

concerned only in the mining industry with what is happening in

British Columbia. Last night he told us he was concerned with

what was happening in all of Canada. I have told every member

of the cabinet over there that the good times they are having

in British Columbia are due to the sound basic policies of the

previous administration. It takes years and years and years to

build up an industry.

What you in essence are doing is killing that industry, and

it will take years before it finally shows up because things

are so buoyant. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines won't be

here — he will be in retirement on a good pension, and he

won't be here. He should be concerned for his

grandchildren.

MR. GIBSON: Just one or two more questions to the Minister,

Mr. Chairman. But just before that, I want to take just about

60 seconds to correct

[ Page 2580 ]

something that was put on the record, whether in order or

out of order yesterday by the Hon. Member for Little Mountain

(Mr. Cummings) with respect to the foreign ownership in his

contention of what are actually Canadian companies. I think

this is very improper and I want to correct the record. And I

am correcting it according to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is this a point of order?

MR. GIBSON: Indeed it is. It is a point of correction on

what the Member said yesterday and it will be very brief. It's

pursuant to figures developed by Price, Waterhouse and Company

in 1972, which were the most recent available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In regard to the point of

order, it is permissible for an Hon. Member to correct the

statement attributed to himself or to herself, but not to argue

statistics with a Member across the floor. I would ask him to

confine his remarks to the administrative responsibility toward

vote 174. I think that if you keep it brief....

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I

just want to say that Craigmont Mines, which was.... No, he

spoke of Noranda, "also American-controlled"

— it is in fact Canadian-controlled, 71.2 per cent.

Beneficial Canadian ownership. He spoke as well of Brenda Mines

as being American-controlled; it is in fact

Canadian-controlled, 86.5 per cent Canadian-owned.

That is all I will say on that subject. But those are very,

very different figures from what that Member led the House to

believe.

Now, I would like to ask the Minister a fundamental

question. He has very often during this debate spoken of our

depleting resources. I would ask the Minister if he or his

department has an inventory of our mineral resources that he

finds reasonably satisfactory, and how quickly he thinks those

resources are depleting.

I will just ask him about three or four minerals at current

rates of mining. How many years worth of copper do we have in

the proven area and in the potential area? How many years worth

of lead and zinc and silver do we have?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is

all in Hansard now. Those questions were all answered

this morning when you were not in the House.

MR. GIBSON: How many years of copper, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was all answered in Hansard .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point of order is well

taken. If the information is already available it is not proper

to put the same question again — it becomes

repetitive.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I certainly didn't hear him answer it in

that way. Let me ask him this question: does he have an

inventory?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I answered that too. I said we had an

economic planning division that took operation on January 1 to

assess all the inventory of the Province of British Columbia.

It is the third time I have answered that same question. I

think we are wasting a lot of time by having to repeat these

questions. That's the reason we've got Hansard —

so you can get the answers if you weren't in the House at

that time.

MR. GIBSON: What that says to me, Mr. Chairman, is that

there is no inventory and the Minister doesn't have the facts

he needs to know what he is talking about when he says that our

minerals are depleting at an alarming rate. He just doesn't

know the numbers. That is so fundamental to his philosophy, and

I don't think it is very good.

I would like also to just briefly put in the record the fact

that not all mines are prosperous. Some open and close very

shortly thereafter and prove to have been rather disastrous

investments for the people who went into them, even in times of

very high prices. This

article is from The Vancouver Sun

of September 1, 1973. It is a sad little story and a short

little story. I will read it in its entirety because it is so

short:

"Bralorne Resources Ltd. President F.W. Fitzpatrick said

Friday the Bradina mine near Houston is closing down, primarily

because it is uneconomical. Fitzpatrick said the mine's

problems were compounded by an extreme shortage of skilled

underground miners.

"The mine, 28 miles south of Houston, and an important

factor in the town's economy, closed Friday. But Fitzpatrick

said that there will be work around the mine site for all

employees for the next 30 days.

"'We are working with Canada Manpower and the unions to

relocate the employees,' he said in his statement, 'and we will

be continuing contact with the provincial government to explore

all possible alternatives in an effort to ultimately reactivate

the operation.' A spokesman said the contract with the

government has not included an offer or a negotiation for a

takeover.

" 'The company's judgment that the copper, lead, zinc,

gold and silver property is

[ Page

2581 ]

uneconomic has been substantiated by eight separate outside groups

who were retained to assess the mine's metallurgical potential,' Fitzpatrick

said. 'It has cost $3 million more than estimated to study the economics,' he

said. He said the mine is so marginal that it must operate at full capacity

but it has been operating at about capacity since May because of the manpower

shortage.

"Fitzpatrick said the problems have been discussed

thoroughly with Mines Minister Leo Nimsick and the Mayor of

Houston, and that Bralorne, the operators of the mine, agreed

to delay a closure announcement until the Mines department had

made an examination. A spokesman said the delay in the

announcement was to allow the government to examine the

problems and not a bid to be bought out.

"Bradina was developed at a cost of $7 million by Bralorne

and Pacific Petroleums under a joint venture agreement with

Nadina Explorations Ltd. The company said mine construction

began in June, 1971, with tune-up operations in March,

1972, with nothing being repaid on invested capital."

I just wanted to put that into the record, Mr. Chairman, to

illustrate to the Hon. Members, particularly on the other side

of the House, that the mining business is not necessarily a

bonanza. There are very real risks in it. The greatest risks,

as I said yesterday, are at the stage of prospecting, where you

are wrong 999 times out of 1,000. Maybe only one out of 100

comes through.

Then at the development stage, once they're operating mines,

even then, they can go belly up with everybody losing,

including the town around, including the people who put their

money into it. I think this House, in looking at the mining

field, should always attempt to retain that perspective, the

thought that the mining industry as well as needing taxation

when it's highly profitable, needs help when it's marginal. I

hope that the Minister and his department will continue along

that line.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In regard to Bradina, if you wanted the

information that we gave them.... My Deputy went up, went over

the mine and gave them a report on the mine and the reasons why

they had to close down. It's obvious that they closed down

anyway, but they didn't ask for assistance or anything like

that.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that. I was just reading it as one

of those sad-case examples of what can happen.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one or two points that I

think should be further clarified by the Minister. On this discussion of a copper smelter and the

fact that a task force has been set up, I just wanted to ask

one or two questions. What was the outcome of the study,

project 2364, for the water resources service, June 1972, when

they looked at the potential for a smelter near Clinton? This

is a very detailed research document with recommendations.

We've had the very positive statements from the Minister

yesterday that private enterprise has not taken the initiative

in developing smelters in this province. The clear-cut

implication from the Minister's statement was that this will be

justification for the government, presumably through a Crown

corporation, to build its own smelter.

I would like to know one or two things: first of all, who

has dealt or studied this research project 2364 which very

clearly states the environmental impact of a proposed smelter

at Clinton, B.C., June 23, 1972? Where did that report go? Who

has studied it? To what degree has this Minister's department

studied it? What conclusions did they come to?

Based on that, Mr. Chairman, could we then find out what

discussions have taken place between the Minister's department

and the private sector of the economy to find out the validity

of this report and the degree to which smelter planning could

be based on this report? I don't understand why it was

particularly carried out in the Clinton area, but there must

have been reasons why the study in particular was related to

the Clinton area.

The fact is, I've read it, not in detail because it's a very

detailed report, but it's a very interesting report. The

Minister himself talked about the fact that it's now possible

to avoid the tall stacks and have a tight control of the SO 2

fumes, a particular matter that's dispersed from the smelters

and so on. This is a very general statement that the Minister

made yesterday. I feel this House is entitled to much more

detail as to where this whole matter of the copper smelter

planning lies, particularly since the division of the two sides

of this House is basic to the concept that private enterprise

does things better than government. I'm not just talking about

B.C. or Canada or Britain, or anywhere else. We just happen to

believe on this side of the House that there are precious few

examples, if any, where the state moves in and carried out an

enterprise of this kind without doing it less well than the

private sector. Therefore to come up with this statement

yesterday that....

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Oh, that's

terrible.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I know the Minister of Labour's hurt by

that statement, but we just happen to believe that and I think

we've got a lot of documentation and proof.

The way in which the steel industry in Britain has

[ Page 2582 ]

been jockeyed back and forth between private enterprise and

state enterprise — if you can call it that — and

state control, the steel industry in Britain is just in a

terrible mess. It has been over the years because each

government that moves in either nationalizes it or

denationalizes it, and it's a very sad and pathetic tale of

what was once a very vibrant and vigorous industry in Britain.

Anyway, that's by the way.

The fact is, we had this statement by the Minister yesterday

that private enterprise has not taken the initiative in the

building of a smelter. I think we're entitled to know what

importance or otherwise was attached to this very detailed

research study and what discussions have taken place between

the Minister and his department and the private sector.

If, in fact, there is enough doubt as to whether a smelter

is feasible in British Columbia, neither the government nor

private industry at this point in time should be involved in

building a smelter. Is this why the Minister set up the task

force? Did he want to find out if, in fact, it is viable and

feasible in British Columbia under any aegis — state

aegis or private sector control? If that's the fact, then I'll

be very interested in his answer.

The last point I just wanted to make is that the Minister

has talked today that we don't want to create ghost towns. He

talked about the deserted towns and villages in Nevada and so

on. We're all in favour of avoiding that. This is socially

undesirable. He also talked about the costs for social

amenities. I immediately recalled a speech by the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) the other day which was quoted in

The Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, April 9, which

states:

"The government plans to establish a comprehensive chronic-care programme in British

Columbia with money received from mining royalties. Mr. Cocke

could not indicate just how large a percentage of the royalties

would go into a chronic care system, but he suggested it would

cost the government many millions of dollars."

In his opening statement in this debate yesterday, the

Minister of Mines talked about consolidated revenue of the

province. I would just like to ask one simple question and I'll

be through: does the Minister or the cabinet intend to set up

separate accounting so that a certain fraction of mining

revenue will be dedicated to chronic-care facilities?

Now, this is a very vital and pertinent question because if we go back into

a little bit of history of the former administration, it was frequently accused

of having raised the social services tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent to provide

money for the running of our hospitals. The few years I was in this House under

the former administration, this point was raised time and time again. The statement

by the Minister of Health in The Vancouver Sun on April 9, leaves the very clear

suggestion, but no more than a suggestion. But I think the Minister of Mines

should put the facts very clearly to this House. Is there some plan that a certain

specified fraction of revenue from the mining industry will be allocated specifically

to provide chronic-care facilities in the province?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This decision is definitely a decision of

the Treasury and the Minister of Finance as to how they're

going to use the money. My understanding is it will be going

into consolidated revenue because our ideas of such socially

necessary things as extended care should not depend on any tax

from any definite source. It should come out of consolidated

revenue and there should be sufficient amounts to look after

the whole deal. This is what our aim and object is in this

regard, as far as I'm concerned.

In regard to that booklet, that booklet was prepared for the

open hearing. At that time they were talking about a smelter up

in the Cariboo, and it was an environmentalist idea. After the

hearing, which was prior to this government taking over, I had

discussions with one of the firms involved, Bethlehem Copper. I

think the consortium would have gone ahead but they didn't want

to take the sulphur because there wasn't a good enough market

for the sulphur. They said they wanted it to go out into the

smoke, with the tall stacks. Then they could make it feasibly

possible to build a smelter. But we would not go for that type

of a smelter; we said the sulphur must be taken out.

I think the time is coming when sulphur is going to be in

greater demand. Even if they stock the sulphur, it's far better

than letting it go out and killing the vegetation. Sulphur is a

resource itself and the time may come when sulphur may be very

valuable. To me, to save one resource and destroy another one

is not the proper way of looking at it. The idea of the task

force is to go into this environmentally and the whole process

of the feasibility of a copper smelter in British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure the Minister

answered my last question when he said is it feasible. Can I

get a clear statement from him that at this point in time,

regardless of the particular process that's going to be used,

whether you're going to have the tall stacks or their complete

removal and control of the sulfur by the other means, is it

still undecided that it's economically feasible, no matter who

runs the show, to operate a smelter economically in British

Columbia? That's what I'm trying to find out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd say yes. We feel it is economically

feasible, but the process and things

[ Page 2583 ]

would be the job of the task force.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

start off by congratulating the Minister on one thing, which

I'm sure he'll be happy to hear, and that is his faith in the

private enterprise sector in the mining industry of British

Columbia.

In B.C. we have built up over the years a tremendous

mine-developing, mine-finding group of people, one

of the best that's ever existed anywhere in the world. We have

prospectors, engineers, geologists. We've got geophysicists.

We've got geochemists, metallurgists, assayers, diamond

drillers. We've got practical miners. We've got entrepreneurs.

We've even got mine financiers, those fellows on Howe Street

that he dislikes so much. They've all played a tremendous

role.

I'd like to say that the Minister has shown tremendous faith

in these people. He's shown a faith in them that indicates that

no matter how much he kicks them around, no matter how he tries

to encourage them to go elsewhere, no matter how much he cuts

into their varied, everyday pay cheques, he's quite sure

they're going to stay right here and be all willing, ready and

able when the day comes that he blows the whistle and tells

them to get going again.

He's shown the most phenomenal confidence in these people,

in this group of people. He says: "They're so good, that no

matter what I do they'll stick around and be ready to fight on

behalf of mines."

I don't share that faith that the Minister has in this

community. I think they're great people. I think they've done

great work, but I feel that some of those experts are going to

start thinking of perhaps a pay cheque elsewhere, perhaps a

management contract in South America. I understand that there

are certain B.C. companies — B.C. mining companies

— in which you no longer have a chance of getting hired

now unless you speak Spanish.

It's a funny thing. The Minister thinks that these people

are so great they'll stick around no matter what he does. Here

am I, a believer in free enterprise, suggesting that you can

damage them by bad policy, and that they're not as fantastic as

he seems to think. I find it a curious reversal.

I'd like to start off, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that

the Minister has talked quite frequently in this debate about

the ore, about the actual rock — let's use copper for the

example, but it applies to other minerals as well — as

being something finite...as though once you use up ore,

there is no more. This of course is technically true; the

Minister is correct.

But I would like to suggest to him that there is more to it than the very simple

relationship that once you've used something up, you don't have any more. It's

like sitting in the parliamentary restaurant: if you use up the cream in the

cream jug, there's no more there. Ore is a little different.

As was said by the American geographer, Eric Zimmermann:

"Resources are not; they become." Now what I'm suggesting to

the Minister is that 30 years ago we didn't have the copper

resources in B.C., the copper potential, that we have today.

Why not? Because 30 years ago, you had to have a percentage of

copper to rock which allowed the technology of that day to

develop a mine effectively.

Today, thanks to this great group of people that I have

talked about, tremendous technical skill — I quickly

admit it's an area in which I just don't have any competence,

the type of technical skills that I'm talking about:

metallurgy, geophysicist, geochemists....

Now, thanks to their skills, what used to be just rock is

now valuable ore.

That's a point I'd like to make to the Minister, because

I've listened to him carefully and I think he's tried his best

to answer questions. He has constantly talked about ore as

though it were a finite thing where we had just as much a few

years ago as we have today. This really isn't correct.

We had just as much rock a few years ago as we have today,

but it's thanks to the people that I'm talking about that we

now have something worth $1 billion a year to the Province of

British Columbia. I hope that he'll say a few words about

this.

You know, we have talked about ore in a finite sense, but in

actual fact reserves have increased for two reasons. There is

the obvious one that the Minister has talked about and

understands as well as I do — which is, of course,

finding a new body. That's a pretty — I won't say

straightforward process; it's an easily understandable process.

A guy goes out and finds something worth a great deal of money,

or he finds, in 99 cases out of 100, something that's worth a

lot less than he'd hoped.

But when it comes to the new technology, you're finding,

you're developing, you're creating brand new ore bodies not

because you're discovering them, necessarily, but because new

technology turns what was previously rock into a valuable

mineral resource. Now that's a point which the Minister has not

said anything about at all.

I'd like to then go back and point out to him that in his

constant scare talk about running out of resources and about

our kids, and the fact that they will be without resources, he

forgets that in the surface of the earth, the ordinary,

everyday, average surface of the earth, you've got something

like in a single cubic mile of the average crystal rock a

billion tons of aluminum, over 500 million tons of iron, one

million tons of zinc and 600,000 tons of copper.

That's what I'm trying to get at when I tell the Minister

that that's the average. In the one mile of the earth's crust,

you probably have enough copper for 500 million years at

expected rates of consumption.

[ Page 2584 ]

What I'm suggesting to him is that it's wrong to talk about

ores in the finite sense that he has. He should be looking at

these things in a broader context.

He should be telling us in this Legislature — and

here's a point that I hope he will reply to me on — about

technology, and new technology in particular. Just as it has

turned rock into ore in the past...that's 0.3 per cent copper. It now has some value where

previously it had none; 0.4 per cent is good while previously

it had none. As that has happened in the past, what does his

department think is going to happen in the future?

For him, to take the present, to use these exponential graph

curves in pointing out that we're going to run out if present

rates of consumption increase, is simply not realistic. As he

knows, cost factors are going to dampen down all those graph

curves, even if there are no further discoveries — even

if there's no further technology.

He knows as well as I do that exponential graph curves are

the biggest red herring in discussing resources. I wish he

wouldn't do that when he talks about running out in 64 years. I

think that was what you said about zinc, wasn't it, Mr.

Minister? Yes, 64 years was the figure he used.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That figure came from the Liberal

government in Ottawa.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm not necessarily defending any

government or objecting to any government; I'm trying to

discuss some of the factors that deal with your department. We

don't have the hang-ups that the NDP does about having to

support the Liberal government in Ottawa. We all know that the

NDP supports them in Ottawa, and this is causing you people

grave trouble.

We don't have this type of difficulty. We can look at things

a little more objectively and I'm trying to look at this from

the point of view of British Columbia — the point of view

of the Mines department, your department, Mr. Minister, and

what's happening here.

I think that the figures you gave, Mr. Minister, are simply

way off, because you've not said a word about new

technology.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder if you could ask, Mr. Chairman,

the Hon. Member just to dampen it down. If he has to talk all

the time, we'll yield the floor to him. Otherwise, perhaps he

could leave the room or cool off just a little. Would you mind

doing that for me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon.

Members standing order which requires that the Members not interrupt the person

that has the floor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I trust that the Minister will comment

upon this. Unless he does, really, he hasn't been candid with

us. I do respect this Minister as being a man who likes to be

candid and open and honest, and I think that he has tried to be

so. I think that in his response to questions over the last

year he's tried to be so too.

I respect him as an individual and I trust he'll say

something about this. Because for him to take present day

technology and present day exponential graph curves, which are

just obviously inaccurate, and then project them into the

future and talk in doomsday terms, is wrong.

The fact is that there's plenty of copper in the earth's

crust if new technology is developed. He's now got a good

department, he tells us. He's spending money on development. I

questioned him on what he's been doing with that department at

this time last year — actually a little earlier than this

time; we went through the estimates a little quicker. I asked

him what sort of research would be done, and I'm sure that it's

time he came up with something.

Now he says that he's only set up his economic research unit

two months ago and I respect that, although I might question

him as to why it took so long in getting going when it was

talked about during the estimates of last year. Perhaps he'll

comment upon that.

But will he also comment in terms of new technology? Mr.

Minister, you really don't have the situation that you've

described. You really don't have the situation that's been

described by other Ministers of the Crown — in

particular, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

You have a situation where new technology is constantly

changing the level at which you can mine ore. Throughout the

world British Columbia has been the absolute pioneer in this

area, the absolute expert, the number one jurisdiction. It has

succeeded, not through anything that we've done in this

Legislature — let's not kid ourselves — but because

what the technical people have done has succeeded in turning

what anywhere else would be waste rock i