[ Page 1973 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Routine proceedings

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

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

Committee of supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1976

Mr. Smith — 1976

Hon. Mr. Nimsiek — 1977

Mr. Richter — 1977

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1980

Mr. Gardom — 1980

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1981

Mr. Chabot — 1981

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1983

Mr. McGeer — 1983

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1984

Mr. Phillips — 1984

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1984

Mr. Phillips — 1985

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1985

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1986

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1986

Hon. Mr. Nimsick I — 1987

Mr. Smith. Motion that the committee rise to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — 1987

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1987

Division on the motion — 1987

Mr. Richter — 1988

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1988

Mr. Fraser — 1988

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1988

Mr. Chabot — 1988

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1989

Motion to adjourn Mr. Smith — 1989

Mr. McGeer — 1990

Mr. Speaker — 1990

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1990

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1990

Routine proceedings

An Act to Provide for the Guarantee by the Province of Loans for Feeding Cattle for Market (Bill No. 3). Second reading.

Mr. Schroeder — 1991

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1991

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

Mr. Smith — 1991

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1992

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

Mr. Phillips — 1992

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1992

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

Mr. Phillips — 1992

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1993

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

Mr. Fraser — 1993

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1993

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1993

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

Mrs. Jordan — 1994

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1994

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1994

Mrs. Jordan — 1994

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1994

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1995

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 9). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 1995

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1995

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1995

Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant Act (Bill No. 10). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 1996

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1996

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1996

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

Mr. Morrison — 1996

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1997

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

Mr. Morrison — 1997

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 1997

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

Mr. Chabot — 1997

Hon. Mr. King — 2000

Point of order Procedure for adjournment on matter of public importance. Mr. Smith — 2000

Mr. Speaker — 2001

Mr. Williams — 2001

Mr. Speaker — 2001

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I have a short reminder to the House of some very apt words — in view of certain things that happened last night, which unfortunately, I did not check. In Beauchesne, a very apt expression which should be, I think, memorized by all of us.

"A personal attack by one Member upon another is an offence against the House in the person of one of its Members, which on account of the respect due from every Member to the character and dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker in order that any irregularity into which a Member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate may be rectified — that any expressions which may be disrespectful to the House or painful to the feelings of individual Members may be explained, apologized for or retracted."

Last night I was rather busy, as you know, trying to consider a very important point that had been raised, in the course of which insults were flung across the floor of a personal nature — particularly the insult that has been heard a number of times in this House about "fat boy."

I think that sort of personal invective should be, on all occasions, avoided. It is an affront to the House and the dignity of the House, and I expect every Member who falls into particular lapse will cease to do it in future. I think it is only fair to say that it should cease henceforward.

If it happens again, certainly greater steps than a mere apology seem to be justified.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT RESPECTING

RIGHTS OF NON SMOKERS

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 166 intituled An Act respecting Rights of Non Smokers.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 166 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL BILL

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 167 intituled The Environmental Bill of Rights Act 1973.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 167 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT

OF MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

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

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

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

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I haven't had a chance to say a word. I thought I should get up today — I didn't get an opportunity last night to reply to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I was waiting for a question. I spent half the night after I went home trying to figure out the whole issue. I came up with the answer that I am sure the Hon. Member for South Peace was trying to get a message across to me. He worked on it pretty hard. He gave you my history — which I am pretty proud of over the years — that I have lived in the Province since I was born in that little town of Rossland where so many good people came from. I felt quite good that he would go to that extent of telling what I did. Then he went into the gloom and doom of a lot of things. He went to the United States, he went over to England, he went to Australia, he went to Zambia, he went all over the world telling me about certain things.

He tried to tell me he was speaking on behalf of the mining industry. He had this book — I think it is put out by Price Waterhouse or somebody and he was giving some figures — Price Waterhouse. He was giving all these figures about the mining industry and what a wonderful thing they are.

He didn't tell you all the picture. He told you about 14,000 employees in 1971 — employees of the

[ Page 1974 ]

mining industry. He didn't tell that in the year before there were 15,000 and that we actually were losing ground while we are using up more of our natural resources all the time. So he said that he had compassion for the unemployed, but I think he had more compassion for the mining industry.

He was telling me that it was cold hard facts about the United States having enough energy for 500 years. I don't know what all the people are running around about now and telling us that…I was talking to one of the American engineers the other day and they are running out of a lot of things. They claim they will have to come to Canada for them.

He said we should be less wasteful and more efficient. I agree with that point — we should be less wasteful and more efficient. That is exactly what I have been trying to do.

He talked about inflation. He talked about nuclear power … well, he talked about Henry J. Kaiser and Edgar Kaiser, whom we met the other day in the office, whom I am quite certain are quite pleased that the previous government was kicked out so that they could get going, because they're doing better since they got out.

He was telling us that we were going to lose our shirts and he talked about Chile. The only prosperity that Chile had prior to what they've got now was prosperity for foreigners, not prosperity for the Chileans. It was for that reason that a couple of weeks ago they voted a higher vote than ever for the present administration.

He went all through the valley of doom and gloom and I thought he gave me a pretty good buildup. He was like a reluctant bride — he wanted to say something and he didn't say it. I think he was asking me to run for the leadership of the Social Credit Party. (Laughter).

In answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, my answer is "No."

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to take a few minutes of time in this debate this morning in the Minister's estimates discussing the petroleum industry. I don't intend, Mr. Chairman, to infringe upon the rules of the House or to test your authority in the chair by reflecting on any bills that are before the House. We'll discuss them at a proper time, whenever the bills are called.

I do want to speak about the petroleum industry, particularly because it means so much to northeastern British Columbia as a means of providing employment for a large segment of our population up there. I'd like to preface a few of the questions that I have for the Minister with a few remarks generally about the petroleum business.

Because of the fact that the industry so far has done most of their work in north-eastern British Columbia, I think it's a type of industry that few people in the metropolitan areas of the province know about. They have a limited knowledge of what goes on really in the exploration end of the petroleum industry.

Of course, exploration is the lifeblood of the industry. It's the continuous search for new fields and new producing areas and drilling out the areas that have previously been discovered that keeps the income flowing into the pockets of hundreds and hundreds of families that live in north-eastern British Columbia.

Now if you take a look at the exploration business and you were to ask a drilling superintendent how many people are employed in the process of drilling one well — hopefully it'll be a well; it's just a drilling process until they either abandon it or they strike pay dirt — he would tell you that the average crew is around 16 people. So that doesn't sound like a large number of jobs.

But the industry has done a study on both the direct and the indirect benefits to employment. They calculate that between 70 and 80 jobs are directly affected by every drilling rig that goes on location, because there's not only the 16 people who are employed in the process of drilling but there's all these service companies that cater to the drilling process. There's the surveyors, the well consultants, the lease construction, the rat-hole operators, the trucking companies, the water haulers, the fuel dealers, the casing companies, the cementing companies, the camp caterers, the welders, the coring company, the logging company, the testing company, the bit suppliers, the mud suppliers. These collectively represent jobs for between 70 and 80 people.

Now that process goes on regardless of whether they hit a producing gas or oil well or not. It costs the company the same amount of money to drill a dry hole as it does a successful one. So I believe the Minister must take into consideration the impact that the exploration industry has on employment.

In doing so, he must take into consideration the facts of what will happen if the exploration industry decides that in terms of political climate, British Columbia is not a good place to invest your dollars. This is the first phase of the petroleum industry and it is the phase that employs most of the people. After all, once a well is drilled — and let's say for illustration they hit a successful gas flow — and once it's tied into the pipeline that invariably runs through these major fields, there's no further work except for service rigs coming back in, perhaps once every year or two to clean the well out and a maintenance man who services probably 50 locations. He is just checking to see that everything is operating properly, because it's all automatic, practically, from that point

[ Page 1975 ]

on.

Fortunately in north-eastern B.C. most of the gas and oil that they have found is under pressure. So they don't have to tie in pumps of the type that you see in Alberta. Once that well is tied in, there's no further employment.

Where we do get the continuous employment in the industry is through the continuous exploration for new wells and new fields.

I was interested to see the other day that a company has hit a new well in an area described as the Cotterel Lake area, 56 miles north of Fort Nelson. The company indicates that this is one of the largest natural gas wells to be discovered in British Columbia.

Now the companies involved are Canadian Reserve Oil and Gas Limited and Quintana Exploration. So they've hit a well there. But in the same article they talk about another discovery well and it happens to be 48 miles south of Fort Nelson. So the same company, drilling in two different areas, has been successful on two different locations, roughly 100 miles apart.

There's a vast territory in north-eastern British Columbia. Very little of it has really been more than just tentatively explored. Most of the major fields, by any calculation you want to use, have not been drilled out or even the extent of the fields ascertained completely. So the last thing in the world, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that we want to see, is the exploration industry deciding, because of the economic situation and the stand of the government in the Province of British Columbia, that we are the last place in Canada they want to operate. That's why I think it's important that we consider and that the Minister give some indication to this House what the Government has in mind with respect to increased royalties on natural gas production.

We know that there's been an increase negotiated between West Coast and El Paso for an increase in price of natural gas, presumably on the basis of not only the gas that's being supplied but the increased export of natural gas. If the majority of that negotiated increase is reflected in increased royalties on natural gas, the exploration companies and those people who would explore in British Columbia will find that there's no net increase to themselves at all. In other words, all they do is negotiate an increase in price which in turn is taken from them in increased revenue to the Crown.

There has to be a balance, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, between what we can reasonably extract — and I think "extract" is a good word for it in the petroleum business — from that business without causing them the type of hardship that will result in their leaving the Province of British Columbia.

You know, they are dependent upon investment capital and someone in the financial institution to provide them with multi-millions of dollars so they can go in and explore for either gas or oil. The people who finance them must see somewhere down the line a return.

The story of the petroleum industry so far in British Columbia is that for every dollar invested — and at the end of 1972 in exploring for natural gas and petroleum products the industry has expended $1,427 million — so far they have received back between 50 and 55 cents, as I understand it, in actual revenue. So, they're a long way from returning to themselves even the original capital that they invested, let alone any interest on the capital.

All I'm saying is that if they are going to explore they have to go to financial institutions. The financial institutions that back them must see a return somewhere down the line. Not every drilling company is successful. As a matter of fact many of them drill wells and never do hit a producer. So, the money that they have expended is lost as far as that area is concerned and they have to recapture it through producing wells in some other part of either this province or Alberta or wherever they happen to operate.

So I would hope that the Minister is taking into consideration, and seriously considering the fact, that we have an exceedingly viable industry right now. It is a profitable industry to the government, because it returns to you a tremendous amount of revenue for the amount that we have to invest. Next to the liquor industry we make more net profit out of the petroleum industry than any other source of revenue to the Crown.

The Minister will agree that the number of people employed in the petroleum department is not large. Yet the revenue is coming in at the rate of between $30 million and $40 million per year. The greatest part of that revenue is generated through bonus bids, as the Minister knows. So after the statutory fees are paid for the right to go in and drill or explore, the bonus bids is where we get the greatest amount of revenue. I would hope that the Minister would take this into consideration.

What I am saying is this: if you're not careful you could very easily kill the goose that's laying the golden egg. You can increase royalties on natural gas and pick up a few million dollars — $10 million, $15 million, $20 million a year in increased revenue. But you could very easily lose more than that if the exploration end of the industry suddenly decides to write British Columbia off. So the net gain to the Crown would be nothing.

Furthermore, somewhere down the line in a few years we would find that all the known reserves had been tapped, that the production of those wells would drop off as it naturally will after they've been in production for a limited number of years. Some of

[ Page 1976 ]

them have a lifespan of 10 years, some of them maybe 20, 25 years, depending upon the production rate. We could very easily kill the exploration end of the industry.

If that dries up, sooner or later the whole industry dries up in British Columbia.

So my question is this, Mr. Minister: what is your position on increased royalties on natural gas production? Have you calculated what it would cost the province in terms of revenue and jobs if the exploration industry suddenly terminated its activities in British Columbia? Have you a means of determining in the petroleum industry what will be classified as a new discovery area? Have you in terms of revenue to the Crown calculated the loss that we could be faced with not in the immediate years but over, say, a 10-year period if the industry, because of the imposts against it, decides to leave the Province and do no more exploration? I'd like the Minister's comment on those matters.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It seems to me that most of these questions are "if" questions. Like the former Premier, I don't think that I can answer "iffy" questions. But I will say this: there's no indication at the present time that there's any diminishing interest; and actually there is an increasing interest into the exploration of gas.

Now as far as gas goes, we have meetings going on with the federal energy board and there are meetings going on all over this country about gas. We haven't gone into any question as to any further royalties or the returns that the province will be getting from gas.

As you know, there are arbitration cases going on. It wouldn't be fair to interfere in those arbitration cases until those things are settled. We are going to review the gas situation during the summer.

I appreciate your concern. I certainly will take into consideration what you have said here when we are considering those things, because that's the reason that you people are here — to give some input into what might happen. I appreciate your concern.

I will say this: your ideas will be taken into consideration, but right now I couldn't give you any indication exactly as to what will happen in a year or two years from now. Right now really there is very much interest in the whole field.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would make two comments. One is that the matter of increased royalties is a borderline matter under the …

MR. SMITH: That's on oil production, Mr. Chairman. I was speaking about the exploration for natural gas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not quite the point I was going to make. The point is partly a matter for the Minister of Finance's department. It can be alluded to under this section.

Also, it is a hypothetical thing. I think that it would be more moot to ask questions concerning the present administration of the department included in the estimates.

MR. SMITH: Surely, Mr. Chairman, it can't be hypothetical when we have heard and we see articles in newspapers and repeated statements by the Minister and the Premier indicating that they are considering increasing the amount of royalty charged on the production of natural gas. So if this is directly under the responsibility of the Minister, he would be recommending, I presume, to the Minister of Finance a suitable rate of increase.

While the Finance Minister may be responsible for the collection of that revenue, the responsibility of setting the rate of increase comes directly under this Minister's administration and responsibility. So I can't see in any way that I'm offending against the rules of the House by asking the Minister's position on matters of increased royalty. Where does he stand on it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that if you were asking a hypothetical question, the answer to it would be legislation. Therefore it would be trespassing into matters which would be involving legislation. We should really be considering matters of administration of the department as of this time.

MR. SMITH: Certainly this is under the Minister's responsibility and it's part of the policy. As a new Minister he should be giving us some indication of government policy, if it's not a secret.

I'll just continue on what I was, going to say before we had this little chat.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to answer almost any question. The Hon. Member is correct that any advice as to royalties would come from the department and from myself. So I don't mind pursuing it a little bit and giving him information because I appreciate what he's doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only other point that I would like to make at this time is that because of things that have been said, because of statements that are being made, both in the department which you represent and by the Minister of

[ Page 1977 ]

Finance, the industry today is very apprehensive about their future in British Columbia because they are faced with the same increased costs as every other type of business.

They've had to increase salaries. It costs them more now to rent equipment. Everything that they do in the field of exploration costs them more today than it did five years ago, two years ago, one year ago.

If an increase in royalty by the Crown is anticipated at this time, and that increase is equal to any increase in the wellhead price of natural gas, there are other parts of Canada where they can go — where the salary scale is much less, where the cost of trying to explore is much less than in British Columbia. And that is where they're going to go because the leases are available in areas that have just as much potential as north-eastern British Columbia.

So this is all I'm saying to the Minister: that in the process of setting policy you have made the industry very apprehensive about their continuing future in north-eastern British Columbia. If as a result of that, the industry collectively decides to leave northeastern British Columbia, we'll be 20 years getting them back. So I would hope that the Minister will look at these things in the proper perspective when he's talking about increased royalties and increased imposts against the production of natural gas in this province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advice given and I will take it into close consideration.

MR. SMITH: Just one further supplemental question, to the Minister. That is the matter of the servicing of Vancouver Island with natural gas.

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

MR. SMITH: I know it's a detailed and involved proposition, but I believe, personally, that all should have the benefit of natural gas before we get too far involved in discussing further exports to the United States.

I would hope that the Minister is looking into this matter of supply to the island and that as quickly as it is possible there will be a major policy statement and an announcement from the department that Vancouver Island will be serviced with natural gas.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, this doesn't come under my supervision as far as deciding whether gas does come over to the island or not. Any announcement that would be made would be made, very likely, by the Hydro department that's in charge of this. But again, these things are being considered all the time.

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

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This seems to be a peculiar position for me this year - as the present Minister's predecessor. I want to say that probably the most enjoyable years of my life, in the field of administration, were those years that I spent with the fantastic, efficient staff when I was Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources in the province. There are so many fine, fine people in that department — dedicated and certainly qualified in their particular field.

This is obviously so because British Columbia, as a province, has such a potentiality in the field of minerals and petroleum resources that this has attracted many, many competent people who have left other areas for the simple reason of the challenge more than anything else. They have taken their places and they have done a fine job. I must pay this tribute to the staff.

This Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, of course, being a revenue department is a very, very important department not only to government but to the Province of British Columbia. It brings in the second highest revenue only exceeded by the forestry industry.

I think if you would really look at it from a point of view as to its revenue-bearing — in light of the fact that a great number of dollars have to be paid out for the protection of forests and reforestation and so on — probably mines, on a percentage basis, produce more revenue actually than forestry in the long run. I know that this is a debatable point in relation to taxation and so on. But, when you take into consideration the number of people employed compared to the revenues produced, not only just to government but to the general society through spin off of various ancillary services and so on, it is a very important portfolio. It is one that needs a lot of attention. Certainly as far as policies are concerned, these policies have a great bearing on the success or failure of that particular department and that particular resource industry.

The industry's strength has been very good over the past number of years. There is some concern currently in relation to the mining industry. It's a very competitive field in which the Minister, at all times, must have his ear to the ground in relation to the competitive factor from other countries which are able to produce at much less cost because their standard of living isn't the same as our standard of living in British Columbia — the fact that their workers get paid less, the fact that they have subsidization and one thing or another from govern

[ Page 1978 ]

ment.

As Government policy emanates from the recommendations of the Minister and his department to the Executive Council, I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to the interests of the industry and its expansion and so on, as we go along, because it's the kind of industry that requires a time lapse between the time of discovery, development and into the production field.

I think that the Minister is well aware of this. He's been in the mining industry many, many years and connected with probably one of the largest mining companies in the world — Cominco. This is not a commercial, but he has worked with them. He was virtually born in their midst. This gives him a background through which he should be able to come up with long range policies of a very substantial nature. I know that his staff will certainly help him.

Now, in relation to policies: the carrying out of development requires a very great degree of high risk capital, and its availability either to the mineral industry or the petroleum-natural gas industry. This capital is only attracted by the encouragement that is available — the potentiality of the success of risk capital.

Failures in risk capital, of course, make your production cost higher if it's in the terms of drilling for natural gas or petroleum. A few dusters make a successful well less remunerative so the industry has to, either in the minerals or in the petroleum resources, depend on the success of a particular exploration project. Therefore it's imperative that the Minister recommend policies encouraging this field of exploration and development, if for nothing more than compiling a resource inventory in the interests of knowing our resource potentiality.

As Minister of Mines, myself, we were doing a study on this. We were expanding progressively in getting more and more field crews out during those times of the year when they are available, particularly in relation to young geologists from universities — your undergraduates — or even those in post-graduate who took charge of some of these crews. I think this was a worthwhile programme. I hope that the Minister will continue this programme.

Certainly the compilation of a good library of statistics and data is of paramount importance to development now or in the future. This, I think, is probably one area in which we were falling down during the depression years and so on, when we weren't able to get the interest because of low metal prices and so on — a number of matters which retarded that development.

Producing mines at that time went along on a day-to-day basis sort of. We had many of them in my particular area, which the Minister knows well, such as Copper Mountain, the Kelowna exploration and Hedley — you name it, we had it. In his own area, in the East Kootenays, in Rossland-Trail and in the Slocan area there are many, many properties which may in due course, if we have the statistical data, encourage development and further employment.

Because of this high-risk capital being involved in this particular industry, I question the wisdom of taxpayers' money being employed for this purpose. It's my contention that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and his department should confine their main functions to that of administration, giving good guidance in the development and reclamation areas of concern to his department, which are of concern to the public today, let's say, more than anything else. The public are demanding today that more careful development take place, with more encouragement from the mining industry to take care of those things which might be objectionable by way of waste and things of this nature.

The field of secondary use of mine wastes, I think, is an area in which a lot of concern could be put in research programmes and things of this nature, I would recommend to the Minister that possibly a pilot project could go forward. We have one near my constituency, and that is the tailings from the Copper Mountain mining — there is a large tailings pile there. Undoubtedly there are certain amounts of mineral still in those tailings.

Now, this doesn't only apply to copper. Take the area of Hedley where — and the Minister knows that area well — there were gold mines. Certainly the recovery methods that were used in earlier days may not have been as perfect as those we have today. There may be possible opportunities for employment by re-doing those tailings.

To date I know that the methods that they have brought about may not always be as remunerative as they could be. Maybe they're not even viable. But I think maybe through some research area — through the B.C. Research Council or something of this nature — we may be able to get a better use of the residue from our earlier mining projects in which we could recover greater amounts of minerals that are lying in these waste piles. This I would recommend to the Minister, particularly because of the price of gold today. Certainly when it was around $35 or $36, maybe you couldn't consider it. But when it's getting up around $90 or over, then it may be considered and may be a profitable enterprise at which it could be used.

I know in your own particular case, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a great deal of mining in that area and there will be a lot more. The better the methods of recovery that we employ — and this I think is of concern to the Minister and his department — the more return we get from that resource and the less waste we have. I think this is an important area.

The policies of the former government created a

[ Page 1979 ]

thrust in the industry. We have had many remarks made by various people in that the hottest place for mining potentiality was in British Columbia, and I think this is true. We in British Columbia were able to encourage people to go into very low grade copper properties. Only because of the fact that they had an anomaly there by way of molybdenum or some other value — gold, silver and so on, in which a revenue is produced which in some cases probably paid for the mining — were they able to work these low-grade properties by way of volume. It was only by volume — the 10,000 ton or 5,000 ton mill was pretty much of an out. You had to get into something in the order of 25,000 or up to 40,000 tons a day. We have a number of these. But it was only possible because of the development of technology and the methods of recovery that these have created a high rate of employment.

Now, I know the Minister is concerned because of the figures dropping in some respects as to the number of bodies, because of mechanization, automation and so on. This has happened, but the mining industry is not the only one. This has happened on the farms. This has happened in many ways — at the gas pump where you have self-service and all these areas. I know it's of concern to him.

But at the same time the revenue that is being produced — the ancillary services and so on — are all very important and this is an industry that I think British Columbia must guard jealously, from the point of view of development, from the point of view of saving from waste and because of the other social benefits that are derived from it, such as the proper reclamation programmes which will benefit people when they finally complete their mining operations and turn it back into something acceptable.

I know you're not going to be able to restore a mountain. You're not going to be able to fill a great hole in the ground where they've extracted coal or through open-pit mining. But you can develop it in such a way that you can form lakes, golf courses, any number of things. This, of course, would be at the expense of the industry as it is now, and this is the way I think it should be. If they're going to recover a resource, get the benefits of the development of that to society, then they owe a debt in restoring or developing a suitable area after they have completed it.

Now, this policy was introduced two or three years ago under a section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act and also mines regulations and I think it's a good policy. It's got to be expanded on as you progressively go along. I don't think there's any question on this. Experience will teach us.

This thrust that was created is still being felt today. I think that the Minister, having under his administrative jurisdiction in this particular field the recommendations to the Executive Council in new policies, should direct them to the encouragement of continuing exploration programmes in the interests of employment and also particularly the resource inventory purpose. I think this is a very important area.

It's been on my mind for some time, and I was hoping to have a chance to meet with the Minister. In relation to gold which we spoke of before, we used at one time to have a very, very active placer mining industry, both in gold and also in platinum. Particularly now the interest is being shown in gold. At one time, many years ago, at Yale, we had a programme by which unemployed young people — and this was back in the days of unemployment (not that we haven't got unemployment now), but let's say the "dirty 30s" — were taught the technique of exploring for and the recovery of the gold resource. The prices were very low then, but they're very good now.

Maybe this is an area in which we could interest a great number of our young students who find themselves idle during the summer months. Maybe this is an area in which we could encourage the recovery of gold, particularly at this time. This may be a stopgap measure because maybe gold will drop down again. I don't know. This is a stopgap measure in which we might find some employment. I would encourage the Minister to look into this or have his department check it out and see what the potential is.

Through the Cariboo, through the Fraser, through the area around Princeton, and so on, there is still gold. People go out on Sundays and they placer a little bit with a pan. It's a nice pastime. It's a real thrill to discover even a small nugget the size of the head of a pin in your gold pan. Not that there's a great deal of value in one little nugget, but it is a recreational encouragement and it could get to be something in which we could use a lot of people.

In this particular field, I know we've run into some problems between departments as to what happens to the gravel tailings, whether they affect fish and so on. There were one or two placer operations that were closed down during my tenure of office, not because the Department of Mines was concerned but because the Department of Fisheries was concerned. This was up in the area of Likely, B.C., which the Minister's Deputy knows of. He probably knows of it himself.

Anyway, this family operation was closed down. I don't really think that the harm coming from that little placer operation, which gave good employment and a remuneration back to these people, really was doing that much harm — not even as much harm as you would get from the flood waters in the spring freshets.

I was concerned about it. It was the contention of the federal fisheries in this that this was doing harm. But it was such a small operation that really there wasn't much more dirty water — which would affect fish — going out of there than you would find in the Fraser 12 months of the year, and that's a great fish

[ Page 1980 ]

river. I think this is an area that really should be studied by the Minister and his Government.

At some future time, I hope to be able to sit down with the Minister and talk about a few of these things for my enlightenment, even if he's not able to do anything with the suggestions I've made this morning. In this province we have a resource; a potentiality of a resource; the opportunity for development; the opportunity of cataloguing, by way of data in a library, what we have, where we have it and its potential viability in relation to current markets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) has said. I know he must have gained a great deal of experience while he was Minister of Mines. First, I'd like to say that I would be glad to sit down with him at any time and discuss mining problems in British Columbia. From the information and the knowledge that men like that have, other people can get that knowledge and maybe make good use of it. I'm sure that the former Minister of Mines really means what he's saying and I appreciate it very much.

We're going to give greater service throughout the province. In the first place, he spoke about an inventory. That is ongoing. We hope to have complete inventory with a data system, so that if anyone stakes a claim, he could immediately get the complete information. This is one of the things we expect to have — complete information on that claim. If he gives it up and somebody else stakes the claim later on, that person doesn't have to go through the same expense and disruption. This is the hope of the mines department.

At the present time, they put out this Geology, Exploration and Mining in British Columbia, which is very costly to the department. They sell it for $5 but you don't compile and print that for anything like $5. This is a service to the industry, I would say.

In regard to recovery, we're treading very closely on legislation, of course. One of the places I'm very interested in is the maximum recovery from a mine when it gets into operation. I think the slag piles and tailing ponds are very interesting. I think we probably should have a geologist researching to find out what is left in these places. If we could recover more from those slag piles and tailing ponds, it would give greater use for our resource.

There's one thing about this resource: you can't conserve it. The only way you can conserve this resource is not to dig it out of the ground. You've got to manage it very, very wisely and plan the use of it if you want to have that resource for years to come.

The use of it is the principle thing in regard to conservation.

With regard to placer mining: placer mining, to me, should be encouraged as a profitable recreation for people. When you go into the hydraulic placer mining, then you do a lot of damage. It's usually on creek beds and it destroys a lot of our environment. This is what you've got to be very careful about. I notice that in California they don't allow placer leases at all any more because it destroyed so much of the area. Sometimes, where cities get water from these streams too, placer leases create a problem.

I think I've answered just about all of your questions. Reclamation was one other point you brought up, which we are following very closely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just one very short question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. I'd like to talk about discrimination in the mining industry, discrimination which has existed against one group of B.C. citizens for 30 years. That's the B.C. Indians. This came into being in 1943. There's a preposterous law on the books …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that there is a bill on the order paper numbered 105, The Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act.

MR. GARDOM: I'm drawing the Hon. Minister's attention to the existing law, not to the proposed law, Mr. Chairman.

Under the existing law, Mr. Minister, minerals revenues from Indian reserves belong 50 per cent to the B.C. government …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't believe that the Hon. Member can do this. I would rule that he cannot refer to this particular Act or to the existing Act, inasmuch as the Act on the order paper is an Act to repeal the statute.

MR. GARDOM: I'm talking about the law as it is today and I'm entitled to do that, Mr. Chairman. I'm entitled to talk about the law in the province today. I'm not advocating its repeal. I want to ask the Hon. Minister a few questions about the existing law and whether or not he thinks it's fair or whether he thinks it's discriminatory …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated. Would you state your point of order, please?

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

[ Page 1981 ]

was refused the right to discuss an existing mining law last night by you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like a ruling on it. Either it is or it isn't allowed in these chambers.

AN HON. MEMBER: You talked for three hours.

MR. PHILLIPS: That doesn't matter. That's not the point. If I talk for 10 hours, that's not the point. The point is that I was not allowed to talk on existing legislation. If it's not good for the Socreds, it's not good for the Liberals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated. The point of order is well taken. I would rule that the Hon. Member cannot discuss the legislation, period, whether it's on the statute books now or proposed.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about the laws of the Province of B.C. in every debate we've had. In every debate that comes up in the Province of British Columbia, we talk about the existing laws and the views and necessities for change. I can talk about the law in the mineral field today if I wish to. Heavens, if you can't talk about the laws as they now stand, there would never be any debate in this chamber whatsoever.

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

MR. GARDOM: I'm trying to get to the question. I'm no more than 30 seconds away from it. Perhaps with a little bit of tolerance from the Chairman and a little bit of silence from …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment, please, and I'll just complete my point of order. The Hon. Member may discuss the statute inasmuch as it relates to the administration of the department. But I'm speaking about the merits of the law and the …

MR. GARDOM: Now insofar as the administration of this statute relates to the Hon. Minister, it relates to him to this extent: it relates to him to the point that 50 per cent of the revenues from any mineral resources from an Indian reserve go to the Province of British Columbia. The other 50 per cent go to the federal government.

I'm going to ask the Hon. Minister whether or not he thinks this is legal stealing; whether or not he thinks it's preposterous; whether or not he thinks it's discriminatory; whether or not he thinks it's grossly unfair; whether or not he thinks it's a confiscatory measure; whether or not he knows that this was entered into without Indian consultation and without Indian consent; I ask whether or not he's going to support that fine measure that has been introduced by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). namely repeal the fool thing.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The question is whether or not we're treading on very dangerous ground here discussing something as near to the bill as what you're talking about. When the bill comes up, I'll be well prepared to answer your question.

Right now, as far as the native Indians go I'll say that there is one point that we are trying to develop. That is the development of prospecting schools so that they will be encouraging native Indians to become prospectors for minerals in the Province of British Columbia.

As far as the reserves go, that's a question that will have to be discussed under the bill. I'm not going to transgress on the privilege of the House to tell him my opinion of a bill that is placed on the order paper by his colleague. If I expressed my opinion now, then you might change the bill, and I don't want you to change the bill, so I would just let that go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was just drawing the attention of the Hon. Member, and I would point out that this was his own bill and therefore I will read section 1: "The Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act, being Chapter 187 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, is repealed."

Now, I think your point is made. However, I would rule that any further debate on this particular matter would be anticipating a debate which will be coming when this bill is called and therefore I would ask the Member to move on to another subject.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'm delighted to do that. I'd like to move on to the subject of private Members' rights because this is the closest we've ever come to debating a private Member's bill this session.

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

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing a very important department here, a department that's lost 50 per cent of its ability to spend and promote mining in British Columbia.

I just wanted to speak very briefly a little further on the question of placer mining because there have been strong feelings expressed on this very matter by

[ Page 1982 ]

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

"This is just another discouragement to people who are willing to get out of the city and do something constructive in the resource field. My reaction is why put a freeze on the licence system that has worked very well for 40 years to my knowledge. In fact, placer gold-mining was what started this province many years ago. There is no justification for the government's suspension. There have been no serious abuses that I know of. I think it is very unfair."

I understand that he did not pretend that a great number of people were involved. He estimated a couple of hundred or a large amount of gold production. He said the first notice he received of the change was when he was telephoned by several prospectors who complained of it — one had sent in his money several months ago.

Now I am wondering whether there has been a moratorium established. I am wondering whether there is consideration to be given to the removal of the moratorium and if so, under what circumstances?

I think that if there has been any damage, or if there is a possibility of ecological or environmental damage by the hydraulic system of extracting placer gold, then your department has a responsibility to impose certain guidelines and controls to ensure that if there is any disruption that the areas should be restored.

But, basically, I think placer mining is a gold panning system and I'd like the Minister to tell me if they are giving consideration to the lifting of the moratorium and under what conditions they would lift the moratorium.

Next, I read an interesting article regarding the expenditures for your department, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, in the Cranbrook Courier. It's in the Cranbrook Courier of January 10, 1973. It says:

"This is the time of the year when people are wishing their relatives and friends a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The origin of Christmas lay in the desire to pay tribute to Christ, the Prince of Peace. The New Year's wish no doubt originated in the happy expectancy that comes from being able to make a new start. These are wonderful traditions where they still have the intended meaning. Unhappily we find that along with many other good customs, they have lost their original intent and are increasingly exploited for commercial purposes. Instead of conveying the true spirit of the season, greeting cards are sent as a matter of form. This is the reason why I have refrained from sending greeting cards from my office. My wife and I have sent a personal message to our immediate relatives and most friends and we wish well to every human being in the world. I just don't want to use the money of the taxpayers of this province to send them all a card."

Mr. Minister, that is a very commendable statement on your part. No doubt you are saving taxpayers dollars by not sending out Christmas cards with the emblem of the province and the expense of your office. But then in turn, I consider it a bit of an attack against your colleagues who do send Christmas cards.

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

MR. CHABOT: That's a lot to do because we're talking about the money that you're not spending for the Christmas cards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is talking about something that is not really directly relevant to the estimates before us.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I would think that if he sends Christmas cards it comes out of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources' vote. Yes, and I'll discuss next year. I'm wondering whether the Minister is going to continue this policy of not sending cards at the public expense. Is he going to continue to attack his colleagues who do send Christmas cards and do, in his opinion, waste the taxpayers dollars …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: The question is pertinent — Christmas cards cost money. They come right out of this vote, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You were doing fine until you started attacking his fellow Ministers. I would ask you to keep your questions relevant to the estimates.

MR. CHABOT: How else can you interpret that article? Christmas cards — he says he's not going to spend money on Christmas cards out of the money that's allocated …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT:…to his office for the administration of Mines and Petroleum Resources. That's what I'm talking about right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out to the Hon. Member that we would ask you to keep your remarks confined to the responsibilities of the present department and not refer to other Ministers or other departments.

[ Page 1983 ]

MR. CHABOT:…Mr. Chairman, to the funds that are allocated to the administration of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I wish that Minister would cooperate and refrain from attacking his colleagues. And I'm wondering whether the Minister will comment on whether he is going to continue sending Christmas cards…(Laughter).

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, on that last point: I'm proud of my decision in that case and maybe others will emulate me as time goes on. But there is no intention of any attack because this was a decision of my own and I didn't have to go and ask somebody else to make my decision for me.

Interjection on an Hon. Member.

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

In regards to placer mining: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say to the Hon. Member that we did put a freeze on it and we had hoped to review the Act — if the Act isn't completely reviewed for this session, undoubtedly the moratorium would be lifted to the point where it would extend their rights to carry on and placer mine.

I've had some complaints; it's an area where you have got to be careful, especially where big operations get in. I think we should encourage the recreational value of placer mining because I think it is very interesting. There's a lot of people of even my own age who after they're pensioned off like to go out and do a little placer mining, and it may be profitable. So I think that it should be encouraged for recreational purposes more than anything else because as far as big operations go, you can do a lot of damage and get very little out of it. You know what happened in Wild Horse Creek and over at Rock Creek. It's a regular mess after these hydraulics get through with it.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, the Minister certainly tore right into his responsibilities — making a crisp decision on Christmas cards. (Laughter).

I'd like to know whether he's going to continue to develop in the portfolio he now has.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we've missed the Minister badly over on this side of the House, because he made wonderful Opposition speeches and in a sense we've lost his tongue this session. I had to restrain myself yesterday from getting up and speaking on behalf of the Minister to his colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, because for the first time in my memory, we haven't had a speech about the problems of Black Angus cattle wandering around the highways in the east Kootenay.

But, the Minister has taken on a bigger task than fencing in the Black Angus cattle, because he's got to manage, now, our second largest industry in British Columbia.

Many of us, Mr. Chairman, have been deeply disturbed by the policies enunciated by the Department of Mines. One of the things that has to be considered it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, is the overall level of mining activity that we wish to have in British Columbia. The basis of the questions that I'm going to put to the Minister is, what level of activity are we aiming at?

We do know, Mr. Chairman, that it's quite possible to close down the mining industry in countries that are rich in minerals. Government policies in Mexico, for example, have resulted in a virtual disappearance of the mining industry from that country. Similarly, other South American countries — Chile is an excellent example.

Many African countries have had a virtual disappearance of the mining industry as a result of government policies which send miners and their risk capital to other areas of the world. We know that the world is not dependent at all on British Columbia's mineral supply. It would be an option open to the government to set forth taxation policies that would result in a virtual disappearance of the mining industry in British Columbia.

We also know that if there were no taxes at all on mining and we developed a "come and get it" philosophy, mining of course would pick up in British Columbia. But even at that we would not become the world's supplier of minerals, because so much depends on the grade of the ore and the cost of getting it out. So what the Minister is really involved in, Mr. Chairman, is a worldwide poker game in which there's a certain amount of demand for minerals, there is a certain amount of development and exploration capital available, and it's merely going to move where the opportunities at any given point in time are the greatest.

We return, Mr. Chairman, to the basic question which is: how much of the action — and we're talking now in world terms — does British Columbia wish to have? How much development capital do we want to have in this province? How much exploration capital? How many people do we wish to employ in the mining industry. Mr. Chairman, if we settled those questions as overall government policy, then all you'd have to do is to adjust the competitive taxation in British Columbia to achieve that level.

You say we're going to aim for $100 million a year in exploration; that we're going to aim for a gross mineral production of $700 million or $800 million or whatever it is; that we want to have so many

[ Page 1984 ]

thousand people employed in the mining industry? Having set those targets you then make the taxation reach that level. You get from the world pool what you want in order to satisfy the development needs of the province.

Mr. Chairman, if we move with any other assumption and say we think that the royalty on coal should be $5 a ton, or we think all minerals in the ground should be taxed at 25 cents or $1 an acre, or we think that the mining tax should be x many dollars, then the consequence of that is that, without realizing what we're doing, we're going to set the level of mining below a desirable point. Or perhaps we might establish it above a desirable point where there was more capital coming in than the province could reasonably handle; that we would be going off to Italy or Chile or Mexico or someplace to recruit miners to come to British Columbia. Then the Government decides that they've done something wrong and changes the taxation policies, and all the people are suddenly on welfare.

Mr. Chairman, my question is, simply this: does the Minister agree with these premises? If he does, what are his targets? What does he think is an appropriate amount to be spent in exploration in British Columbia? How many people does he think should be employed in the mines? What should be our gross mineral production? And having answered those questions, can he tell us how his taxation policies dovetail with these targets?

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, listening to that talk from the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey I imagine that he's going to support my legislation that I've got in. I am sure of that.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He didn't talk on it, really. He was far enough away that he indicated that he would support it.

I realize the problem that we've got. When you speak of what level of activity this ongoing inventory that we're taking … when that is completed, we might be able to do something in planning closer — in realization of what we're going to do. Maybe the long-term view that you've got is good, that you could plan these things, if we were on an absolute planned economy. But of course I don't expect that you really believed in a planned economy. You believe in a system that we've had previously like when we had the three-year tax-free plan where you get it out as quickly as you can and make as much as we can. This is what happens sometimes.

We must not forget that the depletion of our minerals, year by year…if we're going to depend on that alone for employment, it takes more tonnage every year to give one man a job. Unless you use the mining industry and the resource industry as a base to fan out to the secondary industries and other things so that you can get as many jobs as possible, then you're not going to accomplish anything because you'd be losing ground every year. Sometimes it might be better if it were left there and maybe somebody at a future date would have a better sense of planning than we've got. This is what I expect to do in the mineral department.

But I take your advice kindly, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Chairman, because I think you gave some very good advice there.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of questions I'd like to ask the Minister of Mines. One is that if the industry is going to remain as a prosperous industry in British Columbia — and technology is changing — would the Minister consider getting together with his colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)?

Two of three remaining vocational schools in the province are in the north, one in Terrace and one in Dawson Creek. You could take some of the courses out of BCIT and put in these vocational schools up out in the area where they are closer to mines. You could have petroleum and gas technology and you could have another course on mining technology. If you're going to, as you say, train the native Indians for prospectors, are you going to hire those native Indians under the department or are they going to be sent out as free enterprisers?

This is very pertinent because, if you're going to train and hire them yourself, what about the prospectors that are presently out there? What's going to happen to them? If you're going to train these prospectors, where are you going to put the courses? I know there are courses now by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, et cetera, by the mining organization. Are you going to set up a course to train these native Indians yourself and are you going to hire them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Member, I have discussed this question both with the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) and the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) with regard to giving the native Indians encouragement to take up this prospectors' course. I realize up until this time that the chamber has carried

[ Page 1985 ]

on a prospectors' school and I think they've done quite a good service to the province in that regard. But I don't think that this is enough.

When you speak of hiring the native Indian — he is a citizen the same as anybody else. If we're going to hire somebody and they were qualified we'd certainly hire them just as quickly as we would hire anybody else.

As far as training them goes, I think we fell down in the past in not giving them more opportunity to train and go out prospecting, because this is their way of life. They like to be out in the fields and they could maybe contribute a lot to the province if they were given a greater opportunity.

As far as the industry goes, the industry is very prosperous right now. Last night you talked about it going downhill. I notice that Endako has taken on 74 more men, that the Churchill mines are going to open up in the old area again, I understand. That is an indication that the industry is prosperous. There is no indication otherwise.

I think you will find that with the new Government in they'll have a new look and a new life.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll rephrase my question: are you or is the Department of Mines going to hire prospectors, whether they be native Indians retrained or whether they be present prospectors? Is the Department of Mines going to hire prospectors to go out and look for minerals for the department?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Right now the only provision we have in that regard is the grub-staking. If we had like they have in Manitoba and Quebec, for instance, a Crown exploration company which I would say probably does hire prospectors…but we have no provision for that at the present time. So when we're talking training prospects, the only provision we've got is the grub-staking and that's being used to a certain extent.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I have a supplemental request on the same subject, Mr. Chairman. The course that the Chamber of Mines put on for prospectors, was this not available to native Indians in prior days or why did they not take advantage of it? Were they discriminated against?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think this question is outside the confidence of the Minister to answer. I would ask you to direct the question to the Chamber of Mines.

MR. PHILLIPS: What you've stated then, Mr. Chairman,… what the Minister has stated then, is that he does intend to hire prospectors.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I stated that the only way, the only help we give to prospectors is through the grub-staking of them. We do grub-stake prospectors if they apply.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No. We've got no provision at the present time for hiring prospectors.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First question to the Minister: in the estimates that we have before us, there is an increase in staff of a number of people, about 15, I believe. When I read this, when I look at this and I try to examine what these people will be doing, it appears to me that a great number of them will probably be switching over to the energy commission. I wonder whether these are temporary — whether we can expect a substantial rearrangement of his department. The Minister nods his head, but perhaps he would just like to say a few words on that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We intend to have more geologists in the field. We're going to have geologists stationed around in certain areas of the province to assist the inspectors and the mining industry and the prospectors, so that we can give better service. We're going to have more inspectors in the field so that we can check on the development of mines and the exploration and what's really going on in the mining field. We are trying to bring the management of the resource into the department rather than leave it willy-nilly, almost without that legal control. The only way you can control it is with more inspectors than what you've had, and more geologists. I'm sure the previous Minister would bear me out in that. That's what we intend to do with these extra people.

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

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

[ Page 1986 ]

Chairman. It seems to be a little clearer now that the department is going to be entirely regulatory and forecasting and things of that nature will swing into this new energy commission, which of course, we can't talk about at length at this stage.

One or two other questions, Mr. Chairman. The various reports of mining company presidents and the president's report of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines all indicated considerable concern about levels of taxation. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. He's just told me that his department is regulatory and not up to doing the type of studies, I guess, that I may be asking him to give information on. But I would like to know from the Minister, if he can help us, what level of taxation is assumed to be a reasonable one for the industry.

The Canadian Petroleum Association chairman's report talks about the $95 million that the industry spent in B.C. last year directly in the areas of exploration and development. He goes on to talk about the negative effect of royalties so that it's a possibility that $46 million will be lost. He goes on later in his report, p. 3, and says that since 1955 …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. Well, then he'll be obviously in a position to answer the questions. I don't have the expertise that you do have available, Mr. Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm delighted to find that the Minister is all prepared and fired up to answer the questions I'm about to pose.

In view of the fact that 57 cents on every dollar was paid out to governments by way of taxes — as in this report it's indicated — which the Minister knows about, I wonder what he considers to be a level at which taxation should take place. I say this, bearing in mind the other comment of Mr. MacIntosh that the discovery rate is declining, and purely from his report, he believes that the primary reason is the level of taxation.

If the Minister and Government don't have a figure at which they wish to fix the rate of taxation, and if it does happen, as apparently from some of these statements made it is happening, that people withdraw their money activities from B.C. — I wonder what contingency plans the Minister might have to move in by way of Crown corporation as opposed to partial purchase of existing companies, such as the Sukunka deal. In other words, not like Sukunka, which is buying into an existing operation — a potential existing operation; it's not yet going at the moment — but what contingency plans he might have for Crown corporations.

I say this because in Manitoba, where things got mixed around fairly badly in the first few months of an NDP administration, the government went in by way of Crown corporation to take over the actual operations in terms of looking for minerals and carrying out the exploitation of mining properties because, simply, they ran into difficulties regarding the private sector withdrawing to other jurisdictions that were more favorable to them.

I'm not recommending this to the Minister, I'm simply asking him what contingency plans he may have. I gather from his reply to the earlier questioner that he's not hiring any prospectors at the moment. Perhaps my question would be: at what level of decline in the private sector will his department have to go into business simply to keep the industry functioning?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Victoria, I don't know why so many people get these if, if, if — if something happens, will something be done? The industry is prosperous. There's nothing to say that the industry isn't prosperous at the present time. When you're talking about "if" … and as far as talking about royalties or taxes…I already spoke on gas; I can't speak on oil; I can't speak on minerals; so I'm pretty well tied up. I've already answered one part of the question in regard to gas. It's an ongoing thing and we haven't done anything in regard to gas so far.

In regard to an exploration company: Manitoba did it; I don't think they did it because companies were going out. They did it as an added attraction, I think, so that the government would have an input into the exploration field as well. Such a Crown corporation, I'd say, would have merit. But it hasn't been given consideration by this department or by this Government up to the present time. We know about it and I must say it may have merit. To say that the industry is on the verge of a cliff and just going to go over the top of it — I think that this is rather ridiculous because it isn't that way at all.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nobody's suggesting the industry is on the verge of a cliff. I'm merely saying as industry people have said, and we have to take their word at least in terms of their own operations, that they are a pretty mobile industry and the financing, in particular, is very mobile. Once they get tied down in mines like Granduc, perhaps, they're stuck. Apart from that, they do have an opportunity to start up and close down which is something this province has experienced many times before, as the Minister probably knows even better than I do.

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

[ Page 1987 ]

we're discussing the estimates for the year 1973-74, and unfortunately we're talking about a lot of things in the future. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty, it's the same difficulty we all labour under and that is that we all have to try and do a bit of crystal ball-gazing — even though we know our crystal balls may not be all that good.

What I am trying to get after is taxation levels. General statements of policy regarding taxation levels which he regards as fair and equitable so that we can get a little more clear a crystal ball for the coming year as far as the mining industry is concerned than we have at present.

It's a question that I raise because, quoting here from an article in the Vancouver Sun on December 26, Boxing Day — that's no date for writing serious articles — referring to Manitoba's mining experience. It goes on to say, "The two governments" — that would be federal and provincial — "cannot raise mining taxes much higher since this would prompt the companies to reduce activity and move to other provinces or countries. So their only alternative is to set up Crown mining corporations, thus providing a second way for citizens to get their theoretically larger share of the wealth derived from provincial mineral sources."

The article goes on, it's some length. It talks about Mr. Green, the Minister in Manitoba and his attitude towards this type of activity. I appreciate the Minister's comment that only the most cursory examinations have been given to this in B.C.

But, can I ask him then, more specifically, whether or not he has people studying this with the object in mind of setting up a — similar corporation. In other words, can we expect such a corporation in August of this year? Can we expect it, perhaps, in November of this year? Perhaps even earlier than that. Does he have people now looking at the industry from the point of entry with a Crown corporation to take up the slack that probably the private companies will be leaving?

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

If, as you say, these companies are going to move out of the province, there is one thing we are sure about, and that is that they can't take the resource with them. If that time came, I am sure we have ample expertise in our department to handle the situation, but there is no consideration going on right now about anything in regard to a Crown corporation or exploration.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee rise in order that I might ask leave of the House, under standing order 35, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

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

MR. SMITH: Then, I move the committee rise and report progress in order that I might ask leave of the House, under standing order 35, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise and report progress. There is no debate. Would the Hon. Members be seated?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Highways on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if the Member would sit down, please. On a point of order. Standing order 35, on which the Member is moving this motion, states very clearly that the ordinary daily routine of business must be concluded. The ordinary, daily routine of business is not concluded — therefore the motion is out of order.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order is not well taken. Order, please. I rule that the motion is in order for the committee to rise and report progress — without any further words added. You have heard the motion …

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That is not a motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, yes, he said under standing order 35.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) to restate his motion.

MR. SMITH: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

[ Page 1988 ]

NAYS — 31

PAIRS

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 167 pass?

Vote 167 approved.

Vote 168: general administration, $2,417,684 — approved.

Vote 169: grants and subsidies, $36,500 — approved.

On vote 170: grant to the 30th Annual Provincial Mines Ministers' Conference, $6,000.

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

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what the $6,000 vote is for? It seems to be new in relation to the Mines Ministers' conference.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, you carried on a Mines Ministers' conference throughout Canada and this is our turn. So this is why it is there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 170 pass?

Vote 170 approved.

On vote 17 1: Grants in aid of mining roads and trails, $800,000.

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

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, will part of this amount of this $800,000, because of the increase, be used on the Omineca mining road?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, part of it will be used on the Omineca mining road.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, where are you going to build these roads? How many miles and roughly where in the province?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is $200,000 on applications from different areas in the province and on the Omineca Road the bridge will be $200,000. In 1972 there was a lot more money than that spent on the Omineca Road. Construction cost per mile on that is $7,100 and maintenance costs of $240 to $900. This is where the money will be spent, with the Omineca road with the bridge getting the big share of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 171 pass?

Vote 171 approved.

Vote 172: Grants in aid of roads, trails, petroleum and natural gas, $150,000 — approved.

On vote 173: Construction of Cassiar-Stewart Road, $750,000.

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

MR. RICHTER: Could the Minister tell us how close to being completed is the Cassiar Road as far as being able to take traffic?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It already is completed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The regular bus schedule.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A lot of this is for payment of work that was already done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 173 pass?

Vote 173 approved.

On vote 174: Grub-staking prospectors, $40,000.

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

MR. CHABOT: On grub-staking of prospectors: I

[ Page 1989 ]

hope during the next fiscal year you won't violate the Constitution Act by grub-staking some of your backbench MLAs to go out prospecting.

I do want to know if the Minister would tell us just how much was allocated during the last fiscal year for grub-staking of prospectors?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Under the same application …

MR. CHABOT: I know, but how much was actually spent?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In 1970, 27 prospectors received a total of $21,000. They worked in all parts of the province. Since the programme began in 1943, there have been two dozen significant discoveries in regard to these prospectors. I noticed in the report too, I think they were down last year compared to some years — that is, the number of applications.

MR. PHILLIPS: They sure will be down this year, I can tell you.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They won't need to grubstake this year, they will be out without a grub-stake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 174 pass?

Vote 174 approved.

Vote 175: Special mineral surveys, $100,000 — approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I move the House now consider public bills in the hands of private Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, are you rising on a point of order?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, yes. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance under standing order No. 35, subsection two.

The matter, Mr. Speaker, is this …

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me; on the point of order: the time, under standing order 35, that that is taken up is not at this time in the proceedings of the House. It could be taken up at the onset before the orders of the day, but not at this time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we are now at the motion to proceed to public bills. This should take precedence, should it not?

MR. SMITH: A matter of urgent public importance or a motion to discuss a matter of urgent public importance can come before the House at any time the House is in session. Therefore, until you have heard the matter of urgent public importance, I don't see how you can rule on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, I think if you look at standing order 35, subparagraph one, it states that it "must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order No. 25) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon."

MR. SMITH: Yes, and we immediately went into committee at the beginning of this session which is a committee of the House. We went through a procedure in committee, we are now back into session of the House at the only time that I would have an opportunity to raise this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon. Member that committee of supply is an order of the day and indeed it has precedence over all other business and that order of the day has been concluded and therefore this motion is out of order at this stage. It would have to take place prior to the other routine business of the House; according to standing order No. 35.

Next order of business.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the matter of committee of supply is a motion that we have before the House as a standing procedure of the House and we go through this without moving a formal motion each day. Supply is called and we go into committee of supply. It has precedence over every other type of business if it is called on any given day. Is that not right?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think you are incorrect in that. However, I will give some consideration to it. I am convinced from my advice that you are not correct.

[ Page 1990 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, may I point out that we have already had a departure from orders of the day. Therefore the Member is just as entitled as the House Leader to request a rearrangement. Really, since it is a matter of urgent public importance and since we had departed from orders of the day, may I remind you, Sir, that orders of the day require that we go to motions and adjourned debates on motions. While the Government may choose what of its own business it brings forward on Government days, if it is not choosing its own business then it must follow motions and adjourned debates on motions.

Since Government, at its option, left the orders of the day, then I think the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) really is quite in order with his request.

MR. SPEAKER: I must with respect, disagree. The ordinary routine business of the House is set out; we have a precedence motion dealing with committee of supply and that is part of the routine business of the day. It has been dealt with. Under standing order 35 the matters that would cause an adjournment or interruption of the normal routine of the House would have to be taken up before you enter upon the routine daily business of the House. You can't do it afterwards and this is what the Hon. Member is seeking to do.

At this stage the House Leader has the option of following the precedent business of the House to carry on — and this is Friday — with public bills and orders, or public bills in the hands of private Members. This happens to be the day that's appointed for that in particular after the precedent routine business has been disposed of, which was the matter of estimates under supply. Therefore, her motion is in order and I must rule that the Hon. Member's motion is not.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to standing order 27-1. It says: "All items standing on the orders of the day (except Government orders) shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper."

Mr. Speaker, our order paper very clearly says that motions and adjourned debates on motions are ahead of public bills in the hands of private Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, what is being asked for here is not a motion that's on the order paper but the complete suspension of business under standing order 35. It has nothing to do with the order paper at all.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you've already ruled the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) out. We've accepted that. What I am saying is that we're out of order to be discussing private Members' bills. We must be discussing motions and adjourned debate on motions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to again read the standing order he referred to. That precedent refers to the item taken up. In other words, we must take the public bills in the hands of private Members in the order in which they appear on the order paper, which is what we proposed to do. That was completely in order.

The choice as to whether it's adjourned debates on motions or public bills in the hands of private Members has nothing whatever to do with this particular question or that particular ruling or precedent. The precedence is the number under which they appear on the order paper. We propose to do that. It's completely in order. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to so rule so that we can get on with the private Members' business of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that that interpretation of standing order 27 has been made before, and that is that on private Members' day the items standing in the order paper in the names of private Members are taken up in the order shown on the order paper. That's what the meaning of precedence is in that regard.

On Government days the Government can select its motions or other business in the order that it chooses, as you see in the next paragraph, subsection 2 of standing order 27.

In view of that I must rule that your point of order is not well taken.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it says "Government orders." This isn't a Government order.

MR. SPEAKER: You're quite in error on that. Government orders refer to the Government days. Their orders can be selected as they choose. Today is private Members' day and the House Leader has asked that this House go on with the …

MR. McGEER: It's a Government day.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, it's Government day. Quite right.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, as you have now given your ruling, I would like to move that we proceed to the second reading of Bill No. 3.

[ Page 1991 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. There is a motion. Order, please. It's quite right. In all this flurry of one thing and another, there was a motion before the House that we proceed with public bills in the hands of private Members. I'd like to put the motion if I may.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

THE GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE

OF LOANS FOR FEEDING CATTLE FOR MARKET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Speaking to the principle of Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 3 is intended to do three things in the economy of British Columbia.

The purpose of the proposed bill in the first place is to provide guarantees by the province for loans for feeding cattle for market.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Point of order?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I wish to draw your attention to the fact that this bill calls for the province to guarantee certain sums of money. It is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, the Hon. Member has drawn attention on a point of order to the fact that this bill requires an expenditure of public funds and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private Member. I would point out that the first words uttered by the Hon. Member were that this required "guarantees by the province."

Of course, under standing order 65 and also under standing order 66, anything that is a charge upon the people or anything that requires the expenditure of public money or authorization by the Crown is out of order. Consequently, I must therefore rule that the bill is out of order in the hands of the Hon. Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: May I draw just one point to the learned Speaker's attention?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. SCHROEDER: The bill asks for a guarantee and not for an expenditure, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a difference. If the economy of our province is as healthy as it is purported to be by the present seated Government, then I don't believe that we can anticipate an expenditure. And so would you rule, Mr. Speaker, that it is not an expenditure. If it were to be called out of order, it would require that it would be an expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: May I recite from your section 5: "Moneys required for the purposes of this Act shall, in the absence of any special appropriation available therefore, be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund." That's mandatory, and therefore …

MR. SCHROEDER: In the event of loss.

MR. SPEAKER: It says, "moneys required for the purposes of this Act."

MR. SCHROEDER: Right. Therefore we have to anticipate a loss before we can anticipate an expenditure.

MR. SPEAKER: In other words, you're committing the Legislature and you're committing the Government to an expenditure that is mandatory in the event of a loss. From that standpoint you would have to have the authority of the Crown to make such a commitment that would be a charge upon the people. I therefore rule it out of order.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING MOBILE HOMES

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the principle of Bill No. 4, it is the same bill that I put before the House at the fall sitting of the Legislature. I believe that it is a bill that provides a better manner and a more equitable manner of dealing with the matters of taxation and mobile homes or assessing fees against them than the present position with the bill that we have on our statutes. It's the type of bill that has been asked for by the mobile homes associations in the Province of British Columbia. I have spoken to many people who live in mobile homes and they feel that this type of legislation is the thing that would be most helpful to them. They also wish to be treated in the same manner as all other homeowners in the province, and that is what this bill would do.

Any mobile home located in a home park would be treated as any other home located anywhere in the province. Any mobile home located on an individual lot would be treated as any other home is treated in the province. We would have assessments levied

[ Page 1992 ]

against them, taxation payable, and they should also then be entitled to a homeowner grant.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes. I was listening to the Member carefully. When the Member himself says that this seeks to levy a tax against people in the province, then I must, Mr. Speaker, draw to your attention that that's out of order in the hands of a private Member — to seek to give advice to the Crown on the levying of taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: The objection is well-founded in that it does, in section 3, say there's a mandatory provision that the mobile homeowner shall be assessed and taxes in the name of the owner of the mobile home shall be imposed. This of course violates standing order 67.

In addition, it also deals with mobile homes "improvements for the purpose of real property taxation and assessment." In other words, a private Member is seeking to impose a tax without the authority of the Crown, by message first to this House. I must therefore rule the bill out of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. SMITH: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But there has been a request from the Government side of the House on many occasions for suggestions about legislation. I pass on to the Government the suggestion that this type of legislation would be a great improvement over what we have now.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in response I'd say that we're very pleased to receive messages from anybody about this kind of thing. We've noted that this Member is suggesting a tax against the people of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: We already have it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed to the next bill I want to make something clear. The reason these bills are always printed up in this jurisdiction and in this House is that it always gives the Government, if it wishes to do so, the opportunity to adopt any bill or measure that is printed in the Votes and Proceedings, even though it may be out of order at first glance. Nonetheless, it's printed up as we have always done in this House.

In other jurisdictions they do not permit them on the order paper.

The Hon. House Leader.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION ACT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well, Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in this Legislature and speak on behalf of this great bill. It is proposed by this bill, Mr. Speaker, to set up the British Columbia Development Corporation, whose aim it would be to encourage secondary industry in the province, particularly of farm products and secondary manufacture.

Now that our primary industries in British Columbia are well advanced and our population exceeds 2 1/4 million people and is growing rapidly, Mr. Speaker, this bill is urgently needed to create employment. It is very timely. By this bill, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to supply low-interest loans at the rate of 1 per cent the first year, 2 per cent the second year, 3 per cent the third year, 4 per cent in the fourth year, up to 9 per cent in the ninth year.

In order to start the corporation, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed that the province purchase $50 million of the corporation's shares. Thereafter …

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Your point is well taken, Mr. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: I was listening carefully to the Member, as I have done for months and months and months. I noticed that he said that he intends to set up a capital fund of $50 million. I suggest that that, unfortunately, at this point in time due to our rules, is out of order and would ask that you so rule.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Provincial Secretary's point is probably well taken. Last time I got through the whole note and had a chance to say a few other words for the unemployed people of this province, but I didn't even get a chance to get through that. However, Mr. Speaker, I shall be the humble servant of the House and abide by your ruling. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I must rule that the bill is out of order. You should always put the money section at the very end.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The Hon. Member will have a chance right now to speak again. Second reading of Bill No. 7.

THE FARM CREDITORS

ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I stand in this Legislature this morning and plead for the poor

[ Page 1993 ]

farmers in my area who, due to crop failure after crop failure and a disastrous crop failure last year, are seeking financial help from the great coffers of this province.

By creating this farm creditors assistance, we would create a board that these farmers could come to when they're hard-pressed by their creditors. This board would give them assistance in dealing with court writs and repossessions when their creditors are going to take away their land, homes, farm machinery, et cetera.

By allowing this Act, Mr. Speaker, the Government would be doing a great thing not only for the present farms but for all the future farmers of this province who find themselves in dire financial straits, due not to their own inability to run their farms but to the general agricultural situation in Canada. Canada, as you know, is the one country in the world that really does not directly subsidize its agriculture, Mr. Speaker.

The only money that would be spent here would be the creation of this board, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would be a great thing. This Act is supported by farm organizations in the province and is greatly needed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: At this stage I must rule on whether it was in order when the motion was made. Section 7 requires that the expenditures incurred under this Act — setting up a board, arranging for the securing of debts and moneys owing under a guarantee and so on — shall be paid out of moneys appropriated for the purpose by the Legislature.

I see the Hon. Member carefully put the expenditure section at the last section of his bill, but it still won't help in the end. I must therefore rule it out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Aw, that's too bad.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I believe we omitted Bill 5. 1 notice the Member for Cariboo is here. Can we go back to Bill 5. He didn't have an opportunity to speak on that. Second reading of Bill No. 5.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, this bill would help the citizens of our province who live in the rural areas of a regional district. Now we have about half our citizens in municipalities. The other half are in rural areas. The ones in the municipal areas get a per capita grant from the provincial treasury.

The ones in the rural areas don't. They have assumed a lot of responsibilities. I think it's about time we helped them.

In the rural areas through the regional districts, they've assumed the obligations of zoning and planning. They are now getting up to a level in government where municipal councils are. I can't see why we can't bring them up to the same level on a grant basis as are the municipalities. I so move.

MR. SPEAKER: Here again, Hon. Members, section 3(a) proposed in the bill requires in each year that:

"… the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may prescribe the Minister of Finance shall…. pay from the consolidated revenue fund to each regional district as a grant the amount of thirty dollars for each person in the population…. ." This, therefore, is an expenditure of the type referred to.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would think that the Government would accept this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Apparently they haven't notified me by standing up in the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether she'll accept this bill to help the unorganized territories.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, we can't.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're going to accept it?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll continue then with my reasons for saying the bill is out of order.

HON. MR. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Surely the Member knows that even if we did accept it, being a money bill, it couldn't be …

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly, if the Government accepted it it would be all right, Mr. Speaker. Certainly the Member is in error …

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we won't argue that point now. The bill is clearly out of order. I must, under standing order 67, rule it out of order. Next bill.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 8.

TRAINING ON THE JOB ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

[ Page 1994 ]

Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is intituled Training on the Job Act. We desire to encourage a programme of training on — the job for all our citizens in British Columbia. We feel that such a programme would not only provide immediate training but also immediate employment. It will supplement the training done by the educational institutions in British Columbia and the vocational institutions.

In this bill, we propose that the Government pay one-half the wages of persons taking this training programme. Our only stipulation, Mr. Speaker, would be …

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. Excuse me, would the Hon. Member be seated? Your point of order.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I submit that section 2 of this bill is out of order, wherein it suggests that the Minister of Finance shall pay to the employer certain moneys. On that basis, I believe, it's out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to challenge that the bill is out of order. But it is usual in the House to let the mover of a bill like this — an Opposition Member — to at least outline briefly the reasons for the bill and then have it ruled out of order. Interruption halfway through is most unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order, I indicate that I do not rule a bill out of order until either the Member has finished his statement and I have a chance to make a decision I'm required to make when the motion is made for second reading, or, if a point of order is made interrupting the proceedings, then I must take account of that point of order. So it's not really in my hands.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I realize it's not in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but I appeal to the Government to allow this to happen.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would just like to say that it's the Government's position to give private Members an opportunity to present their bills, which was never given to us for a great number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, nonsense!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Secondly, when I came here seven years ago I sat without any opportunity until the last dying days of the session to have my bill heard, Mr. Speaker. We are giving the Opposition an opportunity to speak far before the dying hours of the session.

Also, we want to point out to the Hon. Member who is on her feet that we would like to hear you speak, as briefly as possible if you can.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that consideration. I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is very much aware that we have a group of people in British Columbia who, for one reason or another, are dropping out of school.

These are young people. They are not yet prepared, because of a lack of general overall knowledge or their age, to commit themselves to a long-term training programme or the expense of a training programme. Neither, Mr. Speaker, are they eligible for help. Canada Manpower desires that they be out of school for a year.

We feel that if there were an opportunity in British Columbia for young people to work in small enterprises — farming, small stores — they would have an opportunity not only to develop good work patterns but to see all aspects of a small business — loading, purchasing, accounting, business management, personnel management. They might well find themselves in a position where they would be directed in their future training through this experience. It would also give them an opportunity to try a variety of experiences without a lifetime commitment.

It would also provide an opportunity for many small businesses and farms in British Columbia to hire an extra person, which they might not otherwise be able to do. This way, it would help combat the rising unemployment that we have in Canada and British Columbia today, through an unnaturally heavy migration and other factors which are influencing the province's economy. It might well put a small business in a position where they could keep a permanent employee and expand for the future, thus strengthening their position and the economy.

In suggesting that the province contribute financial assistance to this programme we do so fully acknowledging that there should be responsibility on the part of the individual taking advantage of the programme to save for a year — I'm just finishing, Mr. Speaker — and also a responsibility on the part of the employer enjoying this programme to pay a fair wage and also to guarantee a position for a specified period of time. We hope that the government will look favourably on this Training on the Job Act, and I am sure the Minister of Education herself would be very sympathetic.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to comment on that. Yes, we are sympathetic to the principle behind the bill and I can assure you that I will be working very closely with the Minister of Labour on the whole matter of training programmes.

[ Page 1995 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that the Hon. Member is moving second reading on the bill. I must find, regretfully, that under paragraph 2, section (2) of the bill it requires payments by the Minister of Finance to the employer and consequently it offends against standing order 67. I must rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE

AUTHORITY ACT

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

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 9: An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority Act.

It is a commitment made by the previous government and the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs to authorize the regional districts, through the municipal financing authority, and other municipalities through the municipal financing authority, once the authority had been established on a firm footing, to utilize that authority for a greater coverage of expenditures in programmes they wished to undertake.

We hope the Government will see fit to do this. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am right, in moving second reading of this bill, to suggest that the Government has already adopted our proposal in one of their own bills.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this bill is out of order because the government backs these municipal financial authorities.

MRS. JORDAN: That is not so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They know nothing about it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I understand the situation, Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: The financing authority uses the assets of the municipalities in British Columbia as their backing, and it gives the municipalities and the regional districts an opportunity to enjoy a lower interest rate and also greater accessibility for the sales of their financing avenues, whether they're debentures or bonds. The province at this time does not guarantee the backing. It doesn't involve government expenditure of any type.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that, although the Province does not guarantee the municipal financing authority, however the purpose of the bill, as shown in section one, is to provide financing of all capital purposes by this authority for regional districts and to extend the amount of their indebtedness by the issue of debentures or other evidence of indebtedness and the lending of the proceeds from that raising of funds by the municipal authority to the regional districts on whose request financing is undertaken.

In view of standing order 67, this would still amount to increasing the impost upon the people by virtue of the fact that this Legislature would be widening the area in which another inferior body could impose a tax on people and increase the debt of the people. Therefore I must rule that, under 67, this should actually be taken by a message.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to make it very clear that this doesn't make any new indebtedness on people at all. The indebtedness is already there by the individual municipalities. This just assembles their debt and allows them to market it better. So there is no increase in any indebtedness on municipalities at all, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask you to reconsider your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I would with great respect point out to the Hon. Member, the Leader of the Opposition, that sections 2 and 3 eliminate the narrow confines of borrowing to the purposes of financing water, sewer, pollution control, or abatement facilities, and widen the extent of the powers of the authority to borrow money for other purposes, thereby undoubtedly increasing the incidence of taxation or burden of debt that may be imposed by the authority, and that without the assent of the Crown.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The authority doesn't put any debt or any taxes on people at all. It's the municipalities that put the taxes on, and they've got that authority now. There's no increased taxes or debts put on the people at all. It only allows the municipalities who have the power to raise money now, allows them to get together in a cooperative way to raise the money at a lower rate of interest without any government guarantee at all. I'm sure it is in order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I must say with great respect that the other feature that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not bearing in mind is that it spreads the incidence of liability over all the districts and all the municipal bodies of British Columbia, and by spreading it over all of them, it therefore could increase the total liability of each taxpayer in the

[ Page 1996 ]

province by extending and widening the power over all the bodies in British Columbia instead of just one.

And I must therefore, under standing order 67, rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 10.

CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL

HISTORIC SITE GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 10. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is the Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant Act. All Members have received a booklet, and I would hold it up and ask them to look at the centre diagram which shows a picture of Vancouver, Georgia Street, the corner of Burrard. One is as it is today and one is as it may be developed in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have shown this picture to a lot of people in British Columbia. Almost without exception, when one poses the question of which is the more interesting picture, they chose the one on page 14 which shows the medical-dental building, the Royal Bank of Canada on the far corner, the new modern complex behind it, and Christ Church Cathedral as it stands today.

I think the fact that this is a human response is very indicative of the need to examine very carefully the situation of our obligation as legislators to this issue.

I suggest that it is not our place as legislators to become involved in any way in the internal workings of the church or the internal projections of architects. It is our place as legislators to decide whether or not Christ Church, as it stands today, whether we think it ugly or whether we think it beautiful, has a legitimate place in the history of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, when one examines Vancouver, which is the heart of our province and has had a tremendous influence on our province, one recognizes that Christ Church building as it stands today has greatly influenced the development of that part of Vancouver and, in fact, our province.

Be it good or be it bad. When one examines, Mr. Speaker, the history of the church, one sees that it does not really lay claim to any major architectural stimulation in Canada or British Columbia, but one does see that people themselves who have greatly influenced the development of our province are part of the history of this church. .

Regardless of denomination, and regardless of any internal views, and Mr. Speaker …

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: I haven't finished.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I maintain that this is out of order. It says that the Minister of Finance may expend from consolidated revenue. It's still asking him, and I say it's out of order. I think we've given her long enough to talk on it. She's had an opportunity to express herself.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out that the point of order…well, as I said before, I'm in the hands of the House and if any Member of the House raises a point of order I have to comply with the point of order. And the point of order is that the bill is out of order by reason of the power given to spend money from consolidated revenue and, under standing order 67, that is true.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I notice that the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) is suggesting that we are not being too consistent here, but the point is we did say we were pleased to give you an opportunity to speak on your bill. In all fairness to the other bills on the paper and the other Members who wish to speak, I did ask if you could be brief. I think when the Hon. Member just spoke on the point of order that you'd had a considerable amount of time to speak on that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I won't debate whether I've had enough time. I think I can conclude this. I think this is vitally important, Mr. Speaker …

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated.

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I must rule the bill out of order since section one clearly offends against standing order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. Il.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE GIFT TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a government levying succession duties must also levy a gift tax for administrative and technical reasons. Otherwise the succession duty is negated. However, without a succession duty there is no necessity to levy a gift tax. Accordingly, as we have presented a

[ Page 1997 ]

bill to cancel succession duties, we now present a companion bill to cancel the gift tax. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: On this point, I have examined the bill. It interferes with Crown revenue and would thereby reduce Crown revenue. As it is in the hands of a private Member, under standing order 67, I must rule it out of order.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE

PROBATE FEE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Probate fees return very little revenue to the province. They might be considered as an adjunct to succession duties. Standing on their own, probate fees are of little more than nuisance value. Along with our bills to cancel succession duties and gift taxes, therefore, we present this bill to cancel probate fees. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Here again the question of interfering with Crown revenues is raised by the proposal in the bill. I must rule it out of order under standing order 67.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, in view of the need to encourage the assembling of capital by British Columbia in the province, we believe it is now necessary to review the taxation principle behind succession duties. While it is true that certain exemptions have been provided under the Act, it is now considered of the utmost importance to protect the individual's control over his home and farm and other possessions in the event of death.

In addition, employment must be created encouraging the accumulation of capital within the province. We therefore conclude that it is in the best interests of both the province and its citizens to abolish succession duties. Accordingly this bill is put forward to cancel provincial succession duties completely. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: As in the previous instance, I must rule the same way; under standing order 67 it interferes with Crown revenue.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Bill No. 15, An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act, better known as the "Christian conscience clause." It's a piece of legislation which has been accepted by more enlightened jurisdictions probably than British Columbia. The Province of Ontario has such a law in their labour Acts in that province, and more recently it has been accepted in the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Saskatchewan — two progressive, out-looking provincial jurisdictions.

I am glad to see that there is support from the backbench. They've indicated that the legislation which has been accepted in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan is the type of legislation that should be written into the law books of British Columbia. I am glad to see that I have that support today.

I think if we really believe in the principle of individual rights and freedoms, we'll endorse this piece of legislation that I'm presenting here today. It's not a matter of writing a Christian conscience clause into a collective agreement. You must realize that there are people out there who believe that there is a need for such a clause and for such legislation, because their Christian principles and beliefs tell them that they cannot belong to a particular union.

I'm not saying that those people are numerous. They're few and far between. But I think we should respect their rights. We hear from time to time the matter of respecting the rights of minority groups in British Columbia, and here is a real small minority group that is asking for protection of their rights. All they're asking is that, if they do have an objection to the contribution or participation in a union, they be able to appear before the Labour Relations Board and make their case on the basis of religious beliefs.

There are some that are opposed to joining a union, others that are opposed to contributing to a union. All we're asking is that the Labour Relations Board decide that those people of strong religious convictions be able to contribute the equal amount of their union dues to a charity that would be decided upon by the employer and the bargaining agent for the employee. If they're not able to arrive at a satisfactory decision as to where the money will be contributed, then the Labour Relations Board as a

[ Page 1998 ]

body will decide.

I don't think there's anything radical or far out in the request that I'm making today by presenting this legislation. We're not asking for every collective agreement to have this clause. All we're asking is for these people to have the right to appear before the Labour Relations Board to state their case and let the Labour Relations Board decide.

I just received a letter yesterday, in fact, on this. I think it's an interesting letter. It's from a gentleman in Victoria. He says:

"Thank you for your letter of February 8, 1973 regarding…. ."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, he wrote to me before and I replied to him.

" — — — the inclusion of the Christian conscience clause in the labour laws of our province. I meant to write sooner but an extended illness interfered. However, I'm writing now to tell you and your colleagues that I'm thankful for your support of this principle and that you are proposing to introduce a bill to this effect.

"I am greatly concerned that some clause be included in the collective agreement for B.C. civil servants. Your bill would be acceptable to myself and others that I know of. These union dues are not a form of taxation as some think. The taxes imposed by the various governments I do pay. But the union dues I cannot pay.

The principles, the goals, the methods used to obtain the goals and the association involved are all reasons I cannot contribute to its support. They are contrary to true Christian doctrine and practice and my way of life. Furthermore, the attempt to force one to become a member of any association or support it against his will must be illegal. Don't the various human right acts protect the individual from this type of thing?"

I've received probably, I would think — and I'm sure all MLAs receive a great cross-section of mail — I received probably close to 50 letters from concerned people, concerned civil servants, concerned Christians.

I have correspondence here from a concerned Christian. He received a letter from one of the MLAs in this House. The MLA writes to him:

"I am in receipt of your letter of September 25 to Premier Barrett regarding the payment of union dues. Many of my constituents are Sikhs, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews and members of other non Christian faiths. Yet none of them ask for special privileges such as you, a Christian, ask. They believe in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. 'Caesar' has always been interpreted as meaning the government and in this case the government, as with all other governments in Canada, requires that a union which is certified to represent the employees and the bargaining unit by a secret majority vote to such employees, must represent all employees in the bargaining unit, not just those who are union members.

"Some years ago this question was put to Mr. Justice Rand, who decided that, as all of the employees benefited from wages and working conditions negotiated by the union, then all of the employees must help shoulder the costs of maintaining the union. This became known as the 'Rand Formula,' the one under which you work.

"Your problem could be solved in two ways: one, you could be allowed not to come under the jurisdiction of the union and therefore be willing to accept the provincial standards in the matter of wages and working conditions — $1.50 per hour minimum wage, two weeks' vacation regardless of length of service, 44-hour week and the threat of discharge without cause or notice.

"The second solution appears in the third paragraph of your letter. If you honestly feel that you are unequally yoked together with unbelievers and are willing to forgo the benefits you now enjoy, then I suggest that you seek employment elsewhere in a situation that will be more in keeping with the dictates of your conscience.

Signed, Ms. Phyllis Young, MLA."

In other words, he has no right to pursue the training that he has established because of the fact that he is yoked by a trade union and because he has a Christian faith. One also has to take into consideration the fact that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has indicated that it is his role to encourage the expansion of the labour movement, expansion of union membership in the Province of British Columbia.

You are saying that these people here will no longer have the right of employment if all jobs are union-oriented. We aren't talking about a great cross-section of people; we're just talking about a few people who have strong religious convictions. The same individual received a letter from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) on October 23, 1972, and I think it is important that this be read into the record too. It says:

"Dear Mr. Sukaran:

"I have for acknowledgment your letter of October 16, alleging what you consider to be discriminatory provisions contained within provincial labour legislation. May I suggest to you that your assertion that labour association is unfair to Christians is presumptuous and borders on bigotry.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding — he didn't say that.

[ Page 1999 ]

MR. CHABOT: borders on bigotry." That kind of a paragraph and that kind of statement should never have issued, in my opinion, from a Minister of the Crown. After all, you represent all the people in British Columbia as a Minister of the Crown, and I don't think you should indicate to an individual, because he is concerned about a particular principle and a particular matter, that his ideas border on bigotry.

"As one who belongs to a Christian denomination and believes in a basic structure of trade union organizations, I object to the inference contained in your charge. Christian conscience is a matter of individual interpretation. Christianity, what's more, has been used over the years to clothe many questionable philosophies."

MRS. JORDAN: Good heavens!

MR. CHABOT: "Christianity, what's more, has been used over the years to clothe many questionable philosophies."

AN HON. MEMBER: An attack on Christianity.

MR. CHABOT: What an attack.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Minister say that? Is that the Minister's letter you are reading?

MR. CHABOT: It is the Minister of Labour's letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from the Minister of Labour?

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Labour — October 23, 1972.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT:

"I do not accept that the democratic process existing in political organizations, trade union organizations or social organizations provides a valid area for opting out of majority consensus decisions on the basis of individual Christian conscience.

"Thanking you for your interest in writing to me in this regard, and hoping my comments serve to clarify my attitude."

It certainly has clarified your attitude, Mr. Minister. It certainly has.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: All that this individual, this British Columbian who should have some rights, is asking is that legislation which presently exists in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba be introduced in the Province of British Columbia. That is all he is asking.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I have another interesting article relative to the attitude of some of their Members back there. One of their Members, Ms. Brown, is always taking up the cudgels of the down-trodden — always for individual freedoms and individual rights. Oh, yes — "We will not let the minority groups be suppressed." This is what she has to say:

"Warnings that a powerful lobby is pressing for inclusion of a phony conscience clause…. ."

MR. PHILLIPS: Phony? Did she say phony?

MR. CHABOT: "A phony conscience clause." Someone who is always pleading for human rights calls it a phony conscience clause.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want a better world.

MR. CHABOT:

"…. . In provincial human rights legislation were sounded by MLA Rosemary Brown, NDP Vancouver-Burrard, when she addressed the annual convention of UFAWU — United Fishermen Allied Workers Union, Women's Auxiliary, on February 4.

"Mrs. Brown said the lobby seeking to weaken trade union organizations in membership rights under the guise of protecting religious — freedoms has placed the whole organized labour movement under attack."

It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, to say that these people who have religious convictions that say they should not belong to a union or should not contribute to the goals and objectives of a union, should be called "phony." It is unbelievable of someone who has stood up so many times in the Province of British Columbia and pleaded for protection of human rights — it is incredible to me.

No, we are not asking for the inclusion of this clause in collective agreements. All we are asking is for the board to decide whether it is a legitimate cause for exemption from contributing to a union. They're not asking for non-contribution, they are not asking to save money — they are asking the money to be directed …

AN HON. MEMBER: The conscience clause is Americans coming over here. It's the same thing — right of conscience.

MR. CHABOT:…towards a charity which would be properly accepted by the employer and the

[ Page 2000 ]

bargaining agent of the employee. If it is not settled there then the Labour Relations Board would decide.

All we are asking is that the enlightened laws that exist in the Province of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan be included in the labour laws of British Columbia. That is all we are asking — that they take into consideration the Christian principles and beliefs of a few people.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the position I have taken, and I speak for the Government with respect to this bill, is that we have a review underway of the Labour Relations Act, the Trade-unions Act and the Mediation Services Act. I have given a public commitment that until we have had full representation from every element of the trade union movement, from every element of the industrial world and indeed the public sector, I would not indulge in any changes to these particular Acts. Under those circumstances I am not prepared to accept and support this bill in second reading.

I would point out further that the people who put forward this proposition will have an adequate opportunity to make representations to the hearings as they proceed over the coming months.

Hon. Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, earlier during this session I tried to raise a matter of urgent public importance on the floor of this House and you ruled that the procedure I was following was out of order.

I would like to bring to your attention and for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, the fact that rulings have been made by previous Speakers allowing some latitude to people who wish to bring forward matters of urgent public importance, particularly when they were trying to bring them forward at the first opportunity they had to raise the matter.

I refer to the seventeenth edition of Erskine May, pp. 363 and 364. It is fairly obvious — I will quote the references in a moment — that when some of these matters have been dealt with before and were of sudden importance, affecting many people and many situations, the Speaker has allowed a debate to take place. I would refer you to page 364:

"The general purpose of the standing order has been explained by Mr. Speaker Peel: 'What I think was contemplated was the occurrence of some sudden emergency either in home or foreign affairs.' "

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that until I have had an opportunity to place before you the matter I wish to raise as a motion of urgent public importance you cannot really rule whether it is both urgent and of public importance at the moment.

There is also a reference on page 363 which indicates the fact, and I am quoting from near the bottom of the page now:

"The fact that one attempt to obtain leave to move the…. ." motion "… has failed does not prevent a second attempt on the same or on a different subject."

On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see how you can rule me out of order with the motion until I have had an opportunity to place the matter before you. There is certainly indication in May that latitude has been granted because of the sudden and urgent matter to be raised.

I would respectfully request permission to move the motion and the statement attached to it.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say that the attempt to which you are referring, to raise the matter again at page 363, refers to our course at the proper time. I submit that the present is not the proper time to raise the question.

MR. SMITH: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while that may be a rule of the House, Speakers have allowed latitude because of the fact that they have no knowledge of what the matter is. It must be a matter of a Member's own particular conscience as to whether he considers the matter to be urgent and sudden. This is the first opportunity that I have had. I suggest — to you, Sir, that it is the first opportunity that I've had to raise the matter in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what the matter is. I must say that it's not in order to raise it at this time, as you can see, when the House has just made a motion for its next sitting.

MR. SMITH: Right. The House has not adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER: This is Friday and the House normally adjourns at 1 o'clock.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave then to read a statement …

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.

[ Page 2001 ]

MR. SMITH: It doesn't mean a thing.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that under our new standing order, on Fridays the time for the ordinary meeting is from 10 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock. The House shall adjourn on Friday at 1 o'clock and it shall stand adjourned unless otherwise ordered until the following Monday. It follows from that that I have no other alternative but to leave the chair once my attention has been drawn to the clock.

MR. SMITH: There's a point of order on the floor, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order? One at a time, please. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, we had this matter come before us at the supper hour one time a few days ago. We went until a quarter after six because of the matters and the points of order being considered. The time was not considered to run. As a matter of fact, you were adjourning the House to a time which had already passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The point there is what is termed in the British House "exempted business," where there is no debate or it is not contentious, must be taken without any debate. Such motions can be considered after the hour of interruption. Now, at this moment, I have no motion before me that is non-contentious or a motion to adjourn. The only thing I can do is leave the chair failing such a motion. That was the content on my ruling on that occasion and it still is the rule of the House.

MR. SMITH: I was on my feet on a point of order. I yielded to another Member who was raising a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The House is now adjourned.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, please. Every Member of this House knows that if my attention is drawn to the clock and it's after the hour, I must leave.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no motion before me on this point of order. There was a point of order taken that the Hon. Member wanted to adjourn the proceedings of the House. At any time in this House, after the hour appointed by the standing orders for this House to adjourn, if anyone draws my attention to the clock, I perforce must leave, unless some motion …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member point out wherein I am in error?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Wherein am I in error? It's not enough to shout in this House. Wherein am I in error?

MR. SMITH: I was trying to point out to you, through the references in May, the reason that I should be allowed at the first opportunity available to me to move the motion that I had on a matter of urgent public importance.

Now all I would say is this: will the acting Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources make a statement to this House concerning the fact that trading has been suspended on Columbia Cellulose, (Canada), Limited, pending a news release.

MR. SPEAKER: There's nothing that I can do on that in view of the hour.

MR. SMITH: Is there a statement from the Government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This matter should have been taken up in the proper turn in the business of the House. It was not done so. When it was raised, it was raised at the wrong time. Now, after the hour of interruption, the Hon. Member wishes in effect to have the business of the House continue past the hour of interruption. I have no course open to me but to leave the chair, according to the rules by which I'm bound.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure, closure.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have a good weekend.

Mr. Speaker left the chair at 1: 10 p.m.

Note: Volume 2 comprises pages 1007 to 2001 inclusive. Volume 3 follows.