1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, MARCH 30, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1973 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Routine proceedings

An Act Respecting Rights of Non Smokers (Bill No. 166) Mr.

McGeer.

The Environmental Bill of Rights Act 1973 (Bill No. 167).

Mr. Gardom.

Committee of supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources estimates.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1976

Mr. Smith — 1976

Hon. Mr. Nimsiek — 1977

Mr. Richter — 1977

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1980

Mr. Gardom — 1980

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1981

Mr. Chabot — 1981

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1983

Mr. McGeer — 1983

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1984

Mr. Phillips — 1984

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1984

Mr. Phillips — 1985

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1985

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1986

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1986

Hon. Mr. Nimsick I — 1987

Mr. Smith. Motion that the committee rise to discuss a matter of urgent public

importance — 1987

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1987

Division on the motion — 1987

Mr. Richter — 1988

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1988

Mr. Fraser — 1988

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1988

Mr. Chabot — 1988

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1989

Motion to adjourn Mr. Smith — 1989

Mr. McGeer — 1990

Mr. Speaker — 1990

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1990

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1990

Routine proceedings

An Act to Provide for the Guarantee by the Province of Loans

for Feeding Cattle for Market (Bill No. 3). Second reading.

Mr. Schroeder — 1991

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1991

An Act Respecting Mobile Homes (Bill No. 4). Second

reading.

Mr. Smith — 1991

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1992

British Columbia Development Corporation Act (Bill No. 6).

Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1992

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1992

The Farm Creditors Assistance Act (Bill No. 7). Second

reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1992

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1993

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill No. 5).

Second reading.

Mr. Fraser — 1993

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1993

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1993

Training on the Job Act (Bill No. 8). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 1994

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1994

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1994

Mrs. Jordan — 1994

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1994

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1995

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British

Columbia Act (Bill No. 9). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 1995

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1995

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1995

Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant Act (Bill No.

10). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 1996

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1996

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1996

An Act to Repeal the Gift Tax Act (Bill No. 11). Second

reading.

Mr. Morrison — 1996

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1997

An Act to Repeal the Probate Fee Act (Bill No. 13). Second

reading.

Mr. Morrison — 1997

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1997

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act (Bill No. 15).

Second reading.

Mr. Chabot — 1997

Hon. Mr. King — 2000

Point of order Procedure for adjournment on matter of public importance. Mr.

Smith — 2000

Mr. Speaker — 2001

Mr. Williams — 2001

Mr. Speaker — 2001

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I have a short reminder to the

House of some very apt words — in view of certain things that

happened last night, which unfortunately, I did not check. In

Beauchesne, a very apt expression which should be, I think,

memorized by all of us.

"A personal attack by one Member upon another is an offence

against the House in the person of one of its Members, which on

account of the respect due from every Member to the character

and dignity of the House, as well as the importance of

preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt

interference of the Speaker in order that any irregularity into

which a Member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate

may be rectified — that any expressions which may be

disrespectful to the House or painful to the feelings of

individual Members may be explained, apologized for or

retracted."

Last night I was rather busy, as you know, trying to

consider a very important point that had been raised, in the

course of which insults were flung across the floor of a

personal nature — particularly the insult that has been heard a

number of times in this House about "fat boy."

I think that sort of personal invective should be, on all

occasions, avoided. It is an affront to the House and the

dignity of the House, and I expect every Member who falls into

particular lapse will cease to do it in future. I think it is

only fair to say that it should cease henceforward.

If it happens again, certainly greater steps than a mere

apology seem to be justified.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT RESPECTING

RIGHTS OF NON SMOKERS

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

166 intituled

An Act respecting Rights of Non

Smokers.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 166 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.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL BILL

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 167 intituled The Environmental Bill of Rights Act 1973.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 167 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.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT

OF MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 167: Minister's office, $59,732.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to filibuster. (Laughter).

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I haven't

had a chance to say a word. I thought I should get up today — I didn't get an

opportunity last night to reply to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips).

AN HON. MEMBER: You were waiting for a question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I was waiting for a question. I

spent half the night after I went home trying to figure out the

whole issue. I came up with the answer that I am sure the Hon.

Member for South Peace was trying to get a message across to

me. He worked on it pretty hard. He gave you my history — which

I am pretty proud of over the years — that I have lived in the

Province since I was born in that little town of Rossland where

so many good people came from. I felt quite good that he would

go to that extent of telling what I did. Then he went into the

gloom and doom of a lot of things. He went to the United

States, he went over to England, he went to Australia, he went

to Zambia, he went all over the world telling me about certain

things.

He tried to tell me he was speaking on behalf of the mining

industry. He had this book — I think it is put out by Price

Waterhouse or somebody and he was giving some figures — Price

Waterhouse. He was giving all these figures about the mining

industry and what a wonderful thing they are.

He didn't tell you all the picture. He told you about 14,000

employees in 1971 — employees of the

[ Page

1974 ]

mining industry. He didn't tell that in the year before

there were 15,000 and that we actually were losing ground while

we are using up more of our natural resources all the time. So

he said that he had compassion for the unemployed, but I think

he had more compassion for the mining industry.

He was telling me that it was cold hard facts about the

United States having enough energy for 500 years. I don't know

what all the people are running around about now and telling us

that…I was talking to one of the American engineers the

other day and they are running out of a lot of things. They

claim they will have to come to Canada for them.

He said we should be less wasteful and more efficient. I

agree with that point — we should be less wasteful and more

efficient. That is exactly what I have been trying to do.

He talked about inflation. He talked about nuclear power …

well, he talked about Henry J. Kaiser and Edgar Kaiser, whom we

met the other day in the office, whom I am quite certain are

quite pleased that the previous government was kicked out so

that they could get going, because they're doing better since

they got out.

He was telling us that we were going to lose our shirts and

he talked about Chile. The only prosperity that Chile had prior

to what they've got now was prosperity for foreigners, not

prosperity for the Chileans. It was for that reason that a

couple of weeks ago they voted a higher vote than ever for the

present administration.

He went all through the valley of doom and gloom and I

thought he gave me a pretty good buildup. He was like a

reluctant bride — he wanted to say something and he didn't say

it. I think he was asking me to run for the leadership of the

Social Credit Party. (Laughter).

In answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, my answer is

"No."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to take a few minutes of time in this debate this

morning in the Minister's estimates discussing the petroleum

industry. I don't intend, Mr. Chairman, to infringe upon the

rules of the House or to test your authority in the chair by

reflecting on any bills that are before the House. We'll

discuss them at a proper time, whenever the bills are

called.

I do want to speak about the petroleum industry,

particularly because it means so much to northeastern British

Columbia as a means of providing employment for a large segment

of our population up there. I'd like to preface a few of the

questions that I have for the Minister with a few remarks

generally about the petroleum business.

Because of the fact that the industry so far has done most

of their work in north-eastern British Columbia, I think it's a

type of industry that few people in the metropolitan areas of

the province know about. They have a limited knowledge of what

goes on really in the exploration end of the petroleum

industry.

Of course, exploration is the lifeblood of the industry.

It's the continuous search for new fields and new producing

areas and drilling out the areas that have previously been

discovered that keeps the income flowing into the pockets of

hundreds and hundreds of families that live in north-eastern

British Columbia.

Now if you take a look at the exploration business and you

were to ask a drilling superintendent how many people are

employed in the process of drilling one well — hopefully it'll

be a well; it's just a drilling process until they either

abandon it or they strike pay dirt — he would tell you that the

average crew is around 16 people. So that doesn't sound like a

large number of jobs.

But the industry has done a study on both the direct and the

indirect benefits to employment. They calculate that between 70

and 80 jobs are directly affected by every drilling rig that

goes on location, because there's not only the 16 people who

are employed in the process of drilling but there's all these

service companies that cater to the drilling process. There's

the surveyors, the well consultants, the lease construction,

the rat-hole operators, the trucking companies, the water

haulers, the fuel dealers, the casing companies, the cementing

companies, the camp caterers, the welders, the coring company,

the logging company, the testing company, the bit suppliers,

the mud suppliers. These collectively represent jobs for

between 70 and 80 people.

Now that process goes on regardless of whether they hit a

producing gas or oil well or not. It costs the company the same

amount of money to drill a dry hole as it does a successful

one. So I believe the Minister must take into consideration the

impact that the exploration industry has on employment.

In doing so, he must take into consideration the facts of

what will happen if the exploration industry decides that in

terms of political climate, British Columbia is not a good

place to invest your dollars. This is the first phase of the

petroleum industry and it is the phase that employs most of the

people. After all, once a well is drilled — and let's say for

illustration they hit a successful gas flow — and once it's

tied into the pipeline that invariably runs through these major

fields, there's no further work except for service rigs coming

back in, perhaps once every year or two to clean the well out

and a maintenance man who services probably 50 locations. He is

just checking to see that everything is operating properly,

because it's all automatic, practically, from that point

[ Page

1975 ]

on.

Fortunately in north-eastern B.C. most of the gas and oil

that they have found is under pressure. So they don't have to

tie in pumps of the type that you see in Alberta. Once that

well is tied in, there's no further employment.

Where we do get the continuous employment in the industry is

through the continuous exploration for new wells and new

fields.

I was interested to see the other day that a company has hit

a new well in an area described as the Cotterel Lake area, 56

miles north of Fort Nelson. The company indicates that this is

one of the largest natural gas wells to be discovered in

British Columbia.

Now the companies involved are Canadian Reserve Oil and Gas

Limited and Quintana Exploration. So they've hit a well there.

But in the same

article they talk about another discovery well

and it happens to be 48 miles south of Fort Nelson. So the same

company, drilling in two different areas, has been successful

on two different locations, roughly 100 miles apart.

There's a vast territory in north-eastern British Columbia.

Very little of it has really been more than just tentatively

explored. Most of the major fields, by any calculation you want

to use, have not been drilled out or even the extent of the

fields ascertained completely. So the last thing in the world,

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that we want to see, is the

exploration industry deciding, because of the economic

situation and the stand of the government in the Province of

British Columbia, that we are the last place in Canada they

want to operate. That's why I think it's important that we

consider and that the Minister give some indication to this

House what the Government has in mind with respect to increased

royalties on natural gas production.

We know that there's been an increase negotiated between

West Coast and El Paso for an increase in price of natural gas,

presumably on the basis of not only the gas that's being

supplied but the increased export of natural gas. If the

majority of that negotiated increase is reflected in increased

royalties on natural gas, the exploration companies and those

people who would explore in British Columbia will find that

there's no net increase to themselves at all. In other words,

all they do is negotiate an increase in price which in turn is

taken from them in increased revenue to the Crown.

There has to be a balance, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, between what we can reasonably extract — and I think

"extract" is a good word for it in the petroleum business —

from that business without causing them the type of hardship

that will result in their leaving the Province of British

Columbia.

You know, they are dependent upon investment capital

and someone in the financial institution to provide them with multi-millions

of dollars so they can go in and explore for either gas or oil. The people who

finance them must see somewhere down the line a return.

The story of the petroleum industry so far in British

Columbia is that for every dollar invested — and at the end of

1972 in exploring for natural gas and petroleum products the

industry has expended $1,427 million — so far they have

received back between 50 and 55 cents, as I understand it, in

actual revenue. So, they're a long way from returning to

themselves even the original capital that they invested, let

alone any interest on the capital.

All I'm saying is that if they are going to explore they

have to go to financial institutions. The financial

institutions that back them must see a return somewhere down

the line. Not every drilling company is successful. As a matter

of fact many of them drill wells and never do hit a producer.

So, the money that they have expended is lost as far as that

area is concerned and they have to recapture it through

producing wells in some other part of either this province or

Alberta or wherever they happen to operate.

So I would hope that the Minister is taking into

consideration, and seriously considering the fact, that we have

an exceedingly viable industry right now. It is a profitable

industry to the government, because it returns to you a

tremendous amount of revenue for the amount that we have to

invest. Next to the liquor industry we make more net profit out

of the petroleum industry than any other source of revenue to

the Crown.

The Minister will agree that the number of people employed

in the petroleum department is not large. Yet the revenue is

coming in at the rate of between $30 million and $40 million

per year. The greatest part of that revenue is generated

through bonus bids, as the Minister knows. So after the

statutory fees are paid for the right to go in and drill or

explore, the bonus bids is where we get the greatest amount of

revenue. I would hope that the Minister would take this into

consideration.

What I am saying is this: if you're not careful you could

very easily kill the goose that's laying the golden egg. You

can increase royalties on natural gas and pick up a few million

dollars — $10 million, $15 million, $20 million a year in

increased revenue. But you could very easily lose more than

that if the exploration end of the industry suddenly decides to

write British Columbia off. So the net gain to the Crown would

be nothing.

Furthermore, somewhere down the line in a few years we would

find that all the known reserves had been tapped, that the

production of those wells would drop off as it naturally will

after they've been in production for a limited number of years.

Some of

[ Page

1976 ]

them have a lifespan of 10 years, some of them maybe 20, 25

years, depending upon the production rate. We could very easily

kill the exploration end of the industry.

If that dries up, sooner or later the whole industry dries

up in British Columbia.

So my question is this, Mr. Minister: what is your position

on increased royalties on natural gas production? Have you

calculated what it would cost the province in terms of revenue

and jobs if the exploration industry suddenly terminated its

activities in British Columbia? Have you a means of determining

in the petroleum industry what will be classified as a new

discovery area? Have you in terms of revenue to the Crown

calculated the loss that we could be faced with not in the

immediate years but over, say, a 10-year period if the

industry, because of the imposts against it, decides to leave

the Province and do no more exploration? I'd like the

Minister's comment on those matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It seems to me that most of these

questions are "if" questions. Like the former Premier, I don't

think that I can answer "iffy" questions. But I will say this:

there's no indication at the present time that there's any

diminishing interest; and actually there is an increasing

interest into the exploration of gas.

Now as far as gas goes, we have meetings going on with the

federal energy board and there are meetings going on all over

this country about gas. We haven't gone into any question as to

any further royalties or the returns that the province will be

getting from gas.

As you know, there are arbitration cases going on. It

wouldn't be fair to interfere in those arbitration cases until

those things are settled. We are going to review the gas

situation during the summer.

I appreciate your concern. I certainly will take into

consideration what you have said here when we are considering

those things, because that's the reason that you people are

here — to give some input into what might happen. I appreciate

your concern.

I will say this: your ideas will be taken into

consideration, but right now I couldn't give you any indication

exactly as to what will happen in a year or two years from now.

Right now really there is very much interest in the whole

field.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would

make two comments. One is that the matter of increased

royalties is a borderline matter under the …

MR. SMITH: That's on oil production, Mr. Chairman. I was speaking about

the exploration for natural gas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not quite the point I

was going to make. The point is partly a matter for the

Minister of Finance's department. It can be alluded to under

this section.

Also, it is a hypothetical thing. I think that it would be

more moot to ask questions concerning the present

administration of the department included in the estimates.

MR. SMITH: Surely, Mr. Chairman, it can't be hypothetical

when we have heard and we see articles in newspapers and

repeated statements by the Minister and the Premier indicating

that they are considering increasing the amount of royalty

charged on the production of natural gas. So if this is

directly under the responsibility of the Minister, he would be

recommending, I presume, to the Minister of Finance a suitable

rate of increase.

While the Finance Minister may be responsible for the

collection of that revenue, the responsibility of setting the

rate of increase comes directly under this Minister's

administration and responsibility. So I can't see in any way

that I'm offending against the rules of the House by asking the

Minister's position on matters of increased royalty. Where does

he stand on it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that if you were asking a

hypothetical question, the answer to it would be legislation.

Therefore it would be trespassing into matters which would be

involving legislation. We should really be considering matters

of administration of the department as of this time.

MR. SMITH: Certainly this is under the Minister's

responsibility and it's part of the policy. As a new Minister

he should be giving us some indication of government policy, if

it's not a secret.

I'll just continue on what I was, going to say before we had

this little chat.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to answer almost

any question. The Hon. Member is correct that any advice as to

royalties would come from the department and from myself. So I

don't mind pursuing it a little bit and giving him information

because I appreciate what he's doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only other point

that I would like to make at this time is that because of

things that have been said, because of statements that are

being made, both in the department which you represent and by

the Minister of

[ Page 1977 ]

Finance, the industry today is very apprehensive about their

future in British Columbia because they are faced with the same

increased costs as every other type of business.

They've had to increase salaries. It costs them more now to

rent equipment. Everything that they do in the field of

exploration costs them more today than it did five years ago,

two years ago, one year ago.

If an increase in royalty by the Crown is anticipated at

this time, and that increase is equal to any increase in the

wellhead price of natural gas, there are other parts of Canada

where they can go — where the salary scale is much less, where

the cost of trying to explore is much less than in British

Columbia. And that is where they're going to go because the

leases are available in areas that have just as much potential

as north-eastern British Columbia.

So this is all I'm saying to the Minister: that in the

process of setting policy you have made the industry very

apprehensive about their continuing future in north-eastern

British Columbia. If as a result of that, the industry

collectively decides to leave northeastern British Columbia,

we'll be 20 years getting them back. So I would hope that the

Minister will look at these things in the proper perspective

when he's talking about increased royalties and increased

imposts against the production of natural gas in this

province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advice

given and I will take it into close consideration.

MR. SMITH: Just one further supplemental question, to the

Minister. That is the matter of the servicing of Vancouver

Island with natural gas.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It doesn't come under my jurisdiction.

MR. SMITH: I know it's a detailed and involved proposition,

but I believe, personally, that all should have the benefit of

natural gas before we get too far involved in discussing

further exports to the United States.

I would hope that the Minister is looking into this matter

of supply to the island and that as quickly as it is possible

there will be a major policy statement and an announcement from

the department that Vancouver Island will be serviced with

natural gas.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, this doesn't come under my supervision

as far as deciding whether gas does come over to the island or not. Any announcement

that would be made would be made, very likely, by the Hydro department that's

in charge of this. But again, these things are being considered

all the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-

Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. This seems to be a peculiar position for me this year

- as the present Minister's predecessor. I want to say that

probably the most enjoyable years of my life, in the field of

administration, were those years that I spent with the

fantastic, efficient staff when I was Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources in the province. There are so many fine,

fine people in that department — dedicated and certainly

qualified in their particular field.

This is obviously so because British Columbia, as a

province, has such a potentiality in the field of minerals and

petroleum resources that this has attracted many, many

competent people who have left other areas for the simple

reason of the challenge more than anything else. They have

taken their places and they have done a fine job. I must pay

this tribute to the staff.

This Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, of course,

being a revenue department is a very, very important department

not only to government but to the Province of British Columbia.

It brings in the second highest revenue only exceeded by the

forestry industry.

I think if you would really look at it from a point of view

as to its revenue-bearing — in light of the fact that a great

number of dollars have to be paid out for the protection of

forests and reforestation and so on — probably mines, on a

percentage basis, produce more revenue actually than forestry

in the long run. I know that this is a debatable point in

relation to taxation and so on. But, when you take into

consideration the number of people employed compared to the

revenues produced, not only just to government but to the

general society through spin off of various ancillary services

and so on, it is a very important portfolio. It is one that

needs a lot of attention. Certainly as far as policies are

concerned, these policies have a great bearing on the success

or failure of that particular department and that particular

resource industry.

The industry's strength has been very good over the past

number of years. There is some concern currently in relation to

the mining industry. It's a very competitive field in which the

Minister, at all times, must have his ear to the ground in

relation to the competitive factor from other countries which

are able to produce at much less cost because their standard of

living isn't the same as our standard of living in British

Columbia — the fact that their workers get paid less, the fact

that they have subsidization and one thing or another from

govern

[ Page 1978 ]

ment.

As Government policy emanates from the recommendations of

the Minister and his department to the Executive Council, I

hope that the Minister will give due consideration to the

interests of the industry and its expansion and so on, as we go

along, because it's the kind of industry that requires a time

lapse between the time of discovery, development and into the

production field.

I think that the Minister is well aware of this. He's been

in the mining industry many, many years and connected with

probably one of the largest mining companies in the world —

Cominco. This is not a commercial, but he has worked with them.

He was virtually born in their midst. This gives him a

background through which he should be able to come up with long

range policies of a very substantial nature. I know that his

staff will certainly help him.

Now, in relation to policies: the carrying out of

development requires a very great degree of high risk capital,

and its availability either to the mineral industry or the

petroleum-natural gas industry. This capital is only attracted

by the encouragement that is available — the potentiality of

the success of risk capital.

Failures in risk capital, of course, make your production

cost higher if it's in the terms of drilling for natural gas or

petroleum. A few dusters make a successful well less

remunerative so the industry has to, either in the minerals or

in the petroleum resources, depend on the success of a

particular exploration project. Therefore it's imperative that

the Minister recommend policies encouraging this field of

exploration and development, if for nothing more than compiling

a resource inventory in the interests of knowing our resource

potentiality.

As Minister of Mines, myself, we were doing a study on this.

We were expanding progressively in getting more and more field

crews out during those times of the year when they are

available, particularly in relation to young geologists from

universities — your undergraduates — or even those in

post-graduate who took charge of some of these crews. I think

this was a worthwhile programme. I hope that the Minister will

continue this programme.

Certainly the compilation of a good library of statistics

and data is of paramount importance to development now or in

the future. This, I think, is probably one area in which we

were falling down during the depression years and so on, when

we weren't able to get the interest because of low metal prices

and so on — a number of matters which retarded that

development.

Producing mines at that time went along on a day-to-day basis sort of. We had

many of them in my particular area, which the Minister knows well, such as Copper

Mountain, the Kelowna exploration and Hedley — you name it, we had it. In his

own area, in the East Kootenays, in Rossland-Trail

and in the Slocan area there are many, many properties which may in due course,

if we have the statistical data, encourage development and further employment.

Because of this high-risk capital being involved in this

particular industry, I question the wisdom of taxpayers' money

being employed for this purpose. It's my contention that the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and his department

should confine their main functions to that of administration,

giving good guidance in the development and reclamation areas

of concern to his department, which are of concern to the

public today, let's say, more than anything else. The public

are demanding today that more careful development take place,

with more encouragement from the mining industry to take care

of those things which might be objectionable by way of waste

and things of this nature.

The field of secondary use of mine wastes, I think, is an

area in which a lot of concern could be put in research

programmes and things of this nature, I would recommend to the

Minister that possibly a pilot project could go forward. We

have one near my constituency, and that is the tailings from

the Copper Mountain mining — there is a large tailings pile

there. Undoubtedly there are certain amounts of mineral still

in those tailings.

Now, this doesn't only apply to copper. Take the area of

Hedley where — and the Minister knows that area well — there

were gold mines. Certainly the recovery methods that were used

in earlier days may not have been as perfect as those we have

today. There may be possible opportunities for employment by

re-doing those tailings.

To date I know that the methods that they have brought about

may not always be as remunerative as they could be. Maybe

they're not even viable. But I think maybe through some

research area — through the B.C. Research Council or something

of this nature — we may be able to get a better use of the

residue from our earlier mining projects in which we could

recover greater amounts of minerals that are lying in these

waste piles. This I would recommend to the Minister,

particularly because of the price of gold today. Certainly when

it was around $35 or $36, maybe you couldn't consider it. But

when it's getting up around $90 or over, then it may be

considered and may be a profitable enterprise at which it could

be used.

I know in your own particular case, Mr. Chairman, that there

has been a great deal of mining in that area and there will be

a lot more. The better the methods of recovery that we employ —

and this I think is of concern to the Minister and his

department — the more return we get from that resource and the

less waste we have. I think this is an important area.

The policies of the former government created a

[ Page 1979 ]

thrust in the industry. We have had many remarks made by

various people in that the hottest place for mining

potentiality was in British Columbia, and I think this is true.

We in British Columbia were able to encourage people to go into

very low grade copper properties. Only because of the fact that

they had an anomaly there by way of molybdenum or some other

value — gold, silver and so on, in which a revenue is produced

which in some cases probably paid for the mining — were they

able to work these low-grade properties by way of volume. It

was only by volume — the 10,000 ton or 5,000 ton mill was

pretty much of an out. You had to get into something in the

order of 25,000 or up to 40,000 tons a day. We have a number of

these. But it was only possible because of the development of

technology and the methods of recovery that these have created

a high rate of employment.

Now, I know the Minister is concerned because of the figures

dropping in some respects as to the number of bodies, because

of mechanization, automation and so on. This has happened, but

the mining industry is not the only one. This has happened on

the farms. This has happened in many ways — at the gas pump

where you have self-service and all these areas. I know it's of

concern to him.

But at the same time the revenue that is being produced —

the ancillary services and so on — are all very important and

this is an industry that I think British Columbia must guard

jealously, from the point of view of development, from the

point of view of saving from waste and because of the other

social benefits that are derived from it, such as the proper

reclamation programmes which will benefit people when they

finally complete their mining operations and turn it back into

something acceptable.

I know you're not going to be able to restore a mountain.

You're not going to be able to fill a great hole in the ground

where they've extracted coal or through open-pit mining. But

you can develop it in such a way that you can form lakes, golf

courses, any number of things. This, of course, would be at the

expense of the industry as it is now, and this is the way I

think it should be. If they're going to recover a resource, get

the benefits of the development of that to society, then they

owe a debt in restoring or developing a suitable area after

they have completed it.

Now, this policy was introduced two or three years ago under

a

section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act and also

mines regulations and I think it's a good policy. It's got to

be expanded on as you progressively go along. I don't think

there's any question on this. Experience will teach us.

This thrust that was created is still being felt today. I think that the Minister,

having under his administrative jurisdiction in this particular field the recommendations

to the Executive Council in new policies, should direct them to the encouragement

of continuing exploration programmes in the interests of employment and also

particularly the resource inventory purpose. I think this is a very important

area.

It's been on my mind for some time, and I was hoping to have

a chance to meet with the Minister. In relation to gold which

we spoke of before, we used at one time to have a very, very

active placer mining industry, both in gold and also in

platinum. Particularly now the interest is being shown in gold.

At one time, many years ago, at Yale, we had a programme by

which unemployed young people — and this was back in the days

of unemployment (not that we haven't got unemployment now), but

let's say the "dirty 30s" — were taught the technique of

exploring for and the recovery of the gold resource. The prices

were very low then, but they're very good now.

Maybe this is an area in which we could interest a great

number of our young students who find themselves idle during

the summer months. Maybe this is an area in which we could

encourage the recovery of gold, particularly at this time. This

may be a stopgap measure because maybe gold will drop down

again. I don't know. This is a stopgap measure in which we

might find some employment. I would encourage the Minister to

look into this or have his department check it out and see what

the potential is.

Through the Cariboo, through the Fraser, through the area

around Princeton, and so on, there is still gold. People go out

on Sundays and they placer a little bit with a pan. It's a nice

pastime. It's a real thrill to discover even a small nugget the

size of the head of a pin in your gold pan. Not that there's a

great deal of value in one little nugget, but it is a

recreational encouragement and it could get to be something in

which we could use a lot of people.

In this particular field, I know we've run into some

problems between departments as to what happens to the gravel

tailings, whether they affect fish and so on. There were one or

two placer operations that were closed down during my tenure of

office, not because the Department of Mines was concerned but

because the Department of Fisheries was concerned. This was up

in the area of Likely, B.C., which the Minister's Deputy knows

of. He probably knows of it himself.

Anyway, this family operation was closed down. I don't

really think that the harm coming from that little placer

operation, which gave good employment and a remuneration back

to these people, really was doing that much harm — not even as

much harm as you would get from the flood waters in the spring

freshets.

I was concerned about it. It was the contention of the

federal fisheries in this that this was doing harm. But it was

such a small operation that really there wasn't much more dirty

water — which would affect fish — going out of there than you

would find in the Fraser 12 months of the year, and that's a

great fish

[ Page 1980 ]

river. I think this is an area that really should be studied

by the Minister and his Government.

At some future time, I hope to be able to sit down with the

Minister and talk about a few of these things for my

enlightenment, even if he's not able to do anything with the

suggestions I've made this morning. In this province we have a

resource; a potentiality of a resource; the opportunity for

development; the opportunity of cataloguing, by way of data in

a library, what we have, where we have it and its potential

viability in relation to current markets. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I appreciate what

the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) has said. I know he must

have gained a great deal of experience while he was Minister of Mines. First,

I'd like to say that I would be glad to sit down with him at any time and discuss

mining problems in British Columbia. From the information and the knowledge

that men like that have, other people can get that knowledge and maybe make

good use of it. I'm sure that the former Minister of Mines really means what

he's saying and I appreciate it very much.

We're going to give greater service throughout the province.

In the first place, he spoke about an inventory. That is

ongoing. We hope to have complete inventory with a data system,

so that if anyone stakes a claim, he could immediately get the

complete information. This is one of the things we expect to

have — complete information on that claim. If he gives it up

and somebody else stakes the claim later on, that person

doesn't have to go through the same expense and disruption.

This is the hope of the mines department.

At the present time, they put out this Geology,

Exploration and Mining in British Columbia, which is very

costly to the department. They sell it for $5 but you don't

compile and print that for anything like $5. This is a service

to the industry, I would say.

In regard to recovery, we're treading very closely on

legislation, of course. One of the places I'm very interested

in is the maximum recovery from a mine when it gets into

operation. I think the slag piles and tailing ponds are very

interesting. I think we probably should have a geologist

researching to find out what is left in these places. If we

could recover more from those slag piles and tailing ponds, it

would give greater use for our resource.

There's one thing about this resource: you can't conserve

it. The only way you can conserve this resource is not to dig

it out of the ground. You've got to manage it very, very wisely

and plan the use of it if you want to have that resource for

years to come.

The use of it is the principle thing in regard to

conservation.

With regard to placer mining: placer mining, to me, should

be encouraged as a profitable recreation for people. When you

go into the hydraulic placer mining, then you do a lot of

damage. It's usually on creek beds and it destroys a lot of our

environment. This is what you've got to be very careful about.

I notice that in California they don't allow placer leases at

all any more because it destroyed so much of the area.

Sometimes, where cities get water from these streams too,

placer leases create a problem.

I think I've answered just about all of your questions.

Reclamation was one other point you brought up, which we are

following very closely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just one very short

question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. I'd like to talk about

discrimination in the mining industry, discrimination which has

existed against one group of B.C. citizens for 30 years. That's

the B.C. Indians. This came into being in 1943. There's a

preposterous law on the books …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that there is a bill on the order paper

numbered 105, The Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act

Repeal Act.

MR. GARDOM: I'm drawing the Hon. Minister's attention to the

existing law, not to the proposed law, Mr. Chairman.

Under the existing law, Mr. Minister, minerals revenues from

Indian reserves belong 50 per cent to the B.C. government

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't believe that the Hon.

Member can do this. I would rule that he cannot refer to this

particular Act or to the existing Act, inasmuch as the Act on

the order paper is

an Act to repeal the statute.

MR. GARDOM: I'm talking about the law as it is today and I'm

entitled to do that, Mr. Chairman. I'm entitled to talk about

the law in the province today. I'm not advocating its repeal. I

want to ask the Hon. Minister a few questions about the

existing law and whether or not he thinks it's fair or whether

he thinks it's discriminatory …

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

seated. Would you state your point of order, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I wish you would rule on this. I

[ Page 1981 ]

was refused the right to discuss an existing mining law last

night by you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like a ruling on it. Either it

is or it isn't allowed in these chambers.

AN HON. MEMBER: You talked for three hours.

MR. PHILLIPS: That doesn't matter. That's not the point. If

I talk for 10 hours, that's not the point. The point is that I

was not allowed to talk on existing legislation. If it's not

good for the Socreds, it's not good for the Liberals.

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

seated. The point of order is well taken. I would rule that the

Hon. Member cannot discuss the legislation, period, whether

it's on the statute books now or proposed.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about

the laws of the Province of B.C. in every debate we've had. In

every debate that comes up in the Province of British Columbia,

we talk about the existing laws and the views and necessities

for change. I can talk about the law in the mineral field today

if I wish to. Heavens, if you can't talk about the laws as they

now stand, there would never be any debate in this chamber

whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get to the question?

MR. GARDOM: I'm trying to get to the question. I'm no more

than 30 seconds away from it. Perhaps with a little bit of

tolerance from the Chairman and a little bit of silence from

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

for a moment, please, and I'll just complete my point of order.

The Hon. Member may discuss the statute inasmuch as it relates

to the administration of the department. But I'm speaking about

the merits of the law and the …

MR. GARDOM: Now insofar as the administration of this

statute relates to the Hon. Minister, it relates to him to this

extent: it relates to him to the point that 50 per cent of the

revenues from any mineral resources from an Indian reserve go

to the Province of British Columbia. The other 50 per cent go

to the federal government.

I'm going to ask the Hon. Minister whether or not he thinks this is legal stealing;

whether or not he thinks it's preposterous; whether or not he thinks it's discriminatory;

whether or not he thinks it's grossly unfair; whether or not he thinks it's

a confiscatory measure; whether or not he knows that this was entered into without

Indian consultation and without Indian consent; I ask whether or not he's going

to support that fine measure that has been introduced

by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). namely repeal the

fool thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The question is whether or not we're

treading on very dangerous ground here discussing something as

near to the bill as what you're talking about. When the bill

comes up, I'll be well prepared to answer your question.

Right now, as far as the native Indians go I'll say that

there is one point that we are trying to develop. That is the

development of prospecting schools so that they will be

encouraging native Indians to become prospectors for minerals

in the Province of British Columbia.

As far as the reserves go, that's a question that will have

to be discussed under the bill. I'm not going to transgress on

the privilege of the House to tell him my opinion of a bill

that is placed on the order paper by his colleague. If I

expressed my opinion now, then you might change the bill, and I

don't want you to change the bill, so I would just let that

go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: That's an indication…Why order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just drawing the attention of the Hon.

Member, and I would point out that this was his own bill and

therefore I will read

section 1: "The Indian Reserves

Mineral Resources Act , being

Chapter 187 of the Revised

Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, is repealed."

Now, I think your point is made. However, I would rule that

any further debate on this particular matter would be

anticipating a debate which will be coming when this bill is

called and therefore I would ask the Member to move on to

another subject.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'm delighted to do that. I'd like to move

on to the subject of private Members' rights because this is

the closest we've ever come to debating a private Member's bill

this session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing a very important

department here, a department that's lost 50 per cent of its

ability to spend and promote mining in British Columbia.

I just wanted to speak very briefly a little further on the

question of placer mining because there have been strong

feelings expressed on this very matter by

[ Page 1982 ]

the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. Mr. Elliott says:

"This is just another discouragement to people who are willing

to get out of the city and do something constructive in the resource field.

My reaction is why put a freeze on the licence system that has worked very well

for 40 years to my knowledge. In fact, placer gold-mining was what started this

province many years ago. There is no justification for the government's suspension.

There have been no serious abuses that I know of. I think it is very unfair."

I understand that he did not pretend that a great number of

people were involved. He estimated a couple of hundred or a

large amount of gold production. He said the first notice he

received of the change was when he was telephoned by several

prospectors who complained of it — one had sent in his money

several months ago.

Now I am wondering whether there has been a moratorium

established. I am wondering whether there is consideration to

be given to the removal of the moratorium and if so, under what

circumstances?

I think that if there has been any damage, or if there is a

possibility of ecological or environmental damage by the

hydraulic system of extracting placer gold, then your

department has a responsibility to impose certain guidelines

and controls to ensure that if there is any disruption that the

areas should be restored.

But, basically, I think placer mining is a gold panning

system and I'd like the Minister to tell me if they are giving

consideration to the lifting of the moratorium and under what

conditions they would lift the moratorium.

Next, I read an interesting

article regarding the

expenditures for your department, Mr. Minister, through you Mr.

Chairman, in the Cranbrook Courier. It's in the

Cranbrook Courier of January 10, 1973. It says:

"This is the time of the year when people are wishing their

relatives and friends a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The origin of

Christmas lay in the desire to pay tribute to Christ, the Prince of Peace. The

New Year's wish no doubt originated in the happy expectancy that comes from

being able to make a new start. These are wonderful traditions where they still

have the intended meaning. Unhappily we find that along with many other good

customs, they have lost their original intent and are increasingly exploited

for commercial purposes. Instead of conveying the true spirit of the season,

greeting cards are sent as a matter of form. This is the reason why I have refrained

from sending greeting cards from my office. My wife and I have sent a personal

message to our immediate relatives and most friends and we wish well to every

human being in the world. I just don't want to use the money of the taxpayers

of this province to send them all a card."

Mr. Minister, that is a very commendable statement on your

part. No doubt you are saving taxpayers dollars by not sending

out Christmas cards with the emblem of the province and the

expense of your office. But then in turn, I consider it a bit

of an attack against your colleagues who do send Christmas

cards.

AN HON. MEMBER: What has that to do with mines?

MR. CHABOT: That's a lot to do because we're talking about

the money that you're not spending for the Christmas cards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is

talking about something that is not really directly relevant to

the estimates before us.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I would think that if he sends Christmas

cards it comes out of the Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources' vote. Yes, and I'll discuss next year. I'm wondering

whether the Minister is going to continue this policy of not

sending cards at the public expense. Is he going to continue to

attack his colleagues who do send Christmas cards and do, in

his opinion, waste the taxpayers dollars …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: The question is pertinent — Christmas cards cost

money. They come right out of this vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You were doing fine until you started

attacking his fellow Ministers. I would ask you to keep your

questions relevant to the estimates.

MR. CHABOT: How else can you interpret that article?

Christmas cards — he says he's not going to spend money on

Christmas cards out of the money that's allocated …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: …to his office for the administration of

Mines and Petroleum Resources. That's what I'm talking about

right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out to the

Hon. Member that we would ask you to keep your remarks confined

to the responsibilities of the present department and not refer

to other Ministers or other departments.

[ Page 1983 ]

MR. CHABOT: …Mr. Chairman, to the funds that are

allocated to the administration of the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. I wish that Minister would cooperate and

refrain from attacking his colleagues. And I'm wondering

whether the Minister will comment on whether he is going to

continue sending Christmas cards…(Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, on that last point: I'm

proud of my decision in that case and maybe others will emulate

me as time goes on. But there is no intention of any attack

because this was a decision of my own and I didn't have to go

and ask somebody else to make my decision for me.

Interjection on an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, that's something anyway. At least I

made one.

In regards to placer mining: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say

to the Hon. Member that we did put a freeze on it and we had

hoped to review the Act — if the Act isn't completely reviewed

for this session, undoubtedly the moratorium would be lifted to

the point where it would extend their rights to carry on and

placer mine.

I've had some complaints; it's an area where you have got to

be careful, especially where big operations get in. I think we

should encourage the recreational value of placer mining

because I think it is very interesting. There's a lot of people

of even my own age who after they're pensioned off like to go

out and do a little placer mining, and it may be profitable. So

I think that it should be encouraged for recreational purposes

more than anything else because as far as big operations go,

you can do a lot of damage and get very little out of it. You

know what happened in Wild Horse Creek and over at Rock Creek.

It's a regular mess after these hydraulics get through with

it.

That's the reason that we put on the moratorium at the

time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the Minister

certainly tore right into his responsibilities — making a crisp

decision on Christmas cards. (Laughter).

I'd like to know whether he's going to continue to develop

in the portfolio he now has.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we've missed the Minister badly over on this side

of the House, because he made wonderful Opposition speeches and in a sense we've

lost his tongue this session. I had to restrain myself yesterday from getting

up and speaking on behalf of the Minister to his colleague, the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation, because for the first time in

my memory, we haven't had a speech about the problems of Black Angus

cattle wandering around the highways in the east Kootenay.

But, the Minister has taken on a bigger task than fencing in

the Black Angus cattle, because he's got to manage, now, our

second largest industry in British Columbia.

Many of us, Mr. Chairman, have been deeply disturbed by the

policies enunciated by the Department of Mines. One of the

things that has to be considered it seems to me, Mr. Chairman,

is the overall level of mining activity that we wish to have in

British Columbia. The basis of the questions that I'm going to

put to the Minister is, what level of activity are we aiming

at?

We do know, Mr. Chairman, that it's quite possible to close

down the mining industry in countries that are rich in

minerals. Government policies in Mexico, for example, have

resulted in a virtual disappearance of the mining industry from

that country. Similarly, other South American countries — Chile

is an excellent example.

Many African countries have had a virtual disappearance of

the mining industry as a result of government policies which

send miners and their risk capital to other areas of the world.

We know that the world is not dependent at all on British

Columbia's mineral supply. It would be an option open to the

government to set forth taxation policies that would result in

a virtual disappearance of the mining industry in British

Columbia.

We also know that if there were no taxes at all on mining

and we developed a "come and get it" philosophy, mining of

course would pick up in British Columbia. But even at that we

would not become the world's supplier of minerals, because so

much depends on the grade of the ore and the cost of getting it

out. So what the Minister is really involved in, Mr. Chairman,

is a worldwide poker game in which there's a certain amount of

demand for minerals, there is a certain amount of development

and exploration capital available, and it's merely going to

move where the opportunities at any given point in time are the

greatest.

We return, Mr. Chairman, to the basic question which is: how

much of the action — and we're talking now in world terms —

does British Columbia wish to have? How much development

capital do we want to have in this province? How much

exploration capital? How many people do we wish to employ in

the mining industry. Mr. Chairman, if we settled those

questions as overall government policy, then all you'd have to

do is to adjust the competitive taxation in British Columbia to

achieve that level.

You say we're going to aim for $100 million a year in

exploration; that we're going to aim for a gross mineral

production of $700 million or $800 million or whatever it is;

that we want to have so many

[ Page 1984 ]

thousand people employed in the mining industry? Having set

those targets you then make the taxation reach that level. You

get from the world pool what you want in order to satisfy the

development needs of the province.

Mr. Chairman, if we move with any other assumption and say

we think that the royalty on coal should be $5 a ton, or we

think all minerals in the ground should be taxed at 25 cents or

$1 an acre, or we think that the mining tax should be x many

dollars, then the consequence of that is that, without

realizing what we're doing, we're going to set the level of

mining below a desirable point. Or perhaps we might establish

it above a desirable point where there was more capital coming

in than the province could reasonably handle; that we would be

going off to Italy or Chile or Mexico or someplace to recruit

miners to come to British Columbia. Then the Government decides

that they've done something wrong and changes the taxation

policies, and all the people are suddenly on welfare.

Mr. Chairman, my question is, simply this: does the Minister agree with these

premises? If he does, what are his targets? What does he think is an appropriate

amount to be spent in exploration in British Columbia? How many people does

he think should be employed in the mines? What should be our gross mineral production?

And having answered those questions, can he tell us how his taxation policies

dovetail with these targets?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, listening to that talk from

the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey I imagine that he's

going to support my legislation that I've got in. I am sure of

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: How come he was allowed to talk on it?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He didn't talk on it, really. He was far

enough away that he indicated that he would support it.

I realize the problem that we've got. When you speak of what

level of activity this ongoing inventory that we're taking …

when that is completed, we might be able to do something in

planning closer — in realization of what we're going to do.

Maybe the long-term view that you've got is good, that you

could plan these things, if we were on an absolute planned

economy. But of course I don't expect that you really believed

in a planned economy. You believe in a system that we've had

previously like when we had the three-year tax-free plan where

you get it out as quickly as you can and make as much as we

can. This is what happens sometimes.

We must not forget that the depletion of our minerals, year

by year…if we're going to depend on that alone for

employment, it takes more tonnage every year to give one man a

job. Unless you use the mining industry and the resource

industry as a base to fan out to the secondary industries and

other things so that you can get as many jobs as possible, then

you're not going to accomplish anything because you'd be losing

ground every year. Sometimes it might be better if it were left

there and maybe somebody at a future date would have a better

sense of planning than we've got. This is what I expect to do

in the mineral department.

But I take your advice kindly, Mr. Member, through you Mr.

Chairman, because I think you gave some very good advice

there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of

questions I'd like to ask the Minister of Mines. One is that if

the industry is going to remain as a prosperous industry in

British Columbia — and technology is changing — would the

Minister consider getting together with his colleague, the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)?

Two of three remaining vocational schools in the province

are in the north, one in Terrace and one in Dawson Creek. You

could take some of the courses out of BCIT and put in these

vocational schools up out in the area where they are closer to

mines. You could have petroleum and gas technology and you

could have another course on mining technology. If you're going

to, as you say, train the native Indians for prospectors, are

you going to hire those native Indians under the department or

are they going to be sent out as free enterprisers?

This is very pertinent because, if you're going to train and

hire them yourself, what about the prospectors that are

presently out there? What's going to happen to them? If you're

going to train these prospectors, where are you going to put

the courses? I know there are courses now by the B.C. and Yukon

Chamber of Mines, et cetera, by the mining organization. Are

you going to set up a course to train these native Indians

yourself and are you going to hire them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Member, I

have discussed this question both with the Hon. Minister

without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) and the Hon. Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) with regard to giving the native

Indians encouragement to take up this prospectors' course. I

realize up until this time that the chamber has carried

[ Page 1985 ]

on a prospectors' school and I think they've done quite a

good service to the province in that regard. But I don't think

that this is enough.

When you speak of hiring the native Indian — he is a citizen

the same as anybody else. If we're going to hire somebody and

they were qualified we'd certainly hire them just as quickly as

we would hire anybody else.

As far as training them goes, I think we fell down in the

past in not giving them more opportunity to train and go out

prospecting, because this is their way of life. They like to be

out in the fields and they could maybe contribute a lot to the

province if they were given a greater opportunity.

As far as the industry goes, the industry is very prosperous

right now. Last night you talked about it going downhill. I

notice that Endako has taken on 74 more men, that the Churchill

mines are going to open up in the old area again, I understand.

That is an indication that the industry is prosperous. There is

no indication otherwise.

I think you will find that with the new Government in

they'll have a new look and a new life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll rephrase my question: are

you or is the Department of Mines going to hire prospectors,

whether they be native Indians retrained or whether they be

present prospectors? Is the Department of Mines going to hire

prospectors to go out and look for minerals for the

department?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Right now the only provision we have in

that regard is the grub-staking. If we had like they have in

Manitoba and Quebec, for instance, a Crown exploration company

which I would say probably does hire prospectors…but we

have no provision for that at the present time. So when we're

talking training prospects, the only provision we've got is the

grub-staking and that's being used to a certain extent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria …

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a supplemental request on the same subject, Mr. Chairman. The course that the

Chamber of Mines put on for prospectors, was this not available

to native Indians in prior days or why did they not take

advantage of it? Were they discriminated against?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think this question

is outside the confidence of the Minister to answer. I would ask you to direct

the question to the Chamber of Mines.

MR. PHILLIPS: What you've stated then, Mr. Chairman,…

what the Minister has stated then, is that he does intend to

hire prospectors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member be

seated.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I stated that the only way, the only help

we give to prospectors is through the grub-staking of them. We

do grub-stake prospectors if they apply.

MR. PHILLIPS: But in the future you're going to hire

them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. We've got no provision at the present

time for hiring prospectors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First

question to the Minister: in the estimates that we have before

us, there is an increase in staff of a number of people, about

15, I believe. When I read this, when I look at this and I try

to examine what these people will be doing, it appears to me

that a great number of them will probably be switching over to

the energy commission. I wonder whether these are temporary —

whether we can expect a substantial rearrangement of his

department. The Minister nods his head, but perhaps he would

just like to say a few words on that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We intend to have more geologists in the

field. We're going to have geologists stationed around in

certain areas of the province to assist the inspectors and the

mining industry and the prospectors, so that we can give better

service. We're going to have more inspectors in the field so

that we can check on the development of mines and the

exploration and what's really going on in the mining field. We

are trying to bring the management of the resource into the

department rather than leave it willy-nilly, almost without

that legal control. The only way you can control it is with

more inspectors than what you've had, and more geologists. I'm

sure the previous Minister would bear me out in that. That's

what we intend to do with these extra people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister, Mr.

[ Page 1986 ]

Chairman. It seems to be a little clearer now that the

department is going to be entirely regulatory and forecasting

and things of that nature will swing into this new energy

commission, which of course, we can't talk about at length at

this stage.

One or two other questions, Mr. Chairman. The various

reports of mining company presidents and the president's report

of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines all indicated

considerable concern about levels of taxation. I appreciate the

Minister's difficulty. He's just told me that his department is

regulatory and not up to doing the type of studies, I guess,

that I may be asking him to give information on. But I would

like to know from the Minister, if he can help us, what level

of taxation is assumed to be a reasonable one for the

industry.

The Canadian Petroleum Association chairman's report talks

about the $95 million that the industry spent in B.C. last year

directly in the areas of exploration and development. He goes

on to talk about the negative effect of royalties so that it's

a possibility that $46 million will be lost. He goes on later

in his report, p. 3, and says that since 1955 …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. Well, then he'll be obviously in a

position to answer the questions. I don't have the expertise

that you do have available, Mr. Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm delighted to find that the Minister

is all prepared and fired up to answer the questions I'm about

to pose.

In view of the fact that 57 cents on every dollar was paid

out to governments by way of taxes — as in this report it's

indicated — which the Minister knows about, I wonder what he

considers to be a level at which taxation should take place. I

say this, bearing in mind the other comment of Mr. MacIntosh

that the discovery rate is declining, and purely from his

report, he believes that the primary reason is the level of

taxation.

If the Minister and Government don't have a figure at which

they wish to fix the rate of taxation, and if it does happen,

as apparently from some of these statements made it is

happening, that people withdraw their money activities from

B.C. — I wonder what contingency plans the Minister might have

to move in by way of Crown corporation as opposed to partial

purchase of existing companies, such as the Sukunka deal. In

other words, not like Sukunka, which is buying into an existing

operation — a potential existing operation; it's not yet going

at the moment — but what contingency plans he might have for

Crown corporations.

I say this because in Manitoba, where things got mixed

around fairly badly in the first few months of an NDP

administration, the government went in by way of Crown

corporation to take over the actual operations in terms of

looking for minerals and carrying out the exploitation of

mining properties because, simply, they ran into difficulties

regarding the private sector withdrawing to other jurisdictions

that were more favorable to them.

I'm not recommending this to the Minister, I'm simply asking

him what contingency plans he may have. I gather from his reply

to the earlier questioner that he's not hiring any prospectors

at the moment. Perhaps my question would be: at what level of

decline in the private sector will his department have to go

into business simply to keep the industry functioning?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for

Victoria, I don't know why so many people get these if, if, if — if something happens, will something be done? The industry is

prosperous. There's nothing to say that the industry isn't

prosperous at the present time. When you're talking about "if"

… and as far as talking about royalties or taxes…I

already spoke on gas; I can't speak on oil; I can't speak on

minerals; so I'm pretty well tied up. I've already answered one

part of the question in regard to gas. It's an ongoing thing

and we haven't done anything in regard to gas so far.

In regard to an exploration company: Manitoba did it; I

don't think they did it because companies were going out. They

did it as an added attraction, I think, so that the government

would have an input into the exploration field as well. Such a

Crown corporation, I'd say, would have merit. But it hasn't

been given consideration by this department or by this

Government up to the present time. We know about it and I must

say it may have merit. To say that the industry is on the verge

of a cliff and just going to go over the top of it — I think

that this is rather ridiculous because it isn't that way at

all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nobody's suggesting the industry is on

the verge of a cliff. I'm merely saying as industry people have

said, and we have to take their word at least in terms of their

own operations, that they are a pretty mobile industry and the

financing, in particular, is very mobile. Once they get tied

down in mines like Granduc, perhaps, they're stuck. Apart from

that, they do have an opportunity to start up and close down

which is something this province has experienced many times

before, as the Minister probably knows even better than I

do.

As far as the "iffy" questions go, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1987 ]

we're discussing the estimates for the year 1973-74, and

unfortunately we're talking about a lot of things in the

future. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty, it's the same

difficulty we all labour under and that is that we all have to

try and do a bit of crystal ball-gazing — even though we know

our crystal balls may not be all that good.

What I am trying to get after is taxation levels. General

statements of policy regarding taxation levels which he regards

as fair and equitable so that we can get a little more clear a

crystal ball for the coming year as far as the mining industry

is concerned than we have at present.

It's a question that I raise because, quoting here from an

article in the Vancouver Sun on December 26, Boxing Day —

that's no date for writing serious articles — referring to

Manitoba's mining experience. It goes on to say, "The two

governments" — that would be federal and provincial — "cannot

raise mining taxes much higher since this would prompt the

companies to reduce activity and move to other provinces or

countries. So their only alternative is to set up Crown mining

corporations, thus providing a second way for citizens to get

their theoretically larger share of the wealth derived from

provincial mineral sources."

The

article goes on, it's some length. It talks about Mr.

Green, the Minister in Manitoba and his attitude towards this

type of activity. I appreciate the Minister's comment that only

the most cursory examinations have been given to this in

B.C.

But, can I ask him then, more specifically, whether or not

he has people studying this with the object in mind of setting

up a — similar corporation. In other words, can we expect such a

corporation in August of this year? Can we expect it, perhaps,

in November of this year? Perhaps even earlier than that. Does

he have people now looking at the industry from the point of

entry with a Crown corporation to take up the slack that

probably the private companies will be leaving?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, we haven't got anybody working on this

question right now.

If, as you say, these companies are going to move out of the

province, there is one thing we are sure about, and that is

that they can't take the resource with them. If that time came,

I am sure we have ample expertise in our department to handle

the situation, but there is no consideration going on right now

about anything in regard to a Crown corporation or

exploration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee rise in

order that I might ask leave of the House, under standing

order 35, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion would be to rise and report

progress alone. —

MR. SMITH: Then, I move the committee rise and report

progress in order that I might ask leave of the House, under

standing order 35, to discuss a definite matter of urgent

public importance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise and

report progress. There is no debate. Would the Hon. Members be

seated?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways on a

point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if the Member would sit down,

please. On a point of order. Standing order 35, on which the

Member is moving this motion, states very clearly that the

ordinary daily routine of business must be concluded. The

ordinary, daily routine of business is not concluded —

therefore the motion is out of order.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order is not well

taken. Order, please. I rule that the motion is in order for

the committee to rise and report progress — without any further

words added. You have heard the motion …

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is not a motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, yes, he said under standing order

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) to restate his motion.

MR. SMITH: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

[ Page 1988 ]

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Brousson

NAYS — 31

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

PAIRS

Barrett

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Macdonald

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 167 pass?

Vote 167 approved.

Vote 168: general administration, $2,417,684 — approved.

Vote 169: grants and subsidies, $36,500 — approved.

On vote 170: grant to the 30th Annual Provincial Mines

Ministers' Conference, $6,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if the Minister could tell us what the $6,000 vote is

for? It seems to be new in relation to the Mines Ministers'

conference.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, you carried on a Mines

Ministers' conference throughout Canada and this is our turn.

So this is why it is there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 170 pass?

Vote 170 approved.

On vote 17 1: Grants in aid of mining roads and trails,

$800,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, will part of

this amount of this $800,000, because of the increase, be used

on the Omineca mining road?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, part of it will be used on the

Omineca mining road.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, where are you going

to build these roads? How many miles and roughly where in the

province?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is $200,000 on applications from

different areas in the province and on the Omineca Road the

bridge will be $200,000. In 1972 there was a lot more money

than that spent on the Omineca Road. Construction cost per mile

on that is $7,100 and maintenance costs of $240 to $900. This

is where the money will be spent, with the Omineca road with

the bridge getting the big share of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 171 pass?

Vote 171 approved.

Vote 172: Grants in aid of roads, trails, petroleum and

natural gas, $150,000 — approved.

On vote 173: Construction of Cassiar-Stewart Road,

$750,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. RICHTER: Could the Minister tell us how close to being

completed is the Cassiar Road as far as being able to take

traffic?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It already is completed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The regular bus schedule.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A lot of this is for payment of work that

was already done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 173 pass?

Vote 173 approved.

On vote 174: Grub-staking prospectors, $40,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: On grub-staking of prospectors: I

[ Page 1989 ]

hope during the next fiscal year you won't violate the

Constitution Act by grub-staking some of your backbench MLAs to

go out prospecting.

I do want to know if the Minister would tell us just how

much was allocated during the last fiscal year for grub-staking

of prospectors?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Under the same application …

MR. CHABOT: I know, but how much was actually spent?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In 1970, 27 prospectors received a total

of $21,000. They worked in all parts of the province. Since

the programme began in 1943, there have been two dozen

significant discoveries in regard to these prospectors. I

noticed in the report too, I think they were down last year

compared to some years — that is, the number of

applications.

MR. PHILLIPS: They sure will be down this year, I can tell

you.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They won't need to grubstake this year,

they will be out without a grub-stake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 174 pass?

Vote 174 approved.

Vote 175: Special mineral surveys, $100,000 — approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

move the House now consider public bills in the hands of

private Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, are you rising on a point of

order?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

yes. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose

of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance

under standing order No. 35, subsection two.

The matter, Mr. Speaker, is this …

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me; on the point of order: the time,

under standing order 35, that that is taken up is not at this

time in the proceedings of the House. It could be taken up at

the onset before the orders of the day, but not at this

time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we are now at the motion to proceed to

public bills. This should take precedence, should it not?

MR. SMITH: A matter of urgent public importance or a motion to discuss

a matter of urgent public importance can come before the House at any time the

House is in session. Therefore, until you have heard the matter of urgent public

importance, I don't see how you can rule on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, I think if you look at standing

order 35, subparagraph one, it states that it "must be asked

after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order

No. 25) has been concluded and before notices of motions or

orders of the day are entered upon."

MR. SMITH: Yes, and we immediately went into committee at

the beginning of this session which is a committee of the

House. We went through a procedure in committee, we are now

back into session of the House at the only time that I would

have an opportunity to raise this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon.

Member that committee of supply is an order of the day and

indeed it has precedence over all other business and that order

of the day has been concluded and therefore this motion is out

of order at this stage. It would have to take place prior to

the other routine business of the House; according to standing

order No. 35.

Next order of business.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the matter of committee of supply is

a motion that we have before the House as a standing procedure

of the House and we go through this without moving a formal

motion each day. Supply is called and we go into committee of

supply. It has precedence over every other type of business if

it is called on any given day. Is that not right?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think you are incorrect in that. However,

I will give some consideration to it. I am convinced from my

advice that you are not correct.

[ Page 1990 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, may I

point out that we have already had a departure from orders of

the day. Therefore the Member is just as entitled as the House

Leader to request a rearrangement. Really, since it is a matter

of urgent public importance and since we had departed from

orders of the day, may I remind you, Sir, that orders of the

day require that we go to motions and adjourned debates on

motions. While the Government may choose what of its own

business it brings forward on Government days, if it is not

choosing its own business then it must follow motions and

adjourned debates on motions.

Since Government, at its option, left the orders of the day,

then I think the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

really is quite in order with his request.

MR. SPEAKER: I must with respect, disagree. The ordinary

routine business of the House is set out; we have a precedence

motion dealing with committee of supply and that is part of the

routine business of the day. It has been dealt with. Under

standing order 35 the matters that would cause an adjournment

or interruption of the normal routine of the House would have

to be taken up before you enter upon the routine daily business

of the House. You can't do it afterwards and this is what the

Hon. Member is seeking to do.

At this stage the House Leader has the option of following

the precedent business of the House to carry on — and this is

Friday — with public bills and orders, or public bills in the

hands of private Members. This happens to be the day that's

appointed for that in particular after the precedent routine

business has been disposed of, which was the matter of

estimates under supply. Therefore, her motion is in order and I

must rule that the Hon. Member's motion is not.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to

standing order 27-1. It says: "All items standing on the orders

of the day (except Government orders) shall be taken up

according to the precedence assigned to each on the order

paper."

Mr. Speaker, our order paper very clearly says that motions

and adjourned debates on motions are ahead of public bills in

the hands of private Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, what is being asked for here is

not a motion that's on the order paper but the complete

suspension of business under standing order 35. It has nothing

to do with the order paper at all.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you've already ruled the Member for North

Peace River (Mr. Smith) out. We've accepted that. What I am saying is that

we're out of order to be discussing private Members' bills. We must be

discussing motions and adjourned debate on motions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I

would ask the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to

again read the standing order he referred to. That precedent

refers to the item taken up. In other words, we must take the

public bills in the hands of private Members in the order in

which they appear on the order paper, which is what we proposed

to do. That was completely in order.

The choice as to whether it's adjourned debates on motions

or public bills in the hands of private Members has nothing

whatever to do with this particular question or that particular

ruling or precedent. The precedence is the number under which

they appear on the order paper. We propose to do that. It's

completely in order. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to so rule so that

we can get on with the private Members' business of this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that that

interpretation of

standing order 27 has been made before, and that is that on

private Members' day the items standing in the order paper in

the names of private Members are taken up in the order shown on

the order paper. That's what the meaning of precedence is in

that regard.

On Government days the Government can select its motions or

other business in the order that it chooses, as you see in the

next paragraph, subsection 2 of standing order 27.

In view of that I must rule that your point of order is not

well taken.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it says

"Government orders." This isn't a Government order.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite in error on that. Government

orders refer to the Government days. Their orders can be

selected as they choose. Today is private Members' day and the

House Leader has asked that this House go on with the …

MR. McGEER: It's a Government day.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, it's Government day. Quite

right.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, as you have now given your

ruling, I would like to move that we proceed to the second

reading of Bill No. 3.

[ Page 1991 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. There is a motion. Order, please.

It's quite right. In all this flurry of one thing and another,

there was a motion before the House that we proceed with public

bills in the hands of private Members. I'd like to put the

motion if I may.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 3, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

THE GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE

OF LOANS FOR FEEDING CATTLE FOR MARKET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Speaking to the principle

of Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 3 is intended to do three

things in the economy of British Columbia.

The purpose of the proposed bill in the first place is to

provide guarantees by the province for loans for feeding cattle

for market.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Point of order?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I wish to draw your

attention to the fact that this bill calls for the province to

guarantee certain sums of money. It is out of order in the

hands of a private Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the Hon. Member has drawn

attention on a point of order to the fact that this bill

requires an expenditure of public funds and is therefore out of

order in the hands of a private Member. I would point out that

the first words uttered by the Hon. Member were that this

required "guarantees by the province."

Of course, under standing order 65 and also under standing

order 66, anything that is a charge upon the people or anything

that requires the expenditure of public money or authorization

by the Crown is out of order. Consequently, I must therefore

rule that the bill is out of order in the hands of the Hon.

Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: May I draw just one point to the learned

Speaker's attention?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. SCHROEDER: The bill asks for a guarantee and not for an

expenditure, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a difference. If the

economy of our province is as healthy as it is purported to be

by the present seated Government, then I don't believe that we

can anticipate an expenditure. And so would you rule, Mr. Speaker, that it is not an expenditure. If it were to be

called out of order, it would require that it would be an

expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: May I recite from your

section 5: "Moneys

required for the purposes of this Act shall, in the absence of

any special appropriation available therefore, be paid out of

the consolidated revenue fund." That's mandatory, and therefore

MR. SCHROEDER: In the event of loss.

MR. SPEAKER: It says, "moneys required for the purposes of

this Act."

MR. SCHROEDER: Right. Therefore we have to anticipate a loss

before we can anticipate an expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: In other words, you're committing the

Legislature and you're committing the Government to an

expenditure that is mandatory in the event of a loss. From that

standpoint you would have to have the authority of the Crown to

make such a commitment that would be a charge upon the people.

I therefore rule it out of order.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 4, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING MOBILE HOMES

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the principle of

Bill No. 4, it is the same bill that I put before the House at

the fall sitting of the Legislature. I believe that it is a

bill that provides a better manner and a more equitable manner

of dealing with the matters of taxation and mobile homes or

assessing fees against them than the present position with the

bill that we have on our statutes. It's the type of bill that

has been asked for by the mobile homes associations in the

Province of British Columbia. I have spoken to many people who

live in mobile homes and they feel that this type of

legislation is the thing that would be most helpful to them.

They also wish to be treated in the same manner as all other

homeowners in the province, and that is what this bill would

do.

Any mobile home located in a home park would be treated as

any other home located anywhere in the province. Any mobile

home located on an individual lot would be treated as any other

home is treated in the province. We would have assessments

levied

[ Page 1992 ]

against them, taxation payable, and they should also then be

entitled to a homeowner grant.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes. I was listening to the Member carefully.

When the Member himself says that this seeks to levy a tax

against people in the province, then I must, Mr. Speaker, draw

to your attention that that's out of order in the hands of a

private Member — to seek to give advice to the Crown on the

levying of taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: The objection is well-founded in that it does,

section 3, say there's a mandatory provision that the mobile

homeowner shall be assessed and taxes in the name of the owner

of the mobile home shall be imposed. This of course violates

standing order 67.

In addition, it also deals with mobile homes "improvements

for the purpose of real property taxation and assessment." In

other words, a private Member is seeking to impose a tax

without the authority of the Crown, by message first to this

House. I must therefore rule the bill out of order in the hands

of a private Member.

MR. SMITH: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But there has

been a request from the Government side of the House on many

occasions for suggestions about legislation. I pass on to the

Government the suggestion that this type of legislation would

be a great improvement over what we have now.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in response I'd say that we're

very pleased to receive messages from anybody about this kind

of thing. We've noted that this Member is suggesting a tax

against the people of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We already have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed to the next

bill I want to make something clear. The reason these bills are

always printed up in this jurisdiction and in this House is

that it always gives the Government, if it wishes to do so, the

opportunity to adopt any bill or measure that is printed in the

Votes and Proceedings, even though it may be out of

order at first glance. Nonetheless, it's printed up as we have always done in this House.

In other jurisdictions they do not permit them on the order

paper.

The Hon. House Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 6, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION ACT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well, Mr. Speaker, it

certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in this

Legislature and speak on behalf of this great bill. It is

proposed by this bill, Mr. Speaker, to set up the British

Columbia Development Corporation, whose aim it would be to

encourage secondary industry in the province, particularly of

farm products and secondary manufacture.

Now that our primary industries in British Columbia are well

advanced and our population exceeds 2 1/4 million people and is

growing rapidly, Mr. Speaker, this bill is urgently needed to

create employment. It is very timely. By this bill, Mr.

Speaker, it is proposed to supply low-interest loans at the

rate of 1 per cent the first year, 2 per cent the second year,

3 per cent the third year, 4 per cent in the fourth year, up to

9 per cent in the ninth year.

In order to start the corporation, Mr. Speaker, it is

proposed that the province purchase $50 million of the

corporation's shares. Thereafter …

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your point is well taken, Mr. Provincial

Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: I was listening carefully to the Member, as I

have done for months and months and months. I noticed that he

said that he intends to set up a capital fund of $50 million. I

suggest that that, unfortunately, at this point in time due to

our rules, is out of order and would ask that you so rule.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Provincial

Secretary's point is probably well taken. Last time I got

through the whole note and had a chance to say a few other

words for the unemployed people of this province, but I didn't

even get a chance to get through that. However, Mr. Speaker, I

shall be the humble servant of the House and abide by your

ruling. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I must rule that the bill is out of order. You

should always put the money

section at the very end.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The Hon. Member will have a chance right

now to speak again. Second reading of Bill No. 7.

THE FARM CREDITORS

ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I stand in this Legislature this morning

and plead for the poor

[ Page

1993 ]

farmers in my area who, due to crop failure after

crop failure and a disastrous crop failure last year, are seeking financial

help from the great coffers of this province.

By creating this farm creditors assistance, we would create

a board that these farmers could come to when they're

hard-pressed by their creditors. This board would give them

assistance in dealing with court writs and repossessions when

their creditors are going to take away their land, homes, farm

machinery, et cetera.

By allowing this Act, Mr. Speaker, the Government would be

doing a great thing not only for the present farms but for all

the future farmers of this province who find themselves in dire

financial straits, due not to their own inability to run their

farms but to the general agricultural situation in Canada.

Canada, as you know, is the one country in the world that

really does not directly subsidize its agriculture, Mr.

Speaker.

The only money that would be spent here would be the

creation of this board, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be a

great thing. This Act is supported by farm organizations in the

province and is greatly needed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: At this stage I must rule on whether it was in

order when the motion was made.

Section 7 requires that the

expenditures incurred under this Act — setting up a board,

arranging for the securing of debts and moneys owing under a

guarantee and so on — shall be paid out of moneys appropriated

for the purpose by the Legislature.

I see the Hon. Member carefully put the expenditure

section

at the last

section of his bill, but it still won't help in the

end. I must therefore rule it out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Aw, that's too bad.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I believe we omitted Bill 5.

1 notice the Member for Cariboo is here. Can we go back to Bill

5. He didn't have an opportunity to speak on that. Second

reading of Bill No. 5.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, this bill would help the citizens

of our province who live in the rural areas of a regional district. Now we have

about half our citizens in municipalities. The other half are in rural areas.

The ones in the municipal areas get a per capita grant from the provincial treasury.

The ones in the rural areas don't. They have assumed a lot

of responsibilities. I think it's about time we helped

them.

In the rural areas through the regional districts, they've

assumed the obligations of zoning and planning. They are now

getting up to a level in government where municipal councils

are. I can't see why we can't bring them up to the same level

on a grant basis as are the municipalities. I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: Here again, Hon. Members,

section 3(

a) proposed

in the bill requires in each year that:

"… the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe the

Minister of Finance shall…. pay from the consolidated revenue

fund to each regional district as a grant the amount of thirty

dollars for each person in the population…. ." This,

therefore, is an expenditure of the type referred to.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would

think that the Government would accept this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Apparently they haven't notified me by standing

up in the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether

she'll accept this bill to help the unorganized

territories.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, we can't.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're going to accept it?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll continue then with my reasons for saying

the bill is out of order.

HON. MR. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources): Surely the Member knows that even if we did accept

it, being a money bill, it couldn't be …

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly, if the Government accepted it

it would be all right, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the Member is in

error …

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we won't argue that point now. The bill

is clearly out of order. I must, under standing order 67, rule

it out of order. Next bill.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 8.

TRAINING ON THE JOB ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

[ Page 1994 ]

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill is intituled Training on the Job Act . We

desire to encourage a programme of training on — the job for all

our citizens in British Columbia. We feel that such a programme

would not only provide immediate training but also immediate

employment. It will supplement the training done by the

educational institutions in British Columbia and the vocational

institutions.

In this bill, we propose that the Government pay one-half

the wages of persons taking this training programme. Our only

stipulation, Mr. Speaker, would be …

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. Excuse me, would the Hon.

Member be seated? Your point of order.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I submit

that

section 2 of this bill is out of order, wherein it

suggests that the Minister of Finance shall pay to the employer

certain moneys. On that basis, I believe, it's out of

order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to challenge

that the bill is out of order. But it is usual in the House to

let the mover of a bill like this — an Opposition Member — to

at least outline briefly the reasons for the bill and then have

it ruled out of order. Interruption halfway through is most

unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order, I indicate that I do

not rule a bill out of order until either the Member has

finished his statement and I have a chance to make a decision

I'm required to make when the motion is made for second

reading, or, if a point of order is made interrupting the

proceedings, then I must take account of that point of order.

So it's not really in my hands.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I realize it's not in your hands, Mr.

Speaker, but I appeal to the Government to allow this to

happen.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would just like to say that it's the

Government's position to give private Members an opportunity to

present their bills, which was never given to us for a great

number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, nonsense!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Secondly, when I came here seven years ago I sat without

any opportunity until the last dying days of the session to have my bill heard,

Mr. Speaker. We are giving the Opposition an opportunity to speak far before

the dying hours of the session.

Also, we want to point out to the Hon. Member who is on her

feet that we would like to hear you speak, as briefly as

possible if you can.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate

that consideration. I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is very much aware that we have a group of

people in British Columbia who, for one reason or another, are

dropping out of school.

These are young people. They are not yet prepared, because

of a lack of general overall knowledge or their age, to commit

themselves to a long-term training programme or the expense of

a training programme. Neither, Mr. Speaker, are they eligible

for help. Canada Manpower desires that they be out of school

for a year.

We feel that if there were an opportunity in British

Columbia for young people to work in small enterprises —

farming, small stores — they would have an opportunity not only

to develop good work patterns but to see all aspects of a small

business — loading, purchasing, accounting, business

management, personnel management. They might well find

themselves in a position where they would be directed in their

future training through this experience. It would also give

them an opportunity to try a variety of experiences without a

lifetime commitment.

It would also provide an opportunity for many small

businesses and farms in British Columbia to hire an extra

person, which they might not otherwise be able to do. This way,

it would help combat the rising unemployment that we have in

Canada and British Columbia today, through an unnaturally heavy

migration and other factors which are influencing the

province's economy. It might well put a small business in a

position where they could keep a permanent employee and expand

for the future, thus strengthening their position and the

economy.

In suggesting that the province contribute financial

assistance to this programme we do so fully acknowledging that

there should be responsibility on the part of the individual

taking advantage of the programme to save for a year — I'm just

finishing, Mr. Speaker — and also a responsibility on the part

of the employer enjoying this programme to pay a fair wage and

also to guarantee a position for a specified period of time. We

hope that the government will look favourably on this

Training on the Job Act , and I am sure the Minister of

Education herself would be very sympathetic.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to comment on that. Yes, we

are sympathetic to the principle behind the bill and I can

assure you that I will be working very closely with the

Minister of Labour on the whole matter of training

programmes.

[ Page

1995 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the Hon. Member is moving second

reading on the bill. I must find, regretfully, that under

paragraph 2, section (2) of the bill it requires payments by

the Minister of Finance to the employer and consequently it

offends against standing order 67. I must rule it out of

order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 9, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE

AUTHORITY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 9:

An Act

to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority Act.

It is a commitment made by the previous government and the

previous Minister of Municipal Affairs to authorize the

regional districts, through the municipal financing authority,

and other municipalities through the municipal financing

authority, once the authority had been established on a firm

footing, to utilize that authority for a greater coverage of

expenditures in programmes they wished to undertake.

We hope the Government will see fit to do this. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I believe I am right, in moving second reading of this

bill, to suggest that the Government has already adopted our

proposal in one of their own bills.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this bill is

out of order because the government backs these municipal

financial authorities.

MRS. JORDAN: That is not so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They know nothing about it, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I understand the situation, Hon.

Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The financing authority uses the assets of the

municipalities in British Columbia as their backing, and it

gives the municipalities and the regional districts an

opportunity to enjoy a lower interest rate and also greater

they're debentures or bonds. The province at this time does not

guarantee the backing. It doesn't involve government

expenditure of any type.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that, although the Province

does not guarantee the municipal financing authority, however

the purpose of the bill, as shown in

section one, is to provide

financing of all capital purposes by this authority for

regional districts and to extend the amount of their

indebtedness by the issue of debentures or other evidence of

indebtedness and the lending of the proceeds from that raising

of funds by the municipal authority to the regional districts

on whose request financing is undertaken.

In view of standing order 67, this would still amount

to increasing the impost upon the people by virtue of the fact

that this Legislature would be widening the area in which

another inferior body could impose a tax on people and increase

the debt of the people. Therefore I must rule that, under

67, this should actually be taken by a message.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to make it very clear that this

doesn't make any new indebtedness on people at all. The

indebtedness is already there by the individual municipalities.

This just assembles their debt and allows them to market it

better. So there is no increase in any indebtedness on

municipalities at all, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask you to

reconsider your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would with great respect point out to

the Hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, that sections 2

and 3 eliminate the narrow confines of borrowing to the

purposes of financing water, sewer, pollution control, or

abatement facilities, and widen the extent of the powers of the

authority to borrow money for other purposes, thereby

undoubtedly increasing the incidence of taxation or burden of

debt that may be imposed by the authority, and that without the

assent of the Crown.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The authority doesn't put any debt or any

taxes on people at all. It's the municipalities that put the

taxes on, and they've got that authority now. There's no

increased taxes or debts put on the people at all. It only

allows the municipalities who have the power to raise money

now, allows them to get together in a cooperative way to raise

the money at a lower rate of interest without any government

guarantee at all. I'm sure it is in order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I must say with great respect that the

other feature that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not

bearing in mind is that it spreads the incidence of liability

over all the districts and all the municipal bodies of British

Columbia, and by spreading it over all of them, it therefore

could increase the total liability of each taxpayer in the

[ Page 1996 ]

province by extending and widening the power over all the

bodies in British Columbia instead of just one.

And I must therefore, under standing order 67, rule it out

of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 10.

CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL

HISTORIC SITE GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 10. The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is the

Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant Act. All

Members have received a booklet, and I would hold it up and ask

them to look at the centre diagram which shows a picture of

Vancouver, Georgia Street, the corner of Burrard. One is as it

is today and one is as it may be developed in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have shown this picture to a lot of people in

British Columbia. Almost without exception, when one poses the

question of which is the more interesting picture, they chose

the one on page 14 which shows the medical-dental building, the

Royal Bank of Canada on the far corner, the new modern complex

behind it, and Christ Church Cathedral as it stands today.

I think the fact that this is a human response is very

indicative of the need to examine very carefully the situation

of our obligation as legislators to this issue.

I suggest that it is not our place as legislators to become

involved in any way in the internal workings of the church or

the internal projections of architects. It is our place as

legislators to decide whether or not Christ Church, as it

stands today, whether we think it ugly or whether we think it

beautiful, has a legitimate place in the history of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when one examines Vancouver, which is the heart

of our province and has had a tremendous influence on our

province, one recognizes that Christ Church building as it

stands today has greatly influenced the development of that

part of Vancouver and, in fact, our province.

Be it good or be it bad. When one examines, Mr. Speaker, the

history of the church, one sees that it does not really lay

claim to any major architectural stimulation in Canada or

British Columbia, but one does see that people themselves who

have greatly influenced the development of our province are

part of the history of this church. .

Regardless of denomination, and regardless of any internal

views, and Mr. Speaker …

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: I haven't finished.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I maintain that this is out of order. It

says that the Minister of Finance may expend from consolidated

revenue. It's still asking him, and I say it's out of order. I

think we've given her long enough to talk on it. She's had an

opportunity to express herself.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that the point of order…well,

as I said before, I'm in the hands of the House and if any

Member of the House raises a point of order I have to comply

with the point of order. And the point of order is that the

bill is out of order by reason of the power given to spend

money from consolidated revenue and, under standing order 67,

that is true.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I notice that the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) is suggesting that we are not being too consistent here, but the point is

we did say we were pleased to give you an opportunity to speak on your bill.

In all fairness to the other bills on the paper and the other Members who wish

to speak, I did ask if you could be brief. I think when the Hon. Member just

spoke on the point of order that you'd had a considerable amount of time to

speak on that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I won't debate whether I've had

enough time. I think I can conclude this. I think this is

vitally important, Mr. Speaker …

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

be seated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I must rule the bill out of order since

section one clearly offends against standing order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. Il.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE GIFT TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a government

levying succession duties must also levy a gift tax for

administrative and technical reasons. Otherwise the succession

duty is negated. However, without a succession duty there is no

necessity to levy a gift tax. Accordingly, as we have presented

[ Page 1997 ]

bill to cancel succession duties, we now present a companion

bill to cancel the gift tax. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: On this point, I have examined the bill. It

interferes with Crown revenue and would thereby reduce Crown

revenue. As it is in the hands of a private Member, under

standing order 67, I must rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 13, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE

PROBATE FEE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Probate fees return very little revenue to the

province. They might be considered as an adjunct to succession

duties. Standing on their own, probate fees are of little more

than nuisance value. Along with our bills to cancel succession

duties and gift taxes, therefore, we present this bill to

cancel probate fees. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Here again the question of interfering with

Crown revenues is raised by the proposal in the bill. I must

rule it out of order under standing order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 12, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need to encourage

the assembling of capital by British Columbia in the province,

we believe it is now necessary to review the taxation principle

behind succession duties. While it is true that certain

exemptions have been provided under the Act, it is now