[ Page 2465 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Petition Statement by Mr. Speaker on Mr. McGeer's petition — 2465

Mr. McGeer — 2466

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Skagit Valley treaty negotiations. Mrs. Jordan — 2467

Gabriola Island telephone survey. Mr. Curtis — 2467

Dial-a-bus experiment. Mr. McGeer — 2468

Dental care. Ms. Young — 2468

Fluoridation. Mr. McGeer — 2468

Armed entry at city tavern. Mr. Wallace — 2468

Taxation relief for Mount Becher ski society. Mr. Morrison — 2468

Marathon Realty plans for Port Coquitlam. Mr. McClelland — 2469

Deaths of Vernon boys. Mrs. Jordan — 2469

Report of Comptroller General re B.C. Hydro. Mr. McGeer — 2469

Application of Bill No. 153 to municipal councils and school boards.

Mr. Chabot — 2469

Employment situation at Ocean Falls. Mr. McClelland — 2476

Discussions with Kaiser Resources re Japanese steel interests.

Mr. Smith — 2470

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill No. 44). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 2470

Mr. Lewis — 2484

Mr. Speaker — 2484

Mr. Phillips — 2485

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I have a communication from the Hon. Clerk of the House in respect to the petition filed yesterday by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). In the letter dated to me, April 10, he states:

"Dear Mr. Speaker:

With respect to the petition presented by Mr. McGeer on Monday evening, I find that it is neither irregular nor does it contain matter in breach of the privileges of the House.

Yours very truly,
E.K. DeBeck,
Clerk of the House"

So the form of the petition is in order in the reconstituted version that was tabled yesterday with the Clerks. The only difficulty I have with it, however, is that it is my duty to consider the subsequent content of it.

There are two grounds upon which it appears to be contrary to the rules with regard to public petitions. First, in May, p. 848 of the seventeenth edition, it says: "The petition must set forth a case in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere." Here the matter is one complained of by three petitioners saying that they protest the decision of the Labour Relations Board not to recognize a certain union. They say the application was rejected even though well over half the employees had taken out memberships in the union. They then go to ask the House to pass a resolution urging the Labour Relations Board to reconsider its decision regarding the application and to urge the board to resolve this issue by a government representation vote.

Now, in the light of May, the petition must set forth a case in which the House has jurisdiction to interfere. In the case before us, the Labour Relations Act sets out a form for dealing with matters of this kind on certification.

Earlier in this session the same Hon. Member tried to obtain from the House leave for an urgency debate by suspending the rules. I was forced thereupon to rule on the same subject, that since the Labour Relations Board has the jurisdiction granted by this Legislature in the form of a "code", as it were, for the certification of trade unions under very strict rules laid down by the Legislature, it would be improper for this House to exert any influence of any kind on a tribunal set up under administrative law. In the same way it would be improper for this Legislature to exert any opinion or influence or comment upon the conduct of a court in the midst of whatever proceedings or after any proceedings of a court.

The reason I state that is when you look at the Labour Relations Act, Chapter 205, the Legislature at the time when that was enacted set forth a complete system for certification for determining the merits of an application to that end. That means by the hearing of evidence and so on. Quoting from the Act, it says:

"The Board shall prescribe the nature of the evidence that the applicant shall furnish with or in support of the application and the manner in which the application shall be made."

I further quote from the Act:

"If the Board is satisfied, it shall certify the trade union for the employees of the union."

The Legislature, having set forth statutory duties and powers for the administrative tribunal, including clear mandates prohibiting the board from certifying a trade union in certain instances in section 12, it would be improper for the House to entertain any exertion of influence upon the board by this means that is proposed by the petition.

Now, in the Act, it further says: "The Board shall conduct the taking and counting of a representation vote." If in the opinion of the board a vote was not in accordance with the Act, the board may order another vote, and therefore, of course, the resort under the Act for the aggrieved person is to the board.

But in section 65(3) of the Labour Relations Act it also says "the board may order another vote and the board may, on the petition of any trade union or other person, or of its own motion, reconsider any decision."

Aside from that, the system of review, which is declared to be final in most provinces and in the federal system, is not so final here. An applicant in British Columbia can apply by way of the prerogative writ to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is the proper forum — not this assembly — to correct any errors in the procedure or abuse of jurisdiction by this administrative tribunal. It would be highly improper in the circumstances, in the light of these authorities quoted in May, for a petition to be the route by which an aggrieved party would seek a remedy when that remedy is evident both the Labour Relations Act set up by this assembly and by the prerogative rights that exist to seek recourse to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The claim to petition parliament was a very old one; a means of seeking redress of grievances fundamental to the early constitution of England — as early as 1423 petitions were referred to the commons by the lords "to have their opinion." You can see that in Stubbs Constitutional History, Vol. 3, p. 440, footnotes.

In examining the history of the petition, the authorities indicate that law originated as unwritten custom and as such could not be changed. The petition was innovated by Edward I, who produced a method for seeking redress that heretofore had not existed. Today, as things exist now, we have set up a

[ Page 2466 ]

system of redress in a statute. Therefore, I would rule the petition out of order as a means in this instance of interfering with the tribunal that has its own proper. powers and means by which it can be corrected other than the influence of this Legislature.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Are you raising a point of order?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yes. Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the Journals of our House in 1972 regarding the petition of Mr. Howard Sullivan, which had almost identical content and which was ruled in order by the former Speaker of the House with the advice of the Clerks who are with us today. Therefore, in view of your practice of following the decisions of previous Speakers, I would have thought you would be bound to see this in order.

May I further say, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of expressing grievances by petition goes back to 1669. I would refer you to p. 792 of the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, where the right to present these things is quite clearly given for all of the Queen's subjects. In this case a petition seeks only, Mr. Speaker, to have the House express an opinion. It doesn't seek to direct the Labour Relations Board; nor does it limit the ability of the petitioners to seek legal redress with the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Legislature is supreme in its right to express opinion. The tradition going back as far as 1669 gives to any citizen the right to express his grievance to parliament. I would hate to think that your ruling, Sir, would limit in any way this right of over 300 years for an individual citizen to seek his redress in this assembly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention resolution No. 39 on our order paper which expresses a similar opinion introduced by a Member of this House. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if something is in order for a Member of this House to bring before the public, it's in order for a private citizen to do so by means of a petition. Sir, I would hope you would reconsider the rights of individual British Columbians today by not bringing down a ruling in conflict with that of a previous Speaker which would limit the rights of individual citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that if he advocated in this House that we interrupt the proceedings between, say, the supreme court and the court of appeal, to express our opinion on a case that was coming up in the court of appeal, his action would be, I think he would admit, most improper.

MR. McGEER: Nothing is before the supreme court or the court of appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: A remedy exists for the persons who allege they are aggrieved.

I might add another thing, and that is when you look at section 12 of the Labour Relations Act, it requires by Act of this House that the board refuse an application where the evidence in their opinion leads to a conclusion that there was anything about the application that was improper. I refer you to that section.

If this House placed a stamp of approval upon a matter that still had a redress under our Act, then we would be hearing one side without hearing the other; without the other parties who were involved in this — or indeed the board — being before the House. That is the reason the Legislature sought a means other than the petition for persons to resort to where they have any grievance that they wish to express.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Speaker, we have only asked in that petition to have the House consider an opinion. It gives no orders by this. We're in a very difficult position in British Columbia. If the Labour Relations Board has power to prevent our expressing an opinion or an individual citizen's expressing an opinion through us, Sir, I would certainly very much regret your approach.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I am sorry, but that's my ruling.

The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to five people who are sitting on the floor of the House, Dionicio Cadelina, Barry Firth, Vance Kohl who are sitting over here and Jerry Letendre and Mrs. Ferries who are sitting over there. They are in wheelchairs.

Through the splendid cooperation of your office we were able to have them on the floor of the House. This building does not lend itself to having visitors who are in wheelchairs. I would like to remind the Members that during the last election, this group — and they represent 20 of the people who are over here — were very active in the election fighting for their rights. They were basically very successful in achieving some of the things they wanted to get, hence the handicapped assistance which we brought in last October.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that their presence surely must be a reminder to us that they have a right as citizens of this province to have access to all public places. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

[ Page 2467 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have the House join with me in welcoming the Mayor of Abbotsford and chairman of the Central Fraser Valley Regional District seated in the gallery — Mr. George Ferguson.

Oral questions.

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

SKAGIT VALLEY TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address my question to the Premier and President of the Executive Council. Has the British Columbia Government been specifically advised that the Canadian and U.S. governments have agreed to bring the British Columbia Government together with Seattle City Light for the purpose of formal talks on the Skagit Valley as reported by Mr. Davis yesterday?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Not to this moment,

MRS. JORDAN: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Has the British Columbia Government continued to take the viewpoint expressed by the previous administration that the Skagit problem involved an international treaty and any requirements for confirmation should be met totally by the national government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We made clear that we wanted this proposal to stop. The treaty was an international treaty and our only recourse was to go to Ottawa. We've gone to Ottawa, we've stated our position, and there the matter rests.

MRS. JORDAN: A further supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Have you, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, in your presentations to Ottawa advised them that British Columbia would not accept the responsibility of compensation and that the federal government must assume this full compensation should the treaty be changed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have advised them that we do not want the proposal to go ahead and there the matter rests.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject? The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the same subject, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the Premier: has he made clear when the rental moneys were returned to Seattle City Light that reasonable compensation would be paid for expenses incurred by that company under this deal that we wish now to get out of?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not committed ourselves in any discussions with the federal government. We read with mixed anxiety and confusion the conflicting statements made by the federal Minister concerned.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it from the Premier's reply that his Government has no intention of providing Seattle City Light with compensation for reasonable expenditures undertaken under…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The question is improper.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of having what should be good relations between British Columbia and Canada reduced to a matter of political debate here.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out that I tried to stop the Hon. Premier because it's argumentative. That is not the purpose of question period.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

GABRIOLA ISLAND
TELEPHONE SURVEY

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, other Hon. Members perhaps will be interested to know that I intend to slip a secret note to those guests on the floor today who are near me saying, in effect, "Help. We're being held captive in a big room without windows." (Laughter).

To the Minister of Highways, may I ask with respect to Gabriola Island, has the Department of Highways or anyone acting on behalf of the department commissioned or in any way initiated a telephone survey on Gabriola Island to determine island residents' views with respect to a possible ferry terminal on Gabriola Island which would serve the cross-strait system?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The answer is no.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: has he heard of any such telephone survey? Is he aware of its existence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been told that such a survey is being taken.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for

[ Page 2468 ]

Vancouver–Point Grey.

DIAL-A-BUS EXPERIMENT

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would he be prepared to subsidize a dial-a-bus pilot service in the Greater Vancouver area?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This matter of dial-a-bus and all other forms of transportation are under study at the moment. It's a little early for me to say. I would expect though that there would be a dial-a-bus experiment within the next few months somewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

DENTAL CARE

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. In view of the fact that he expressed some policy earlier in this session regarding dental care for those 12 and under, I wonder if he has any additional thoughts on the matter of dental care.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, as you know we have a study going at the present time. I announced that there were some very interesting details coming out of that study. I acknowledge the Member's interest in this particular study.

We are not as yet prepared to make a definitive statement, other than that we will be providing all dental care — that is all orthodontia and surgery — for those people affected with cleft lip and cleft palate.

Mr. Speaker, I have instructed our department — that is Medicare — to look into how quickly we can get into this. I hope to be able to launch it within the next few weeks. There will be no longer the need for children in this province to be going around with papers stuck in their mouths in order to keep them semi-articulate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

FLUORIDATION

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Denticare. Has the Minister of Health had any new thoughts on fluoridation?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of thoughts on fluoridation. As you know in B.C. we have two areas — the City of Kelowna and the City of Prince George — that are fluoridated. Their dental statistics are particularly good.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

ARMED ENTRY AT CITY TAVERN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney General whether he has had any discussion with the armed forces regarding an unprecedented incident when two soldiers marched into a local tavern a week ago and stood with loaded rifles at the two main entrances to the building?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any conversation. Somebody mentioned that the question had been asked yesterday. I'll look into it.

I was back in Ottawa on an industry conference and I tried to quell a disturbance in a tavern there. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I tried to quell it. But it's very difficult for me to be everywhere. If it's possible for me to intervene in this one I will certainly try to do so.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Delighted as I am that the Minister is so talented in dealing with tavern situations, would he agree that this is a serious matter in which the military intervene in essentially civil situations at great danger to the public?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll look into it.

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

TAXATION RELIEF FOR
MOUNT BECHER SKI SOCIETY

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Finance.

Has the Minister of Finance issued any instructions to relieve the Mount Becher Ski Society operating ski facilities on Forbidden Plateau at Courtenay from property taxation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not to my knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

[ Page 2469 ]

MARATHON REALTY PLANS
FOR PORT COQUITLAM

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Did the Minister or his department direct Marathon Realty to prepare and submit a plan for a shopping centre in Port Coquitlam?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not to my knowledge.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if there have been any discussions with Marathon Realty with regard to Port Coquitlam and if the answer to that is no would the Minister be prepared to check into that for me?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll look into that. I know nothing about it myself. There have been no discussions with me.

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

DEATHS OF VERNON BOYS

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is to the Premier of the province, who I understand may have something to say on it. This is in regard to the two tragic deaths of the young boys in Vernon on Sunday which took place as a result of war maneuvers during the Second World War which left residual bombs or fire mechanisms. This area was swept some six years ago and there has now been a tragic death.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: would the Premier be prepared to make a statement to the Legislature as to whether he has acted on my request to ask the federal Department of National Defence to sweep this area, the Birnie Range, the Coldstream Ranch and other areas which were used for maneuvers during the war and which may well pose a potential death trap to citizens of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) sent a letter to the Hon. James A. Richardson, the Minister of National Defence. If you wish, I'll read the letter; if not, I'll table it — whichever you prefer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Table it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We also sent on behalf of the people of British Columbia a letter to both parents involved.

We have asked the federal government to take some action. I'll table the letter so that it's available to the Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier be prepared to take in consultation with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) the feasibility of advising these families as to whether or not there may be compensation — little help that it is in returning the boys to life, which it won't — for this accident? If so, could the deaths of the two boys some four years ago also be taken into consideration?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would be difficult, I think, for the Government to initiate action on behalf of the parents. Certainly any request from the parents would be given the utmost consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

REPORT OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL
RE B.C. HYDRO

MR. McGEER: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker: has the Premier had an opportunity to complete a study of the interim financial report submitted by the Comptroller General with regard to the operations of the British Columbia Hydro? If so, would he be prepared to table it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm almost through.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: how many pages long was that report?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a very long report. The civil service of British Columbia, when asked to do a job, does a thorough job.

MR. McGEER: How many pages? Six?

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

APPLICATION OF BILL 153 TO
MUNICIPAL COUNCILS AND SCHOOL BOARDS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Will the Minister of Labour be officially advising all municipal councils and school boards that the Public Works Fair Employment Act will not be applicable to them?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): The Act will be spelled out very clearly at the third reading stage.

MR. CHABOT: The question was will you be advising the school boards and municipal governments of their exemptions under the provisions of this Act? Also, will it apply to regional districts and park boards, and other community organizations that

[ Page 2470 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter is one that's in debate before the House.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there's no need to notify anyone. There's certainly no change in the restrictions under this Act. It affects them in exactly the same way that the previous legislation did.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a matter for debate in the particular bill to which the Member refers.

The Hon. Member for Langley.

EMPLOYMENT SITUATION AT OCEAN FALLS

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Could he advise the House how many people have returned to pick up their jobs at Ocean Falls and whether or not he anticipates a crisis with the shortage of personnel to fill jobs at Ocean Falls?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): No crisis is anticipated at all, Mr. Speaker. There are some 500 people interested in living and working in Ocean Falls.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I'd like to ask if there are still positions to be filled at Ocean Falls and, if so, how many?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There are still positions, primarily skilled pipe fitters and the like. There is a limited number at this stage prior to further production on the other machines.

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

DISCUSSIONS WITH KAISER RESOURCES
RE JAPANESE STEEL INTERESTS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you. My question is to the Hon. Minister of Finance. Has the Minister entered into any discussions with Kaiser Resources Ltd. for the purposes of joining Japanese steel interests in an equity share position with Kaiser Resources?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MINERAL ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 44. The Hon. Member for South Peace River adjourned the debate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's certainly a pleasure to resume the discussions we're having today on Bill 44, which is An Act to Amend the Mineral Act. A few moments before the break I tried to point out to the Minister what was happening in the province. Because this is such an important Act, I will continue along that line for a few more moments.

As I closed the debate before proceeding to that short break, Mr. Speaker, I was reading from a report of the 61st annual meeting of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. The last statement I read from that report was that this year this organization which speaks for a large portion of the industry stated that there would be a reduction in capital investment in mine construction in 1973 which will be felt by industries substantially dependent on major construction of mining mills.

There are several large, low-grade copper deposits in various advanced stages of feasibility studies, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out this morning, the Government can step in anywhere along the line of a feasibility study, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) can take a look at it, and he has the discretion under Bill 44 to say whether this shall go ahead or stop. The decisions are taken away from the people who would ultimately develop the mine.

Or are they, Mr. Speaker? No, I think the decisions are left by the people who will eventually develop the mine, because that is the intent of Bill 44 — to nationalize the mining industry. Therefore they will make the decisions and they will do the developing.

But they'll also have to do the finding and everything, else, Mr. Speaker, because you're not going to have private enterprise investing their money, talent, energies and resources in proving-up mineral claims only to have the Government step in at any time and make the arrogant decisions that will be made.

These feasibility studies represent potential producers. If the economic climate and if the legislative conditions were feasible, they would probably be developed.

Mr. Speaker, before Bill 44 there were favourable conditions in British Columbia. I am sorry to say that since Bill 44 conditions are now not favourable. The climate used to be feasible before Bill 44 but now it is not feasible.

[ Page 2471 ]

Mr. Speaker, mining is the act or the process or the work of removing ore, coal et cetera, from a mine. That is what mining is all about. Once removed from the mine the product must be turned into a usable product or in the case of coal it must be used in the production of a usable product.

A resource, Mr. Speaker, is something that lies ready for use or that can be drawn upon for aid or to take care of a need — something that a country, state, et cetera has and can use to its own advantage. But the use of these minerals requires large expenditures. Under Bill 44 there won't be expenditures.

One point that I'd like to explore a little, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill 44, is the fact that the Government seems to think that the minerals should lie there ready for use forever. But before they can lie there, they must be found.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister well knows, Mother Nature did a good job of concealing her wealth and she will only give it up as it is needed. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Mines would get this into his theory, that Mother Nature will only give up her wealth as it is required. Mother Nature does not need Bill 44 to say whether she's going to give up her wealth or not.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, Mother Nature will only give the hiding places of her wealth to the strong of heart — the prospector — the man who searches for Mother Nature's wealth by scouring the countryside. The Minister seems to think that under Bill 44 he's going to hire some men — and this is the ultimate aim of Bill 44 — give them a pickaxe and come back in three or four days and say, "There's coal here; there's ore there; there's copper here; there's molybdenum here." I honestly believe that that's the theory that the Minister of Mines works on.

Point two is that it must be something that can be used to advantage. Our economy, Mr. Speaker, is based on a prosperous mining industry that provides jobs for people. Twenty-five cents out of every dollar that moves in British Columbia is generated by mining.

What we in British Columbia must consider are certain points which are of vital concern to the mining industry. There are certain points in the economy over which this government has no control, even if they take the entire industry over themselves, Mr. Speaker. The mining industry is dependent on international markets and must be able to remove the minerals competitively.

Second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the improving technology which is taking place in the world today will serve to maintain our mineral resources through discovery of new sources and utilization of lower grade material. I wonder if that was taken into consideration under Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

The third point is that the high risk inherent in mining exploration and development necessitates a constructive review of new and proposed taxation policies to fully assess their effect on the mineral industry and the Canadian economy. This last point, Mr. Speaker is the point that was not taken into consideration by the Minister of Mines, nor by anybody in the Government, certainly not by the Minister of Finance — because of the high risk inherent.

We certainly must review our taxation policies as the years go by to take care of inflation, to take care of rising costs, to take care of increased requirements by the people. But, as I have pointed out in this Legislature before, Mr. Speaker, if this government and if the people of this province are going to expect a continued increase in social services, we must have the tax base to provide the dollars so that these services can be applied because…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): First good thing you've said all day.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, doesn't like most of the things I say because we on this side are able to see through the legislation that the Waffle group are drawing up. I think sometimes, Mr. Speaker, that I explain the legislation to them better than the group who drew them up because when that Waffle group come out here and draw up legislation, they don't take enough time to explain it to the cabinet before it goes through the legislation process. So I certainly feel that I'm doing my job here of explaining what the legislation is all about. That's why, Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many explanatory notes behind the legislation. They don't want anybody to understand it. When I stand up here and explain his legislation, that's why the Attorney General gets so distressed, because he doesn't really know, he doesn't really understand the legislation. So we do the research and tell him what's what. That's why they bring in numerous amendments to the bills sometimes.

Now as I was talking about, we need a tax base, Mr. Speaker, to provide these services. And the tax base can only come from an expanding economy. This Bill 44 is definitely not going to expand the mining industry — it's going to bring the wheels of progress in the mining industry in this province to a complete, grinding and sudden stop. That's what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

But, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the full effect of Bill 44 — was the full effect of it fully assessed by the Minister before he brought it forward? No, I don't think it was, Mr. Speaker. He certainly didn't meet with the mining industry as he promised to do. He didn't work in cooperation with the mining industry. No. Mr. Speaker, it's simply more dictatorship.

Out goes the bill to the mining industry and the Minister of Mines says, "That's your bill, like it or

[ Page 2472 ]

lump it. You've got to live with it. That's it." Hard change, Mr. Speaker, from the wonderful world of cooperation that they were trying to build, or said they were going to build up. We're going to meet; we're going to discuss, we're going to work with — there's the bill …

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You're not making a good case at all.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not? Well it's pretty hard to make a case with you because you won't open your mind. The only thing you know how to open is your mouth. No, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is too complimentary.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it might not be complimentary but it's probably truthful. I would suggest that maybe you listen to what the Minister of Mines is throwing across the floor — I can take it; it doesn't bother me because I'm on the right side, Mr. Speaker. When you're on the side of right… That's why the Minister shuffles down in his chair and wiggles around, because he knows that I'm right and he knows that he's wrong.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not have the ability to visualize what this bill is going to do to the mining industry, or I'm sure he never would have brought it in. Either that, or he knows what effect it's going to have and he wants to nationalize the mining industry completely. One or the other. Maybe he does know, so he can take over the mining industry …

MR. SPEAKER: Well you said all that this morning, prior to adjournment.

MR. PHILLIPS: No I didn't, this is a different sheet.

MR. SPEAKER: No, it was all exactly the same.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I said this morning that the mining industry was angry. I'm saying now that the Minister has lost the confidence of the industry — he's lost the confidence of all segments of the mining industry. He's lost the confidence of the prospectors; he's lost the confidence of the geologists; he's lost the confidence of the surveyors and last, but not least, he has lost the confidence of the miners themselves.

He's certainly lost the confidence of the financial industry, that's for sure. I thought that was so apparent that I didn't even have to read it into the record.

Mr. Speaker, this Minister's reign has been nothing but a reign of incompetence in his portfolio as Minister of Mines. A reign of incompetence. Mr. Speaker, this Minister has paralyzed the mining industry.

If the Minister was so proud and so confident about Bill 44, why did he not attend the meeting in Vancouver that was called to discuss Bill 44? Why did he not attend? I have to take the attitude that he was scared.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have the date of the letter. Don't try and read something in that's not entirely correct.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, was afraid to stand up to his legislation…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You cannot accuse anyone of being afraid of anything in this House. That's obvious.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll have to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: But I'll inform you of this, Mr. Speaker, so you'll know, because you should know, Mr. Speaker. The House should know that the Minister was invited to attend a meeting of, not the financial world that finances the industry, not the owners of the mining industry, the directors, the presidents. Not those, Mr. Speaker — not the people who make the decisions as to whether the mines will go ahead and control and go out and search for world markets and all of that to keep the mining industry going. Not those people, Mr. Speaker, no — not the multi-national corporations, not even the multi-provincial corporations. No, not those people, Mr. Speaker. Who were invited to attend this meeting in Vancouver? The little people, Mr. Speaker. The little people. The prospectors.

Now, surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines might not want to match wits with all the presidents of the mining industry, but I mentioned the people here just a moment ago — 1100 of them, Mr. Speaker. They were geologists, prospectors, surveyors. The little people, Mr. Speaker. One of the largest meetings of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines that has ever taken place.

If I'd have represented you I'd have stood up and said "I will withdraw Bill 44." That's what I would have said if I'd have represented the Minister. But I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister wasn't at this meeting. I was very disappointed, because I wanted to learn something about Bill 44.

[ Page 2473 ]

Well, I didn't learn it from the Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I sure learned it from the little people of this province, the people who are the nuts and bolts and guts of the mining industry — the prospectors — Mr. Speaker. That's the people that I learned it from, Mr. Speaker. That's the people that I learned it from. The basic people in the industry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Calling them nuts. Now we know. It's on the record. It's unbelievable, calling those people nuts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do I have permission to call him a nut?

MR. SPEAKER: No, you don't.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh. Well, I'll have to withdraw. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Let's get back to more specific matters.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, this was a very, very enlightening meeting to me, because I learned a lot about Bill 44. No, we won't play the tape, but there were some very enlightening conversations that came out of that meeting, and I'm going to read into the record just a few excerpts from some of the speeches that were made at this meeting. They were made by people in the industry.

One of them was made by Dr. Harry B. Warren who is a Professor of Geology at the University of British Columbia. Now I think that the good professor knows something about the mining industry in British Columbia, and he took a lot of time certainly to study Bill 44. I'm going to read into the record some of the comments that he has on Bill 44. These comments and expressions of opinion were voiced at this historical meeting in the Hotel Vancouver where the Minister of Mines so conveniently didn't show up. I'm quoting, and I'll be quoting for a few moments from Professor Warren's remarks:

"Every time any one of us in British Columbia handles a dollar bill we would do well to remember that from 20 to 25 cents of that dollar comes from the mining industry. Every person in British Columbia is, of necessity, a consumer. He consumes food, clothing, heat, housing, transportation et cetera, et cetera.

"What is not always remembered is that somebody has to produce the primary wealth that supports us all. Mining is one of the vital cornerstones of the whole economy of British Columbia. Who is responsible for finding most of our mines in British Columbia? It is the prospector, working on his own or on behalf of a small group or syndicate.

"The mining companies are called upon to develop prospects and bring them to production, usually at the cost of tens of millions of dollars of risk capital which, by Bill 44, the present government would seem to be determined to discourage. Bill 44 would appear to have been written by an academic living in the nineteenth century, for it has the misfortune to be designed to put the small man out of business and this would seem to be in direct contradiction to what is the avowed intention of this particular government."

I think the professor is making a very good point here, because they are supposed to be the people's government. The professor goes on and he says:

"Let me explain. B.C.'s mining history falls into three distinct periods. Number one, 1820 to 1900. This was the period of initial discovery and development. Many of our most famous camps were discovered during these years, but in every case…"

And I'd like the Minister to pay strict attention to this, Mr. Speaker —

"…the original discovery involved an outcrop or at least a weathered outcrop, an iron cap; gold in the Cariboo, Bridge River, Hedley and Sheep Creek; copper in Rossland, the Boundary district and Britannia; lead, zinc and silver at the Sullivan, Saint Eugene and the Slocan. All of those mines were discovered by outcrops."

Now the good professor moves into another area of our history from 1900 to 1932 and he continues, Mr. Speaker:

"Few people realize that during this period no single major mining camp was discovered in British Columbia. They were relatively good years, but we were living on a heritage bequeathed to us by our forebears."

That is a very important point, because you can see what is going to happen with Bill 44. You should check back into the history book.

I've done some research in the library on this, Mr. Minister, and I recommend it to you. You will find out what the far-reaching effects of your bill will be. I'll continue, Mr. Speaker. The next, the third period in time the good professor refers to is 1932 to 1972.

"These have been great years for all of us involved in mining in British Columbia. We have seen our production grow from around $30 million to over $630 million annually. New prospecting techniques, better maps, airplane and helicopter transportation have all helped; but today it is a different kind of mine for which we search. It is a large, low-grade deposit, not a relatively high-grade showing of modest dimensions."

[ Page 2474 ]

Pay strict attention this Mr. Minister of Mines:

"However, in spite of all these changes, it is still the little man, the prospector, who makes most of the original discoveries although he seldom, if ever, has the resources to bring his own property into full production.

"Perhaps some of us are too young to recall the days of the big Depression, of the early thirties. It is well to remember those many men who, after the price of gold was raised from $20 to $35, refused to accept the dole and kept themselves in beans and bacon by prospecting for gold with pick, pan and rocker.

"With gold soaring to $80 an ounce, this could happen again. But we find even this avenue to independence stifled by the proposed freeze on locating placer ground."

Mr. Speaker, the professor continues:

"It is usually the small man who brings the prospect to the attention of a company. But it is a very different property that he has to present to a company in the 1970's from what he had to produce in the 1870's, a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of whoever drafted Bill 44.

"In 1870 from four to eight claims with some good outcrops, a few trenches and perhaps a short audit or two would suffice to attract capital. For, say six claims, a prospector could keep his precious ground in good standing by doing $600 worth of work each year.

"In 1970, for technical reasons apparently not understood by the framers of Bill 44, a major company likes to have some 20 claims at its disposal, and in many instances, would prefer 40. However, supposing our prospector has only 20 claims, we find that Bill 44 requires him to do $4,000 worth of work each year to hold his claims and, in addition, put up each year $600 in hard cash, a third of which admittedly is refundable, before he is even able to start work on his claim.

"Moreover, on top of all the above deterrents, he has to perform an amount of work which, while it may give satisfaction to an armchair bureaucrat who has never worked a claim in his life, is not the kind of task for which the kind of man who would find mines is particularly suited."

I hope that the Minister of Mines is paying strict attention to this, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Very strict.

MR. PHILLIPS: The professor says:

"In the 1930's the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, realizing that prospecting was entering a new phase and that guts and outcrops were no longer the only criteria for mine finding — which was more hazardous and expensive than it had ever been — set about the task of tailoring our mining laws to meet the extraordinary odds that were working against those who sought to develop mines."

Now listen to this, Mr. Speaker. I'm still quoting from the good professor's talk which he gave at that meeting in Vancouver.

"Some 10 years of study, followed by much hard selling, resulted in the mining laws of British Columbia and the taxation requirements of the dominion and provincial governments being modified to recognize the exhaustibility, the unpredictability and the location of these bodies in the earth's crust."

This was back in the 1930's that this was recognized, Mr. Speaker. Now today we're throwing it all out the window again, so we've got to start all over again after the government changes in 1976.

Mr. Speaker, all this resulted in one of the greatest periods of discovery, development and production ever seen on the face of the earth. As I said this morning, Mr. Speaker, people all over the world pointed to our mining laws in British Columbia, which were the envy of many countries. "Were the envy" because after Bill 44 we certainly won't be the envy.

Best of all, everybody benefited. Not only did the tax collector — which is our government — benefit directly, but also the wage earner and, as I said in the beginning, the mining industry as a whole contributed 20 to 25 cents of every dollar handled in British Columbia. The professor continues:

"I haven't the time to list the names of the many prospectors whose initial efforts have led to mines, whose names are now becoming household words beyond the confines of British Columbia, but here are a few: Bethlehem Copper, Lornex, Granduc, Brenda, Anvil. There are many more."

And he lists the prospectors who found these mines, Mr. Speaker.

"Now with the buck-is-a-buck philosophy of our dominion government and the unwise provisions of Bill 44, our governments would appear to want not only to strangle the industry which has done so much to provide us with the standard of living we now enjoy, but discourage the efforts of that rare breed of men who have done so much more for British Columbia than our bureaucrats seem to realize. I refer to our prospectors.

"Bill 44 in its present form is bad for the little man, the prospector who is the salt of the earth. Worse still, it is bad for the mining industry."

And, Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying, the professor says:

"And in the long run it is bad for all the people of British Columbia."

He asks those present to endorse the resolution that will be presented to them.

[ Page 2475 ]

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has ever called on the good professor of geology to visit him in his office. Did the Minister have a meeting with him? Did he allow the professor, who has had a lot to do with the mining industry in British Columbia in the past, to have some input in Bill 44? Did he discuss it with him? Were the provisions of Bill 44 discussed with the good professor, Mr. Speaker?

No, I'm afraid not. We seem to have forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that we give lip service to cooperating and to saying that we're listening, but lip service is about as far as it goes. The Minister's Deputy has all the answers, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to read another few excerpts from a message that was given to the same meeting. It will explain to some people, Mr. Speaker — this is a lawyer's view of Bill 44. I hope that the Minister will listen with keen ears because then he will know some more about what Bill 44 is all about. The speaker says:

"The extent of the concern of those at that meeting can only be understood by those who know the mining industry and its contributions to this province. I take a special pride in having been associated with many prospectors, including Spud Huetis, Dr. A. Ho, Chester Miller and Gordon Milburne."

By the way, those were the men who discovered some of the largest mines that we have in British Columbia today. He refers to the prospectors, Mr. Speaker, as being "the springboard of our mining industry, which has contributed so much to the province."

"During the past 12 years the rate of growth of the mining industry has been spectacular, doubling itself about every five years and growing faster than the forest industry, the agricultural industry or the manufacturing industry. For us in British Columbia it is second only to the forest industry in dollar value of production, in tax returns to the government and in providing employment opportunities for our people.

"Vancouver has become one of the world's leading mining centres and our prospectors, mining consultants, engineers, geologists and mining executives are known throughout the world for their excellence."

All of this developed, Mr. Speaker, because of excellent mining legislation before this Government came to power.

"It is not difficult to say that our mineral resources are rich. On that basis it is difficult to account for the development of our industry as opposed to other countries which have equal and superior mineral resources such as Russia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and South Africa."

The speaker is trying to point out that those countries have more known minerals than we do in British Columbia. But, as the speaker says, why are they not developed? Because of repressive legislation such as Bill 44.

The speaker continues:

"More specifically, it is difficult to account for the development of our periphery copper deposits which average 0.5 per cent copper content and less as opposed to the Congo, Iran and Zambia where deposits average 3 to 4 per cent."

Yet are these countries — the Congo, Iran, Zambia developing their copper deposits?

"Rather than the riches of our natural resources, I feel that the main reason for their development is to be found primarily in the stability and certainty of our political and legal system which provided a good climate for investment and in the excellence of our geology and mining technicians."

Which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, were developed under our free enterprise system.

"Among these factors, I give special recognition to the existing Mineral Act which provides procedures for efficient acquisition and maintenance of title to minerals."

This is a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, who was analyzing this. He continues:

"In comparing the Mineral Act of British Columbia with mining laws of various countries, it is easy to recognize the superiority of the Act. This is borne out by the fact that Ontario, the federal government and then Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta were much influenced in drafting their mineral laws by our Act.

"The Mineral Act has also served as a model for mining laws in other countries."

Now how did it come about that we had such a great Mineral Act, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you how. The previous Minister of Mines cooperated with the industry, listened to them, worked with them.

"The first mining regulations" — the lawyer continues — "were proclaimed in 1853 for the gold mining in the Queen Charlotte Islands and similar provisions were subsequently enacted for the mainland. Those first regulations continued to evolve to regulate the early development of mining from 1853 to 1896."

I am quite happy to tell you whose speech I am reading if you didn't get it when I started. It is an address to a meeting that you should have been at. Since you weren't there, I'll give you the input here. If you had been there, you might have taken a second look at Bill 44. It is an address to the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines by John Bruch, a partner in the law firm of Lawrence and Shaw. Now you know, Mr. Minister, if you didn't know at the beginning.

Certainly I'm reading his speech because it is very important in discussing this piece of legislation. This man studied the bill; he knows what it is all about. I want his words read into the record on the debate of

[ Page 2476 ]

Bill 44. I'll continue from Mr. Bruch's speech:

"Those first regulations continued to evolve to regulate the early development of mining from 1853 to 1896. The principle provisions of our mining laws as embodied in the Mineral Act have existed basically in that form since 1896."

I'm going to read this into the record, Mr. Speaker, because it is certainly apropos of Bill 44.

MR. SPEAKER: The purpose of debate is to give your own statements to this House, not to deliver to this House the opinions of others. In other words, you are representing the people, not somebody who has written a speech.

Consequently, you may make short reference to any speeches that have been made by others who may reinforce your point. But if you insist upon reading speeches from others I will ask you to sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll refer to it briefly, but there is a very important point that I want to get across here, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Find that kernel in it, would you, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. SPEAKER: Find the kernel of truth that's in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The "kernel of truth," he says. The Speaker says "the kernel of truth" in a very well-worded document by a very good lawyer who knows about the mining industry. And the Speaker says, "the kernel of truth." I find that hard to swallow, Mr. Speaker. "The kernel of truth."

MR. SPEAKER: It's your kernel, not mine.

MR. PHILLIPS: And it's your joke, not mine.

"In his book on mines and mining laws of B.C., Mr. A.F. Kroll said, 'British Columbia has given serious and intelligent study to its laws governing its mining industry. Every effort has been made to eliminate legal disputes'" — and this is the point — "'and to establish definite rights for the holder of mining claims.'"

Something that Bill 44 just washes completely out the window, Mr. Speaker. If I'm not going to be allowed to read the rest of this lawyer's remarks into the record, I hope that the Minister of Mines avails himself of a copy of this and reads it. Not only reads it, but pays some attention to it.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, some of these prospectors had tears in their eyes at that meeting. I'm going to give you the benefit of some of their remarks. Here is the remark of a prospector who came to the microphone that day with tears in his eyes. Probably the closest that man has ever been to a microphone was at the end of a pick-axe handle. He said:

"Bill 44 is a warped philosophy and bares the socialist claws of control. It is a knock-out blow to prospectors who don't own gold mines to pay those exorbitant increases but are only trying to find one.

"Two world wars were fought to preserve our basic freedoms and rights and we have lived by these principles since the gold rush days of 1865. These very cornerstones of our heritage are being eroded away by this repugnant legislation. It is an over-kill. The only thing left in B.C. that isn't taxed is the air we breathe and in time they will think of a way to do that.

"Mr. Bennett said that Bill 42 was threatening our very way of life. The same can be said of Bill 44."

He's speaking as a prospector.

"The Attorney General used to say when he was in Opposition, 'Let the sunshine in.' Now that he is in, he has pulled down the blinds. Pat Jordan stated in the House that the Premier is wearing a crown of thorns. One of the Premier's favourite axioms is that, 'It's for the people.' It is quite obvious that more people are being hurt than benefited by Bill 44.

"Call a spade a spade and Bill 44 for what it is: a ghoulish vampire that will suck the lifeblood of the mining industry. Now is the time to drive a stake through its bloodless heart. This bill is an Act that will hijack B.C.'s economy into bankruptcy."

Mr. Speaker, that is the type of feeling that many of the prospectors who were at that meeting felt, and maybe that's why, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines didn't show up.

I am just going to quote briefly from some other remarks that were made by Mrs. Dale of Morrisey Mines. She went up to the microphone and she said that her husband would have been there today but he was in the country doing his assessment work. This is the president, Mr. Speaker, of a small mine — a vitally important person to the industry.

"The future growth of the mineral resource industry in British Columbia is going to be exterminated if Bill 44 is going to become law."

This is the wife of a president of a small mining operation. She goes on to say:

"This is the prospector who, despite the more sophisticated technology of today's experts, is still the most valuable person in finding new ore deposits."

This is a lady speaking:

"Having prospected myself for a good many

[ Page 2477 ]

years, I am well aware of the hardships involved. For the government to add to these hardships is not at all justified. However, government should be paying more incentives for the prospectors instead of making it more difficult for them.

"It is also obvious that this legislation would do nothing but increase the welfare roll. The legislation is also going to make it extremely difficult for the junior mining companies to raise the risk capital which is so necessary to their exploration programme. Junior mining companies in the past have been responsible for most of the preliminary exploration work on the majority of British Columbia's producing mines. This is due to their willingness to take the longer risk and preserve more than the major mining companies.

"To introduce legislation which will eventually eliminate the small responsible junior mining companies would be extremely detrimental to any future growth of the mineral resources industry in British Columbia. Already many of these companies are concentrating their exploration in areas outside of British Columbia.

"I am sure that the vast majority of British Columbians are opposed…"

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Who are you reading from now?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading from the thoughts of a wife of a small mining company president.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: How did you read it? Because she didn't have it. I'll have you know, Mr. Speaker, that I have ways and means.

"I am sure that the vast majority of British Columbians are opposed to the legislation. It will only add to the already drastic unemployment within the province. I also say that it is ludicrous that such laws will be considered. It is only an indication of the incompetence of the people who were responsible for these proposals."

I'm quoting her words. I took the effort, Mr. Speaker, and wrote to the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and paid $15 for a tape of the proceedings. I wonder if the Minister was interested enough in that meeting, since he couldn't show up or wouldn't show up himself. If you'd like the tape, Mr. Minister, I'll make it available to you.

You might learn the truth from these prospectors who were at that meeting. You might learn what they are thinking about your proposed legislation. Maybe you'd learn something from it. Maybe I should bring the tape over and play it for you. Then you'd know what the people of the province — 1,100 of those involved in the mining industry — are thinking. I'd be most happy to play the tape for you. If you don't ask for it and haven't enough interest in the mining industry in this province to ask for it, I'll have to draw my own conclusions.

I predict mass unemployment, Mr. Speaker, in the mining industry. I predict the stopping of risk capital. The first chapters in the decline of the mining industry in British Columbia have been written. It will be called, "The Collapse of the Mineral Industry, 1972 Edition" by the man from the Kootenays.

It's bad for the little guy. It's the misuse of power, Mr. Speaker. It creates suppression. Bill 44 is the evil star that is shining and casting its jinx over the mining prospectors in British Columbia. Trample upon them, victimize them, oppress them. Do that to all the little men in the mining industry. That's what Bill 44 is all about, Mr. Speaker. That's this socialist government's aim — to stand on and pinch the shoes of every free enterpriser in British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just have a few more comments that I'd like to make. I'd like to point out to the Minister of Mines, or ask him, Mr. Speaker, if he is aware of where the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines got its start. It's very relevant to Bill 44 and I'll tell you why. An article in the Kootenay Star, Revelstoke, dated May 24, 1890. It prints the constitution and bylaws of the Miners' Association of British Columbia.

Why was it necessary, Mr. Speaker to form such an association?

"The causes which led to the formation of the association and which made it necessary are found in the legislation which is damaging to the interests of miners and mining enacted by the parliament just terminated."

This article is out of the Revelstoke Kootenay Star, Mr. Speaker. "It seems that the government of the day, and without opposition from the opposite side, passed legislation without realizing what they were doing."

That's dated 1890. I want to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that no newspaper is going to write a similar article in 1973.

Now this is what the Kootenay Star says:

"It seems that the government of the day, and without opposition from the opposite side, passed legislation without realizing what they were doing. They passed a law which would compel prospectors to pay $105 before a claim in the railway belt could be recorded."

Then the miners of the day, Mr. Speaker, realized that it was imperative that they should organize for their own protection. I wonder what the miners are going to do in 1973. How far is their reaction going to be felt? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if they're going to pay us a visit here at the Legislature like the farmers had to do with regard to Bill 42. But at that date back in 1890, Mr. Speaker…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They don't have to; they've

[ Page 2478 ]

got you to speak for them.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the Minister to know that I certainly am talking for them. I certainly am talking for the prospectors and the geologists and the surveyors and all the small people in the mining industry. I certainly am speaking out for them here today, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be speaking out for them.

MR. PHILLIPS: It gives me great pleasure to do so, too, Mr. Speaker. I want you to know that. Because when they call a meeting, those miners need somebody to speak out for them, my friends.

But even back in 1890, Mr. Speaker, Premier Robson of that day met with the miners and exchanged opinions. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's too bad we don't have that same type of government here in 1973, with a Premier that would meet with the miners and exchange opinions. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Mines remembers the meeting back in 1890. Do you remember the meeting? You were around weren't you, Mr. Minister? Maybe he was there at that meeting. Yes, Mr. Speaker, maybe it's the last time he's ever met with the miners, too — back in 1890.

All that happened at that meeting, Mr. Speaker, and it's so appropriate at this time because back in those days the government didn't set itself up on such a high pedestal that it wouldn't talk to the ordinary man on the street, that it wouldn't talk to the prospector. Today it has, unfortunately.

The Premier, after realizing the error of his ways, promised to remove certain obnoxious features from the law. Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe if our Minister had met with the prospectors at this meeting, through an exchange of ideas they would have been able to see eye to eye or at least change some of the obnoxious points in this bill. Maybe that's what he was afraid of, Mr. Speaker.

"The object of the association is the union of miners and all interested directly in mining operations for the purpose of promoting and exchanging the mining interests in British Columbia and to advise with the government powers regarding all legislation affecting the same."

That, Mr. Speaker, was the original object of the B.C. Association of Mines when it was formed back in 1890. The object is still there today, Mr. Speaker. However, they find it very difficult to advise with the government powers regarding all legislation affecting the same when the governing powers won't attend their meetings. Very difficult indeed to have any input.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that after Bill 44 the Minister of Mines would be afraid to live with himself.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I had a chill last night.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because, Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 gives the Minister of Mines complete going to be an absolutely corrupted power after Bill 44. I don't know how he'll be able to going to be an absolutely corrupted power after Bill 44. I don't know how he'll be able to live with himself, Mr. Speaker.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I don't know how you can live with yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I find it very easy to live with myself.

The mining industry in Canada has been under attack by the federal government in Ottawa for quite some time, Mr. Speaker. That government is now in a befuddled state of affairs. Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. For the same reason that the mining industry here in British Columbia is going to be in a befuddled state of affairs. Because armchair experts, Mr. Speaker, are making up the rules. I don't know where those armchair experts come from, Mr. Speaker, but someday we will know.

Mr. Speaker, everybody seems to fear that we're running out of resources. This country and province is marvelously and abundantly endowed and we haven't even scratched the surface yet. Ninety per cent of our wealth, Mr. Speaker, still awaits the prospector's pick.

Many nations in the so-called developing world have an abundance of natural wealth, but their natural resource industries have not yet been developed. In those countries, Mr. Speaker, the people are poor because of it. Is that what is going to happen here in British Columbia? Are the people going to be poor because of Bill 44?

"Asked if it was accurate to compare the Barrett regime to Allende's in Chile, a government spokesman said ruefully, 'We're not sovereign; we don't have as much power as they do.' "

I had picked that out of that article long before it was printed and made such a play of here in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. But the article is very appropriate because in Chile there are lots of mines. Because of regressive legislation, Mr. Speaker, the mines are not developed and the people are poor because of it, Mr. Speaker.

We have a fortunate set of circumstances in British Columbia. B.C. has prospered because of innovation and motivation blended with technology and market expertise. Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 proposes to kill all of that. There will be no more innovation in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. There will certainly be no motivation. Our technology will move to other centres. We have also been very fortunate, Mr.

[ Page 2479 ]

Speaker, because of a ready market in the United States plus lots of risk capital. All of this has helped. After Bill 44, Mr. Speaker, that will all be out the window.

Mr. Speaker, socialist and communist countries have succeeded in their efforts to redistribute common wealth. They are all equal in communist countries, Mr. Speaker. They are all poor. Mr. Speaker, that is what's going to happen in British Columbia. After 55 years of experimentation, Russia had to call on the free enterprisers to help them develop their natural resources. If Bill 44 stays in, Mr. Speaker, we may have to go to some other live-wire province in Canada to re-learn after this regime is thrown out, Mr. Speaker.

Nations have an historical tendency to forget what made them great in the first place. But British Columbia is great now, or was great before August 30, Mr. Speaker. But this Government hasn't been around long enough to know why. What made it great? What made the mining industry great in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Lots of ore." That's a typical question from a socialist. "Lots of ore here."

Socialism creeps in these countries, Mr. Speaker, and down they go. Bill 44 will take us to the bottom of that cycle in the mining industry. For those who want to leave minerals in the ground in hopes of a better deal, I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker. Opportunity knocks but once. It's all right for Bill 44 to say, "Leave the minerals in the ground."

But I want to relate to you something that happened in the mining industry just recently in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and which will happen many times after Bill 44 is enacted.

Denison Mines had a potential $1 billion deal with France about eight years ago to sell uranium. But the Canadian government quashed the deal ostensibly on the altruistic grounds that it should have guarantees that the uranium would be used for peaceful purposes. Denision lost a $90 million prepayment which the company was planning to use to acquire two companies — one foreign-controlled and the other an old Canadian company they wanted to rehabilitate and bring back to Canada.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? In stepped the "big club" of government to quash the deal. At that time, eight years ago, Elliott Lake was shut down and public money had to be used eventually to finance a uranium stockpile there to keep up employment in that town.

What happened? What was the eventual outcome of this, Mr. Speaker? Because this is what's going to happen in many instances if Bill 44 is enacted in its present state. France sought out other suppliers and eventually made a deal at a lower price. France put up incentives and went out to discover its own deposits of uranium in its own country. But first of all it had to put up incentives.

Are we going to have to bring back incentives after Bill 44 is enacted? Why take them away in the first place, Mr. Speaker?

France, because of this deal being quashed, now competes with Canada on the world uranium market, selling it at a lower price than we can offer.

Where would Canada have been without its natural resource development, Mr. Speaker? Where would British Columbia be today without natural resource development? We in British Columbia today would be the puppets of Ottawa if we had not had our resources developed. Canada would be the pawns of the Americans and the Americans would have been under the control of Germany had not British Columbia, Canada and the United States of American developed their resources.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the prospectors, the ones who find the minerals in British Columbia, feel the chafing of their necks from the iron clasps of Bill 44. That's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

I want for just a moment to compare Bill 44 to some changes that were recently made in the Ontario…

There are nine Members of the Government in the House as compared to 11 opposition Members. I think we've got 'em. What'll we do? Shall we pass a motion to withdraw Bill 44?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. I'm afraid that they'd pull something out of those…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't make the motion. I'm just talking about it. But you'd pull something out of those numerous books you have there, Mr. Speaker, to get around it somehow.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): We drew lots to see who'd stay and we lost. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Just recently, Mr. Speaker, Ontario made some changes to their mining taxes. I think it would be interesting for just a moment to compare. I wonder if the Minister of Mines ever took the trouble to study other jurisdictions' legislation.

They had a little problem in Ontario and last year they changed it. The Mining Tax Act, 1972 of Ontario received royal assent in December, 1972. With the minor changes that they put in in Ontario, it says, "after a stormy session of the Legislature," the new version of the Act does not differ in principle

[ Page 2480 ]

from the original Act but eliminates some parts and modifies others to bring them into line with accepted practices.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, are we going to be able to read in the newspaper before Bill 44 goes — or after the session is over — that the Minister of Mines, finally having realized how devastating Bill 44 is to the mining industry, and having had those points pointed out to him by the Member for South Peace River, took a second look and revised this bill?

Except for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which come under federal control for mining resources, the provinces — this refers to British Columbia too — have had various basically similar mining tax Acts designed to obtain for the province a return on mineral resources taken from the land which was leased to the developers at relatively low cost.

The lands were and largely still are leased in this way so that those who have the necessary experience and risk capital can seek, find, develop and extract the minerals. The provincial governments, so far at least, have not considered it their place to stake public money in mineral resource development, apart from official exploration and development organizations in Quebec and Manitoba — but provinces for the most part, Mt. Speaker. I guess that was in the days before Eric Kierans.

Our present Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker, because something has been successful and it has worked very well, thinks we've got to change it.

Instead, the provinces let the industry do the work in which it is experienced and in turn impose a form of royalty tax on profits to get compensation for the use of natural resources in the province. But not so in British Columbia. Not any more, Mr. Speaker. Not after Bill 44. The principle of Bill 44 is to nationalize the mining industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is the principle of the bill. I'm merely comparing some legislation that was recently changed in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. In Ontario they even do what the Minister said he was going to do. In Ontario the tax is levied on the ore at pit's mouth based on one of the several ways of estimating the values.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's got nothing to do with that.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I know it hasn't. But what I am saying is if you want to tax the mining industry, tax the mining industry; but leave it still in the hands of private enterprise. That's what I'm saying. And you don't propose to do that by Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Sit down and I'll answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: You propose to take over the mining industry. You propose to do away with the individual prospectors. You propose to hire your own prospectors.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Oh, why don't you wake up?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's good to see the Minister of Health back in the House again. He hasn't been here too much today, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm not very highly motivated…

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Then withdraw your crummy legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not very well motivated either, Mr. Speaker, by this Bill 44.

They made some changes in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, but they were changes that the industry can live with. Bill 44 brings changes to our Mineral Act that the industry cannot live with.

When I say that I'm concerned about Bill 44 and what it's going to do, I know that the socialist government in Manitoba and the socialist government in British Columbia are very close. They're putting their heads together to socialize all the western provinces. What does Mr. Schreyer think, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Schreyer talks of the economic rent which he thinks should be assessed against natural resource companies. This he describes as the surplus profit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That has nothing to do with this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. It's got a lot to do with this bill.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We're in B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're in B.C. and you're afraid. The Minister of Mines sits over there and is trying to not let me find out the truth behind Bill 44. But I'll be very surprised, Mr. Speaker, if Eric Kierans didn't have a hand in drafting Bill 44. I'll be very surprised indeed.

Mr. Speaker, the thing about Bill 44 is that it's just the very, very thin edge of the wedge. It's just the beginning. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister said himself, "There will be more changes to the Mineral Act in the fall session." That will be the final deal. This is just to sort of cushion it a little bit.

[ Page 2481 ]

Then in the fall session, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be surprised to see Eric Kierans sitting right here in the Legislature explaining the new mining Act that's going to be brought in this fall.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign?

MR. PHILLIPS: My gracious, Mr. Speaker, the Premier wants to know if I'm going to resign. I can't resign. I've got too big a job to do here. (Laughter). Every time he brings in a new piece of legislation, it makes that job much bigger and much more critical.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When are you going to start?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe if the Premier would stay in the House, Mr. Speaker, he would know what the Member has been talking about.

But at least Schreyer gets around, not like our Minister of Mines. He addressed a meeting recently in Toronto, Mr. Speaker. The truth came out. The people came out of that meeting and they know where Mr. Schreyer's headed in the mining industry in Manitoba.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we will know eventually that two provinces — maybe three in British Columbia — are going to completely nationalize their mining industry. I predict that the wheels of progress will come grinding to a halt in those provinces. Since the Premier's in the House now, I'll say I think he should have a bust of Karl Marx in his office.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're becoming a bore.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, this legislation is a bit of a bore too.

I have some recommendations, Mr. Speaker, that I'd like to give to the House. A production lease should be automatic once an individual or company has complied with certain reasonable requirements. That is a recommendation I'd like the Minister of Mines to take back to his office to discuss with his Deputy.

Mr. Speaker, these requirements should be spelled out — s-p-e-l-l-e-d o-u-t — in the Act. Then people would know. Right now, Mr. Speaker, they don't know. Everything is left to the discretion. So that's number one suggestion: that it be automatic once an individual or a company has complied with reasonable requirements, and that these requirements be spelled out.

I don't want the Minister or the Premier to come to me tomorrow and say, "Well, you didn't give any suggestions." I want these suggestions to be heeded.

Mr. Speaker, there should not be any discretionary power in the hands of the Minister of Mines to decide whether or not a company or person should receive a production lease. If there is, how are you going to build up a mine? You get so far and then the Minister has the discretion. As I say, if you want to tax the industry, tax the industry. Give them cut-and-dried guidelines to develop themselves with.

Every bill that you bring in now, Mr. Speaker, is at the discretion of the Minister. Everything's at the discretion — unwritten guidelines, unwritten rules that can be changed as the game develops. If this government hasn't got the vision to see what's going to happen in the mining industry, get somebody else to draft the legislation — somebody who can see, somebody who knows something about the industry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the industry is quite prepared to comply with reasonable pollution control laws, land laws, land reclamation laws, mine safety standards et cetera. Again I must emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that all of these requirements should be listed in the Act. They should be laid down. Many of them are now, but in most of the mining laws that we have the guidelines are printed out, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister of Mines wants to play games with the prospectors, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he play fair. He is certainly not playing fair with the prospectors under Bill 44. No way, Mr. Speaker. As Bill 44 is presently written, he can change the rules in the middle of the Act. That, Mr. Speaker, is the way of a coward. You do not have faith enough …

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would you retract that statement — "that's the way of a coward?"

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you still reading from your speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not still reading. I'm using my notes, Mr. Speaker. Would you like to see them and inspect them?

MR. SPEAKER: I note they're rather voluminous.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the effects of Bill 44 are rather voluminous too.

If the Minister does not have faith enough in his own ability to draft proper legislation, if he has to make excuses for his own ineptness, he should at least come forward and tell us who did draw the bill. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, who drew up Bill 44. Was it some crackpot from Manitoba, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, it takes millions of dollars in expenses before a miner knows whether or not he has a property that might be a producer. It is absolutely essential that he know whether he's going to get a

[ Page 2482 ]

production lease, if he's going to be encouraged to spend all of those risk dollars.

The second and one of the most important points in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the increased costs of doing assessment work. The annual rental fee of $20 per claim should be eliminated. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It is far too costly to the individual .prospector. About 1,000 of them exist.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put before the House a recommendation or point out how costly this can be. Under the early assessment costs, if a prospector had four claims it was $400. Under the current assessment cost, if he had 40 claims — which he has to have in today's mining activities; four will not be sufficient — previously it would have cost him $2,000. Now it's going to cost him $4,000. Under Bill 44, Mr. Speaker, for 40 claims it would cost him $8,000 versus $4,000 under the previous arrangement. The difference in cost to early-day assessment on a 20-claim group is $3,600, Mr. Speaker, and that is not peanuts to a prospector who is trying to find his way.

Mr. Speaker, if you're planning on having all of the prospecting in this province done by large companies…which you're going to have to have under that new assessment, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to read to you a couple of letters from some of the geologists in this province who are also affected by the bill and who have written many letters to the Minister, without very much success, Mr. Speaker. Here is a letter to one of the government backbenchers. It's referring to the Press release dated March 21, 1973, by the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. That Press release states, Mr. Speaker, that:

"Considerable interest has been displayed among prospectors in the proposed change in, mineral claim work requirements from $100 to $200 per year. It has to be appreciated that this figure has not changed since 1891, despite the fact that $100 in 1891 were worth the equivalent of no less than $500 today. Even more significant to the prospectors is the inclusion in the amendments of prospecting among the items available for the purpose of meeting work requirements. This was not the case under the existing Act."

The Press release goes on to say:

"The work requirements under preparation by this department stipulate that the cost of prospecting, including an allowance of no less than $20 per day for the time of prospecting, may be submitted in addition to previously existing categories of work.

"In other words, prospecting time of one month's duration, 30 days, will be worth $600 by itself and will thus cover the work requirements for three claims. The actual costs of prospecting, including transportation and expenses, will cover additional claims. Two months of prospecting time — 60 days — will cover the work requirements for at least six claims in that fashion, again without consideration yet to the actual cost of prospecting which will cover further claims.

"It should be quite clear from the above that the inclusion of prospecting among the allowable items for the purpose of meeting work requirements will leave individual prospectors in an improved position regarding work requirements. Any evaluation of Bill 44 must take this factor into consideration."

This letter is from a young fellow in West Vancouver who has a family of four and is involved in the mining industry.

"The subject Press release attached" — his letter states — "exhibits the same deplorable lack of understanding on the part of the individual or those who wrote it as does Bill 44 regarding the individual or those who wrote it. To appreciate this lack of understanding, one must first understand the traditional role of the prospector in the mining industry.

"The prospector has been, and will continue to be the initial finder or discoverer of viable mineral prospects. And he accomplishes this by utilizing the experience he has gained over the decades. His work involves deprivation, toil and disappointment which for most of us would prove mortal. Very occasionally, in the event of uncovering favourable signs, will he stake claims to cover his find, for even under existing legislation he cannot afford fees or assessment work.

"To profit from his labour, the prospector must attempt to interest exploration companies in his find and convince them that they should commit appreciable expenditures on the basis of his few favourable indications. Traditionally, the small stock companies have been essentially the only ones willing to take on the very high initial risks involved and all of us who have bought stock in junior mining companies know what this risk is all about.

"There are some that would call this bogus

[ Page 2483 ]

promotion. The small stock company, like the prospector, does not have the financial resources to go all the way and must attempt to convince the large companies that appreciably greater exploration expenditures involving several millions of dollars, depending on the circumstance, should be committed, and like the prospector, these small companies experienced many, many disappointments. Thus the prospector is a discoverer; the small stock company is the risk-taker and the large company is the developer. This arrangement under the present Mineral Act, which is generally acclaimed as the best on this earth, has proven its efficiency and has generated an exploration expertise in this province that would be difficult to find an equal for anywhere on this earth.

"I would point out, sir, that Bill 44 would increase initial recording costs to the prospector by 600 per cent and work requirements by 200 per cent. Hon. Leo T. Nimsick defends the news release by stating these costs haven't changed materially since 1891 and the dollar has depreciated since that time.

"The point that the Hon. Minister does not appreciate is the fact that there has been a change in the industry since 1891, just as there has been change in the dollar. For instance, the old-timers explored visually with gold pan and hammer along creeks and exposed ridges for small high-grade veins that they could mine or sell. A couple of claims in those days would suffice. Over the years, however, nearly all of the mines that are discoverable by exposed surface indications have been discovered, and most of the ones that will be discovered in the future will be discovered in valleys and other overburdened areas.

"As these targets are far from discreet and as most of these targets are of the large tonnage, low grade bulk type of deposit, the minimum number of claims now required for a viable prospect is 40 or more. Larger companies prefer to protect their interests having 100 or 200 claims.

"I would submit, sir, and ask you to inform the Hon. Minister on my behalf that the proposed fee increases prohibits the prospector from performing his traditional task as the head of the discoverer development chain. The companies with financial resources will have fewer finds presented to them.

"The Hon. Minister is prepared to make an allowance of no less than $20 per day prospecting time for the purpose of meeting work requirements. As a very large proportion of the prospectors' time is spent in trying to find something worthy of staking or, with other words, he stakes after a session's work, all of the prior work is not allowable as assessment work credit under the existing Mineral Act or under Bill 44 amendments. It is conceivable that the Minister responsible for governing the industry is not aware of the requirements of the Act, or his own prose in Bill 44.

"Another important point regarding the 200 per cent increase in assessment work requirements is that this will require a 200 per cent increase in the service work on a claim block in its initial years. As the real merit of mining property usually takes a few years to discover, the 200 per cent increase in the surface work on a claim block will lead to a disproportionate increase in the amount of bulldozing, stripping, blasting et cetera before one can determine how much of the surface marring work is properly and responsibly justified.

"I express my chagrin and disdain regarding the Minister's allowance of $600 for 30 days of prospectors' toil. You realize of course, that a prospector's punch-card time clock is dawn to dusk. He is no 9 am. to 5 pm.-er with regular coffee breaks morning, noon and afternoon. Nor is he a time and-a-halfer with double time for holidays.

"The Hon. Minister's $20 a day allowance for prospectors' experience and toil in terms of dollars-per-hour does not even meet requirements of the Minimum Wage Act. It compares directly to an office boy's salary or to a hamburger waitress's salary. The principle difference being that the prospector gets no tips or bonuses.

"The Hon. Minister's $20 a day allowance in terms of dollars per hour compares directly to the increase in dollars per hour that the electricians and plumbers and carpenters will be going out on strike for next time. If it wasn't for the modern prospectors, those electricians, plumbers and carpenters wouldn't have all their new work in communities like Port Hardy, Princeton, Merritt, Logan Lake, Kamloops, Ashcroft, Highland Valley, Williams Lake, Golden, Rossland, Atlin, Smithers, Babine Lake, Peachland. The province is peppered with communities that owe much of their origin and subsequent development to the toil of the prospectors.

"A $20 a day allowance for prospectors' experience and toil coming from an honourable Minister of the British Columbia Government, would normally be the ultimate insult. But, considering the lack of knowledge regarding the profession and industry exhibited in the new release on Bill 44 by the Hon. Minister, the insult is relegated to a class of mediocrity and insipidity.

[ Page 2484 ]

"Bungles of eleventh hour ready calculations, like the news release and like Bill 44, can only inflict immense damage on the credibility of the Hon. Minister and to the faith in the electorate in the ultimate objectives of the British Columbia Government. It is becoming clearer day by day that these objectives have been adopted from Mr. Eric Kierans' recommendations to the Manitoba Government.

"I would appreciate, sir, if you as my representative would convey to the Legislative Assembly my feeling and concern regarding the matter. Indeed, to save me the cost of Xeroxing, would you as my provincial representative kindly read this letter this session to the Legislative Assembly.

"Thanking you kindly in advance and trusting and depending upon your concern and eloquence on my behalf and on the behalf of the industry, I remain,

Yours truly, Charles A. Lammle"

I wonder if the Minister got a copy of this letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have to read it.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't have to read it, no, because he doesn't want to hear it. That's why he didn't go to the meeting, Mr. Speaker.

I have a number of other letters here, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not going to read, but they all point to the same things — the recommendations that I have been pointing out, Mr. Speaker. A lot of them, Mr. Speaker, are very, very, pertinent.

There's one here that I probably should read because it's …

HON.MR.MACDONALD: …better than making a speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, we get the yak, yak, yak from the A.G. We got along very well when you were down in Ontario — why don't you go back and stay?

Here is a letter to the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick. This is the one I was looking for, Mr. Speaker.

"I've just taken the time to digest your Bill 44 and the Press release of March concerning that bill. The resultant effect is acute despair for myself and the mineral industry in this province. In particular, I would like you to clarify just what your underlying philosophy is for the mineral industry in British Columbia.

"In their telegram of March 5, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines outlined to you serious areas of uncertainty in the bill as far as production leases are concerned. I endorse this observation, as must all in our field, which includes yourself and your advisors. You must also see that these uncertainties will lead to phasing down and/or curtailing the exploration and development in this province.

"I can only construe, therefore, that you in fact want just this. In other words, you wish the minerals to remain in the ground. Why? If this is your philosophy, please be honest and tell us so that we know where we stand and can make our plans for departure to more favourable climes" — he must mean climate — "or find alternative employment.

"If it is not your philosophy, I find it difficult to understand why a man in your position, with the best men in the industry only too ready to give you their advice, would add further risks to an already high-risk field.

"Your explanation will be gratefully received by myself and the mineral industry as a whole."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Did you get a copy of my reply?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as a matter of fact, I'll read your reply.

Here's another very important letter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member in this House, I would like to know if we're here to deal with Bill 44, or if we're on a contest to see who in that party can speak the longest. The people from my riding didn't send me down here to listen to this type of garbage for four hours. They sent us down here to do some work.

MR. SPEAKER: It's certainly a point of order, if the Hon. Member is deliberately obstructing the business of the House. I have to determine that question and it's the sole prerogative of the Speaker to do so. I'm leaning very heavily against drawing that conclusion as long as the Member deals with constructive points that somehow or other can be related to Bill 44. But four hours of debate on a principle as simple as revealed in Bill 44 strikes me as pushing the House practically beyond the point of endurance. I ask the Hon. Member, who promised an hour ago that he was concluding his remarks, to finally come to the stage of that conclusion.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's very interesting…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Are you suggesting to the Speaker that he cannot tell the Member to discontinue his speech under the standing orders, when the Speaker deems that he is not in conformity with the rules? Is that your submission, Hon. Member? I'm addressing it to the Member for

[ Page 2485 ]

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

If he has nothing to say, would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very disappointed in your remarks because this is a very far-reaching bill. As I said at the beginning, if four hours of debate on a bill that involves an industry that generates 25 cents out of every dollar in British Columbia is too long in this Legislature, there must be new rules! And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: …that if I can't read good suggestions in this Legislature from people in the industry, I'd like to see those rules!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member direct his attention to Bill 44?

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a letter to the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick and it's "Re amendments to Bill 44." It happens to be from a fellow who has a degree in engineering and in mining engineering, so I would suggest to the House that the letter would be very appropriate under the terms of reference in Bill 44. If I have to go through a judicial request every time I want to read a letter in this House with regard to Bill 44, I'm quite prepared to do it. We'll let it be scrutinized by the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who calls it garbage.

MR. LEWIS: You haven't said anything all afternoon.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you had something in there in between your ears, maybe you could hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: "Dear Sir:

"As a very active member of the British Columbia mining fraternity, I welcomed the concept of change in the Act, but I was extremely disturbed by what I saw tabled.

"Discretionary powers of a Minister leave uncertainties that are unacceptable when huge sums of money are to be expended. Such a situation existed in Australia to the jeopardy of their mining industry, with uncertain tenure on the ground. I could foresee a situation arising where a major company would not be granted its right to mine unless a percentage was allocated to the government. This gives the government the envious position of being able to pick over the best of the feasibility studies submitted and selecting the ones in which they wish to invest. I would love that opportunity, as would 20 major mining companies in town.

"It should not be forgotten that to reach the stage of feasibility, a major mining company may have spent $10 million on exploration and other projects. The requirement that a feasibility study be submitted before the mining is allowed curtails any chance that a small miner, leaser, or hydrator has to obtain a few hundred tons from a small, otherwise uneconomic mine or showing, and of making a living in this way. This is particularly onerous when the price of gold and silver makes such small vein-tied operations viable.

"The non-issuance of a free miner's certificate to a non-citizen who has been in the country more than eight years is utterly discriminatory and ridiculous. How many people will it affect? Why should somebody who has spent eight years working toward the benefits of British Columbia be treated in a poorer way than somebody who has just come and been here maybe one or two years? They are as much a part of British Columbia as a citizen.

"The requirement that when a claim expires it is mandatory to submit all engineering data within three months is onerous and unworkable, though I agree it is desirable. There should be some incentive for its submission progressively. Very often, the ex-owner of the claim does not have all the technical data and may not even have carried out or paid for the work that has been done.

"I feel qualified to speak on the above matters as I have worked for three years on proposed changes in the mining laws, both with the Mining Exploration Group and the Chamber of Mines.

"We have made some very constructive solid proposals to your department. We have had excellent cooperation with your first-class men in your department. I strongly recommend you review the submission that we have made and use the skills and background the industry is providing free of charge."

See what you can come up with when you read some of this correspondence into the record, Mr. Speaker?

"We now know the Minister of Mines has had lots of input on Bill 44. I think we in British Columbia have probably the best Mineral Act in the world. But like you, I believe that it can be improved. Let us make our improvements step by step and not destroy an industry that has grown steadily, paying larger and larger taxes to the people of British Columbia. Vancouver is the exploration capital of the world with a tremendous pool of skill and expertise that is already reaching out as an invisible export. Mining people think internationally. If the climate is not suitable in British Columbia, they and the money that goes with them will move to better locations."

[ Page 2486 ]

He continues, Mr. Speaker, and he says:

"I speak with feeling as I have poured 17 years of my professional life into British Columbia and I do not wish to move elsewhere."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, that's the type of reaction from the mining industry.

It is very difficult for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, why this Legislature does not want to explore the ramifications of Bill 44 to the very ultimate. I would say, Mr. Speaker, and I have said before, they changed just a few tenets of their mining Act in British Columbia and they had lots of opportunity for debate. Lots of opportunity for debate. It wasn't done under harassment.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker, from another engineering firm — a young fellow. I met him. He also has a degree in engineering. He is very concerned about Bill 44. I just wish, Mr. Speaker, that we had the opportunity to debate the second reading of Bill 44 earlier in the Legislature; but we didn't, so we have to take the time today.

This is a letter to the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, with a carbon copy to the Hon. David A. Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia.

"Dear Sir:

As discussed in our meeting in November, the mineral exploration industry has been most concerned over the uncertainties of impending legislation affecting the mineral industry. As you yourself had stated, the rules of the game must be clearly defined before the players can commit to play."

Evidently the Minister of Mines did commit himself back in November to laying out the rules of the game, but in Bill 44 they are not very clearly spelled out, Mr. Speaker — they are all at the discretion of the Minister.

"As you yourself had stated, the rules of the game must be clearly defined before the players can commit to play. It has therefore been with some considerable interest that I have awaited your legislation ensuring a better return to the people of British Columbia from their mineral resources. I have just received and reviewed a copy of Bill 44 and your accompanying Press release. Although I support many of the changes proposed in this bill, I am most distressed to note that many of the uncertainties remain unsolved and that of greatest significance; the Government is guaranteeing that the rules of the game will remain unknown until the Minister with his discretionary power decides on each individual case."

Why don't you tell this man with his degree in engineering to read the bill then? He's read the bill and he reads it the same as I read it and he understands what's in it.

"These discretionary powers are appalling when one considers they might be utilized by the Minister to negotiate a preferential equity position in the mining development."

He knows what the bill is all about. The same as I know what the bill is about, Mr. Speaker.

"That such an obvious conflict of interest can be embodied in the proposed legislation can only reflect the Government's lack of understanding of this industry and the lack of expertise in understanding their own legislation. Should this conflict of interest remain unresolved, your position and that of the Government can only be jeopardized in future dealings with both the mining industry and the electorate of British Columbia."

He understands the bill.

"If Bill 44 assures a better return to the people of B.C. then I must assume the Government has decided that the mineral resources would best remain undetected and undeveloped by industry. In its present form, Bill 44 will undoubtedly result in a massive exodus of exploration and development funds from British Columbia. The large tonnage, low-grade deposits, famous in this area, require long-term stability with known ground rules before the enormous risk capital can be attracted to discover and develop these deposits.

"Very few companies will care to risk their funds on a long-term basis when the rules of the game can be modified at any stage to suit the political whims of the government.

"I consider Bill 44 to be a most adverse piece of legislation precluding the raising of additional risk capital for exploration in British Columbia. I trust you will appreciate the immediate effect of the present Bill will be the loss and dispersion of many highly-qualified and competent exploration groups who have contributed to the success and expansion of the mineral industry in this province. This will not only affect some 4,000 persons directly employed by exploration companies, but will also involve the many service contract and supply groups who are directly dependent on exploration activity for their income."

He finishes the letter by saying:

"I appreciate your comment that the mines department will be expanding its service to industry. I only trust you have the discretion to modify Bill 44 so that the industry also may be served."

Now, I want to support the resolution that was passed at this meeting of 1,100 miners and prospectors in the Hotel Vancouver.

"This resolution was passed unanimously by a general meeting of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines held in the Pacific Ballroom of the Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, on Friday, March 23.

"Whereas the mining industry in British Columbia has been expanding at a rapid rate with

[ Page 2487 ]

a record mineral production of $631 million in 1972; and whereas the growth of the industry has brought great benefits to the people of British Columbia providing direct and indirect employment for 64,000 persons, a substantial market for a wide variety of manufactured goods and services and increased tax revenues to all forms of government; and whereas the future of this industry is now seriously threatened by drastic changes in British Columbia's mining laws proposed by the provincial government, including the threat of increased taxation in the form of royalties on the production of mines which would cause the mineral industry in this province to become unattractive to essential risk capital.

"Whereas introduction at the current session of the Legislature of Bill 44 — An Act to Amend the Mineral Act: (a) drastically increases the cost of staking and holding mineral land in British Columbia with particular hardship to prospectors; (b) places discretionary powers in the hands of the government to decide whether or not an individual or company can place its mine in production and under what conditions; (c) forces small producers to obtain a costly and cumbersome production lease; (d) makes it possible for the provincial government to participate in the ownership of mines after private capital has taken all risks which would discourage private investment.

"Recent imposition of a freeze on locating placer ground in this province at a time when the price of gold is substantially higher and thousands of men are unemployed. Whereas, as a result of all of these factors, mineral exploration and a new mine development in British Columbia is being seriously retarded with the immediate loss this year of 500 jobs in mineral exploration, many by students, and the threatened loss of thousands of more jobs, including those in the service industries, in the curtailment of mine development and plans for production.

"Therefore be it resolved that the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines go on record as urging that the provincial government take immediate steps to restore confidence in the industry by:

"(1) Publicly declaring that a careful study will be made of mine taxation before any action is taken; also that the government recognizes the unique and high-risk nature of mining and, as a result, intends to provide the incentives necessary for a progressive industry.

"(2) Amending Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Mineral Act, so as to preserve the rights of free miners and "(a) encourage more prospecting activity by reducing the threatened increased cost of staking and holding mineral land in this province;

"(b) remove discretionary powers from the government by making automatic the granting of a production lease to any individual or company that has complied with reasonable conditions to be set forth in the Act."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You've already said that before.

MR. PHILLIPS:

"(c) Exempt small claim and lease holders from the provisions of a production lease.

"(3) Restraining the government's obvious desire to spend taxpayer dollars in becoming involved in the financing of this high-risk industry.

"(4) Immediately removing the current reserve on staking placer leases in British Columbia and taking steps necessary to encourage unemployed persons to become involved in the industry."

I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister has a copy of it. This resolution was signed by and endorsed by everyone.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not by everyone.

MR. PHILLIPS: By everyone at the meeting.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I have a letter to show you that it wasn't.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, one out of 1,100 is a very small percentage. One out of 1,100. But when the resolution was read, there was a standing ovation. There was a standing ovation for all of the speakers. I want to tell the Minister, Mr. Speaker through you, that it may be a good thing that the Minister wasn't at that meeting.

Some of the prospectors at that meeting were pretty ugly, Mr. Speaker. They don't like people interfering with their rights — rights that they've had since the beginning of British Columbia. Many of those prospectors have been prospecting all their life. They don't like somebody infringing with their rights, particularly somebody who won't come and meet them on their own ground.

Mr. Speaker, that's why at this time I'm going to close my end of the debate. But I certainly should carry on for several hours longer because this piece of legislation points up again the ineptness of this Government at drawing legislation. It points up to their overall plan, which they certainly subscribed to when they signed the Waffle manifesto. That's what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker: to completely nationalize the mining industry in British Columbia —

[ Page 2488 ]

make no mistake about it. The people in the industry know it. The prospectors know it. Someday, the message will get to all the people in British Columbia.

I'm going to ask once more, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, to withdraw this bill or at least hold it over until the fall session. Take some time to talk to the people involved in the industry. They're most unhappy. If you're sincerely interested in your portfolio as Minister of Mines, you will recognize that people are concerned. You will recognize the amount of determination they have in this concern, Mr. Minister.

If you were at all a conscientious Minister, you would listen to some of their concern. It's not just propaganda, Mr. Speaker. It's not just a surface concern. It's a real concern. That's one other reason, Mr. Minister, that I was very disappointed that you weren't at this meeting so that you could see the real concern of real honest-to-goodness hard-working prospectors who have their life tied up in this industry.

Now you've changed the rules. You're either going to hire them or they're going to get out of the business. I don't care, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is saying to make you laugh. If you're at all conscientious and if you have any reading of the public at all and if you know what the people of British Columbia are thinking about Bill 44, you will hold it over or you will change it.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier of this province has any savvy at all, he will meet with you and he will say, "Maybe, Mr. Minister, we acted too fast. Maybe, Mr. Minister, we should take a second look. Maybe, Mr. Minister, we are infringing on the rights of those prospectors. Maybe Mr. Kierans didn't have such a good idea after all." I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is able to read the public at all, he'll know the honest, true concern.

All I've done this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is try to point out to the Government my concern and the concern of many Members on this side of the House. I don't care, Mr. Speaker, if it takes four hours or 44 hours. When a bill as far-reaching as Bill 44 comes before this Legislature, somebody has to point out what is going on.

So I hope that some of my recommendations and some of my requests to both the Premier and to the Minister of Mines will not go unheeded. Because if they do, Mr. Speaker, the things that I predicted this morning will come to be reality. Every last citizen, be he young or old, be he male or female, be he worker or executive, will suffer some of the far-reaching consequences of this type of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed I want to interrupt the proceedings briefly on a point of privilege.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) told the House this afternoon that my ruling on his petition was contrary to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Murray in 1972 Journals. This is clearly a mis-statement of fact since no Speaker's decision was made by that Speaker in respect to the petition put in by the same Member on March 29, 1972. You can see that in the Journals, page 237 and 238.

The procedure on that occasion was just that the Member filed his petition. It was neither called the following day, as would be expected under standing order 73, nor reported on as to its regularity under standing order 73(6) by the Clerk. Consequently, the Speaker had no duty cast on him, the petition never coming before him to consider or rule upon, or the House to vote upon.

I want that matter cleared up because of what the Hon. Member said when he was arguing on the point of order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, to speak on a point of order to your comments. The petition in question appears under orders of the day if it is accepted by the Clerks. The procedure that was followed last year at the time that this petition of Mr. Howard Sullivan was presented was that it was accepted on the Table the following day. The Clerks indicated that the petition was in order. Thereafter it appeared on orders of the day to be called by the House Leader at such time as it came up…

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member knows it was never called.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but, Mr. Speaker, it was on the order paper to be called. And the fact that it was placed on the order paper indicated its acceptance by the Speaker, and thereby by the House. The fact that it appears on the order paper does not necessarily mean it is called for debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member said it was a ruling of the Speaker. It was not a ruling of the Speaker. I want to make my statement clear. I have made my statement. Would the Hon. Member sit down and we'll get on with the other matter before the House. With great respect, the Hon. Member is incorrect. Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Now does anyone want to talk on Bill 44? The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We too have a few words on Bill 44, but first I would like to congratulate the Member who just sat down. He is getting in training now. After four hours debate last time, on Bill 42, his voice showed much more signs of fatigue. I was surprised he sat down in

[ Page 2489 ]

fact, because he is definitely showing more strength than he did in Bill 42. And I thought he might continue a bit longer.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, his voice is still strong, Mr. former Premier, he has no signs of laryngitis.

In any event, the bill before us, Bill 44, has a number of features which we in this party cannot accept. First, we question the whole concept of having the government coming into one of the industries which is the most risk-prone perhaps of any in the province. In addition, we dislike the concept of the government, the Minister, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council as well, having virtually full control over what happens to a proposal for a mine to be developed.

We don't mind regulations being set up — regulations to insist upon the utilization of low-grade ores; regulations for the proper environmental safeguards. Those things are well and good. But we dislike a bill which gives this blank cheque to the government, after a mine has been discovered, to make up its own mind at that point as to what will happen. We realize there can be considerable interaction between these two provisions of the Act, and that there can be considerable leaning on any company to insist that that company accept government participation, that it accept government part-ownership prior to the issuing of any permit to continue production.

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines had a meeting which has been referred to earlier. The first point they made at that meeting, and the resolution that was passed at that meeting, was they were fearful that this type of legislation would make the province unattractive to essential risk capital. Well perhaps they were wrong there, because we'll get plenty of capital from the government, and it is the intention of the government to scare off other capital so that it can buy up the industry at a relatively cheap price.

I don't know what the Minister's intentions are here, but the fact that this particular bill, Bill 44, provides for putting government money into industry may mean that they are wrong in that there will be plenty of capital, but it will all be government capital, and the industry will simply become an industry run by a Crown corporation.

They go on to talk, in their resolution, of the drastically increased cost of staking and holding mineral land in B.C. They talk of the particular hardship on prospectors. Well, this is true. I have no wish to go through some of the material read into the record already on this. But, the schedules for fees have substantially gone up, and there is no question about it, the prospector is in a much more difficult financial position vis-a-vis the government.

The third point. It places discretionary powers in the hands of the government to decide whether or not an individual or company can place its mine into production, and on what conditions. Well that, we feel, goes simply, as I mentioned earlier, far too far. We cannot have situations where laws are made, not to set up the guidelines under which people must act, but laws made simply to give total power to Ministers and to their agents.

I know we have made the same point before in the fall session with legislation on labour, and we have made the same point before in this spring session with other legislation, but we'd like to make it again here: legislation should not be simply enabling powers for Ministers to act much as they see fit. We think that legislation that we pass in this House should give a citizen an idea what the framework is in which he is operating, and if he looks at the legislation he should be able to know how he should conduct his affairs to carry on his normal business, his normal activities in a way that does not harm other people. That is a pretty basic principle which Bill 44, unfortunately violates. And for that reason alone, we would be voting against it.

The resolution passed by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines goes on to talk of the government participation. They were worried there that the government would participate only after private enterprise, or the private prospector or company has taken all the risks. Well, perhaps the Minister has some words on this.

Perhaps the government intends to get in a little earlier and take some of the risks with the private enterpriser, with the prospector or with the company — I am going to say more on that later on.

But I trust the Minister has had a close look at that, because it is possible under the situation which will be created if Bill 44 is passed in its present form for the government to say, "Aha! it looks like a profitable operation. We have had a look at the plan they've put forward. We'll hold the thing up; we'll delay it; we'll cause them a lot of hassle, and then we'll come in and propose that we run it on a 50-50 basis, or a 60-40 basis, or something of that nature." And there is nothing to stop that happening in this particular bill. In fact, it is the type of thing which this bill might well encourage.

I know that the Minister, who is an amiable and pleasant fellow, would not be the one that would do this. But, we on this side of the House have to realize that there are many backbenchers who would like his seat in the cabinet. We realize that some of them might be less generous to the mining industry — less reliable and acceptable to have this type of powers in his hand. I see that he is already looking over his shoulder, looking down there and pointing at the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

[ Page 2490 ]

But, whoever it might be — it might be a change of government — this is the type of power which we feel this Legislature should not pass, nor give. We feel this is the type of power that the executive arm of the government should not be given by the representatives of the people because it so happens that this is precisely the type of power which could be badly, badly abused in the future by this Minister or indeed some other — and I expect it would be some other. It is the type of thing which gives a carte blanche, the open type of legislation which allows just about anything to take place as the government wishes. And in this type of Legislature, where we are here to protect the rights of citizens of this province, I don't think that we can possibly accept such legislation without substantial amendment.

This, however, is a principle which the government seems very closely attached to. We trust that the Minister in his summing up will try and indicate what steps are going to be taken to minimize the type of situation that I have envisaged, and which I have mentioned to him right now. Because if we leave it as it is, totally without safeguards, we are leaving the public totally without safeguards. And leaving the public without safeguards, leaving them subject to capricious actions on the part of the executive, is not to fulfil the duties that we have been elected to fulfil in this Legislature.

We are not the government, those of us who sit in the backbenches, those of us who sit in the opposition. We are here to check on the rights of people in this province, and this bill goes a long way to erode those rights of the citizens.

As far as the effect on the mining industry itself goes, and the effect on what might happen to the economy as opposed to the other principles I mentioned, the first problem that comes to mind is prospecting. What is going to happen to the prospector who after all, is responsible for the first step in the mining operation, namely discovering where the ore bodies are? This bill creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty in his mind. That has been indicated in the correspondence that I have received, the Minister has received, and the correspondence which the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has read at great length into the record.

There is uncertainty among the people engaged in prospecting. They don't know what the government will do. They want to know and they have a right to know. This type of legislation should not be introduced because it simply increases their uncertainty.

Now, what happens if there is this uncertainty? The government has the right to step in after an ore body has been found. It can dictate whether the body will be mined, and how the proceeds are to be distributed. What happens, of course, is that the interest in prospecting will decline. People are not going to take the risks if they find themselves surrounded in the future by regulations of which they know nothing when they start their prospecting. They have to wait and see what happens afterwards. In my view, this creates the. type of uncertainty which will be very damaging to the industry.

I have no wish to quote at great length, but I think that the Mining Exploration Review (1972-73) of British Columbia and the Yukon, published by the Chamber of Mines, is important here. It talks about exploration in 1972, and it says here, on p. 2:

"The mineral exploration scene during the winter of 1971-72 reached a low level. It was estimated that dollars spent on exploration in '71 totalled about $32 million, a drop of 25 per cent from the previous year.

"Nearly 100 professional engineers and geologists were unemployed in the Vancouver area, and prospects for 1972 appear bleak. Fortunately," — they went on to say — "as the new season progressed there was a substantial improvement."

"I think it is correct to state that our estimate of $42 million spent on exploration in 1972 is accurate. Reasons for the increased activity were" — and the one that perhaps is most important is the third one — "some re-establishment of confidence among mining exploration companies brought about by a somewhat more favourable attitude of government and prospects for improved world trade conditions."

The third thing they list here — and it's not a question of listing them in terms of importance — is the re-establishment of confidence. It's that confidence which the Minister and this bill have gone so far to take away.

They talk on pp. 4 and 5 of what might happen in 1973, the year we're in now. The first, in terms of personal observations of the president, is that while the provincial government has made some rather drastic statements as to what it might do, it is possible that time, experience and acquisition of knowledge as to the true status of the mineral industry may temper some of the more radical viewpoints. Well, that clearly hasn't happened.

Later in this review the chamber talks about the need for changes to the Mineral Act. They talk about the need for modest changes which they claim are possibly overdue. I think that in this respect they've not simply stated that they want to keep the old, no change; they have stated they want something more positive and progressive. But they point out that the dollar volume of exploration activity should not be affected by these changes.

Well, that's what the chamber says and I think there's a lot of truth in what they said. They, after all, study the industry pretty closely and they know it pretty well. It's the effects on prospecting which in my mind are particularly damaging in terms of this

[ Page 2491 ]

loss of confidence.

The Chamber of Mines, the president, Mr. Schulz, and Mr. Elliott, the manager, sent a telegram to the Minister on March 5 dealing with Bill 44. The third paragraph is important. It states:

"One of the most damaging aspects of this proposed legislation relates to the uncertainty over the terms the government will demand before granting a production lease to any individual or company. This uncertainty is clearly evident in sections 7, 59, and 64 of the bill. Obviously no individual or company would be prepared to spend large sums of money, millions of dollars, on prospecting or exploring and developing a mineral deposit unless there is a specific guarantee that a production lease would be granted after requirements of the Act have been met."

In this Act we don't know what the requirements are because in this Act what they have to do of course is make application to the government who will in its wisdom, depending on who is running the department, issue a production lease or refuse it as the case may be or suggest that they go in with the province on some financial arrangement before this could happen.

The president of the chamber, Mr. Speaker, the same Mr. Edgar Schulz, is vice-president of Placer Development Ltd. He stated in a letter which I have here in my hand that "All commitments which were made prior to the era of the present government will be honoured…otherwise we will pull back in B.C. But we have no faith in the present government. We just do not know the rules of the game any more."

Now he is obviously — perhaps he was in a depressed mood at that time. He has had since then taken on the presidency of the chamber. He's bounced back a bit and his confidence has…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister states he's already had it then. Well, I may be wrong. Perhaps he's just as depressed as he ever was. And the Minister has done nothing in the interim to cheer him up and nothing to cheer up anybody else in the industry too. I was giving the Minister the benefit of doubt at that point, but he obviously doesn't want it.

What I am saying though is that there is a man who is in a very responsible position, not only in the industry itself in his company, but in terms of the Chamber of Mines. He and his company are simply marking time.

You know, Mr. Minister, you laugh away, but one of the ironies of the letterhead of the Chamber of Mines is that your name comes first on it. It is the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines, Honorary President the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Every time I get a letter like this giving you a hard time, Mr. Minister, I can't help but notice your name on top of it. It seems like you've got a split personality there.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Honest Leo.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Honest Leo? Just Hon. Leo.

But in any event, this is a serious problem with respect to prospecting. The Minister's statement today has done absolutely nothing to make it any less serious and any less worrying. The statements so far made outside the chamber have in addition done nothing.

The next question of course is production. The same general criticisms hold here. Production is obviously tied to prospecting. If the ore bodies are not being found, the chances of production taking place are substantially reduced.

But there is another aspect which I'd like to mention, and that is that production is often a question of arranging massive financing; it's based upon certain market projections perhaps years hence. It's a gamble in a way, more than perhaps the company which sets up production and can start producing a commodity the day after tomorrow. Mining is a very long-range business.

You have introduced here, Mr. Minister, with this legislation, much more uncertainty than previously. In my mind the companies that can best stand that type of uncertainty are the largest ones. That's always the case. The people who can ride out the swings are the big fellows, not the small. The people who can gamble on changes in the future are the big and not the small.

So what you're really doing with this legislation is putting even more control and power in the hands of the big international corporations — the American, Japanese and German corporations. Sure we have one or two big Canadian ones, but many of the Canadian outfits dealing in British Columbia are small. If they're British Columbian they're even smaller, quite frequently.

These people are not going to be able to take that same burden of uncertainty in the same way that the big companies can. Not only have you created more uncertainty in a general way but you've created a climate in which the big are going to do a great deal better than our own native Canadian or native British Columbian corporations.

Of course there is the old stand-by — there is the government's opportunity to invest. If a British Columbia corporation has doubts, then they can go in on a deal they can't refuse from the government. I

[ Page 2492 ]

don't know whether it would be like the Sukunka deal or whatever that deal might turn out to be. We don't know yet. But in any event the Canadian corporation knows that finally they can always deal with the government, and we have the precedent of Sukunka not so many weeks ago.

We also have in another resource industry the precedents of Ocean Falls and the Columbia Cellulose which indicate the Government's desire to get into the resource industries.

Mr. Minister, those two points are pretty critical. There's another one which I think is critical — the changes in taxation — and it has been mentioned in correspondence to you; and that is the effect on utilization of low-grade ores. If we're in a situation where we're out to perhaps get returns as fast as possible, it may be that low-grade ores simply will not be utilized as they should be and the overall mining operation, because of the uncertainties that have been introduced, will not be as efficient or effective as would otherwise be the case.

We in British Columbia and elsewhere in the world, this same thing holds true; you see tailings of old mines being reworked because they weren't using the low-grade at the time that the original mining went on. I have a suspicion that with the paying of more tax the lower-grade ore bodies now being mined will remain in the ground and a considerable inefficiency will be introduced into the whole mining picture in British Columbia.

There's a creaming, if you like, of the good ores and a leaving of the less good. The creaming or rip-off of only high-grade ores is, in my mind, another potentially serious problem coming from this type of legislation.

What would we say, for example, if the timber industry acted in that way? It's happened in the past. They've left the less valuable products and indeed, unfortunately in certain instances, it's happening today. Yet timber is a renewable resource. The mineral deposits are not. If you leave low-grade ore, which perhaps if averaged would be high-grade ore and would result in the whole body being utilized, if you leave the low-grade perhaps there never will be a time when it's economic to work it.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to something I mentioned earlier that I would be discussing more fully, and that is the thrust of this type of legislation. The legislation we had last night — passed in principle last night — dealing with subsidies; this legislation that we have here; we're trying to find out, Mr. Minister, what precisely is the objective of the Government. I think this is a fair question. The uncertainty that's been created by Bill 44 has led a lot of people to wonder about what is the true objective of the Government in the mining field as well as in the other resource fields.

There's a clear desire in my opinion — and I refer specifically to the provisions allowing for investment in the mining industry and of course the other one that I mentioned; I think it's new clause 64 or 65, dealing with control — there's a clear desire on the part of the government to get into the mining industry.

The Government's advisor in this respect is Professor Eric Kierans. He has made his view pretty clear on a number of occasions. I'd like to quote an interview with him — which has not yet been quoted curiously enough, although I thought everything had been quoted. He's talking here, Mr. Speaker, about the question of how the public can maximize benefits from mining, and I quote:

"But Kierans had a ready answer to this attack."— I should perhaps have said the attack was that the companies would leave — "He will urge the Barrett government to set up its own mining exploration agency. It can be done efficiently, according to Mr. Kierans, for a capital investment of about $15 million a year."

He goes to say:

"If they know the Government is in the race for the wealth under the ground, mining companies will do anything to 'get there first,' he says. " I see the Minister of Mines is now taking instructions from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

But this is a statement by Mr. Kierans. It's in connection with and it's in terms of his advice being proffered to this Government. The, story is dated December 18, 1972. So one would expect that by now this advice had filtered from McGill University through to the building that we're in at the moment and that this advice is presently here.

I'll carry on with the quote for a moment: "It's an option already under serious study in Victoria, the Star learned from Government advisers." This is the Toronto Star I'm quoting.

Now back on December 18 Ontario reporters were able to come here and discover that the Government is seriously considering entering the mining industry by way of a Crown corporation. Now, Mr. Minister, I don't want to be at all hard on you, but I did ask you similar questions on March 30 in the debate on your estimates. I asked you, "Does the Minister now have people looking at the industry from the point of view of entry with a Crown corporation to take up the slack?" The Minister shakes his head. In answer, he went on to say, "no consideration going on right now about anything in regards to a Crown corporation." And yet months ago we had a Toronto reporter quoting Government sources in this building, stating that's precisely what the Government had in mind.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They've given up. I answered you correctly.

[ Page 2493 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister says they have given up. They have studied and rejected the Kierans proposals.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: At that time we discussed it, but gave it up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, at one time it was discussed, but then it wasn't done. It's a change from giving it up.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I must quickly assure the Minister that I am in no way doubting his word. I am sure he is as honest as the day is long and I am sure he answered me in all good faith. But what I am saying is perhaps other studies are taking place with which he is less familiar than perhaps some other Members of the Government. These studies that are taking pace — perhaps which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) may be fully aware of — may indicate more about the Government's attitude towards the whole question of entering into the resource industry.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

You know, we have the Manitoba government, which is a moderate NDP government. It's just received, as I mentioned last night, its Kierans report on what to do. It's one of the ironies of the situation that it's one of the hottest sellers out of the Premier's office in Manitoba. It's a commercial success because so many people are buying it. Indeed, when I phoned for a copy they said they had only three left. But it's coming. It's a pretty interesting document — 150 pages. I am fortunate that my honourable friend from Peace River (Mr. Phillips) didn't have it, or he might have tried to read the whole thing into the record.

What I will say on it is to give some of the analysis that was in the newspaper recently. It's a document which says that the Manitoba government "must become sole mine owner or miller and mineral prospector in the province. And the way to do this is to increase taxes on mining companies to such an extent that they will eventually leave in disgust."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This is about the report done for Premier Schreyer. It goes on to talk about resources Minister Sidney Green, who has suggested that "Kierans is pussyfooting around." That's typical criticism of Liberals. Instead of repatriation over 10 years through heavier taxation "Green wants direct expropriation of all mineral assets."

Now the Premier of that province has gone on to say that this is a great report with application for all Canada. Presumably, that means other NDP provinces. He says that there are many things that the state cannot run well, but mining is not one of them. In other words, he thinks it's an area where the state is effective and efficient and should enter.

So we're in a situation here where we have the statements made by the Minister dealing with the Crown corporation in the short run which I am sure are perfectly accurate. But in the long run there is cause for considerable concern.

We've had a trend in legislation which we have seen last night and today which tries to wipe out incentives, which tries to wipe out working with industry and giving rewards or incentives for more processing. We've had instead, a bit of legislation today which we think could be punitive and could indeed force these companies into the very state that is suggested by Mr. Green in Manitoba that they should be in, namely in a position where they wish to quit.

Now why do I make this point at this time? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's very relevant at this point where we have this legislation. It's part of the principles of this legislation. The well-known manifesto signed by many Members of the present cabinet — however hard they have tried to disavow it, they still signed it, and not so long ago — dealt with some of the points that I have raised this afternoon.

It states that "Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national planning of investment and the public ownership of the means of production." No applause from the NDP backbench? I'm surprised. That document was signed by five of the cabinet.

"The New Democratic Party must provide leadership in the struggle to extend the influence of workingmen into every area of industrial decision making." Well that of course was tied in with the bill on the trade unions last night.

The important ones, perhaps, are the relevant instruments for bringing the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and control and for altering the priorities established by corporate capitalism are at hand. "They include extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the key resource industries."

Now those are the quotes from a document which is considered to be highly amusing by the deputy chairman of committees of the House. But it is a document, the Waffle manifesto, Mr. Minister…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That Minister has never read it. Congratulations. He's never struck me as being an ideologist. It only indicates once more that I think that while he perhaps is perfectly honest in saying that he has no intention of setting up a Crown

[ Page 2494 ]

corporation, some of those people who not only read this document but took part in the drafting of it and signing it, perhaps, have different views.

So we're in a situation where the mining industry, based clearly on the statements made and signed by Present Members of the cabinet, has every reason to feel threatened. It has every reason to feel threatened because this type of legislation that we are passing today gives a complete blank cheque to the Government to take it over as it sees fit without any compensation.

They can, by use of these two sections — the section dealing with issuing of production permits and the section dealing with investment, they can completely prevent any company in this province from operating in any manner at all except precisely as the government wishes. They can, in addition, prevent any company from operating unless that company has exactly the amount of public funding which the government wishes. This we feel is the implementation of a principle which is definitely implicit — in fact it's explicit — in the Waffle manifesto in the quotes that I have read to you.

We feel that the practices being followed, the attitudes of other NDP governments elsewhere in dealing with this problem, governments which employ exactly the same advisers as this government, governments which have received the same advice as this Government, are other good indications of the way this province is going.

What we think, Mr. Minister, and through you Mr. Speaker, to other Members of the cabinet, is that there is a time for candour; there is a time for the government telling people what is on its mind and what it intends to do.

It's pretty simple to say this is nothing but an amendment to the Mineral Act. It's just a bill. But in actual fact when you analyze it, when you tie in what this bill does and what it permits the Government to do, the way it takes this out of legislative control and control of the courts — when you tie it in with statements made on the economic policies of this Government and the attitudes of the Premier and other Members of the cabinet regarding the economy, we're into a situation where the mining industry has every reason for the gravest concern.

Mr. Speaker, I predict that this bill and the provisions in it will lead to Government intervention in the mining industry to the point that three or four years from now 30 to 50 per cent, perhaps more, will be entirely government-run, just as the two forest operations — Ocean Falls and Columbia Cellulose are now government operations — or at least they will be when we pass the enabling legislation. We are in a situation where the government is doing precisely what it said it would do — or what the NDP Waffle manifesto signers said they would do — when they talked about taking over extensive public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, such as the key resource industries, the very first things mentioned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I've read that too, but that is a little further in the past, and I am sure even the Hon. Minister, grey-haired — sorry, no-haired — though he is, probably wasn't at the meeting which formed the Regina manifesto and drew it up.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You were there? Oh, he was around of course; he was around like the old man of the hills, but…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister who has not read the Waffle manifesto, so he claims; the Minister who I think has assured me in complete good faith that he has no intention of forming Crown corporations to take over the mining activity in this province — I am sure again that those questions were answered in good faith. Perhaps his identification with the party he belongs to now is more in terms of manifestos signed in the thirties than manifestos signed in more recent years.

But I think that for the rest of us in the province who are looking forward to growing as old as the present Minister in this province, we've got plenty of concern for what is taking place at the moment. It is perfectly clear, on this legislation, that the Government is taking full control of the mining industry, and can at any time insist upon any degree of ownership, any degree of control, that it wishes. If there is no other reason for opposing this bill, we would oppose it on those grounds alone.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, thank you. I will try to avoid the repetition of all the points which you have heard at great length this afternoon. But I think that this party has to take the same stand: that we accept that the Government is trying to bring about a different manner of dealing with the mining industry of this province. We don't accept, however, the principle of this bill for several reasons.

We accept the importance of the mineral industry in B.C. and in Canada as being second only to the forest industry. Right there, Mr. Speaker, I think that makes it very clear how very vital this bill must be. Our economic health must surely depend on judicious

[ Page 2495 ]

development of minerals, as of timber and timber products. We are part of a world community, where we have to sell our products. So for anyone to accept this bill lightheartedly or at face value would be to neglect a very important part of the legislative programme of this government.

In terms of jobs, the figures that I can determine are that we have 14,000 people directly employed in the mining industry in British Columbia, and we have about 50,000 indirectly employed as a result of mining.

If one does a little research, the other outstanding feature is that in 10 years the B.C. mineral production has gone up from about $230 million to $630 million — in 10 years time, between 1962 and 1972. Furthermore $2 billion of new capital have been invested in that ten-year period.

These quick passing comments on figures, Mr. Speaker, surely should bring home to us the tremendous importance of the mineral industry and not only in terms of its dollar value. If people are employed they are paying taxes, and surely this also brings revenue to the government to be used in the social services field.

As I say, the question of jobs is all-important; and someone already referred to the high level of unemployment amongst professional engineers and geologists in the last couple of years because of the dip in mining exploration. I think this whole issue, the issue raised by this bill, is one which, as I have said so many times in this House, clearly delineates the government side of the House from the opposition.

We believe, certainly in our party, much more in the principle of creating a healthy climate of incentives to industry, whether it is the mining industry or any other industry, to expand and develop. That, Mr. Speaker, does not mean without due respect for the ecology or the safeguards in the mining industry, or for reclamation of land after the mine is no longer worked.

I am not for one moment suggesting that because we in this party encourage incentives, and encourage the private sector to go its own way and do its own developing with minimal government interference — that is our basic principle, that we believe that the private sector can be supervised — but there's a world of difference between supervising it and dictating to it.

The principle of this bill is out-and-out dictation to the mining industry. We believe that that is an ill-advised principle. It should be the function of government, wherever possible, to stay out of direct participation in industry and business, and simply lay down the ground rules and the guidelines; and neither people not property nor resources should be unreasonably exploited.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The response of the mining industry has been drastic in the face of this bill. The numerous communications which the Minister has had, and of which we have all received copies in the opposition parties makes it very plain that, regardless of the differing philosophies between the two sides of the House, the mining industry is very concerned about the tremendous degree of discretion which is being given to the Minister in this bill.

I won't belabour that point; it has been made very clear. I would like in passing to quote the vice-president of Tech Corporation who was quoted in the Vancouver Sun on March 30 as saying:

"I don't think there is any need for the industry and government to join in a fight to the death. Instead they could get together and work out a set of policies which are good for the province. What's good for British Columbia is in the long run good for the mining industry. And at the same time what is bad for the mining industry will be even worse for the province. If the government doesn't like the old rules of the game, perhaps the new ones can be worked out that are fair and productive."

This executive in the mining business seems to feel that there is room for closer discussion and exchange of ideas between the industry and the government, and he suggests that it would be quite possible for the government to realize many of its goals in this way, and indeed that the industry would find it quite possible to cooperate. It certainly is clear that the one major stumbling block in this bill, and the central resistance to the bill is over the question of production permits.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we recognize in our party that it makes a lot of sense that before a mine should be started there should be some clear-cut agreement as to its effect on the ecology, and the obligation of the mining industry to clean up the mess afterwards. I am accepting that. I think it is also reasonable that the question of safety measures to be employed by the mining company would also be up for discussion. But the bill in effect says to the mining industry, "You put out the money and you take the risk and you do all the work, and then come to us and we may give you a production permit, based on feasibility, ecology and safeguards. These are the three main areas upon which this production permit will be issued."

This, Mr. Speaker, is pretty extreme, because the government is really then saying that either we will not give you the production permit; or, in the other part of the bill, it is saying we may give you the permit if we can buy in. The Minister shakes his head, but the reading of the bill makes it very plain that the government also reserves the right to acquire equity

[ Page 2496 ]

in a company.

I think the Minister is asking me to be very naive if he is suggesting that, although these are two different sections of the bill, in effect they are unrelated. It seems to me that we would have to be very naive if we were to accept the fact that a production permit would be based purely on its merits when at the same time the government might want to buy into what is obviously a very rich prospect in the mining industry.

Furthermore, in that regard, the bill reads in such a way that you would be buying in on your terms as government. And this is not like one individual buying into another individual's company. This is government. And one of the things, Mr. Speaker, that really hasn't been stressed enough, I fear, in several of our debates along this line is that when government buys into something, government is a very unique creature.

It is a creature of our society who has total and extreme power. As we have seen, they can buy Ocean Falls, they can buy Colcel; they can virtually take any power they wish. I think this particular aspect of government participation in private industry has not been stressed. It makes a whole difference to private industry the minute that government starts buying a share of that industry, whether it's 10 per cent or 30 per cent or 51 per cent.

As I say, the Minister shakes his head, but I'm sorry I just can't accept that these two parts of the bill are unrelated. The principle involved in this bill as it is written, is certainly leaving the mining business very concerned that a company can go to a great deal of cost and trouble and expense, but in the long run, it may spend all that money and still not be permitted to go into production. Or it may go into production and find that one of the conditions might well be that the government says, "O.K., you can have the production permit if we can buy into the company." I don't see how you could read the bill any other way.

If, by chance, the government buys majority control of the company, we get back to the situation we discussed on Bill 74 where you then have the real danger of political influence in private business or in an industrial or business concern.

It's a — I use the phrase — "veiled" form of nationalization. Frankly, this is my personal opinion that this bill provides the technique whereby the government does not need to come out in the open and say we are nationalizing industry.

In this bill, they can buy shares or buy equity in the company and then exert political pressure. Again, if you're saying to me, "that won't happen," I'm sorry, that's too naive a reassurance in my view.

The other fear, as we've all learned from correspondence with the mining industry, is that they feel that the government can change the ground rules too readily. In fact, one of the main criticisms of the bill seems to be that it can mean different things to different people, and that more specific definition of detail would reassure the mining industry.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, the point that comes up and up, over and over again is that it should be possible for the bill to spell out in specifics those conditions that will apply to the obtaining of a production lease and that this should not be left to the discretion of the Minister, or that there should be such scanty detail in the bill.

I've already mentioned the whole question of jobs. I think it's fair to quote the manager of the Chamber of Mines when he takes issue with the Minister of Mines in March 31 issue of the Vancouver Sun. He says, "The Mineral Act has cost about 500 jobs so far and there is a noticeable lack of enquiries about hiring people for field activities. Elliot said the Chamber helps engineers and geologists and field crews to get summer work, but the opportunities are lacking this year as mining companies hold off working in B.C."

Again the Minister smiles, but this man's the manager of the Chamber of Mines — presumably he knows. I feel that a man in his position must have close and immediate awareness of what the employment situation is.

The other point, which I won't go into in great detail, because it has already been mentioned, is that despite the flippant way the Minister talks about the prospector, and that the increased cost is really not significant… Again, explanations are forthcoming from the mining industry that it's a very different ballgame from years ago when the Minister said that the bill had not been changed.

He may wish to contradict this. But, it would certainly go in the face of all the evidence presented by speakers to date — namely that the whole question of prospecting frequently involves a large number of claims on low-grade ore, whereas it used to be just a few claims on high-grade ore. As a result, it costs a prospector $30 each time he registers a claim.

Again, the evidence presented by the industry is that most prospectors have large blocks of claims — 20 to 40 at least. I think it's rather simplistic to suggest that when you multiply 40 by $30 it's not a large sum of money to a prospector.

One has to wonder again if the Minister is to have so much discretion in the bill and if the government is aiming to control the mining industry, as it were, through the back door rather than by out and out nationalization. You wonder if maybe they would prefer to have salaried prospectors. Is this what the bill's all about? That it's become much simpler to employ prospectors by government directly — on a salary — and this would get rid of all this argument and dissatisfaction with the fees that have been changed.

[ Page 2497 ]

The examples that have been quoted of other countries in the world is rather interesting, because apparently, according to the record, most of the socialist countries have done least well in developing their mining resources. Somebody referred to Chile, and I looked that up. Apparently Chile has a short fall of 200,000 tons of copper per year below its scheduled production. If you're looking for a socialist country, there's one in the example of Chile.

Anyway, it's close to 6 o'clock and I just feel that there should be no mistake in anybody's mind about where this party stands on this question of the degree to which the government should control private industry, whether it's mining or lumber or any other private business.

We repeat that this kind of interference or intervention or participation by government, in our opinion, will reduce exploration, because private business, whether we like it or not, does not trust government — this government or any other government. It wouldn't matter if it was a Tory government. We believe that in the business world, the government action should be one of supervision, encouragement, guidance and, if need be, discipline. But by and large, expansion and development of such an important area of our economy as the mining industry should, as far as humanly possible, be left to the industry. If the industry falls short and is negligent in its respect for ecology or for the worker, or for any other fair aspect of how we work and exist, then I think government can take disciplinary action.

Giving the Minister this discretion to have complete control of the situation, which you have by this production permit, there's nobody can deny otherwise — we feel that is not the right way to go about the situation. You will reduce exploration. We feel that there will be fewer jobs and there will be less revenue.

I feel personally, that this bill would be much more acceptable if in the section dealing with the production permit, at least the conditions which the industry has to meet, should be spelled out in the Act. At least then, right from the word "go" when they invest their money and they spend their time and effort they would at least know that when they come to the point of going into production they wouldn't (1) be either turned down, or (2) submit to what I say is something a little less than blackmail, that the government can or could make it conditional to the obtaining of a permit that the government be allowed to buy into that particular company. I don't think that is a healthy situation — again, whether it's this industry or any other industry.

We just believe that the ground rules and the guidelines should be spelled out in the bill, even if it is your intention to gain control by buying more than 50 per cent, or if you intend to nationalize. You've denied this, Mr. Minister, and I accept that — your answer to the former speaker.

The fact is, as he also said, you will not always be Minister of Finance and this will not always be the same government. Statutes on the books have a habit of staying there whether they're in keeping with the times or not. There's very little time left for governments these days to go back over old statutes and get rid of them when they're no longer applicable. So we just feel that there is still time for the government to take another look, particularly at the section dealing with production permits.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have too much time unfortunately — but I'm pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words in this debate and certainly it's going to be in contrast to some of the debate that we have heard in the course of the day.

Mr. Speaker, what our party is about, and what this government is about, is providing a little bit of balance — just a little bit of balance. We've seen things balanced in the other direction for so long, and we understand what this is all about; we understand our first and only obligation is toward the people in this province. That obligation is to provide them with some input as to the resources of this province and the use of those resources.

We're not suggesting that the mining industry is on the run or that they should be. We're suggesting that we want an opportunity for some input as to what occurs in the mining industry in this province.

We were listening to a little dissertation on blackmail. Mr. Speaker, we have conceptions that blackmail has been going in the other direction in many areas in the economy of this province. That's what we think, and that's what we're trying to do something about, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to see the day occur when business does trust government, and that day is fast coming when business has an opportunity to deal with this honest government. Mr. Speaker, the treachery that I heard this afternoon in this House over on the other side — when that Member talks about blood in the streets and all those sorts of things, that's the kind of situation that does nothing but create distrust in any government. That's not a healthy situation for an economy.

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

[ Page 2498 ]

Speaker, in view of action taken very recently at the federal government level, may I ask leave of the House to withdraw Bill No. 87 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.