[ Page 1941 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Meeting of Social Welfare and Education committee. Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1941

Mrs. Jordan — 1942

Mr. Smith — 1942

Mr. Brousson — 1943

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1943

Mrs. Jordan — 1943

Mr. Speaker — 1943

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Department of Recreation and Conservation estimates

Mr. Fraser — 1944

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1944

Mr. Chabot — 1945

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1945

Mr. McClelland — 1945

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1945

Mr. Chabot — 1945

Mr. Fraser — 1946

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1946

Mr. Chabot — 1946

Mr. Phillips — 1947

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1947

Mr. Chabot — 1947

Mr. Nicolson — 1948

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1948

Mr. Fraser — 1948

Mr. Smith — 1948

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1948

Mr. Smith — 1948

Mr. Radford — 1949

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1949

Mr. Chabot — 1949

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1950

Mr. Smith — 1950

Mr. Phillips — 1951

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1951

Mr. McClelland — 1952

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1952

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1952

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1953

Committee of supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates

Mr. Phillips — 1953

Privilege

Article in Vancouver Province. Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1968

Mr. Phillips — 1969

Mrs. Jordan — 1970

Mr. Speaker — 1970

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1970

Mr. Speaker — 1971

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1973

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the House adjourned I promised that I would try to deal with the question raised by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in regard to a meeting held this morning by members of a committee of the House.

I have examined the complaint on a point of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that the Select Standing Committee of Social Welfare and Education "held a committee meeting" while the House was in session this morning after leave to do so had not been granted by the House, although such leave was sought at 10 o'clock a.m. by its presiding member.

The complaint states:

"The committee went ahead and met. The committee used the special sign on the door. They not only used the Hansard transcribing machine but summoned Hansard to appear. The Press were in attendance and in effect reporting a meeting that didn't exist."

Further on, the complaint was elaborated to include this statement:

"Mr. Speaker, the complaint is that this House denied the right of that committee to sit and the chairman went ahead and invoked all the trappings, all the equipment and all the assistance of a formal meeting," and, I emphasize these words, "and indicated to the people appearing before that meeting that this was in fact a legally constituted and formal meeting."

I obtained this from Hansard.

As Members know, the Speaker's office has jurisdiction over the precincts, the committee rooms, security officers of the Legislature and the Hansard facilities. Fortunately, recordings of the events that took place this morning are available. The chairman of the committee is shown by the record to have stated at that meeting, "We did not get permission from this House to sit, but the decision was made that since you had made the trip over we would listen to what you have to say anyway." As the administrator of the legislative precincts, I have ascertained that members of the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff, without knowledge of events inside the chamber this morning, followed their normal duties in placing the sign on each committee door in compliance with the notices posted in the Speaker's Corridor and on the order paper as to meetings of committees.

The social welfare and education committee had been advertised for some time as meeting at 11 o'clock Thursday in the Cedar Room. An attendant should have removed the sign but was unaware that the advertised notice had been overruled. Members have supplied me with a notice distributed to committee Members which states:

"Official leave has been denied, so we cannot hold an official meeting. But anyone interested in meeting with the Committee on Social Welfare, which will be meeting with representatives from the Association of Canadian Distillers, Winery Association and presentation of Canadian Breweries, can do so in the Cedar Room at 11:00 a.m."

Signed, "Rosemary Brown."

Clearly there was a recognition by the members of the committee that they could not conduct any business as a committee; in view of the refusal of leave to hold a formal meeting. This is borne out by the memorandum and the words of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) duly transcribed by Hansard.

As Speaker, however, I have issued instructions to the Hansard staff that they are not to service any group informally without express authority from me. The rule relating to committees is set out in May, 18th ed., p.626. It must be noted that British standing orders differ now from the previous practice dating from 1693. May states:

"Formerly without leave of the House no committee of the Commons could sit whilst the House was sitting, but now by standing order 88 all committees have leave to sit during the sitting of the House and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House on any day in which the House has sat."

Thus the British practice has changed; but we are not, with respect, subject to the same change under our standing order 1 (see Speaker's decision in the Votes and Proceedings, March 22, 1973).

The Hon. Member cites Beauchesne, 4th ed., 1958, at section 300, p.243 as to Canadian practice, but that no longer is correct. The Canadian standing orders, adopted first in 1969 and amended in 1971, state in standing order 65, paragraph 8:

"Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House and to report from time to time and except when the House otherwise to send for persons, papers and records to sit while the House is sitting."

Although it is desirable, perhaps, to follow these recent rule changes made in Ottawa and Westminster, our rule continues to conform to the usage as it was formerly and as indicated in the Commons Journals 1693-97, Vol. 126, p. 494. Thus our committees must still seek leave to sit while the House is in session.

In all the circumstances I do not think a prima facie breach of the House rules was evidenced. It appears that the Members concerned met on an informal basis and no report from such gathering would be expected to be sent to the House. The House should know, however, that I have taken steps to deny any further unauthorized use of Hansard

[ Page 1942 ]

staff by Hon. Members, regardless of the possibly useful purposes which may have been contemplated.

That is my decision, Hon. Members.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like — and I'm sure we'll have time to study the ruling — to ask just one or two questions if I might for clarification.

You cited, and I can't recall the actual incident of rulings about select standing committees being able to meet during the House. Does this overrule Beauchesne?

MR. SPEAKER: Beauchesne is not the authority that guides this House. The citation that you gave me from Beauchesne is no longer correct. That's an old edition, the 4th edition. It's now out of date in terms of Canadian practice. In any event we don't follow Beauchesne — we follow May, which is our guide under standing order I of our rules.

MRS. JORDAN: Just further, Mr. Speaker, when you're thinking in terms of this in the future, could I bring to your attention that the procedure of having committees sit in the first instance while supply is being granted is a very reprehensible move, because the traditional powers of parliament rest upon the power of the purse, and that of all the powers of parliament that the Speaker, I am sure, would wish to uphold, the power of the purse and the significance of voting supply should override all other considerations, because it's fundamental to the parliamentary system itself.

MR. SPEAKER: I quite agree that this is so under our rules. But I am pointing out to the Hon. Member that contrary to her statement, Hansard does not bear her out. Her statement was that they had indicated to the people appearing before the meeting that this was in fact a legally constituted and formal meeting. The facts do not bear out that statement that was made to the House by the Hon. Member — quite the contrary, according to Hansard.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in light of what you said….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Really, I disposed of the evidence that was before me in the investigations that I have made. I do not see how you can claim that because Members are not in the House — they could be in the dining room in a meeting with constituents, but it would not thereby be a breach of the privileges of the House, providing they do not set out that they are acting as a duly constituted committee. And the evidence does not bear out your statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, might I ask, in light of your ruling and the fact that it was an informal meeting and there was improper use of the facilities, that all matters transcribed at that meeting be stricken from the record?

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that nothing that occurred at that meeting is of any consequence to this House. It is not a proceeding of this House under the authority of this House, and consequently any individuals in this House can meet anywhere they wish in these precincts without in any way violating the rules of the House by so doing.

Now, I have another matter of privilege.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to your decision, you've indicated, when you handed down the decision, that the Hansard staff was present and that they recorded the debate. All that the Hon. Member has asked is this — that because of the decision that you have handed down anything that was recorded within that committee meeting be stricken from the record because it was not a legal meeting.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you it isn't a legal meeting. They knew it wasn't a legal meeting, and they were not conducting a legal meeting. Therefore there is no record that is of any concern to this House whatsoever that is a part of any record of this House. I think that should….

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Right.

Now on the second point that was raised today, I'd like to deal with that too, because I'm sure the Hon. Member would not want that lingering. The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) complains on grounds of breach of privilege at a statement in Wednesday's Vancouver Province, p. 43, by a columnist, Lorne Parton. The usual procedure in matters of such a complaint is for the Hon. Member to characterize the nature of the article to the House; and it is for the House, if it wishes, to consider what steps it proposes to take in regard to the Hon. Member's complaint.

The Speaker has a duty, as you will note in May, 18th ed., pp. 159-60, to ask the Clerk to read out the particular article complained of. Then it is up to either the Member who complains to make any motion that he feels characterizes his complaint or the House Leader, if he chooses to do so, on behalf of the Member. It's entirely up to those two individuals or any Member of the House who wishes to make any motion in regard to what appears to be an impugning of a Member — if that's how you characterize it — by a newspaper, publisher, printer or columnist.

[ Page 1943 ]

I would therefore ask the Clerk to read out the matter of which the Hon. Member complained today, and then the Member can decide what he wishes to do in light of the authorities. I don't see him present, though. Perhaps I should adjourn the matter until he's here.

MRS. JORDAN: In light of the fact that the Member who spoke on our behalf isn't present, could you reserve your decision until he is present?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize you were moving on so quickly to a second point. I wonder if I could raise a point of privilege with respect to your first point.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. BROUSSON: As a member of the committee which met informally this morning, Mr. Speaker, I'm very disturbed at the situation that has arisen. Attending at that meeting this morning were a number of members of the business community, a number of organizations who attended at the invitation of the committee and therefore of this House. They presented prepared briefs, and there was a useful and worthwhile discussion. I find it very objectionable that we're following a rule that's — I didn't do the arithmetic — something like 300 years old to have their evidence stricken from the record. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to reconsider this matter and see if there isn't some more practical, useful and modern way of doing business in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly take that into consideration.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. While I may have sympathy with the Member's request….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know on what ground you're on your feet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of us has the floor. I don't know which one.

MR. SPEAKER: I've already recognized the House Leader on his point of order, and I didn't know what you were rising on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not a male chauvinist. We're all equal MLAs in this House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got the floor, thank you. Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the Member, I think it would be a dangerous precedent if you were to consider at the Member's request a change of rule. Changes of rule must come through the House itself. While I may have sympathy with the Member's request, I think it would be a dangerous precedent to even pass judgment on the request. It is nothing more than an expression of opinion, which I happen to have sympathy for. But if the House wishes to refer the matter to committee, I'm sure that the House itself would not object to reviewing it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out, and I did before — I won't read the same statement again. I had worded it very carefully. But it's a matter of considerable difference if the House is in committee of supply or, in fact, if it's in the Committee of the Whole. We are in the committee of supply. We were debating, and in debating we are debating the fundamentals of parliament, the fundamentals of the power of the democratic system, which is the spending of the moneys in this province.

I am sure the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) is not aware of the vital interest of the province as a whole in the five portfolios that we were debating this afternoon — Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Recreation and Conservation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've made a ruling, Hon. Member. I just point out for your benefit that what you said in your complaint was not borne out in the record. The second point I have is this, that standing order 8 says, "Every Member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given to him by the House." In this case you're saying that every Member must be in the House at all times. If that were true the House would break down, because it's never happened before, and it'll never happen again.

MRS. JORDAN: That's the crux of the point, Mr. Speaker. Those Members should have been in the House; Members should be in the House most of the time. This is where our obligation is, and the chairman of that committee….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Where was your leader all last month?

[ Page 1944 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The only thing I can suggest is that the Hon. Member put a substantive motion on the order paper with regard to your complaints.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
RECREATION AND CONSERVATION
(Continued)

On vote 224: environmental conservation, $337,892.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In speaking to vote 224, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I would like to ask. This is the car crushing programme which started out very well in 1971, if I recall — crushing old cars, getting them away from the landscape and then putting them through a reclamation plant. But it has completely broken down, as far as I am concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: The car's broken down?

MR. FRASER: Yes, the cars broke down and so did the programme. I'll relate what happened in my riding of Cariboo. The car crushing operation took place at several locations….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Oh, Mr. Chairman. There's a Member leaving the House!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, how could that be? Oh, my goodness! Let's write London!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): What about the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent)? He's not here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let's get on with our business.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everybody seems to be real excited after lunch.

Back to vote 224, Mr. Chairman — it's a good programme, but it has completely broken down. I'll relate what has happened. All the vehicles in the Cariboo riding were crushed by the unit and stockpiled on individual private properties with their permission, and they're still waiting there to be picked up. I'd like to know what's happened. The last time I tried to get them moved I got the weak excuse from the administration that they're in the process of calling a tender for the freight haul of these crushed vehicles. I guess they're still calling the tender, because unless it's happened in the last two weeks, none of these units have moved — around 2,000-odd done.

The reason I say that the programme has broken down is that never again will the individual operators, who have allowed these units to be crushed on their property and stockpiled, let them come back. After all, they've been there 18 months, and they need this property for other uses. I think this is terrible — to have a well based programme break down this way. I'd like to hear from the Minister as to what he's going to do about it to get it cleared up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that the failures of the previous administration didn't affect the electoral success of the Member for Cariboo, because that's where the problem lies, really. The budget has been increased for this particular programme by some $151,000 over the former amount of $226,000. That's a significant increase.

The reason for the increase is to deal with the stockpiled vehicles that have already been crushed. That's the reason. Because the former administration would not provide the funds for the transportation of the vehicles that had already been crushed. So we're working to clean up the backlog even in this small area that was left by the former administration.

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

MR. CHABOT: I must say that….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you have your Whips' meeting tomorrow and quiet down a little?

MR. CHABOT: I'm being disturbed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Let's get on with our business.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister castigated

[ Page 1945 ]

the former government for this programme. I want to say that it's an enlightened programme that was initiated by the former government to clean up the countryside in British Columbia of the derelict cars. There's nothing wrong with that programme, despite what you say, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Talk to the man from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). What does he say?

MR. CHABOT: It's a good start, and it's in its initial stage at the moment. I want the Minister to tell me now….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Here it is, the leadership fight. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I want the Minister to tell me specifically…. He hasn't given very many specific answers since his estimates have been up. It's all been general, broad statements he's been making. I want to tell me specifically what was spent during the past fiscal year on this programme, environmental conservation project SAM.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: It's another leadership candidate. (Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, with respect I would like to ask the Minister if there is a problem at this end of the programme as well, because is it not true that they are having trouble getting rid of, or at least processing, the car hulks at this end as well? If that's true, is the Minister or is the department doing anything to speed up that part of the programme?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to expenditures, we were within the budget of last year, which was $226,260. In terms of the accomplishments — and there have been accomplishments, of course, as the Member suggests — there have been some 25,262 abandoned or derelict vehicles accumulated and delivered to the shredding plant in the Vancouver area in Richmond — 18,876 tons of material. Some 135 collection depots have been serviced, and it is expected that 50 to 60 permanent depots will be set up within some 20 regional districts.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: The question was: is there a problem at the Richmond plant in getting rid of the car hulks, and if there is, is something being done to speed that up?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to our understanding at all. There's no problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: I still would like to know when these vehicles are going to be picked up that have been sitting there for 18 months on private property. You didn't answer that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We've added $150,000 for pickup purposes, and I'm sure a fair amount of those in the Cariboo will be picked up under the programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 224 pass?

Vote 224 approved.

On vote 225, Provincial Museum, $1,057,254.

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

MR. MORRISON: I notice in vote 225 that we have a very large increase in temporary assistance, and I'd like to find out if that is also a part of vote 030.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There was a considerable amount of temporary staff in the museum that was funded, in fact, by federal grants. Now, we're picking up a fair amount of that funding ourselves in federal grants that in the next fiscal year are being used for other purposes, as I recall. So I think that's part of the situation. It's a significant increase in the museum budget, as you are aware — virtually a doubling of the museum budget.

I'd like to take the opportunity of commending the museum staff, who I think have done excellent work and are providing a significant addition to the Victoria community, both for the people who live here and for the tourists who come here. So, it adds significantly to the capital precinct. I'd like to make it clear to everyone that I regard the staff in the museum as among the most active, bright and delightful people in the provincial administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: That Provincial Museum vote and the Provincial Museum building: I hope in view of the fact that this was the centennial project cooperation between two levels of government, that the government will never consider establishing an entrance fee, or a fee for entering and seeing the exhibits in that building.

[ Page 1946 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is certainly a terrible rumour, Mr. Chairman. I don't know where it might come from. We have no intention in the government to charge an entry fee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 225 pass?

Vote 225 approved.

On vote 226: Commercial Fisheries Branch, $125,579.

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

MR. CHABOT: In vote 226 there is a fair increase — almost a 50 per cent increase in the allocation of money. I am wondering whether the government is giving consideration, because we've heard the plea time and again in this House that there be a Department of Commercial Fisheries. I'm wondering if consideration is being given to that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We are significantly increasing the budget again in order to have the kind of technical staff to begin take-off in this important area.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has advocated a separate Department of Commercial Fisheries. He's anxious for a portfolio. Give it consideration. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 226 pass?

Vote 226 approved.

Vote 227: Fish and Wildlife Branch, $4,196,131 — approved.

Vote 228: Creston Valley Management Authority, $94,324 — approved.

On vote 229: Department of Recreation and Conservation, Parks Branch, $4,342,578.

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

MR. FRASER: Vote 229: I'm going from memory here now, Mr. Chairman, but I was wondering where the usual vote for the restoration of Barkerville is. Is it in this vote, or is it eliminated, or what is going to happen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That comes under the Department of the Provincial Secretary.

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

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, could we have a detailed breakdown of vote 029?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Of which? 029? Oh, motor vehicles and accessories. The Member keeps raising these categories.

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

MR. FRASER: In the Parks Branch is there any plan for a provincial Class A park in the area of Williams Lake for this fiscal year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the only one I'm familiar with is the Second Century Fund proposal with respect to the site right on the shoreline at Williams Lake. I'm not aware of any other proposal at this stage.

Regarding the vote, the $200,000 vote, there are 33 vehicles being replaced, but the maintenance problems have been significant, and there haven't been funds in the past for replacement of vehicles.

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

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering if the Minister would care to comment on the Class A parks in my constituency, Hamber first of all. There was a discussion some time ago for the possible turnover of this park to link with the Jasper National Park. It's a fairly isolated park, and I'm wondering whether it's going to be retained. Probably there will be access, closer access into Hamber now with the Mica Pondage up the Cross River. There would be access by water towards Hamber Provincial Park.

The other one: I understand there's a possibility, or it's in the works now, of expansion in Assiniboine Provincial Park, and I'm wondering whether the Minister would want to comment on that. I would like to know whether there is anything being considered at Bugaboo Class A provincial park.

We have in the Bugaboo recreational reserves the most outstanding skiing found in the North American continent. It's helicopter-lift skiing. It started out as a humble enterprise by Mr. Hans Gmoser and, with a seasonal revenue of $3,000 in 1965, it's now grown to a $508,000 business.

It's a very exclusive, I have to admit, very costly form of skiing. They had 514 bookings and of that 514 bookings, 439 were from the United States. George Hees of the Conservative Party was there too.

[ Page 1947 ]

I'm not trying to give him a plug by any means. From Canada, except B.C., 59 people. There were 12 skiers from British Columbia and four from overseas.

The real point here is, I'm wondering whether the Minister would listen very briefly to this recommendation put in by Mr. Gmoser of Canadian Holiday regarding skiing and safety of skiers in this recreational reserve. He's made some recommendations: No. 1 was to establish a business license for helicopter ski operation.

He suggests that there should be a business license for this type of business and that the license should be contingent on: (a) proof that the applicant has a contract with a qualified helicopter firm and has enough qualified guides in his employ to run such an operation; (b) that the applicant develop adequate facilities at his lodges and related service buildings in good taste to fit in with the natural surroundings and to have provision for garbage, sewage and refuse disposal of a nature that will cause no damage or pollute the area under development;

"(c) that such a development is compatible with other land uses such as mining or logging and will not work in conflict with them." Of course in this particular area I don't think it would be compatible with the designation of a portion of that area.

"(d) such a licence should grant the whole or exclusive rights to carry on the business of commercial helicopter skiing as specified in a sufficiently large area of high mountain country."

Why he says that, of course — and there are other points he makes here for the length of the licence and so forth; he's willing to pay a licence fee — I think there is a concern here with the possibility of unauthorized skiers coming to the same area, but people are skiing with helicopter lifts and with guides. You are skiing primarily in an avalanche country.

With every skiing party that's lifted to the top of these glaciers to the 13,000 foot elevation — and these ski runs sometimes take as much as six hours to come down — you have to have someone that's experienced with the potential avalanches. You're allowing the occasional helicopter to come in and land and people to drop down and ski in the same area where there is a well-established lodge and a substantial investment — I believe Mr. Gmoser has helicopter skiing in three different areas of British Columbia. He has an investment of approximately $1 million.

His main concern really is not a matter of establishing an exclusive preserve for himself; it's for the safety of the skiers. Other skiers dropping in that do own a helicopter could come in and trigger off an avalanche and endanger the lives of those people that are coming there skiing with Canadian Mountain Holidays.

I am wondering whether the Minister would entertain or give some consideration to the possibility of licensing to control the safety element in helicopter skiing.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Yes, just one short question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. Would the Minister advise me if there are any plans for expenditures to upgrade Swan Lake Park in my area and also the Pouce Coupe Community Park which was taken over by the government last summer from the Pouce Coupe village. It now should be titled with the provincial government. Has the Minister any plans to upgrade that part this summer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the Hamber park question raised by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). The matter was discussed with the federal government. The federal government to date has not chosen to follow up the matter. Assiniboine will be expanded primarily to the north and west. There's mineral potential to the south, and while that has a high recreational value, it has not been included in the expansion proposals.

The Bugaboo area I'm aware of. I haven't been able to afford to visit it, either in time or money.

MR. PHILLIPS: When you get to be Prime Minister, you will.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At any rate, I am familiar with it because I read an article about it in Playboy magazine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter).

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm aware of the real success that Gmoser has made of his lodge. The various concerns that the Member has raised that Gmoser has mentioned are well worth considering. We realize there might be an element of competition involved, but there is a need for standards to be established so the safety of the people in the area is looked after.

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

MR. CHABOT: The Hamber Provincial Park. Apparently there has been no exchange of property with the national government. I was wondering, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would consider really looking at it and looking at the water course that will be established after Mica has reached its full level to see whether there will be access to the Hamber Provincial Park by water up the…I keep saying the Canoe River; that's the wrong river.

[ Page 1948 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Wood River. That's right. If there is access, I think it's worthy of consideration. We retain it as a provincial class A park rather than exchange of property with the national government. But it will have access by water.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's an interesting point. We'll keep that in mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister two questions. Is there any consideration being given to upgrading Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park from class B to class A, as it was some years ago; and is there any consideration being given to establishing a provincial park in the Mulvey basin area in the Valhalla Range?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The beautiful little Kokanee Glacier Park is so over-ridden with mining claims that I'm afraid it's a little late for considering class A status. But it's just part of the unfortunate tradition in some of the parks in the province.

Regarding the Valhalla area, I think that's still being looked at by the Parks Branch in terms of survey. They're certainly considering the area as a potential site.

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

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, thank you. To the Minister, in view of the terrific success of the restoration of Barkerville, there's been quite a strain put on accommodation there. The Parks Branch has done a good job in expanding the facilities, but I still think they're behind. Last year, 1972, there were 200,000 visitors to Barkerville. I was wondering if there are any plans to further expand the accommodation for the public there.

One other question — I am not sure if it's your department. A couple of years ago, I think it was, the Clydesdale horses from Essondale were taken from there and taken to Fort Steele. I was wondering if you'd consider sending them to Barkerville where they could have a better life than they no doubt have in Fort Steele?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What do you mean? (Laughter).

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick questions to the Hon. Minister. One is with respect to parks within the area adjacent to Fort Nelson. I know that a number of requests have come into the Parks Branch in recent years from the Fort Nelson area asking the Minister to establish a park on reserves that they already have — this is in overnight camping grounds and whatnot — within the area close to Fort Nelson.

The other request that I hear most frequently is with respect to the area adjacent to Williston Lake. There's a tremendous body of water there that has fantastic recreational potential. The fishing is tremendous in that area, but yet there is no park site or any development anywhere on Williston Lake itself or immediately adjacent to it. I would hope that this is one of the areas that the department is looking at, because a large number of people would use that area. At the present time they have to go either to a campsite at Moberley Lake or one at Charlie Lake, which is a fair distance removed from the lake itself.

So the two questions: what is being proposed in the Fort Nelson area? The other question: what do you anticipate in the way of development in or adjacent to Lake Williston?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think the point made is a valid one. There hasn't been as much work done in the north as there should be. That is going to change. The concentration last year was in the north-west, and that's reflected in some of our programmes.

The north-eastern part of the province, however, hasn't had the kind of surveys that are necessary prior to establishing a programme. This summer will see a greater concentration in north-eastern British Columbia, so that the areas will be given consideration.

MR. SMITH: Just one supplemental question. It's more a matter of information than a question, and that is that there is an increasing pressure to use Williston Lake as a recreational area. It's a large lake subject to storms. I would hope that if and when we develop sites for parks on the lake, we also take into consideration some sort of patrol so that we can keep small craft off, or at least warn small craft of the dangers of that lake. They can get up 20 miles to one of the streams that runs into the lake and get out into the lake, and a storm hits them and they can capsize quite easily.

So I think a programme of not only park development but a programme of at least partial control of the people that go in there, checking them to see if the craft that they're operating is sufficient in size and equipment to handle the waters that we have.

We run into a lot of sudden storms in the area, and if it could be taken into consideration it would certainly save a lot of lives.

[ Page 1949 ]

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

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, regarding the last speaker's remarks on Williston Lake, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Is there any plan on cleaning up Williston Lake? The previous speaker mentioned that it was a beautiful recreation area, and I happen to know that that area is ridden with logs and ridden with snags. In the last three or four years approximately 10 or 11 people have been drowned in that lake due to the snags in that lake and due to the tidal waves that have been caused by the cave-ins on the side of that lake. It was not fit for recreation after the last government got through with it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if there is any possible way, or if any possible investigation has been made into trying to clean up that lake after the previous administration had dealt with it?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I know it is unusual for a cabinet Minister to speak on a cabinet colleague's estimates, but I want to say that I don't know what we can do about that problem. I had never in my life seen anything quite like it until I flew in by small plane into the town during the last election campaign. I don't admit that it's been cleaned up, Mr. Member. I think it is a horrible mess. I think it is going to be a tragic legacy for any administration. Whether we get to it or someone else, and I just hope to God and the future of this province that that kind of mistake is never made again. Never made again.

Mr. Member, you can yell across the floor at me and say what you wish, and I know that we are the government and that we are charged with the responsibility, but I will never in my life forget the sight of coming in low over that town of Mackenzie and seeing that mile after mile after mile of filth; that disgraceful mess that was left by a government that was committed to straight technocratic decisions rather than any concept of preserving the beauty of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You may laugh and talk about "get out the candles." But there were some reporters who were with me on that plane at the same time. I ask anybody in this province not to take my word for it — not to take my word for it — but to go over the area by plane — we all stand condemned for that mess. All of us.

But I hope to God, as I said before, never, never, no matter what administration is in office, is that kind of legacy left for any generation of the people of this province.

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

MR. CHABOT: Yes — on the question of parks. You know, the Premier tries to make us all cry about what has happened on Williston Lake, and I don't think it is as tragic as he tries politically to portray it. As I have flown over the entire length of that power reservoir….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You think it's all right?

MR. CHABOT: I say it's not bad. I say that there is a continuing programme of clearing up there. When I did go up in that particular country in the fall of 1971 I had expected to see a shocking, disgraceful mess, and that's probably why I was so impressed with the area, because it had been so politically portrayed as a disaster, an ecological disaster, which is really untrue. It's untrue. And you know it. You come around here with your old tear-jerker speeches and try to lead us to believe that there's been a disgraceful mess left behind that is presently being cleaned up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you can justify it, go ahead.

MR. CHABOT: I would imagine that if they were clearing reservoirs of power projects that they would have a fleet of people or a group of people there with rakes raking it up. I believe that debris rises with the raising of water — I don't understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. We've allowed a certain amount of latitude on both sides of the House….

MR. CHABOT: Are you trying to cut me down from speaking on a point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask you to relate your comments….

MR. CHABOT: I'm relating it — the same as the Premier. You allowed him a lot of latitude. How about allowing me the same amount of latitude?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I repeat. We've allowed some latitude on both sides of the House on this matter, and I think we should relate our remarks to the development of parks.

[ Page 1950 ]

MR. RADFORD: Tell the truth.

MR. CHABOT: Would you have that Member withdraw that statement? I am telling what my opinion is of the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I heard…. There was an Hon. Member on my right who implied or imputed a motive to the Member who was speaking that I think is not worthy of the House, and I would ask that he withdraw it.

MR. RADFORD: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but I still think he's a stranger from the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to withdraw the remark.

MR. RADFORD: I withdraw.

MR. CHABOT: Now, I'm wondering. I've written a letter to the Minister here; it's not too long ago, and it does take quite a while, and I think this is the appropriate place to seek out a reply. It's a letter that came from an individual in Marysville — dealing with a campsite. He writes as follows:

"For nearly two years I have been trying to get some action towards a camping area for Garbuts Lake. When Mr. Garbut was alive everyone was welcome to wander around the whole shore of the lake. There was also a campground. Now most of the lakeshore is fenced off for the use of five or six families. One of the owners told me that they are all paying taxes for 10 feet of the water shore edge. The only way for the public to put their boats in the water is by single roadway as marked.

"This is a very beautiful lake, and the Game and Fish Department keep it well stocked. I've caught seven-pounders in it, and the fish are good all year. The end of the lake where the creek flows from Peckham's Lake is part of the public Norbury Park, and if that end were cleared out so that we could launch boats or camp, it would take a lot of pressure off Peckham Lake's campground.

"I've tried during the summer to launch my boat at the road access, but with half a dozen vehicles parked there it is impossible to get near the lake. A few years ago there would be no problem for a camping spot. However, now that Alberta has found out what a wonderful place the east Kootenay is for fishing and camping, they come by the hundreds every weekend. If the local folks don't get to the camping spots by early Friday evening, they're out of luck.

"There is a saying here that the Albertans bring all their food and gas with them; grab our campsites, catch our fish and leave their garbage in exchange.

"If this end of Garbuts Lake were opened, it would ease things quite a lot. I'm enclosing a map and a letter from Mr. Goddard. Would you please return them for my files?"

This was a letter to the Minister with a copy to me.

"I trust you will give this property your consideration and hope for an early reply."

And that was dated March 8, and I don't know whether the Minister has replied.

In the meantime I have communicated with the Minister on it and have suggested that he send me a copy of the reply. I am wondering if the Minister has any information on Garbuts Lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular site, so I can't properly say whether it might be a provincial park question or not. We will be pleased to pursue the question. There is a case in many of the regions for the establishment of regional park districts, or regional park functions, and I don't think the east Kootenay or the west Kootenay, for that matter….

AN HON. MEMBER: I think the east Kootenay has the function of parks.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. There is a real case for taking part in that programme, because I mentioned earlier, the two main cities have actually absorbed most of the funds in the regional parks budget. I think that is unfortunate for all the province, but the initiative has to be taken by the regional district themselves.

Regarding this specific site, I'm sure that we'll deal with it shortly, in view of the fact that it has been referred to us already.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In view of the statements by the Premier, I wish to comment very briefly on Williston Lake and say that it is regrettable that the Premier, at this time and on this evening, has tried to use cheap political tricks.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: …tried to draw away from…. I am going to go on to another matter.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 1951 ]

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

I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the words "cheap political tricks," which is not worthy of this House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I'll say then that the Premier has used political manoeuvres.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just asking you to withdraw the words.

MR. SMITH: Can I not say "political manoeuvres"? There's nothing wrong with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you to withdraw the words….

MR. SMITH: …to draw away from what was actually being recommended in….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be quiet, please. I would ask you to withdraw the words "cheap political tricks."

MR. SMITH: I withdraw the words "cheap political tricks," and I replace it with the words "political manoeuvres." Is there anything unparliamentary about that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll allow that. That is permissible.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: …to try to detract from what I was saying when I suggested that time has approached when we should consider some sort of recreational facilities on Williston Lake.

We can listen to the Premier in the background. He really doesn't know what has gone on there, apparently. A tremendous job has taken place since that area was first flooded. To my knowledge, over 150 million cubic feet of lumber which came up as drift logs has been taken out of the reservoir and processed. Who got the benefit of that? The provincial government. A few years ago I spoke to the then Minister of Recreation and Conservation and said, "I do not think the time is right to start developing Williston Lake because there are too many unsettled problems." But the cleanup has progressed to the point where I, as a person who lives in that area, believe that with some concern about the type of craft that uses Williston Lake, we can now proceed with a parks development programme in that area for the benefit of not only the people who live there but all British Columbia.

At the present time, for those people who would like to go out and fish, they're taking trout in that lake from three to six pounds. Why shouldn't the people be allowed to benefit by that? I think that with the programme that has gone on, we can go out into the lake now on a proper basis; that we should have a park adjacent to the lake for people to use. And that's all that I was saying when I got on my feet to ask the Minister that was going to happen with regard to parks development in the Williston Lake area.

I got an answer from the Minister, which I appreciate. I got a political ploy from the Premier of the province, who jumped in to try to draw off and make a few political marks at the expense of people in northern British Columbia — cheap politics, Mr. Premier, cheap politics.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's one thing about Williston Lake and that is this: that Government will never create any situation because they'll have neither the vision nor the courage to put anything together.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the whole Peace River power dam. If they did have the vision and the courage to do it, they'd never be able to put together the finance to finance such a project.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the estimates before us, vote 229.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's very difficult. The Minister is carrying such a fantastically heavy portfolio, being chairman of Hydro and Minister of Recreation and Conservation, Lands, Forests, Water Resources and you name it, and he's getting a little tired, and he's getting a little forgetful. I asked a couple of questions a moment ago about Swan Lake and Pouce Coupe Park. No sooner did I sit down than he completely forgot what I asked him about. So I must ask him again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no programme at the moment for either Pouce Coupe or Swan Lake Park. If the Member would like to correspond with us

[ Page 1952 ]

in that regard, we'd certainly take the matter up further.

Regarding Williston Lake, even though it doesn't meet the standards for naming that have been adopted across Canada, I think it's been appropriately named. It's unfortunate that it wasn't seen as an integrated project, in which there would have been advantages beyond just power alone. That kind of precedent was established in Tennessee some 35 to 40 years ago by the United States administration of that day. But it does take us a while to catch up with new ideas in British Columbia, just during the last 20 years.

The question of recreational values in the northeast, however, is a matter of concern and has been ignored in the past. It will be one of the main areas we look at during the summer season when survey crews are out. We're going to have to look at the mess that's known as Williston Lake and look at, belatedly, the recreation potential that exists on that lake. That will be done. We have a programme now of only $1 million a year for mop-up on that lake. At that rate, Lord knows how many decades it will take.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no question that the Forest Service has carried on an excellent job, and it had a massive job to do. They've developed an expertise in this field like nobody else in the world because the problems are like nowhere else in the world. That says something….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I say that says something for the native genius of the people — overcoming the kind of problems that we've been left with by the previous administration.

But we'll look at the recreational values in the area. I know that the lake is dangerous and that there is a need for the kind of programme that the Member suggests.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 229 pass?

Vote 229 approved.

On vote 230: grants made to regional parks, $3,000,000.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question with regard to the grants, which I notice have been doubled from half a million to $1 million for regional park development. I'm not familiar with the regional park programme in the Capital Regional District, but I know that in the Greater Vancouver Regional District at the moment development is taking the back seat to purchasing. I'm just wondering what that increase is for and whether it is for active development of those kinds of regional parks or some other programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid the programme is still essentially acquisition, in fact. There's a backlog in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. We're trying to help get over that. A $2 million bylaw was just signed in our office within the last few days and, I believe, was finally approved by the regional district as well.

So it's essentially an acquisition programme. There are some modest amounts for development in areas where they're obviously needed for just minimal facilities, such as washrooms and the like.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just a supplementary, Mr. Chairman: the $1 million is earmarked for development, though. Am I to take it that that's the provincial government's share of the total programme of acquisition rather than development, or is it for development? It's specifically earmarked for development in the estimates.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I'm afraid it's for acquisition, all right, in terms of the full programme. The regional districts that are involved are Greater Vancouver, Alberni-Clayoquot, the Capital Region, Central Kootenay, Columbia-Shuswap, Comox-Strathcona, East Kootenays, Fraser–Fort George, Mt. Waddington and Powell River.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just to further clarify it, then: the $1 million is the provincial government's share of the total regional park programme, not development but just the programme. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's correct. It may well be that additional funds will be needed if the regional programmes are beyond that.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Could the Minister tell me if Grey Rocks is contemplated for purchase?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1953 ]

I wonder if the Minister would indicate whether any funds in this vote are contained for purchase of any rights within the Nitinat Triangle, whether there is any expenditure required in putting this into the Pacific Rim National Park.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In the funding with respect to the national park, the amounts anticipated in the coming fiscal year do not cover proposals with respect to the Triangle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 230 pass?

Vote 230 approved.

Vote 231: youth training programme, $400,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I think we should change this Minister's title from Minister of Mines to Minister of Undermines. That's about all that's happened to that department since he took office — undermining the entire mining industry in the Province to the detriment of everybody and the economy of the whole province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up. I can't hear you.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a disaster, that's what it is. A disaster! The man is trying to run a segment of our economy that is responsible for generating about one-quarter of every dollar in circulation. The Minister says that he's going to run his department like a popcorn stand. That's what the Minister says — like a popcorn stand. He even defends that position.

While the wheels of industry grind to a halt, the Minister runs his department like a popcorn stand. Well, I guess lately the people have sort of taken a dislike to popcorn. Either that or they're full of hot air or the Minister's full of hot air or something, because sales are dropping off. And employment in the….

HON. MR. BARRETT: What sales are dropping off?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't mean sales are dropping off. Exploration is dropping off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sales are not dropping off, is that what you're saying?

MR. PHILLIPS: Unfortunately, in a department like the Department of Mines, the true results of what is happening today will not be felt for four, five or 10 years. It's unfortunate for the people that this department is going to be a complete disaster. It's unfortunate that the results of the disaster that is taking place today will not be felt for such a long time to come. He's going to run the mines like a popcorn stand. "Pay for the corn before selling," the Minister says.

When Leo Thomas Nimsick was 11 years old, he packed into his first forest fire. Today, 53 years later, there's still a bit of the look of boyish wonder about the man as he packs in a different, but equally tricky, hot spot — the office of the Minister of Mines for British Columbia, one of the most important portfolios in this government. As I said before, it's responsible for 25 per cent of every dollar that is generated in British Columbia.

I think the Minister still thinks he's back there fighting that forest fire because he's trying to put everything out. He's trying to stop everything that was going. He's throwing cold water on it. The Minister's got to realize now that he's running a department, and he should be trying to lift things up and create employment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to discuss giving things away in just a moment, Mr. Premier. I hope you stay in the House to enjoy this short little discourse with me. I hope that the Minister, if he stays here, will be able to learn something this evening. The way things are heading right now, none of us will be around very long to learn anything.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Doom and gloom.

MR. PHILLIPS: Doom and gloom? No. You know, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Chairman, I honestly and sincerely wish that I could stand in this House this evening and have somebody say that I was preaching doom and gloom and have it been the truth. But what I am saying are cold, hard facts, not doom and gloom at all. Cold, hard facts, and it's very unfortunate.

The Premier can't stay and listen. He can't stand the pressure; he can't stand the heat, so he has to get out of the kitchen. One day this week the Minister stood behind his big desk in the sizeable office that goes with a cabinet post, rummaging through a maze of papers in a fruitless search for some statistics, showing just a bit of the discomfort that a robust outdoorsman might be expected to feel in such surroundings.

[ Page 1954 ]

The Minister says, "I don't know if I'll ever catch up. There are mountains of mail, and people are always wanting to meet me." Too heavy a portfolio for the little boy from the Kootenays.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: At the age when most men are preparing for retirement, this dairy worker, diamond driller, hunter, fisherman and veteran politician is just settling into the top job of his long career. I think he's settled in long enough now, and he should settle out and retire gracefully while he's ahead.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are you looking for my job?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Minister of Mines, but you're going to go down in history as the one man in British Columbia who put the death knell on one of the most buoyant industries anywhere in Canada, and that is the mining industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit while you're behind.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'll go down in history as the man who used a big club and knocked the props out from under the mines. That's what you'll go down in history as, Mr. Minister.

I want the record to know the history of this man who is going to knock the props out from under the mining industry. His manner of speech is the plain talk of the mountain man in pursuit of game or the hardrock miner or the man sent in to beat back the flames of a forest fire, but the thoughts are nevertheless those of a man who had some definite ideas about the need for change where the harvesting of B.C.'s minerals is concerned.

Yes, the Minister of Mines had some thoughts about some need for change. He wants the minerals to stay in the ground, and he wants the undiscovered minerals to stay in undiscovered. That's the thought that our Minister had when he took over this portfolio. I must say you're doing a fantastic job of accomplishing just what you set out to do: to stop the mining industry cold in its tracks.

That's difficult to do, Mr. Minister, because there are mines that are producing. There is a lot of employment and there are a lot of minerals being shipped out of British Columbia. But you're doing everything in your power. If you could stop those mines, I'm sure that you'd stop them, but they're a little bigger. But you can stop the finding; you can stop the exploration; you can stop bringing new mines under production, the ones that were about ready to go. This year will probably go down in history as the one single year when there were no new mines brought under production in British Columbia. So I say, like some of the other Members, you should quit while you're behind.

Yes, he had some definite ideas about the need for changes where the harvest of B.C. mineral resources is concerned. If you want some of Leo's plain talk on the subject, possibly the best example is this. And here it comes. I want everybody to hear the Minister's business philosophy. Here it comes — plain talk.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Read the whole thing now. Don't just read….

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to read the whole thing, oh yes, Mr. Minister. I'll tell you I'm going to read the whole thing. Oh, you better believe I'm going to read the whole thing.

"The business should be run like a popcorn stand. You've got to pay first for the corn you're going to pop and sell."

You've got to pay for the corn. Mind you, that's after somebody else has planted the corn and taken the risk of the weather and everything else. You've got to pay for the corn. And certainly people who are going to buy the minerals are going to have to pay for the minerals.

But who's going to farm the minerals and who's going to grow the corn? That is the question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are the minerals lost?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but there's a lot of them that haven't been found. That's typical of the thinking of the Minister. "Are the minerals lost?" I believe that the Minister works on the philosophy that there is nothing new under the sun. It's just that it hasn't been found yet. I think the Minister is going to go out and find them himself. He's got some kind of a special Geiger counter. The Minister's going to go out by himself, and he's going to find all the minerals in British Columbia. Some man! Some popcorn stand!

AN HON. MEMBER: A mother lode of popcorn.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Mother lode of popcorn" is right. Well, I'll tell you, you've got to pay for the popcorn before you're going to pop and sell it.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just go out to those great vast resources? Here would be Leo: so many tons of unmined ore for sale. And Leo's going to sell it to you at such-and-such a price because that's the philosophy he has here in the popcorn. I don't know. That's going to take a pretty big storehouse. I think the Minister's quite well aware of how warehouses run and so forth. So maybe that's the philosophy: the great big warehouse out there is full of minerals, and all you've got to do is go out and buy them. Right? Is that the philosophy of the Minister? You just go out and buy them.

There's the Minister from the Kootenays with a

[ Page 1955 ]

big sign — "Minerals for Sale." They've all been found and they've been ored….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's better than the great give-away.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the "great give-away." Well, I'm going to have a few words to say, Mr. Minister, about the great give-away too in a few moments.

Anyway, we must establish that the Minister has all of these found resources and he's got a big sign up. Now we go and buy them, eh? You've got to pay for them, he says. Well that's fine. The Minister's got a pretty big storehouse; he's got it all inventoried; he's done all the assaying; he's done all the drilling; he's spent all the millions and millions of dollars in risk capital; he's gone down there where he thought there were some minerals and found there weren't any, just like the guy who planted the popcorn. It got rained out, or the kernels didn't pop, or he didn't put enough fertilizer on.

This is the philosophy of the Minister. It isn't working. The popcorn philosophy isn't working, Mr. Minister. Some of the kernels aren't popping. I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, if you get too much heat under that popcorn, a lot of it's going to burn. It's not going to pop at all. You're going to have nothing to sell but a bunch of old dead kernels. Now what are you going to do? No one's going to buy that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're getting more worried all the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well, I could say something there, but I'll reserve those few remarks that I would say about your getting worried. You know, some people are very thick-skinned, Mr. Minister. What we need to have here is a little compassion for the unemployed in this province. That's what we need — a little compassion for the unemployed and a little common sense about economics, because this is a pretty big portfolio.

"This is the approach of Nimsick in the new NDP Government, something he sees as a direct opposite to the view held by the former Social Credit government. 'They would say, 'If you don't make a profit, you can have the corn for nothing. We say, 'If you treat the mineral resource the same as you would the corn, it should be a cost item in the process of mining,' Nimsick explains."

You know, Mr. Minister, there's a vast difference. I honestly wonder sometimes if you recognize the difference between popcorn and minerals, between popcorn and natural gas and between popcorn and oil. I sometimes wonder.

"Uppermost in his plans is the desire to see the mining companies pay royalties on the minerals they take from the land.”

But that hasn't proven out. I know I'm not at liberty to discuss legislation which is before the House this evening. But, with the legislation that's before the House, this is not your policy at all. Your policy, Mr. Minister — and I don't know why you don't come right out and say it — is to nationalize the entire mining industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you bring Kierans out here and just give him the post and let him run it for you? You're going to try to do it yourself. At least in Manitoba they had enough guts to say, "This is the recommendation: nationalize the entire mining industry of Manitoba." You're going to do it by the back door, by legislation.

"Ironically, Nimsick takes on the mining portfolio 64 years after being born in a mining camp at Rossland. His father, a miner, later operated a dairy farm, and Leo worked for him. He also worked later as a diamond driller in gold and copper mines."

That's very commendable, Mr. Minister.

"At 11 he packed in his first forest fire with pack horses. He was to do it many times. He graduated from high school as one of the top mathematics students in B.C. and entered university at 16."

Mr. Minister, if you were one of the top mathematics students in British Columbia, you should be able to see what's going on. You should be able to realize….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's why I'm doing so good. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you're doing good? I want the House to note that the Minister is doing good. You personally may be doing good, but the mining industry isn't doing good. The mining industry is on the downhill slide, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who said that — "Name names"? Yes, I'm going to. Oh yes, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), I'm going to point out the facts. Oh, yes.

"Lack of funds cut his university education. Nimsick has represented the Kootenays since 1949 and where veteran Members of the Legislature are concerned, is second only to Opposition leader W.A.C. Bennett, whose Socred government fell in the NDP sweep August 30 after 20 years in power. Bennett was elected in 1941."

A very commendable career, Mr. Minister. Too bad it has to end on such a sour note.

[ Page 1956 ]

MR. NIMSICK: This isn't a sour note. I'm having a lot of fun.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you're having a lot of fun. Well, we're going to call you "Killer" Nimsick then, if you're having a lot of fun, because you're sure having a lot of fun killing the mining industry in this province. "Killer" Nimsick, Minister of Undermining.

"As he spends time these days trying to familiarize himself with the office he has taken over, Nimsick does a little reflecting on his long wait before his success at the polls."

Well, I'm not going to read all that.

This is the rise and fall….

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone with the Wind?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's rise and fall of Leo. The formula is the Nimsick Formula.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would mind discussing the estimates, rather than the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, first of all I have to establish the Minister's policies….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The proper procedure is to discuss the estimates and to relate everything to the administration of this particular department, not to the characteristics of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Chairman, but as I say, I was just trying to establish the Minister's policy. It's very important that his policy in dealing with the Department of Mines be established.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not merely offering my opinions. I'm making a ruling and asking you to confine your remarks to the estimates before us and to the administration of this particular department, namely the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you agree that I could read this then? "His immediate move includes the reviewing of the Mineral Act."

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it's relevant to the administration of this particular department. The Hon. Member is not to discuss any legislation that is before the House, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, no. The Mineral Act has been in since — well, as he said, it's been in for 80 years. He said that it hadn't been changed for 80 years. So I would say that that would be relevant.

"His moves include the reviewing of the Mineral Act — 'It's grown up like Topsy' — with a view to streamlining it, the restructuring of his department, and an inventory of B.C. mineral deposits. While he doesn't spell it out as such, he seems to realize that it's one thing to sit in Opposition attacking industry, and another to encourage its cooperation while in power.

"We are attempting to bring the mining industry in as far as making suggestions and recommendations go, so that what we eventually do will be acceptable to all.' "

That's another very important statement, Mr. Chairman — "So that what we do will be acceptable to all." I wish the Minister had been with me last Friday afternoon in the Hotel Vancouver. The Minister would realize that what he is doing is not acceptable to all. The Minister might wish that he had gotten some input from some of the people whose lives he is affecting.

However, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, all I wanted to do was establish for the record the policies that the new Minister of Mines has set in dealing with this very important segment of the economy of British Columbia. A few short days after August 30, Mr. Chairman, several contracts for work on mining sites in northern British Columbia were immediately cancelled. Several contracts for clearing of mining sites and exploration sites were immediately cancelled. This happened within a week after August 30.

This was the beginning of the decline of mining in the Province of British Columbia. It didn't take very long. Why did this happen, Mr. Chairman? It happened because of the uncertainty about the direction that the new socialist government would move in nationalizing the mining industry in British Columbia. That, Mr. Chairman, is what it's all about. The fear of a Minister who, because he had once worked in a mine, is now a specialist on mining and has all the answers. He has all the answers now.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I haven't got any questions yet, anyway.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to have a few questions, Mr. Minister, but I fear what the answers will be.

Mr. Chairman, we now have a Minister who will be forced to carry out the instructions of the Premier who subscribes to the Waffle Manifesto. A Minister who believes in the doomsday syndrome. That is the policy that mining in British Columbia is taking. That is the direction in which we're heading. A Minister who, like many of his colleagues, listens for input from the industry with earplugs in his ears. A Minister who knows little and cares less about the economy of British Columbia, when he controls about 25 per cent of it. A Minister whose party came to power to

[ Page 1957 ]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to dispel and disprove alarmist charges that the United States faces a doomsday situation. This is all tied to the North American economy. Our policy seems to be that of following very closely that of the United States. The United States today has fuel resources that will last for 500 years. This new look at the fuel resources in the United States is the result of statistics gathered by the investor-owned U.S. energy industries and their suppliers.

The purpose of putting these statistics forward is to set the record straight and to get the United States government to adopt a national energy policy. I want to read to you, Mr. Chairman, from this report. I'd like once and for all to dispel some of the alarmists that are very prevalent these days. "If we're not going to starve to death, we're going to run out of fuel, and if we're not going to run out of fuel, we're going to run out of minerals."

"The investor-owned U.S. industries and their suppliers have gathered basketfuls of statistics to disprove alarmist charges that the nation faces a doomsday situation. The apparent goal, along with setting the record straight, is to influence the government to adopt a realistic national energy policy.

"The presidents of five energy trade associations — natural gas, oil, nuclear, coal and electric utilities — issued a joint statement in Washington, D.C. the other day challenging the federal government to alter piecemeal and inconsistent decisions based on narrow and short-run interpretations of conditions affecting particular fuels at a particular time. They criticized rapid introduction of stringent environmental standards which have constricted fuel supplies."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he is going to relate this to the administrative responsibilities of this department. I believe that he is possibly touching on matters which are under the direction of the Minister of Finance rather than the mines Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, this is very relevant to the Minister of Mines, who also controls petroleum, oil and coal resources. It's very relevant. I'll finish a lot faster if you'll just let me carry on, because I've prepared this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I'm sorry, Mr. Member. The Chair is bound to observe the rules, and I must ask you to relate what you're going to say to the estimates before us — the administrative responsibilities.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the administrative responsibility of the Minister whose salary we are now discussing is to look after the future of the mining and petroleum industries, right?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not begrudging your salary. I just want to get a few things straightened out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Member that many of these matters are canvassed in the throne debate and in the budget debate and in the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Finance. Therefore I would ask him again to relate these as tightly as possible to the administrative responsibilities of this department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how this subject would ever have been canvassed in the throne debate or the budget debate, because the report didn't come out until March 27.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The general subject matter has been canvassed. The main thing is to deal specifically with matters under this administrative responsibility. Would you proceed, please?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"Officials of General Electric Company, a supplier of electric equipment for almost a century, also have strongly challenged the energy doomsday concept while conceding impending short-time deficits.

"But the long-range programme looks good. Statistics presented recently by Reginald H. Jones, GE's chief executive officer, show that the U.S. fossil fuel reserves, the fuel obtainable with today's economics and technology, are adequate for 50 years. Fossil fuel reserves, which require progressively higher fuel prices as they are developed, will be adequate for 500 years. 'Even with nuclear energy,' he said, 'we have resources for a million years.' "

Now this is very relevant, Mr. Chairman, because we have people running around today saying that we're going to run out of this, we're going to run out of that, we're going to run out of gas. What we need, Mr. Chairman, is the incentive to find the resources that we have.

Unfortunately, under this Minister, these incentives are being taken away. So there will be no more exploration. We will never know what we've got in the way of fossil fuel, hydrocarbons or minerals in this province. Once we stop looking, we don't prove up any more resources. And that's the way the doomsday syndrome generates itself.

" 'Regulation of the price of natural gas,' Jones contended, 'and availability of low-cost foreign oil

[ Page 1958 ]

plus a major rise in concern for environmental protection and a diversion of attention from coal technology by the prospect of nuclear fuel have combined to cause the present problem. This is the situation as we have it today.

" 'Yes, there is an energy shortage, and it will get worse before it is overcome. But it is not a doomsday crisis in the view of most knowledgeable men in the energy industry. In other words, there will be short-term crises.

" 'Certainly the nation and every state needs realistic energy policies to increase production, make production less wasteful and more efficient, and stimulate greater efforts in developing new sources such as solar and nuclear fission. These goals must be accomplished with maximum protection of environmental values.

"'Those who think it can't be done demonstrate a lack of confidence in American technological development, or government and industry responsibility, or both. It's time to quit crying and get to work.' "

I think, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I that this is a policy that we should adopt here in British Columbia. It's time to quit crying and get to work. It's time to get out there and provide the incentive to find what lies buried beneath the earth's surface.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think you're probably looking for skeletons. Maybe if you keep looking you'll find one. But I think what we should be looking for are minerals. We should provide the incentive to find minerals.

Mr. Chairman, if that is the situation in the United States, it's got to be a far brighter situation in Canada because we haven't been developing our minerals or our natural gas or our fossil fuels as long as they have in the United States. The other thing is that we have a far greater land mass to explore.

And yet the Minister is determined to shove up the price of petroleum products in British Columbia by bringing exploration to a halt. The search for these products will stop. It is practically stopped already.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to give you the situations in just a moment. You know yourself, Mr. Minister, that there are no mines presently under development in British Columbia this year for the first time in a long time. And how much money is being spent this year by the mining industry on exploration? You tell me, Mr. Minister. If you're such a good mathematician, you'll find that it's going down, down, down and that the search for minerals and oil in this province is grinding to a halt.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: In my mind? I wish it were in my mind, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: But these are the cold, hard facts.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, these are the cold, hard facts that the Minister refuses to recognize. He sits there and sees the money rolling in his department and thinks that everything is great. It's like the guy that goes out and sells two cars. He says, "Gracious, I sold two cars!" You have to look in terms of potential. You maybe should have sold 10 cars. You've got money coming in, and I imagine it's great.

You sit over there in the new department and you see everything looks rosy and the mining industry which was built up under the free enterprise system is still rolling along. You haven't been able to bring it to a halt yet. You haven't been able to stop the producing mines. You see a lot of employment in the mining industry, and you think everything's great. It's time you looked far beyond the doors of your office to find out exactly what is going on in this province, Mr. Minister.

You know you can hide behind that smile all you want to, Mr. Minister. Someday you're going to have to face the cold, hard facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would remind the Hon. Member to please address the Chair and not the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Through you, Mr. Chairman. You're going to find out this summer, Mr. Minister, when approximately 500 or 600….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon. Member to please address the Chair, not the Minister directly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. All right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines is going to find out this summer when about 500 to 600 young college students who used to be employed in the mining exploration business…. I hope they all end up at your doorstep. Mr. Chairman, I hope they all end up at the door of the Minister's office saying, "Why haven't we got a job in the mining exploration this summer? Why haven't we?" Then the Minister

[ Page 1959 ]

won't smile. He won't show up. He'll go out the back door like he didn't show up the other day and face the people who were concerned about the mining industry in this province. No, he'll have to do more than smile, Mr. Chairman. He'll have to do more than smile, I'll tell you.

Without the incentive to explore and find new mineral resources, our known reserves will continue to dwindle. Our known resources will continue to dwindle, and that's the way to create the doomsday syndrome. That's the way to shove up prices. Shortages will certainly shove up the prices; they always do. As soon as there is a shortage of this, and a shortage of that, the prices unfortunately are going to go up for petroleum products because it's straight, simple arithmetic.

As our resources and known resources dwindle, we create a shortage situation — this is what happened in the United States — and up go the prices. I don't care whether it's private industry that puts the prices up or the government that forces the prices up. This is what's happened. And who suffers? The consumer suffers.

In a very roundabout way, you will be forcing the consumer of petroleum produces in this province to pay higher prices. You will force the consumer of natural gas in this province to pay higher prices by creating a shortage situation — by not continuing the exploration for new reserves. You are such a good mathematician, you should be able to see that without looking too hard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please state his point of order with the Member from South Peace River?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Point of order on standing order 43 — repetitious and tedious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat your point of order please?

MR. LEA: On 43 of the standing orders — repetitious and tedious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that the Hon Member has not yet become tedious and repetitious, but I would caution him that he could.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's a typical example, Mr. Chairman, of a man who can't stand the pressure. He can't stand to hear the facts of what is happening

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member not comment on the rulings; would he just proceed on with the administrative responsibilities of this department?

MR. PHILLIPS: What happens when the prices to up? The very thing, Mr. Chairman, that we're trying to fight all over North America, inflation. I want the Minister to realize, Mr. Chairman, what a tremendous responsibility he has to the people of British Columbia. If there are no new minerals found and no new mines brought into production, there's a loss of revenue. How, as I've said on the floor of this Legislature before, are your other Ministers going to carry out their social welfare policies when the money stops rolling in? You've got to look ahead, Mr. Chairman. You can't just have — I won't call it tunnel vision — but you can't look at the situation as it exists today — you have to look at the situation as it's going to be in 10 and 20 years from now because minerals aren't found, and mines are not brought into production at the snap of a finger, Mr. Chairman. We will become a have-not province.

I mentioned just a few moments ago about the situation in the United States with regard to potential energy. What does our own Hydro chief have to say, Mr. Chairman, about the energy crisis? What does the man we just appointed to the top post in the B.C. Hydro have to say about the energy crisis? "Hydro Chief Sees No Energy Crisis." This is dated March 16.

"No energy crisis here in B.C., despite the alarm signals going up all over North America. This was the gist of a speech by B.C. Hydro Chairman, David Cass-Beggs, in Vancouver Thursday. While most of the industrialized countries in the world are already turning urgently to nuclear power to bolster their energy potential…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Member that there is a bill on the order paper called the Energy Act, which I think he's getting close to discussing. I would caution him to relate his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of this department,

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I suppose everything I've been talking about's been energy, I suppose you could consider a mine a potential source of energy, and the petroleum resources are potential sources of energy. I don't think that really, in all fairness…. I mean I'm not dealing with the actual Act itself. In all fairness now, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that I be allowed some leeway in this very important portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I would also point out that the person whom you are quoting is the Director of B.C. Hydro; therefore, I would ask you to take his comments in relation to these estimates.

[ Page 1960 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what I'm trying to establish…and if I'm going to relay my case, Mr. Chairman, I have to establish…I'm trying to establish that there isn't a great energy crisis in this province. If I can't use people who have done the research, if I can't quote things to establish that, well, I can't very well lay my case.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and then tomorrow somebody will say, "Well, he just said that there was no crisis, and he had nothing to back it up." You know, I mean, after all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

MR. PHILLIPS:

"While most of the industrialized western world is already turning to nuclear power to bolster their energy potential, Cass-Beggs said that British Columbia need not utilize that source until 1985."

Now that is from a man that we just hired. And he's supposed to be official. He says there's no energy crisis here in British Columbia.

When the mining industry, which produces 25 cents out of every dollar generated in British Columbia — not only in direct revenue to the government, but through taxes, income tax, purchases, 5 per cent tax, et cetera…. When the money stops rolling in, then the government will be forced to go to a deficit financing situation, and you won't be able to, Mr. Chairman, have a budget like you had this year where the budget is balanced.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I know you're not the finance Minister, but you're in charge of a very important portfolio that, as I've tried to establish, generates…. You know, it's a revenue department. It's not a department that spends money. It's a department that generates capital. It brings it in. Then we're going to have to go and borrow money.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sure. Don't you work together as a team over there, Mr. Chairman? Don't they work together as a team? I would honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister of Mines says is that they don't work together as a team. You know, he goes his way, the Minister of Finance goes his way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Member would not respond to the comments that are made but rather would continue with his speech in reference to these estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sometimes he brings up some good points that would make you wonder what he's thinking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we're going to say in a few years is that the wrecker from the Kootenays has struck. He's struck. The province is full of confusion and dismay.

Does the Minister, Mr. Chairman, think that high-risk capital comes to an industry that is headed by a man who can't see where he's going? Mr. Chairman, I ask this question in all sincerity. No wonder we call him an underminer.

"In a speech to the Canadian Electrical Association meeting in Vancouver, D.B. Furlong, Managing Director of the Canadian Petroleum Association, criticized the B.C. government. He said that the government has caused the cancellation of several drilling operations by announcing a doubling of oil royalties."

I realize there is legislation before us, but I just wanted to read this. I am quoting a speech from Mr. D. B. Furlong, who is the Managing Director of the Canadian Petroleum Association — a speech made in Vancouver on March 12.

Oh, I suppose that the man doesn't even know what he's talking about. Oh come Mr. Chairman. I wish the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources would open his eyes and realize what's going on in this province.

"He says there is a natural tendency for all governments to look around for new sources of revenue.

" 'There would seem to have developed in public and government mines the idea that the oil and gas industry is a fat cat, that it has not made a substantial contribution to Canada, and that it can and should be milked to the last drop without damage to western and Canadian development.

" 'This, in my opinion, is most unwise and wrong. Our industry has made a very large contribution to western development and to the health of the Canadian economy. It can make an even greater contribution in the next 25 years. But it will not be able to do so if it is faced by continual misrepresentations of its motives and by punitive taxation, delay and interference.' "

And, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, punitive taxation, misrepresentation, delay and interference is exactly what is happening under this Minister's portfolio.

[ Page 1961 ]

Last year, Mr. Chairman, we heard continually from the Opposition benches about the "giveaway Kaiser deal" and how Kaiser was ripping off the coal and making millions of dollars. We heard it when I was sitting in the backbench, 1966-67. What is the situation on the Kaiser deal, Mr. Chairman? Kaiser blundered on the coal deal; a financial disaster.

The point that I am making here, Mr. Chairman, is that the Kaiser company is an international corporation with facilities for research, with top management facilities, with research facilities, with….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please observe standing order 17(2) and not interrupt the Member when he is speaking?

MR. PHILLIPS: What I am saying Mr. Chairman, is that we heard all this flak about Kaiser and how many millions of dollars they were going to make taking the coal out of British Columbia.

What is the truth behind this situation? Kaiser is guided by Henry J. Kaiser organization, and they grew from a tiny Seattle-based paving company into an interlocking world-wide complex of some 140 subsidiaries, affiliates and joint ventures. It now encompasses aluminum, steel and cement production, broadcasting, mining, aerospace technology, shipping, chemicals, heavy engineering, shipbuilding, and real estate — all to the tune of $2 billion yearly in revenues.

In addition, Kaiser pioneered a health plan — that is irrelevant.

The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that here is a company with management to do $2 billion worth of business — larger than the entire budget — and they blundered on this Kaiser deal.

Now the thing that worries me, Mr. Chairman, is that here is the Minister of Mines, who is going to run that operation himself. This is the policy, Mr. Chairman. He is going to run this deal himself, or, under the present policy, Mr. Chairman, he would at least have been a partner in it. And what is the policy of this policy? Had the people been in business with Kaiser, they would have lost their shirts. That's very well put. They would have lost their shirts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the type of thing, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that this point that he has made is not within the administrative competence of the department. They cannot be….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask him to try to relate his remarks to the actual administrative responsibilities of the department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if I'm not discussing the administrative responsibility of the Minister whose wages we are voting on, then I don't know what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman. What I'm saying is that this is exactly the situation, this is where the Minister is headed, I'm trying to point out some of the pitfalls that he could lead the people of this province into. That's what I'm pointing out. And, Mr. Chairman, it is very relevant. Very relevant indeed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. You should not be discussing matters involving legislation. I think that the matter you are referring to would be more properly considered under the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce rather than mining.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, the point is that if we are going to hire civil servants to do this job, are they going to be able to do it better than the management of Kaiser? This is the whole question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not believe that this is a matter which is under consideration by this department, nor is it under their administrative competence. I would ask you to ask questions related to their administrative competence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Unfortunately, it's under that Minister's estimates, and it's….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm getting sick and tired of the yak, yak, yak from the Liberal benches….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm making my speech, and you'll have your opportunity when I'm done, and not until I am done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Now the mining industry, as I have said, Mr. Chairman, generates a lot of money in British Columbia. I'd like to relate some of the statistics with regard to how

[ Page 1962 ]

much money this industry does generate, because it's all very relevant, Mr. Chairman.

Welfare and community buildings, which includes schools, hospitals and community facilities; these are expenditures by the mining industry in the years 1967, '68, '69, '70 and '71. This is what the mining industry has spent in the Province providing these facilities….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that while it may seem relevant, it is not within the competence or administrative responsibility of the department. Therefore, I would ask him to confine his remarks to matters that are within the administrative responsibility.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I will point out to the Chairman how it is relevant, then. If the mining industry isn't prosperous and if the mining industry doesn't continue to grow, and if there aren't new mines, if there aren't new discoveries, then these expenditures, this amount of money will not be spent. And it is very relevant; very relevant indeed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not tired at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please observe the courtesy of allowing this Member to speak?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to have that Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) withdraw the statement.

HON. MR. HALL: I would only be too delighted to withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Capital expenditures, Mr. Chairman, by the mining industry….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out that if you were discussing something which outlined the kind of incentives, the kind of measures that this department could take that would cause the industry to prosper, it might be more relevant. But merely to discuss the fact that they are not prospering is not necessarily relevant.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Chairman, that the prosperity of the mining industry in British Columbia is not relevant to the Minister's salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Come off that. Great Scott!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is, Mr. Member, that you must relate this to the particular responsibilities of this department so that you can indicate to them how they might….

MR. PHILLIPS: It is his responsibility to see that the mining industry — that's his Ministry isn't it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to give up. This is very "revelant." (Laughter). Relevant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that you are discussing the expenditures by the industry, and we would like you to relate these facts that you're presenting to the administrative responsibilities of the department. This is the point that we're trying to establish.

MR. McGEER: This is most unfair, Mr. Chairman. The Member is making the Minister look good. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to relate to you the taxes paid by the mining industry in British Columbia during the years 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971. Corporation income tax, B.C. portion, paid by the mining industry: 1967, $1,757,000; 1968, $1,464,000; 1969, $1,735,000; 1970, $3,867,000; 1971, $1,583,000.

B.C. mining tax: 1967, $3,407,000; 1968, $4,350,000; 1969, $7,499,000; 1970, $11,231,000; 1971, $6,317,000. Those are the revenues from the mining industry, Mr. Chairman. If the mining industry doesn't prosper, what'll happen to these revenues? Is that "revelant"?

Social service tax: 1967, $3,868,000; 1968, $4,621,000; 1969, $6,981,000; 1970, $6,387,000; 1971, $9,877,000. Those are the revenues that we're going to be missing in a few years, Mr. Chairman, when the mining industry goes on the skids.

Property tax: 1967, $ 3,110,000; 1968, $3,299,000; 1969, $3,187,000; 1970, $3,625,000; 1971, $4,378,000.

Gasoline tax paid by the mining industry: 1967, $137,000; 1968, $103,000; 1969, $166,000; 1970, $215,000; 1971, $327,000.

Leases and rentals, et cetera: 1967, $162,000; 1968, $185,000; 1969, $244,000; 1970, $435,000; 1971, $392,000.

For a grand total of those expenditures in taxes and leases and Crown grants, the total in 1967, Mr.

[ Page 1963 ]

Chairman, was $13,249,000; 1968, $14,788,000; 1969, $20,694,000; 1970, $26,888,000; 1971, $24,372,000.

I wonder what the figure's going to be for 1973, Mr. Chairman?

I would go on, Mr. Chairman, and quote numerous other statistics about the mining industry, all very "revelant", and they should be read into the record, because when we stand in this House in a couple of years, Mr. Chairman, it'll be the sad situation that these figures will be much less than they have been for the past 10 years. This is why, Mr. Chairman, all of this is very "revelant."

I don't care how you look at it or how you talk about it. Those who cannot see that the mining industry is on the decline in British Columbia are not seeing what they're finding. Because this is the case, Mr. Chairman. It's very unfortunate. One of the things and one of the segments of society that's going to be hurt first are the employees. I'd like to just point out to you, Mr. Chairman, before I move off of statistics. I want to read into the record some of the wages and salaries that are paid out by the mining industry.

In 1967, wages and salaries were paid out in the province of $85,075,000, total wages and benefits; in 1968, $91,763,000; in 1969, $106,923,000; in 1970, $140,024,000; in 1971, the last year that I have the statistics for, $162,597,000 paid out in wages and benefits by the mining industry in British Columbia. That's a lot of money, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the reasons that the mining industry is so very, very important to the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, in 1971, in your area alone, northwestern British Columbia, $19,041,000 were paid out by the mining industry in wages and benefits — that's in northwestern British Columbia alone.

While the Liberal Members from Vancouver yak, yak, yak, it is the mining industry in the northern part of the province — away from Vancouver where they come from — that has made the City of Vancouver the prosperous place it is today. I would think that the Members from Vancouver would recognize this, but evidently they're not interested either.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member proceeds, I just want to reiterate….

MR. PHILLIPS: I would ask you to have that Member for Vancouver–Point Grey withdraw that, because I want him to know that I made up my own….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: And the facts that I'm quoting….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just want to make a point before you proceed. This is going to be a most difficult set of estimates to consider because of the number of bills on the order paper and also because of the fact that some of the responsibility for the prosperity of the mining industry or vice versa may lie with other departments, such as the finance department. Therefore I would ask you when you are expressing your concern, and I think it's a genuine and real concern, that you relate it to the administrative capability or competence of the department, so that they will have some guidance as to …

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm trying to point out, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Mines has got to change his policies, or the mining industry is going to decline. I'm not going to belabour the statistics but I want to point out to the Minister of Mines if he realizes the other related industries in the province that rely on the prosperity and the well-being of the mining industry….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen! Maybe if we cut down the hours in this Legislature a person wouldn't get so tired and he'd be able to pronounce his words a little better. The last two days we've sat here from 11 till 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HALL: We're 12 hours behind, that's why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you proceed with your speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and you might be a lot more than 12 hours behind, Mr. Provincial Secretary, if you keep bringing in devastating legislation like you've been bringing.

AN HON. MEMBER: …in.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you think you're going to let your socialist legislation slip by without anyone noticing it, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request

[ Page 1964 ]

that Members on both sides of the House would observe the simple rules of debate and discussion. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's too bad when somebody in this Legislature realizes the intent behind the legislation that you bring in, isn't it, Mr. Provincial Secretary? It's too bad when somebody sees what you're trying to do this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Member again, please, if he would….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: A lot of people are seeing through you, too, Mr. Provincial Secretary!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment? I would ask the Members who are not speaking if they would refrain from interrupting the Member while he's speaking. I would ask the Hon. Member if he would confine his remarks to the estimates and if he would address the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the circumstances it's sometimes difficult to keep to the subject at hand, which is the office of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

I want to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, some of the allied industries which have their well-being based on the well-being of the mining industry. What was that, Mr. Minister? Yes, the relevant industries.

Fourteen per cent of the mining industry's purchases were spent on production materials and supplies — 14 per cent. In 1971 it was a total of $79,371,000. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister to explore with me some of the purchases and supplies. Explosives — $11 million in 1971. Now what's going to happen to the explosive industry? Chemicals — $5 million. Drill bits and steel — all very relevant.

Every one of these individual industries pays taxes and hires employees. Lumber and timber — $1.5 million in 1971. Petroleum products — $9 million in 1971. Milling supplies — $15 million. Engineering supplies….

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like a grocery list.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's all very relevant. I'll get to the groceries a little later. No. It doesn't have groceries in here.

Electrical supplies — $4,639,000. Electricity — $7,602,000. Containers — $1,555,000. Coal and coke — $2,282,000. Other miscellaneous production materials and supplies — these were so numerous that they weren't mentioned — $18 million, Mr. Minister.

[Ms. Young in the chair]

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Madam Chairman. A total of $79 million. Madam Chairman, here is where we get down to the individual wages and salaries. This is more relevant to the individual. This is the small guy I'm talking about, Mr. Minister.

Professional and technical services: legal and audit — over $1.3 million. Management fees — $3,603,000. Engineering consultants — over $3.75 million. Assay and metallurgical supplies — $853,000. Exploration surveys — $358,000.

I wonder, Madam Chairman, how much money is going to be spent on exploration surveys this summer. General consultants — $370,000. These are figures for 1971. A total of $10,642,000. This, Madam Chairman, is the magnitude of the industry that the Minister controls.

I could go on — construction work, drilling, camp catering, mine operation, other, Madam Chairman. Construction work — $185,548,000 in 1971. Drilling to find the ore, Madam Chairman; exploratory drilling, risk capital — $7,359,000. Camp catering, much of it by exploratory crews out there searching for the minerals, the minerals that we need to find so we can have a true look at the picture. Right, Mr. Minister?

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Camp catering — $5,204,000. Others — $9,522,000. Contract work totaled $214,403,000. Machinery and equipment — I hope, Madam Chairman, that the Minister of Mines is getting some idea of what a tremendously responsible position he has to the people of this province. Machinery and equipment — $93 million. Other services and supplies not mentioned above — helicopter service, area travel, camp supplies, communications, outward transportation — all very relevant. All very relevant indeed, Mr. Minister of Health. A total of $551,083,000. Madam Chairman, that's not mentioning the taxes.

In 1971 direct employees in the mining industry in the province — 14,800 people. That's direct employees, Madam Chairman. In your own area alone, 3,138 employees in 1971. In the Shuswap-Chilcotin area — 2,022.

There's one other thing, Madam Chairman, that I'd like to point out. That is the net capital inflow to the mining industry, 1962 to 1971. This is the money that comes into this province to the mining industry. In 1962 it was $39 million. In 1971 it went to a high of $464,695,000. Madam Chairman, where is our

[ Page 1965 ]

economy going to go when this money stops coming in?

I realize, Madam Chairman, that there's money in the kitty, but not the kind of money needed to keep a viable mining industry on the go. The total for 10 years — $1,928,437,000. "The equity capital and net capital inflow amounts shown above incorporate $166 million raised by the numerous exploration companies, who are not members of the Mining Association of British Columbia."

$166 million raised by the exploration companies — this is the crux of the whole situation, Madam Chairman — the risk capital that we require to go out there and maybe be spent with no return because they didn't turn up anything worthwhile.

Madam Chairman, there are many things that have a bearing on the mining industry in British Columbia. We cannot live as an island unto ourselves regardless of how we may think we want to. Unless we become a completely independent state or province — where we don't have to worry about the outside influences — then we're going to have to take into consideration the economics of the world, the economics of Canada, and the economics of the situation in which we live.

I'd like to quote to you, Madam Chairman, from a speech recently made by E.A. Schultz, vice-president of exploration of Placer Development. This was made, Madam Chairman, to a meeting of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines on March 23, not very long ago: "British Columbia produces no mineral substance, whether oil, gas, coal, metallic or non-metallic, which is so unique to this province that our production controls the price of that substance." Madam Chairman, what this man means is that we are not able to control the price of a particular mineral in British Columbia, because we don't control the market.

Our economic health depends upon our ability to market our products in competition with other sources of supply in Canada and internationally.

This, Madam Chairman, is something that the Minister of Mines is going to have to take into consideration when he makes the decisions in his department. It goes on to give one very short example which I would like to relate to the House, Madam Chairman. "Take copper, for example. Canada is more than self-sufficient in copper without any coming from British Columbia." This is just our own Canada. "And despite the currently strong market for copper, and hence the high price, copper consumers must certainly view the future with confidence as they view the tremendous new copper discoveries around the western world and plans and progress being made for the development of these large reserves. These discoveries by 1976 can add about 1.5 million tons of copper metal per year, a 22 per cent increase over current world production."

When the Minister, Madam Chairman, says that he is going to tax copper as it comes out of the ground….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order. You are relating to a bill on the order paper. That is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: When the Minister says that he's substantially going to increase the revenue from the production of copper, he must take into consideration the world situation.

I think, Madam Chairman, that I have given some excellent reasons for encouraging exploration and development of our mineral industry and rate it second to none for innovativeness and efficiency. But why discourage the industry reserve resources for the future, create unemployment, reduce the standard of living and reserve British Columbia in all its untouched, pristine grandeur?

We simply cannot afford the loss of jobs, Madam Chairman, substantially lowered standard of living and lack of opportunity for an ever-increasing number of people in British Columbia.

These are the problems that face the Minister and the problems that he is going to have to solve, Madam Chairman.

Let's take a quick look at where discretionary powers, confiscatory taxes and failure of government to honour their laws and obligations could lead. Examples are legion, but here are a few. And I'd like to relate, Madam Chairman, for just a few moments, some of the history of the mining industry in British Columbia and elsewhere. And what will happen, Madam Chairman, in British Columbia because of the existing attitudes of the Minister of Mines will be the same thing that has happened in other place in the world.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Here we go around the world again.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going around the world. I'm just going to give you a few examples, Madam Chairman.

From the days of Spanish exploitation beginning several centuries ago, Mexico was a major producer of metals. Mexico isn't that far away from here. It is a country blessed with rich metal deposits of all kinds, Madam Chairman. Gold and silver were of prime importance in earlier centuries, with base metals becoming more important in the last few decades.

Madam Chairman, since the early part of this century, Mexico….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. Order, please. I do not see the relevancy of the mining industry in Mexico to the mining industry in British Columbia or to the Minister's estimates.

[ Page 1966 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Madam Chairman, I think it is very relevant because if you would just let me have said a few more sentences I would have shown you how it was relevant.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I rule it out of order. If you wish to appeal my ruling, you may.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll attack it a different way, Madam Chairman. I will say that due to the policies of the Mexican government, which are similar to the policies this Government is adopting now, the mining industry in Mexico went down the drain, resulting…well, you know what's happened, Madam Chairman, to the economy of Mexico today. Mexico has a vast resource of minerals.

The same thing, Madam Chairman, is happening in Australia today. Take a look, Mr. Minister; take a look at what is happening to the mining industry in Australia today because of some of the policies of the government in Australia, the new government in Australia.

Take a look, Madam Chairman, at what has happened to the mining industry in Chile. It used to be a very prosperous industry in Chile. This is all very relevant, Madam Chairman. Very, very relevant.

Because of the decline of the copper industry in Chile, the world price of copper has soared, and I suppose, Madam Chairman, since we don't have any personal interest in Chile, any investment, we should thank the Chilean government.

But this, Madam Chairman, is very relevant. Very, very relevant, because that is what is going to happen in British Columbia.

President Allende has a truly socialist government. The end result is low mineral production, more poverty, lower wages, Chile is experiencing a shortfall of some 200 tons of copper per annum over previously scheduled production, an important factor in preventing a more catastrophic drop in recent copper prices and accelerating the current sharp price increase. Well, if you'd like me to relate to you, Mr. Member, take a look at Zambia. Take a look at Zambia. Nationalization, Madam Chairman, of the copper industry in Zambia. Result, a shortfall production as compared to that plan. Copper prices in other parts of the world are again deeply appreciative of this contribution towards the supply of higher prices.

And that's what's happening. And that's what I said at the beginning of my talk, Madam Chairman. That's what I said.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, sometimes it takes the Minister a long time to get the point, and sometimes he never gets the point. But what I'm saying is that — oh, you can throw all the insults at me you want; that doesn't bother me. I'm here to represent the people and to talk about the good of the people in this great province. That's what we have to be concerned about. That's what we have to be concerned about, Madam Chairman.

Is the same thing going to happen in British Columbia? This is the question we have to consider.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, since I've been in the chair you've asked that question twice. You are being repetitious, and it's a violation of rule 43.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Madam Chairman, if no one ever asked a question in this Legislature more than twice I would suggest that he wouldn't be too far out of order.

Great Britain once had an important hard mineral production. Geologically it could so continue, but punitive taxes, almost insoluble problems relating to mineral rights and the like — and this is all very relevant, Madam Chairman, mineral rights and the like — reduced that production to zero. And what's happening now, Madam Chairman? An attempt is now underway to create incentives for the encouragement of mining. So they've gone the complete circle. They had a good mining industry, Madam Chairman, and by punitive taxes and regulations and rules they killed it, and now they've gone the full circle and they're back — in Great Britain they are trying to give incentive to encourage mining industry.

Do we have to go through that valley in British Columbia. Do we have to go to the bottom, Madam Chairman?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Madam Chairman, if the Member knew it, he's a devil of a lot closer to the bottom than I am.

"Peru, Ecuador, Argentina and many others are all tending to follow Chile's lead but are having second thoughts after perceiving the disaster in Chile." Maybe British Columbia, along with Peru, Ecuador and Argentina, should take a look at what has happened in other countries that have brought in these regulations, Madam Chairman.

I have mentioned Australia. It's entering into the worst depression in mining that the country has ever been forced to endure. Madam Chairman, why? Because of the very thing that I have been talking about tonight.

Our mining industry in Canada has been based on incentives. Important incentives were offered to the

[ Page 1967 ]

mining industry beginning in 1936, Madam Chairman. A three-year income tax-free period, good clear title to mineral claims, firm title to surface rights, required operating facilities and freedom to export products are only some of these incentives. In 1936 Canadian gross mineral production was $362 million. In 1972 it was $6.4 billion.

In British Columbia, in 1936 the gross mineral production was about $54 million. In 1962 that figure rose from $54 million to $229.4 million. In 1972 the total reached $631.4 million. Madam Chairman, that is a fantastic growth….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairman, would you ask whoever said it, to withdraw that comment, please?

MS. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. I heard no remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: You didn't hear it. Well, we'll let it pass. I'll just have to judge where the remark came from, I guess.

The point I'm making here, Madam Chairman, is that this fantastic growth in the mining industry in British Columbia is due to the incentives offered. We have this industry growing, Madam Chairman. It grew, based on certain rules and principles. Now we're going to change all of that, Madam Chairman. This is what concerns me, and it concerns me a great deal.

To have an expanding mineral industry, you must have the incentive to hunt for minerals. Take away the incentive, Madam Chairman, and there are no new prospectors, no new finds. How are we going to know what our source of supply is for future generations, if nobody is going out there looking? Well, Madam Chairman, the Minister can hire prospectors if he wants. I don't think you'll find them coming forward and doing it on their own.

Hello, Mr. Minister of Rehabilitation and Human Resources. How are you? It's good to see you back in the House after such a long absence.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been doing something productive.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, at least he hasn't been out there killing the mining industry. I guess if he doesn't do anything at all, it would be considered productive by your standards.

"Capital investment and high-risk exploration dollars inevitably flow to the areas which, considering risk, offer the greatest reward. The British Columbia government must make sure that its treatment of the mining industry permits the industry to compete on favourable terms with the rest of the world. Only under these conditions will we have a healthy mining industry able to strongly support the standard of living and provide the employment to which all British Columbians are entitled."

Madam Chairman, we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. We do not have the capital to live as an island unto ourselves. We need the risk capital; we need the reward system; and more than ever, Madam Chairman, we need the free enterprise system.

The Minister of Mines administers approximately 12 to 14 statutes. It's a tremendous responsibility. When he says that the Mineral Act….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that? Well, I wish I had the same confidence in the Minister that he has in himself. Unfortunately, I have some reservations, Mr. Chairman.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that by a statement he recently made, the Minister would lead us to believe…. He referred to the Mineral Act. He said it hadn't been changed for 80 years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? What is your point of order?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I'd like to know if we're here to consider mining estimates or the disposal of garbage. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed. I would remind the Hon. Member that it is required that he not read speeches but rather that he speak extemporaneously, using notes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm using notes. Would you like to see them? Copious notes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I trust you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, it's necessary to use notes so that you don't become misquoted when you get into an area where you're using figures. You don't want to be misquoted. It's necessary. But for the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) to stand in this Legislature and make a stupid statement like he just made….

[ Page 1968 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think he should be asked to withdraw it. That was no point of order. Do you allow that sort of thing to go on, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I stated that there was no point of order, and I asked the Hon. Member to proceed. That's all that's required.

MR. PHILLIPS: The point that I'm making is this, Mr. Chairman. There have been numerous revisions made to the Mineral Act. When I sat in this House in 1969 there was practically a complete revision of the Mines Regulation Act, which at that time brought in the regulation that before a mine starts into production….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but I would remind you that we cannot discuss legislation, either past, present or future. You must confine your remarks to the estimates before us.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't even discuss existing legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The rule is that you do not discuss legislation, either presently standing on the statute or that may be proposed. You discuss only the estimates concerned with the administrative responsibilities of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I would point out that you may allude to a bill if it's relevant to your comments about the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman — maybe I'm not making it in the proper fashion, but what I want to say is that there are regulations existing today, which were brought in not too many years ago, compelling a person who is going to start a mine to show the Minister of Mines how he is going to leave the area of mining after he finishes his mine. This was brought in not long ago. and there have been numerous changes.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister of Mines will answer these questions. Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Mines going to nationalize the mining industry in British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: What plans does the Minister…? Yes, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe that that would be under the administrative competence of this department, so I would ask you to proceed to the next question.

MR. PHILLIPS: What plans does the Minister of Mines have to see that a similar amount of exploration goes on for minerals this summer as went on last summer? Will the Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman, tell me how he is going to get the mining industry in British Columbia moving again? And even he, Mr. Chairman, will have to recognize that the mining industry has ground to a halt in this province. Exploration for new minerals has stopped, ceased.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Same budget this year as last year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Same budget? What's the budget got to do with the industry?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed with his questioning?

MR. PHILLIPS: If the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) could see what is happening, he'd be concerned. He'd be very concerned. Yes, I see what's happening, and if there is not a reversal in the trend which is taking place in the mining industry, it's going to be disastrous to the economy of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is there a point of order?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I'd simply like to move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one minute, please, if I may, before the motion. I earlier wanted the opportunity, when the Hon. Member was unfortunately not here, to advise the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), he having made a complaint on the ground of privilege in respect to a statement in Wednesday's Vancouver Province, p. 43, by columnist Lorne Parton, that the particular article of which he

[ Page 1969 ]

complains, according to May, 18th edition at pp. 159-60, must, on the basis of his complaint, be read to the House.

He must then characterize the nature of the article to the House and it is for the House, if it wishes to, to consider what step it proposes, if any, to take. He may, if he proposes to do so, make an appropriate motion, which can be debated, and whatever action he proposes for this House to take in regard to his complaint on the article.

The first step that must be taken, according to May, is for the article that he complains of to be read out to the House. Now he has brought it to the attention of the House; he is now in the House; I would ask the Clerk, pursuant to May, to read out the article and then see what the Hon. Member proposes to do. Would the Clerk please read out the offending article?

CLERK ASSISTANT: The Vancouver Province, Wednesday, March 28, 1973:

"How much has Don Phillips' mouth cost us? Well, this filibuster combined with Pat Jordan's filibuster against Bill 42 works out to about $20,000 so far.

"Attorney-General Alex Macdonald says the average cost of running the Legislature in debate is $1,000 an hour, and the two Socreds have spent 20 hours on talk, talk, talk."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The proper procedure to be followed is for either the House Leader, if he chooses to do so, to make a motion with respect to the article, characterizing it if it is scandalous or malicious or libellous, and censuring the author of it; or for the Member to do that by motion to this House. He must do so now, or the matter will be dropped and we will proceed with the business of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: We don't have the facilities here at the moment, Mr. Speaker, to write out a motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, all Members are supposed to follow the rules. I already indicated this at 8 o'clock.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry that I wasn't here at 8 o'clock, but I lay down for a rest, Mr. Speaker, and I lay down and slept too long. I am sorry, but we have been working fairly long hours in this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sorry. Under the rules, I can't delay the matter. I have brought it to your attention; I brought it to the attention of the House at 8 o'clock. You must make your motion now, or the matter is dropped. According to May, the matter has to be dropped.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Speaker ask the Attorney General to advise the House how this information was derived at? This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, if it is a serious matter the Member should, according to May, make the motion now, or the matter must be dropped.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if the Speaker would grant me time to…

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid there's no time.

MR. PHILLIPS: …to go and get the form from the office to make the motion on, I would be quite prepared to make it. Has somebody got a form here? All right, thank you very much. May I sit down and make…?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly. I think the House can wait a minute. I think the House can recess for a minute or pause for a minute.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, as the noted columnist has pointed out, the Member works at a leisurely pace, and I think we should give him the opportunity. (Laughter).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I hardly think it is fair that we should press on with this matter at this time, in view of the fact that the Attorney General is not in the House. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney General is not complaining — it is the Hon. Member who is complaining.

MR. CHABOT: It might have to do with the fact that the Attorney General has released certain confidential information to a newspaper columnist….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, would you have the fat boy be quiet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. It does no good to compound the offence.

MR. CHABOT: Fat boy! Fat boy!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Fat boy.

[ Page 1970 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, we consider this matter a very serious matter. The Speaker, I am sure, would want to be fair to all Members of this House. With this in mind and in light of the fact that the wording of a motion is a very correcting matter in its demand, and a very serious matter, and the Speaker just brought in his decision, I am sure he would look favourably upon letting us recess our decision and bring it in at 2 o'clock tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member and her point of order that in May, p. 160 in the eighteenth edition, there is the following statement:

"It would be irregular for a Member to deliver in a paper to be read at the table without any intention of pursuing the complaint. When the document or the particular passages complained of have been read, and if the Speaker has ruled that the complaint should have priority over the orders for the day." — and I did so indicate before the orders of the day at 8 o'clock — "it is the duty of the Member who has brought the matter under the notice of the House, if the Leader of the House does not make a motion relating to it, to follow up his complaint with a motion."

Now that means then. I may add:

"Where he is not prepared to do so, the House has proceeded to the orders of the day."

Now there is no wait and there's no delay. The Member who raises a point of this kind, of this gravity, affecting a statement in the Press must be able to proceed immediately, or he shouldn't start it.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it is the nature and the gravity of the situation that makes us wish to proceed and to proceed correctly. The Speaker himself took a recess in order to consult with his advisers, and we only ask the same privilege. I would then ask, if the Speaker wishes us to continue…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …to recess the House in order that we may consult with the Clerks of the House in order to see that this motion is not ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The matter is for the Member and not for the one who has risen on this point.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not a lawyer. I'm just….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SPEAKER: If it may assist the Hon. Member, on p. 160 it says:

"It is customary…for the Member who makes the complaint to make a motion expressive of the character which, in his opinion, belongs to the publication he has brought before the House."

That's in the eighteenth edition, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, apparently there is some delay. (Laughter). Can I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to p. 161?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think I see the point that you are referring to. It can be circulated to the Members if there is anything about the article that requires consideration by the Members, and can be raised the following day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right, Mr. Speaker, and ' there is some reference there to having it circulated with the Votes and Proceedings. Now if it is the wish of the House to delay this matter until tomorrow, I am sure that perhaps….

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, on that point, I think May is really referring to the timing of the debate, not the timing of the resolution or, indeed, the production of the alleged offending article. That must be done instantly, otherwise it would be highly irregular.

I think you will find on reading p. 161 that the following-day suggestion refers to the debate, so that all Members of the House could have an opportunity to read the article, to read the resolution and we enjoy it over our supper and breakfast and, who knows.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member must make his complaint, the article is read by the Clerk, and a motion is made. The matter of the debate on the motion, as the Provincial Secretary has indicated, can be deferred to the following day.

HON. MR. HALL: I think we should know what we're doing.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I make a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. McGEER: Well, the point of order, Mr.

[ Page 1971 ]

Speaker, is that there is little doubt that the article itself was highly offensive. What needs study is whether the Attorney General's calculations were correct or not. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): That's the thing about those Liberals; they don't wake up until after 11:00 o'clock. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on, Leo.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I just wonder, during this pause that is supposed to be refreshing, if we could perhaps carry on with the Minister's estimates. We might finish them. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Fortunately, we are out of committee. I think in fairness to the Hon. Member, he should be given every opportunity.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Attorney General, by his statements relative to monetary value on debate, has cast a shadow on this assembly and impaired the rights and privileges of the Members, and has therefore committed a breach of parliamentary privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: That is your motion. The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is an accusation against a Minister of the Crown. It requires a substantive motion with full notice.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct. The purpose of this motion is where a newspaper article is complained about which happened. The Hon. Member stood up and complained about something printed in the Press. There is no evidence submitted by him that it was something that emanated from the Attorney General directly, but that it emanated from the Press.

The point of his complaint was that that should be taken up by the House as a breach of privilege. I indicated the method, the article was read out and the motion that should have been entertained was to censure whoever published such a statement, if you wish to do so.

Put your motion to the House and if the House agreed with you, the matter could be debated and whatever disposal made of the motion the House chose to do. You have translated that into an attack upon the Hon. Attorney General, who is not the publisher of the newspaper. Consequently, what you are asking would have to be by a substantive motion placed on the notice paper in the circumstances.

MR. CHABOT: …you suggested a little earlier, Mr. Speaker. It is really unfair that this matter should be debated at this time in view of the fact that the Attorney General is not in his place. The information that appeared in the newspaper is information — no doubt from the article that was read here — which was given to the newspaper by the Attorney General.

MR. SPEAKER: There again, I think that would be a most unfair attack upon a Member who is not present — to suggest that he gave some information to a newspaper — without any evidence. That is a matter for committee of privileges. If the Hon. Member is really seeking to attack the Attorney General on a motion — I am not talking of the Member here who has just risen but if the Member who has produced this motion is attempting to attack the Attorney General, then that is a matter for committee.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As you have ruled that a satisfactory motion has not come forward from the Member, I now move the House adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? Are you on your feet for some reason? What is your point of order?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that if the motion is not acceptable, as I understand your ruling this evening, is it permissible to give notice of motion and put it on the order paper in the proper manner?

MR. SPEAKER: That is a privilege of every Member.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion before the House that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:17 p.m.