[ Page 1117 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Steps to reduce power supply to U.S. Mr. Smith — 1117

Damage to Langford Lake by Hydro tower construction. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1117

Hydro negotiations with outside linemen. Mr. Curtis — 1117

Purchase of shares in resource industries. Mr. Morrison — 1118

Government intentions re Gorge Hospital strike vote. Mr. Wallace — 1118

Money loaned by B.C. Industrial Development Corporation. Mr. Phillips — 1119

Okanagan Telephone workers' strike. Mr. Bennett — 1119

Answer to question 115. Mr. Gardom — 1120

Appeals on marketing board legislation. Mr. Wallace — 1120

Training for air pollution monitors. Mr. McGeer — 1120

Hydro export profit. Mr. Smith — 1120

Purchase of Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1120

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act (Bill 76). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1121

Mr. Richter — 1121

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1123

Mr. Smith — 1125

Mr. McGeer — 1126

Mr. Chabot — 1129

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 1131

Mr. Wallace — 1131

Mr. Phillips — 1134

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1136

Division on second reading — 1138

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 77). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1138

Mr. Richter — 1138

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1138

An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act (Bill 80). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1138

Mr. Richter — 1139

Mr. Williams — 1139

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1140

Mr. Wallace — 1141

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1141

An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulations Act (Bill 95). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1141

Mr. Richter — 1141

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1141

An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth 11 British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act (Bill 97). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1142

An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act (Bill 94). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1142

Mr. Phillips — 1142

Mr. Curtis — 1143

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1143

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68). Committee stage.

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Phillips — 1143

On section 3.

Mr. Williams — 1145

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1145

Mr. McClelland — 1145

Mr. Lewis — 1146

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 1147

Report and third reading — 1147

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill 69).

Committee, report and third reading — 1147

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill 83).

Committee, report and third reading — 1147

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act (Bill 84).

Committee, report and third reading — 1148

Pacific North Coast Native cooperative Loan Act (Bill 87). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Smith — 1148

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1148

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1148

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1148

Mrs. Jordan — 1148

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1149

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Phillips — 1149

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 1149

Mrs. Jordan — 1150

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1150

Mrs. Jordan — 1151

Mr. Phillips — 1152

Division on third reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Bill 102). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill 103).

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill 103). Hon. Mr. Hall

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act (Bill 104). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act (Bill 10 1). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill 107).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act (Bill 99). Hon. Mr. Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 100). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 (Bill 106). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1154

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary High School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Bain. Will you join me in welcoming them?

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have a group of students here from the Frank Hurt School in Newton out in Surrey with their teacher, Tino D'Alfonso, and I would ask the Legislature to welcome them.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at 3 o'clock there will be a class of students in from Georges P. Vanier Senior Secondary School at Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Leo Nepveu, and I would like the House to join me in welcoming them now.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I've got two very good friends in the gallery today, my sister and her husband — Mr. and Mrs. Frank Spring.

Oral questions.

STEPS TO REDUCE
POWER SUPPLY TO U.S.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs — are you with us? Mr. Minister, in your capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro, have you recommended to Hydro that they cut back on the amount of natural gas that they use for the generation of electricity which is exported to the United States?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, I haven't told them to cut back on the use of that power. The power that's being exported to the United States is not regular power; it's the overproduction which is basically produced in case of loads coming into B.C. So that power can be cut off at any time when it's required in British Columbia, It's not a firm sale to the United States. It's for their emergency purposes, and in some cases they are getting it basically regularly. But it can be cut off at any minute.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question, then, to the Minister. You are using gas to generate power. Does it not follow that if you cut back on the generation of electrical power through the use of natural gas, Hydro will cut back on the amount of gas that they will be using and therefore make that energy source available to other purposes in the province?

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's no problem in gas. This is a reciprocal arrangement…. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It's not a subject of debate.

DAMAGE TO LANGFORD LAKE
BY HYDRO TOWER CONSTRUCTION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources whether steps have been taken to stop the damage to Langford Lake which is being caused by the B.C. Hydro tower construction in that area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I certainly hope so — it'll affect my swimming next year. I might say seriously that it is a matter we've discussed with the MLA for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) and we're taking the matter up with Hydro. We haven't resolved the question at this stage, however.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Has construction at the moment been stopped while this matter is being looked into?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do you intend to stop this construction, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That remains to be seen.

HYDRO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH OUTSIDE LINEMEN

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of British Columbia Hydro: Several days ago I asked if any final agreement had been reached between outside linemen employed by B.C. Hydro and the authority. He indicated at that time that he would take the question as notice. Can he report on the settlement of that agreement or any recommendation from the bargaining agents?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Certainly there has been

[ Page 1118 ]

no settlement of the agreement, and I'm not going to divulge what the negotiations are at this particular time. I might say that your figure was somewhat out.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is correcting the part of the question, when we discussed it earlier, of 22 per cent with fringes bringing it up to almost 30 per cent — is that correct?

HON. MR. LORIMER: All I said was that your figures were somewhat out.

PURCHASE OF SHARES
IN RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Hon. Premier as Minister of Finance. Has the Minister of Finance authorized or ordered the purchase of any shares in Afton Mines Ltd., Kaiser Resources Ltd. or Westcoast Transmission Ltd.?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a question on the order paper?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Afton Mines?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, Afton Mines Ltd., Kaiser Resources Ltd. and Westcoast Transmission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think so, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take it as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got so much money he doesn't know where it's going.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is it again?

MR. MORRISON: Afton, Kaiser Resources Ltd. and Westcoast Transmission. And I have a supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: You might as well ask them all now.

MR. MORRISON: Would the Minister of Finance advise the House if he has authorized the purchase of over 5,000 shares of B.C. Telephone?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A supplementary question: could the Premier and Minister of Finance tell us who are the market players in the government?

HON . MR. BARRETT: We haven't selected the team yet.

GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS RE
GORGE HOSPITAL STRIKE VOTE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour: in view of the fact that we have had a strike vote at the Gorge Road Hospital which recorded a 98.2 per cent vote in favour of strike action, and in view of much of what was discussed regarding hospital workers in our recent debate, could he bring us up to date with the immediacy of the situation and tell us what action, if any, is contemplated by the Department of Labour?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no direct information on that situation. I shall check with the department and report back to the House. I may be in a position to report tonight, if you wish.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A supplemental to the previous question: I would like to ask the Hon. Premier if in fact these shares have been purchased on behalf of the people of British Columbia with their money…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: …and he doesn't know about it, who is spending our money?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When the Speaker calls for order I wish the Hon. Member would stop long enough to find out what it is all about.

As it turns out, what it is about is that your question is highly hypothetical, inferential and is therefore banned under the rules on page 147. I would commend the rules to the Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: You said my question is highly hypothetical. Is the Speaker suggesting that, in fact, these shares have not been purchased?

MR. SPEAKER: I have no idea whatsoever, but I do know a hypothetical question, which is: you lay a groundwork….

MRS. JORDAN: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you don't think the question is hypothetical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. For the benefit of the Hon. Member: you are not supposed to put an "if" question and then ask the Minister what his answer to

[ Page 1119 ]

that "if" question is. You are supposed to know and make your statement of fact when you ask your question. Please read page 147 of the rules under Beauchesne.

MONEY LOANED BY B.C.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to address a question to the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Would the Minister advise me how much money has been loaned by the Industrial Development Corporation to date — Industrial Development Corporation of British Columbia, that is?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for asking that question. None. The corporation will hopefully be operational soon. We are making every effort to gather together the expertise necessary to make it operational. An announcement should be made in due course. Applications that have come across my desk are being reviewed by a special review committee that I have appointed of in-House and outside consultants who will advise me about the economic viability of these proposals and will be….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member's inquiry dealt with the amount that had been loaned to date, not with the description of the department. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Industrial Development Corporation of British Columbia invested any moneys in any corporations so far — in equity positions or share structure as it has the power to do so under the Act?

HON. MR. LAUK: No, it has not.

MR. PHILLIPS: One more question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister appointed a chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation yet?

HON. MR. LAUK: The cabinet must do so and it has not as yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: as he is not spending money on operations, may I ask a supplementary question on money spent on advertising? In view of the Premier's and NDP's statement a year ago that the use of government funds for general advertising would stop with a change of government, may I ask the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce whether his advertisements of this week were approved by cabinet before being authorized by him?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the advertisements in question are having to do with the promotional aspects of the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. They are the regular annual budgetary activities of the department and they are administered through our information services. They have to do with advertisements encouraging ideas for economic development.

The House voted the particular budget for advertising purposes in the estimates of last spring.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the fact that a good part of that advertisement is designed to be critical of the previous administration, may I repeat my question? Was this type of advertising programme approved by cabinet and approved by the members of the cabinet who specifically stated in the campaign that this thing would stop with a change of government?

HON. MR. LAUK: With respect to this particular vote, it was approved by the House, not by the cabinet. Secondly, I don't agree that the advertisement was designed to criticize the previous administration but because of the previous administration's record, I could see where the Member might infer that.

OKANAGAN TELEPHONE WORKERS STRIKE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Hon. Minister of Labour. The Okanagan Telephone strike has been on for some time in the Okanagan and I wonder if the Minister has taken any steps to appoint a mediator to this strike.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. BENNETT: Does the Minister anticipate an announcement today?

HON. MR. KING: On what question, Mr. Speaker, would the Member like an announcement?

MR. BENNETT: With regard to the settlement of the strike.

HON. MR. KING: I haven't indicated that there has been a settlement achieved. I have indicated that there has been a mediator appointed. Indeed, the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour is attempting to bring about the resolution to that dispute, but I have no announcement to make yet.

[ Page 1120 ]

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental question, Mr. Minister. Did both sides in the dispute request a mediator, or was this initiated by government action?

HON. MR. KING: There was a request. I would have to check to find out whether both parties requested intervention or not. I believe that is the case, but I will check up. I'll take that part of your question as notice and report back.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 115

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. It has been six weeks since question 115 has been on the order paper. When do you intend to answer it?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll see which question that is.

MR. GARDOM: Question 115.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll read it.

MR. SPEAKER: The last question was not in order.

APPEALS ON MARKETING BOARD
LEGISLATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is giving any consideration to bringing in an appeal mechanism in relation to marketing board legislation since there seem to be some people who fear that there is a conflict of interests as the boards presently operate? I have had personal requests to find this out from the Minister. Is he considering some form of appeal mechanism?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, it requires a legislative change that likely we will be bringing in in the next session.

TRAINING FOR AIR
POLLUTION MONITORS

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of pollution control. With respect to this smudgey-bird or whatever the device is that lay people will be trained in to detect air pollution, what will be the circumstances under which they can receive this training and then have the instrument available to them so that they can undertake this citizen's monitoring of air pollution in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that would require some digging to provide an adequate answer for the Member and I will put that on my list of priorities.

HYDRO EXPORT PROFIT

MR. SMITH: A further question to the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, concerning Hydro. He indicated in his answer that Hydro export excess power that is generated through the use of natural gas. Is the power exported at a profit, and if so, how much profit does Hydro make on the export of that particular energy source?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I do not have the figures on that.

MR. SMITH: Would the Minister take the question as notice?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Sure, I'll take it as notice.

PURCHASE OF FRUIT GROWERS
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask him whether or not the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company has been purchased by the government at this stage? Oh, sorry, by ICBC, not by the government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you can ask. My answer would be that negotiations have not quite… I'm not sure it's been signed yet, or it doesn't take effect until a later date. But it is certainly our intention, and so on. Agreement has been reached with them; let me put it that way.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, please. I wonder if you could clarify a situation for me that appears on the orders of the day for today, Wednesday, October 31. On page 26 it says "meetings of committees: Select Standing Committee on Agriculture will meet at 3 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, October 31, in the Maple Room. Business: organization. G.H. Anderson, Convener." To my understanding we have passed the time in the business of the day when this motion might have

[ Page 1121 ]

been put. It is also my understanding that in order to have a meeting of a committee when the House is sitting, there has to be leave of the House granted. This leave has not been asked for nor granted. In effect, we have two evidences here: One, that it is another infringement on the rules of the House, and two, that there would be a meeting taking place this afternoon to organize, which in effect would be illegal and would not be organizing the organization that it intends to organize. I wonder if you would clarify this for me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion was not called. Therefore it is not in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, may I point out….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, leave would have had to be required to make that motion operative. Leave was not asked for, therefore the very motion is no longer in order because leave to bring that in would go past the hour that is intended on the motion. The motion has been bypassed and is no longer operative.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): So there's no meeting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, of course not. The House didn't pass anything, so how could we rule on order on something the House didn't do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I clarify the matter for everyone in the House? I noted the notice and drew it to the attention of the chairman of that committee that leave of the House had not been obtained. I notified him of that yesterday. I would assume that he would notify the members of his committee that they would have to obtain the leave of the House, either by suspending the rules — asking for it by suspending the rules — getting leave of the House to hold this organizational meeting today, or the matter would just fall by the wayside.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And that's what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: So I assume it has fallen by the wayside.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your clarification. As a member of this committee, I am now in a rather difficult situation. I understand this was discussed yesterday. Is it in order for the House to advise, on behalf of the chairman at this time, whether or not there is going to be a meeting this afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: The only way I can suggest is that any Member can ask leave of the House for the committee to sit, but other than that we must go on with the business that otherwise is set for today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND
PETROLEUM RESOURCES ACT

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, unlike the other Ministers that have come before me, I promise you that I will not filibuster my own bill, providing that the opposition will reciprocate to some extent.

This bill is a very simplified bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You always say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, the purpose of this bill, called the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, is the division of the department. For years while I've been in this House I have noticed that the Department of Petroleum Resources and the Department of Mineral Resources have been combined. It was always my idea that these should be separated in order that each one could stand on its own feet.

So I have separated them into two branches: one, the petroleum resources and, the other one, the mineral resources. Of course, it is one department so there will be one Deputy over all, and there will be heads of each branch, called Associate Deputies.

The functions of the department remain pretty well the same as in the previous Act. The power to handle any situation: we've added some powers in order to be commensurate with the Mineral Act changes that we made last spring. The right to information is in the Act; we can demand information from the industry and receive it in order that we may give a greater service to the industry. The right to deal with other provinces is also in the Act.

The principle of the Act is to divide the department into two branches so that when you look at your reports you can see what each branch is doing.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Minister's explanation of the bill is completely oversimplified as to the content of the bill — this being the Department of Mines and Petroleum

[ Page 1122 ]

Resources Act, which re-establishes the guidelines for the Minister to administer his department. Now many of the sections in this Act…and while the Minister has referred to this as a rather simple housekeeping bill, I have to disagree with the Minister completely in that, while the provisions within this bill in most cases are very similar to the previous Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, there are some rather new innovations which I am completely in disagreement with. Without referring to the sections specifically, there are extremely wide powers within this legislation….

AN HON. MEMBER: Sweeping powers again.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, sweeping, for sure. They actually sweep the industry right into the Minister's hands. I think this is what you will find as time goes on. The powers of acquisition of real or personal properties, the acquisition of industrial enterprises and mining properties and petroleum properties and so on, is more than something to take lightly and pass on and say, "Well, this goes hand in glove with Bill 44."

Certainly, if Bill 44 was a preface to this legislation, I can assure you that Bill 44 certainly jarred the mining industry. In this bill the Minister has referred to it as a better picture. But I can assure the Minister that it is going to be a very, very dark picture for the mining industry in British Columbia — along with the petroleum industry — with the extremely wide ancillary powers that the Minister is now going to have within his jurisdiction.

Surely these powers are not really necessary unless the Minister does have in mind the fact that he is going to take over mines and other developments, mineral claims, and anything that has to do with the processing or the mining industry. Certainly the power is here to do it; and I would hardly have thought this power would have been put in the Act unless it was intended to be used.

This is very similar legislation to what we have had in other bills. The debate on the Department of Transport and Communications is another fine example of the same type of socialist legislation. Along with that there are, again, very extensive powers here in the hands of the cabinet in relation to the appropriation of funds. It doesn't give any cut-off date as there is in some legislation where an appropriation would be made up until March 31, after which it would appear in the estimates.

The Legislature is not going to have an opportunity to discuss or to pass on any estimates because these funds will be acquired from time to time upon the cabinet's instructions to the Minister of Finance to convey the funds to the Minister of Mines, who will then authorize a payment for whatever purposes are set out in the legislation.

Now I see this as a very, very dark day for the mining industry. While the Minister said there was going to be no problem, as far as Bill 44 is concerned, in restricting mining exploration development, it did close down mines. It did close them down.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Tell me one.

MR. RICHTER: Tell you one? Yes. The Kendal Mining and Exploration Company Limited is one.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've never heard of it.

MR. RICHTER: Well, it is one that lays the whole blame at your feet — on Bill 44 — for closing their operation down. Now there is one for you. There are other powers within this Act that are virtually….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They never made application for a lease or anything.

MR. RICHTER: Well, the reason they never made application for a lease was probably because they already had the mineral claims and it wasn't necessary. Where they would have been caught was on the production permit.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Have they gone into production?

MR. RICHTER: The matter of fact is that Bill 44 was only a preface to this Act and this is the real apex of the whole…

AN HON. MEMBER: They did all their mining in the Board of Trade Building.

MR. RICHTER: …proposition of the mining industry. If the Minister doesn't think he's going to get repercussions out of this, he's badly mistaken.

The various sections — and I hesitate to mention them — section 5, section 7, section 16: these are all types of legislation which are completely foreign to this province. I can't see where we are going to have a mining industry unless the government intends to go into the mining industry itself. It is a very high-risk industry, and there is no control over the amount which the Minister might ask for. He may want to buy up any number of mining companies now in business.

This is a province which has a great deal of high-risk mining, particularly because of the low grade of ore that we have. I personally am opposed to this legislation and I propose to vote against this bill in second reading and in its final stages.

Certainly there is ample room in the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act presently without these various sections which give extensive

[ Page 1123 ]

powers to the Minister. Again, it is a sample of the legislative powers that the government is seeking which will eliminate the need for the legislators to come into this chamber, because they can do most of these things through order-in-council because of the wide powers that are within the Act which really are the authorization for orders-in-council.

Unless you have legislative authority, orders-in-council are not legal, but with legislative authority — and you have that authority in this Act — you can do anything. You could be the possessor of Cominco, if it wasn't a federally registered company. But there's nothing to stop you taking over Bethlehem, taking over Granduc, you-name-it — you can pretty well take them all over, providing you don't run out of funds somewhere along the way.

I see a very, very dark day, and I refer to the Minister's mentioning previously that this gives a better picture. I said it was going to be a much darker picture for mining. This is going to hit the small prospector harder, actually, than Bill 44 did. You virtually made it impossible under Bill 44 for anyone to maintain any type of groups of claims — and it has to be a group of claims, at least 40 claims, which would cost an individual prospector at least $8,000 a year for the assessment work, plus his registration and rental fee on top of that.

I don't know of any individual prospector who is going to be in a position to pay $8,000 a year to do his assessment work. To interest anyone at all in mineral claims, a person really has to have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 40 claims as a unit to interest a company to come in and spend large amounts of money for development and exploration. This way I see the end of the small man, the prospector, the person that your government is supposed to be helping out and attempting to assist in his efforts to make a livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, I must at this time say that I will oppose this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, how could you?

MR. RICHTER: Certainly the official opposition will have more to say on this matter as it proceeds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this bill dealing with the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources is a bill that the Minister has introduced very briefly. We appreciate the fact that he did not take up a great amount of time on it. However, in the mining area there are a number of factors that must be considered and some, of course, have been touched upon by the earlier speaker.

First, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a series of problems. It's no good saying that the price or the return on minerals mined this year is up, which it is. The Minister may be completely entitled to take credit for that and we would be quite willing to give him that credit. That is one factor.

The second factor, of course, is capital investment in mining, and the third factor, talked about by my friend for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), is prospecting.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's not in this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not in this bill but all these things and this bill….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Wait till you get the chance to discuss it in the proper bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well Mr. Minister, if you'll give me one moment, what I'll suggest is that in this bill are the same types of uncertainties, the same types of extensive powers to the government, as we've had in other bills — Bill 44 in particular — which have led to a situation in the mining industry which has caused tremendous uncertainty. Therefore if he will permit me for a moment to point out that this legislation following the other will, I believe, accelerate this trend to the disadvantage of British Columbia, he will I think see the connection between this legislation and the facts I'd like to put on the record at this time.

The first is, of course, the production. Production is up. It's the result of six mines, major mines, major properties being brought into production, basically in 1971. The investment decisions were taken even before that time. So it's a long-term process, the fruit of which is now being shown in this increased mineral production.

The problem, however, is that capital investment is down substantially. It was $112 million in 1972 and was down in 1972 from the $340 million in 1971. The Minister is not at fault for this; it's a trend that is taking place because of the fact that — regardless of what government had been returned last year — the major projects were in production and there were none on the horizon. However, what I think the Minister should pay attention to, because I believe this is where his responsibility begins, is the projections for 1973, the year that's almost over. The projections here are $61 million to $112 million, which is virtually half of what took place in 1972. I think that the amount that's been invested recently is a very clear indication of the damage that is being done by the uncertainty in the industry.

Once again, may I please assure the Minister that it's not a question of him doing one thing or him doing another to satisfy a group of industrialists; it's a question of him making up his mind what he's going to do so that then there can be decisions made by other people on the basis of him making up his mind. He's been noted over the years for being a man of

[ Page 1124 ]

strong opinions, and I find it curious that it's taken him this length of time to really get down and make up his mind. In this bill, where he is being granted extra power over and above what he had before, I think we're simply going to increase the uncertainty, increase the difficulty that's being faced and make it even more difficult for the mining industry in British Columbia, as it applies to specifically bringing leases into production and, of course, before that, prospecting.

Prospecting is a factor which I think has had perhaps the quickest influence from the government's actions of the past year. The prospecting and staking of claims, and the Minister has given this information to the House by way of written questions, is down. It's down 60 per cent from the same period in 1972. Prospecting is just simply going down the drain.

There are a number of good reasons for it. The fact is that there is tremendous uncertainty in the industry, uncertainty which this bill will increase. The fact is that the production lease is a totally unknown factor and the members of the industry have no choice but to rely upon the good will and common sense of the Minister. Unfortunately they've not seen fit to put as much reliance on it as the friends of the Minister might like.

You cannot have effective prospecting unless there is at the end of the prospecting process a staking of claims, some opportunity to develop the properties. If that doesn't take place, the prospecting doesn't take place. The red tape that is surrounding the production lease, the uncertainty that's surrounding it, is having a very real effect. When we compare British Columbia with both the North West Territories and the Yukon which, although not identical, have a certain similarity to our situation here, we find that British Columbia is going in a very different direction as far as prospecting is concerned. In those two jurisdictions, the prospecting levels remain very similar to previous years. In this jurisdiction, it's falling apart. The reason, of course, is uncertainty; the reason, of course, is the lack of knowledge of the government's intentions; the reason is such bits of legislation as we have here today where powers of Ministers and purposes and functions of the department are spelled out in very, very broad terms.

As far as the prospecting is concerned, we're now down to the lowest, I believe, in the last six years. I'd just like to quote from a letter I received. I might add that I asked this man, who is an expert in the industry, for his views on what was taking place. He's an impartial person in that he gets his salary and income not from the mining industry, per se, but from a separate source. But he's very knowledgeable in the industry and is often called in as a consultant. If the Minister would like to discuss this later on, perhaps after consulting with this person, I might well give him the name so they could get together. Anyway, he's a man well versed in the industry. He talks about the red tape for the little prospector — and prospectors are not big people in economic terms:

"A second point is that there undoubtedly is an unnecessary amount of red tape before a prospector can carry on even limited development work on a prospect. Some few weeks ago, personally, I heard from a man who might be described as a 'typical prospector' that it had taken him six weeks to get a permit to use a small back loader in his small place of operation in an area where there is no agriculture or commercial forestry involved."

That's a six-week delay, strictly through red tape, the result of legislation coming forward from this government. If that's the type of situation that these prospectors are faced with — and they're not wealthy people — they face in some cases insurmountable difficulties and they tend to get out into some other operation of mining or, indeed, out of the industry altogether.

The point mentioned by the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) regarding assessment work is right on as well. It's perfectly correct. The difficulty that these people now face — the prospectors who have to have, as the Member for Boundary-Similkameen said, approximately I think 40 leases, but we'll say 20 to 40 claims to make a go of things — is that as this industry switches from essentially underground operations to essentially open pit operations, it's more and more difficult to keep their claims and do the assessment work that is required.

They are facing a real problem here as the open pit, which requires a much larger number of claims, is of course changing the nature of the industry and changing their ability to carry on the assessment work which is necessary under legislation. Under the circumstances, it's very tough on the little prospector. Maybe the big ones can get away with it; maybe those who are staked by larger companies, maybe those who are tied in the sort of vertical integration of the industry into the big corporations can get away with it, but the little guy is really hurting very badly on this.

I'd like to make one further reference, Mr. Minister, to the problem of uncertainty and the problem of this bill and, of course, the problem of the question I've asked the Minister often in this House about Crown corporations entering in and taking over in the mining field — the question of financing.

True, it would be nice if we could raise all the finances for all mines in Canada. We cannot — some is foreign, some is Canadian. But regardless of whether it's foreign or Canadian, the financing people

[ Page 1125 ]

generally require two things: one is they require the clear title; they don't want to get involved with heavy expenditures when the prospector doesn't have a clear title to the claim, and that makes sense.

The second thing that they want, of course, is some sort of market for the product they're after. Under those circumstances you can get massive developments such as we saw in the early seventies in British Columbia; but without that we're not going to get things of that nature in the future.

Now if it's the intention of the government to create a situation in the industry where major developments do not take place in the private sector, so that maybe a year from now a mining corporation, a Crown corporation can come in and, in view of the lack of major undertaking, enter in and start doing it themselves — doing it by the government — well, if that's the intention of the government I think the Minister should make it clear now.

The reason is this: if the government intends to move into this industry, I think they have a duty, to the many people in British Columbia who are not major operators, who are trying to make a go of things, to let them know what is going to happen.

The situation that we presently have is virtually intolerable. The small are getting squeezed and squeezed badly. The major mining companies are making money hand over fist; copper prices are virtually out of sight, for example. They're doing well but the small people are not, and there are plenty of small people in this industry, in particular in prospecting.

If it's the government's intention, after creating a climate whereby major financing does not take place and major developments and major investments do not take place, to then come in with its own corporation, the government, I think, is doing a disservice to these people by not coming forward early — in the next few weeks or months — with its proposals.

The present situation where staking is off 60 per cent, where the small person simply can't make a go of it, is driving individuals to the wall but it's not affecting the big companies. Of course it's creating a situation where inevitably, perhaps, the government will feel compelled to come in with a Crown corporation to carry out the financing aspects, to carry out the development proposals which may be there, which may be good proposals but which are not occurring now in the private sector because of uncertainty.

Mr. Minister, I mentioned a large number of things which I'd like you to comment upon, and I trust you'll do this when you close this debate. The fact is that this legislation, following Bill 44, simply adds to the confusion and uncertainty; it adds to the lack of knowledge of what is going on and this is particularly true — let me repeat again — for the small person who doesn't have a law firm full of mining law experts to advise him and he's really up against it. Unless we get statements from the Minister as to government intentions, these small people simply are going to get pushed harder and harder and harder until they get pushed out completely.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): If the Minister wishes to comment, I'll defer to the Minister while he comments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister may speak only in closing the debate.

MR. SMITH: He can comment from where he's sitting. I forgot that we're in second reading.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: You know, Mr. Premier, if I forgot the rules as often as you do, then we would have something to talk about, wouldn't we?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to second reading of this bill intituled the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, which the Hon. Minister said was "just a simple little housekeeping Act to actually separate the two departments of Mines and Petroleum Resources." He said that was really what the Act was all about, so he couldn't understand why people would be upset about passing such an Act since both the petroleum division and the mining division had for a long time suggested that it would be a good idea to have a separation of the two departments.

Well if that was all it was, Mr. Minister, I'm sure that you would have unanimous agreement from all the Members of this House. But that is not what this Act is all about. Instead of being called the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, I'd suggest a new name for it, Mr. Minister. It should be called the "Mines and Petroleum Industry Abolition Act 1973," because that is exactly what is intended by the powers contained in many of the sections of this Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You're not trying to put words in my mouth, are you?

MR. SMITH: I'm not trying to put words in the Minister's mouth. All I'm doing is reading the sections of the Act as they are written, Mr. Speaker. If there was apprehension in the minds of the people in the mining and petroleum business before, surely after reading this Act they must realize that, if you carry out chapter and verse as it is recorded in the clauses of this Act, their days are numbered in the

[ Page 1126 ]

Province of British Columbia. And that is an unfair advantage, Mr. Minister, that you're taking.

You have not said what your plans are or where the thrust of the government will be in the next few years in either the mining or the petroleum industry. But if we look at this Act and look at all the other Acts which have anything to do with the control or the regulation of our basic resources since the NDP came to power, the first thing we must realize is that every one of these Acts reflects a preoccupation by the NDP with take-over powers.

In every resource-oriented Act placed before this House, whether it be mineral, petroleum, the agricultural industry, the lumber industry, whatever, every Act contains the same type of provision, and that is that without so much as even a referral to the industry, you have the powers to take over and replace the operating corporations with a Crown corporation.

When you look at the sections in the Act, particularly section 7, intituled "Ancillary Powers of the Minister," and you combine that with the provisions of section 9, particularly subsections (1), (2) and (3), there's ample evidence that the Minister not only has the power to acquire, purchase, lease, or otherwise expropriate mines and petroleum resource companies in this province, he has the power to enter and seize records or look at any records that may be in the possession of any mining or petroleum company in the Province of British Columbia.

If it were just a matter of looking at their records and their logs, industry would not object to this. But when they know that the reason the Minister may be wanting to search their records and look at their logs is so that he can determine for the benefit of the NDP whether it would be a profitable enterprise to take over or not, they have reason for apprehension.

There's nothing wrong with requiring industry to provide you with ample records of what they are doing and how they are progressing. As a matter of fact, you know you already have that permission in the petroleum corporation Act in British Columbia. But it's one thing to look at a company's records in order to determine whether they are playing ball with the government; it's quite something else to contain within that same Act the powers of take-over so that you have the power, at your sole discretion, at your sole decision, not only to take over the companies but to demand from the Minister of Finance the amount of money that's required for that particular take-over.

The Act says in section 16 that "The Minister of Finance" — not may but "shall pay" out of consolidated revenue whatever impost that you demand.

Is it any wonder that the mining industry and the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia feel that they have fallen on difficult times in this province, that under the NDP administration their days are numbered in the Province of British Columbia? To try to go to the money markets to find the type of capital that's required is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible for many of the well-founded, well-financed, well-established mining and petroleum companies in this province.

Mr. Minister, before you close second reading on this bill, you not only have a duty, you have an obligation to say loud and clear and let it be recorded in the Journals of this House and in Hansard, what the position of the NDP government is towards all resource industries, be they petroleum, natural gas, mining or whatever in the Province of British Columbia.

If your position is a position as outlined in the Regina Manifesto and is outlined in the Waffle Manifesto from Manitoba that all resources should be controlled completely by the government for the benefit of the people, then say it loud and clear and let the industry know where they stand in the Province of British Columbia. Because for the last year, you have done nothing but waffle along, saying indirectly but never directly what your intentions were, without discussion, without ever calling them in.

You've made arbitrary decisions in every department that had anything to do with resource development. It's about time that the NDP, if that is their committed policy, said it loud and clear so that everyone, including the Members of this Legislative Assembly, know exactly the direction that you're going.

We've had enough, Mr. Minister, of statements that were very, very narrow to the press and to the Members of the assembly. Then you turned right around and either brought in Acts like this or by order-in-council made some move that completely emasculated the rights of the companies who have every reason to hope that their investments and the investments of the people who bought shares in their company will be protected by a government in this province, that they won't be trod on, that it is not the intention of the NDP to remove completely these people and their industries from the province.

There's a better way of receiving revenue, and we as the official opposition suggest to you that the best way of all is to participate in the resources to taxation on a fair and equitable basis — that you get the money for your benefit of the citizens which can be re-directed into social services in this province; that you get it through taxation. You let those companies take the risk, but believe me, the taxpayers of the province get all the profits.

This is a better way by far than bringing in an Act like this which gives you complete, unbridled power that you can exercise at the stroke of a pen by signing an order-in-council. It's no wonder the official opposition will not support this type of legislation

[ Page 1127 ]

either now or at any time in the future.

This particular Act of course, as the Minister well knows, follows the amazing pattern of the New Democratic Party in power. I suppose all we have to decide is which Minister is going to try and outdo the next one in arrogating to himself the kinds of extraordinary powers and, I suppose, opportunities as they would regard it, that any Ministers of the Crown have ever had in this Province of British Columbia. One of the Members, Mr. Speaker, said he's heard it before. But, Mr. Speaker, he better hear it again because I don't think he understands.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Is he talking to me?

MR. McGEER: We're not talking, Mr. Speaker, about ice-cream stands. We're talking about the number two industry in British Columbia. I'm not sure that the Minister of Mines could have run an ice-cream stand successfully. But some on the government side are trying, and maybe some of them will make it to the government benches and I suspect if they do, the experience will place them ahead of some of the Ministers of the Crown we now have.

I think quite possibly the second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) should be in the cabinet on the basis of his business experience. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, who's had more business experience on that side except for the Minister of Lands and Forests, and he's an in-and-outer.

But, Mr. Speaker, we are talking big business when it comes to the mining industry. How proud the Premier was the other day when he stood in the House and told us all about the profits that the major mining corporations were making in British Columbia and said how wonderful it was under socialism. But as Hon. Members have pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Richter), the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and other Members, what we are experiencing in 1973 in the mining industry is the sum of a number of efforts by many people in British Columbia over a long period of time. It includes far wiser resource policies than the present Minister has even considered.

By taking these wise policies for granted and assuming that what is being experienced now could have been achieved without those policies, he's destroying the very basis for the second largest industry in British Columbia. He's destroying the very basis for it, because he discourages the prospect — which is how it all started. He discourages the enormous capital investment that is required to initiate production. Make no mistake about it. This industry is the most capital intensive of all.

Then, Mr. Speaker, he ignores the confidence that underlies all of the economic calculations in bringing forward the production that ultimately results in a substantial share of those profits coming to government — and in the old days, Mr. Speaker, from government to the people in the way of benefits.

Under the terms of this Act, that reasonable cycle that has brought us to such prosperity in British Columbia is going to be broken. Because there is an appetite on the part of the present cabinet, not just to take over and to control — if it's a successful profit-making industry — to buy up the losers if it's owned by friends of the NDP as happened with that insurance corporation in the interior, to bail them out. But the most interesting of all, Mr. Speaker, is to play the market. They've all wanted to be the Ronny Grahams of this world. Never being able to get the money on their own, they want to play the market with the people's money. Buying stock in mining corporations — Afton, Kaiser — getting into a little communications — B.C. Tel. We don't know, maybe Valley Copper, yes.

We don't know who's doing the buying, who's placing the orders. But apparently the Premier and Finance Minister doesn't know. But the cabinet's right in there with the high rollers on Howe Street.

That's the public's money that's being gambled on the stock market. Profits that are rolling into government, not as a result of anything that this government has done but as the result of some pretty careful groundwork laid by the former government. Everything they did wasn't bad. I don't suppose anybody has criticized that government more in this House over the years than I have.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes. I have.

MR. McGEER: Everything they did wasn't bad, and they made some pretty good policies in the mining field. I think they deserve credit for that; it is on the record in Hansard. My opinions of a good many of the bad things the government did are on the record too.

But I'll say this: when it comes to policies in the resource field, this present administration can't hold a candle to what was there before. And, Mr. Speaker, that's why this year expenditures on mining exploration are down to one-sixth of what they were only three years ago.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He said a half.

MR. McGEER: Half of last year. If you go into this geometric shrinking procedure there isn't going to be any left at all. It will be like Mexico or Chile or some of these places that have through imprudence destroyed what would be a beneficial industry for their people.

You see $112 million last year in mining exploration and $61 million this year. That isn't going to hurt right away. That's going to hurt four,

[ Page 1128 ]

five, six years from now, when hopefully this government will have gone to its just reward.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You mean down the boom?

MR. McGEER: Buried, deep in the ground. And, Mr. Speaker, those who follow are going to have a rehabilitation job to do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure are; we sure are.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I didn't know you had signed a membership in our party. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: This isn't Quebec.

MR. McGEER: That's very interesting. Mr. Speaker, we'll accept the good ones. That's a very nice and gracious bow from the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips); he's coming along in opposition much better than when he was as a government member.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Watch him carefully.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the production we have in 1973, the profits we have in 1973 are in large part due to the buoyant world prices for minerals. But had not the exploration work been done and encouraged, had not the capital investment been made and encouraged, there would be no production in our mines to take advantage of the buoyant world market prices. That is why what the government is experiencing and boasting about today is happening despite their policies. It merely reflects the lag-time, if you like, between the activities resulting from policies and the fruits that are born from those policies.

Now, what we have before us with this particular Act that we debate now, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of policies that will destroy the fruit and leave us in a position, no matter what world prices for minerals may be, unable to capitalize upon that, unable to provide adequate employment in the mining industry and unable to bring to the people of British Columbia the kind of returns they should be gaining from what is today British Columbia's second largest industry but may not be for very long.

I think, Mr. Speaker, as does the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), that we are entitled to hear from the Minister and his government answers to these questions.

One, what level of mining activity do you wish to have in British Columbia in the future? Do you wish it to be an industry larger than it is today, equal to what it is today, or smaller than it is today?

Secondly, what percentage of the mining industry, regardless of what size it is, do you think it appropriate for the government of British Columbia to own and control? All of the mining industry? The Attorney General applauds.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Nobody else did.

MR. McGEER: Part of the mining industry? The Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) does, so we have a cabinet division already. Or none of the mining industry? Who is for none of the mining industry? Nobody.

Let's hear it again. All of the mining industry? How many for that? Some of the backbench. Part of the mining industry? Half of it? How many for that? One for that. None of the mining industry? Only on the opposition side.

But, Mr. Speaker, were you an investor, a prospector, a little man or a big man, devoting his time and energy and effort to the mining industry, would you not consider it important to have some idea about that question?

If it were the intent of government to own 100 per cent of the mining industry, what you should do is pack your bags and go somewhere else or get out of the mining field.

If it is to be 50 per cent, then you might be encouraged to stay at it a little bit, but the chances are you would look for some other field — if you can find it in British Columbia — where those in power thought it ought to be run 100 per cent by the people who are willing to work and develop that through the sweat of their brows and not ride on the backs of others.

The mining industry is different from other industries. But the government is starting to take the people's savings and buy shares on the open market. A little bit of telephone here, a little big of mining there.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Where did you get that?

MR. McGEER: Well, the Premier wasn't sure who was doing it. But, Mr. Speaker, had the government not been doing this kind of thing, it wouldn't have been necessary for the opposition Members to ask the direct question, nor would you have found the former Minister of Finance and Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) doing anything but telling the truth and absolutely denying that the government was doing it or ever would do it. Instead, the kind of waffling we had on the part of the Premier today indicates quite clearly that this is going on. Anyway, the Members of the opposition are well aware of it.

The point I'm trying to make….

[ Page 1129 ]

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, I wish you'd do it where there's no money invested. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is simply this: no government is going to get wealthy enough from the people's taxes, no matter how much they deny in the way of hospitals, education or other services to the public, to buy or expropriate all the assets of every industry in this province. There isn't that much money in the tax pocket.

The government, no matter how ambitious it may be with the people's money, is going to have to make some choices. For example, if it's the telephone company, it's somewhere between $350 million and a billion there. If it's all the mines in British Columbia, you are into several billion. So you can't have all of every industry.

Maybe if it is your ambition to do that, it might be worthwhile and helpful if you'd say which industry you are going to attack and destroy first so that the people who are interested in creating things would know which field to switch into.

It looks, from this particular bill, as though the mining industry is the particular one for destruction. Yesterday we thought the transportation and communications industries were the ones that were selected for destruction. So it is possible, you see, with each of these bills that is being brought forward. Obviously you can't take over everything in the communications field, everything in the mining field, everything in the industrial field all at once.

If your answer is, Mr. Minister,100 per cent for mining, or even 50 per cent for mining, you might tell us whether that was going to be done before the petroleum industry was taken over, the telephone company and all the communications industry. That way the people who were in it would know how many years they had before they had to get out.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You can make a better speech than that. Come on.

MR. McGEER: The Minister says I can do better than this.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he can not.

MR. McGEER: What the public wants is for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to do better for the public. What you are doing is undermining their future.

It is all very well for these Ministers to sit and smile smugly while they move to dismantle the economical machinery of British Columbia in the guise of helping the people, when they are taking their profits and legitimate tax money and using it to gamble on the stock market to take over corporations — and attempting to do all of these things that they were incapable of doing before they were given power by the people.

You are not going to retain that power very long as long as you concentrate on going down the pathway you are selecting with these particular bills.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I take it back. It's a fantastic speech.

MR. McGEER: What we should do is hear from every single one of these Ministers, starting with the Minister of Mines right now — to tell us what he is going to get in the way of finances — the public tax money — to implement this business of attempting to take over the industry and dismantle the successes of past years.

One cannot emphasize too strongly that the pattern being developed by the New Democratic Party, with bill after bill after bill that they introduce in this House, is one that completely destroys and undermines the confidence of the private sector which has been responsible for producing the taxes which these people are now committing in the most irresponsible possible fashion.

I doubt if there is a better example of the results of these policies than in the mining industry, where we have seen, in a matter of only three years, the virtual disappearance of exploration in this area. It is down 50 per cent from just a year ago, which was down to half of what it was only two years before that. It's a sorry record and one which isn't being helped by this particular piece of legislation.

Naturally we are against it because we are for industrial development in British Columbia. If we can do nothing else than to flush out from that Minister exactly how fast he intends to move in destroying the fabric of the mining industry in British Columbia, we will have done some small service to the people of British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): When discussing the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Act, I think that the most shocking thing here relative to this Act is, again, those broad powers — the broad powers being taken to take over any industry possible — not only to take over any industry, but to emasculate the powers of this Legislative Assembly.

I think the most shocking thing in this bill is the fact that the Minister doesn't understand, he fails to comprehend, the type of powers that are contained in the legislation he is responsible to administer. It is a shocking thing.

It is well recognized in the Kootenays that when

[ Page 1130 ]

he was a warehouse man for Cominco, he couldn't even keep track of the nuts and bolts up there. How can he possibly be able to administer an Act as broad and powerful as that which we are discussing right now?

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's very shocking, very shocking, to see a Minister who can't keep track of the number of nuts and bolts and pipe wrenches for Cominco, and expects to be able to administer these broad sweeping powers contained in this Act. No, this is absolute power they are asking for here. It is really iron-heeled socialism in full bloom. That's what it is.

I was going to say slowly but surely, but that isn't the answer. It's rapidly and surely…they are in the process of destroying the mining industry of British Columbia. They are destroying the mining industry.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Are there any expropriation powers in this bill?

MR. CHABOT: The Attorney General says: "Are there any expropriation powers in this bill?" Section 7 says "for the purpose of carrying out his duties, powers, and functions, the minister may purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire any real or personal property; with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire any business or commercial or industrial enterprise relating to mineral or petroleum resources." — without so much as your leave from this Legislative Assembly.

After all, you fail to realize, Mr. Attorney General, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we are representatives of the people, on the floor of this assembly, and we must speak out on behalf of the people when we see the powers that exist in this assembly being eroded like we have never experienced before, in the last few weeks.

No, we see what is happening to the mining industry because of the attitude of that government and the statements of that government as well. Now we are seeing it in the legislative programmes — the drastic increase. How do you expect the mining industry, which is the type of an industry that has to attract risk capital — which is difficult to come by — to finance exploration and development in British Columbia with this kind of legislation? I wish the Minister could answer that.

Or is there an insidious plan on the part of this government to deplete exploration and development in the mining industry so that they can take over the mining and petroleum industry in our province? Is that the exercise? Is that the programme of this government? If it is, you have the responsibility to tell these people so they know where they stand.

No, I think one of the most shocking things is the power of the expenditure of public funds without so much as your leave. We have seen it contained in other pieces of legislation as well. I think that it is important maybe that I read into the record a couple of quotes relative to the rights and powers of the Legislative Assembly to spend the taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Speaker, William Gladstone in 1891, a famous politician in England, had this to say about the powers of the Legislative Assembly in spending the taxpayers' dollars:

"The finance of the country is ultimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which English liberty has been gradually acquired. If the House of Commons, by any possibility, lost the power of the control over the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison."

That powerful leverage has been what is commonly know as the "power of the purse," the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure. We see this being eroded by this legislation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Every cent comes before this House.

MR. CHABOT: Every cent comes before this House! The Attorney General says that every cent comes before this House. There are broad powers contained in this legislation for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which everyone knows is the cabinet, to spend public dollars without so much as a by-your-leave from this Legislative Assembly.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: You are not responsible to this House, Mr. Attorney General, and you know it. You are most irresponsible.

Another quote on the control of the purse had this to say: This was Paul Einsig. He said:

"Accountability, in the narrow sense of the term, means that the executive has to submit accounts of completed public expenditures for inspection by parliament or by parliamentary nominees. In a broader sense it means the responsibility of the administration to parliament for public expenditures. In this sense, accountability means not only the submission of accounts for inspection, but also parliament's right to criticize public expenditure and to sanctions in case of unauthorized appropriation."

Yes, it's in the bill, Mr. Minister. That's what I was saying a little earlier. You wouldn't understand the

[ Page 1131 ]

bill and that's why it's necessary that I tell you what the powers are that you have in this bill.

"Parliament may well prescribe the objective for which the revenue of the executive is to be expended. Once the money is in the hands of the executive, parliament becomes powerless. It is not in a position to prevent the executive from disregarding or exceeding appropriations. All that parliament can do is to insist on accountability for the expenditure in order to ascertain whether, in fact, the money was spent in accordance with appropriations and, if not, to criticize and punish offending administrators."

We don't see any appropriation here whatsoever. It's blank-cheque legislation. Where is your specific amount that you need to administer this piece of legislation? It's not there. No way. You don't have to put it in the estimates, and you know it, Mr. Minister.

"It is my opinion that if parliament has not the power to scrutinize expenditures prior to legislation, then already the power of parliament is minimized. It is not in keeping with true parliamentary procedure if the Legislature can only criticize after the facts because then the power is shifted, not to parliament, but to the government. It is completely pointless to even bring expenditures to the House."

The power of parliament is being destroyed because this government, Mr. Speaker, at this very time is out there in the marketplace through some secret agent acquiring shares in the mining industry, in the pipeline industry, and maybe B.C. Tel — we don't know. I think if they want to invest in these kinds of corporations they should specifically say what kinds of dollars should be spent. The Revenue Act is a complete blank cheque piece of legislation such as this piece of legislation we are presently discussing. No, this is dictatorial, completely ruthless and reckless, undemocratic legislation.

The Minister smiles, and the Minister waves his arms around, as if it's a big joke. No wonder he couldn't keep track of the nuts and bolts at Cominco — no wonder!

AN HON. MEMBER: He keeps track of the nuts, all right.

MR. CHABOT: This legislation will ultimately destroy not only the mining and petroleum industry, but will ultimately destroy the power of this parliament as well. It's legislation that I can't endorse. It's legislation that any free-thinking man, or a free-thinking Member of this assembly can't possibly support.

I hope we'll hear from those sheep in the backbench over there. They'll stand up and say whether they believe that the power of parliament should be eroded. I hope they'll speak and say whether they believe we should continue and accelerate the destruction of the mining and petroleum industry in this province, because if they don't speak out now, they might never have another chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ooh!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 34

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: I won't be offended if everybody goes back to their tea and coffee.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: It's been suggested that we'll go to any length to get an audience in here.

Once of the basic policies of this government and one of the main planks of the platform during the election was the judicious use of natural resources. It was very much a central theme to the socialist election platform, and rightly so. The world at large has become aware of the fact that resources are

[ Page 1132 ]

finite….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: I'm glad you're on my side, Mr. Speaker. As a realization of that very serious fact in the face of rising population, the whole question of resource management has become one of the primary responsibilities of all governments, provincial, federal and worldwide.

It seems to me from this bill and bills which we debated at the spring session that the government is letting its ideology get in the way of a more practical reasonable approach to the mining industry. The government has made it quite clear in many statements in the past that profit is a dirty word and that people who invest in mines in the hope of making a profit are something less than honourable.

We on this side of the House just want to make two things very plain. First of all, the husbanding or the judicious use of natural resources is an important responsibility which we accept as being receiving high priority from any government. We would support this government's aim and dedication to use resources wisely and for the best return to the citizens of British Columbia.

At the same time, however, with particular reference to mining, we have to point out, if the government doesn't realize it, that it is rather a unique area in which resources are produced from the earth. If it isn't unique in any other respect, it is in the degree of risk which is involved in the exploring for mines and the expense involved in getting the mine into production. Of course, that has been made more difficult by government legislation also, which holds the mining industry at a disadvantage on the basis of the production permit which the Minister introduced in a previous bill.

Mining involves a great degree of risk with large sums of money; a corollary is that the mining industry must have incentives and not threats. It's typical of much of the legislation of this government, this bill included, that the mining industry is living in fear of unfair competition. We will be debating the same under the Petroleum Corporation Act which gives the power to the government to explore for petroleum and natural gas.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it should be made painfully clear, if it has not been done already by former speakers, that you can hardly expect people to put millions of dollars of investment into this industry when there's legislation on the statute books which makes it possible for the government to take over that industry or segments of it piece by piece or, alternatively, to depress the private sector's interest in the mining industry, which would ultimately depress the financial value of the industry and make the takeover price that much cheaper. That certainly makes financial sense but I'm not sure it makes moral sense. I don't think it is fair that the government should leave the public and the mining industry in such a degree of uncertainty.

The figures have been published in the brief which was presented to the Minister in September of this year, and I'm sure some of the other speakers have mentioned this. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, the degree to which interest in the mining industry has dropped off should be recorded. The figures which were quoted were: mineral exploration down by 31.6 per cent; claims in the first six months of 1973 have dropped from 29,614 to 15,000; no new, large, low-grade mine developments have been announced at all in 1973, yet six such mines went into production in 1971-72. Incidentally, in our neighbours north in the Yukon and the North West, mineral exploration expenditure and claims are up by 100 per cent. This would seem to suggest that while there is fear and hesitancy in the mining industry in British Columbia, those interested in exploring and staking claims have moved north where presumably the climate is a little more certain and favourable for that exploration.

In the brief presented to the government, it also mentions that there has been a considerable decrease in students seeking a career in geology at the University of British Columbia. I think that clearly establishes that there is uncertainty and reluctance of people to invest large amounts of risk capital in view of the government's general policy in many areas and its specific policy in the mining area not specifically in this bill but in previous bills in the spring session; Certainly by outlining the purpose and functions of the Mining department under section 6 of this bill.

The Attorney General keeps chirping in with his little bit that this bill doesn't include any powers of expropriation. Again, that seems to be the only avenue of defence which this government has to offer when the opposition repeatedly express concern about the extent of powers invested in this bill and other bills. As I've said before, there are several ways to skin a cat. You don't have to control an industry just by expropriating it. If you depress interest in that industry by the investing public, and the financial value of that industry drops, as indeed it must, then of course it's very easy for the government to get fire-sale prices in buying out the industry, whether

[ Page 1133 ]

it's mines or petroleum or telephone or transportation or any other industry.

The point never seems to be understood by the government that it is the indirect and long-term effect of its legislation which will give it the power the government claims at the moment it is not seeking.

I think it is becoming a little tedious to give us this feeble excuse that you cannot expropriate under this Act every time we complain about the power. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the wise use of natural resources must always involve a position of trust and cooperation between government and the private sector. I think this applies in any aspect of the development of resources whether they be coal, oil, gas, and so on.

I've had approaches from the mining industry by letter, by verbal contact and in the form of this brief which we've all been made aware of. If you read the newspapers, the comments there indicate anything but confidence by the mining industry in this government. Instead of confidence, there's a very substantial degree of fear.

No wonder, when one looks at sections 6 and 7. Again we have the same phraseology as we had in the bill last night in transportation: "ancillary powers." I always thought, Mr. Speaker, the word "ancillary" meant some subsidiary powers, some lesser powers going along with the main power. If you read the particular section under that heading, there's nothing very subsidiary about what the Minister can do under this section.

Regardless of the financial aspects and the obvious motivation of the government later on to acquire the industry at fire-sale prices, there is the whole question of jobs. If the interest in the industry drops off, unquestionably the number of jobs provided in a primary and secondary way through the mining industry will diminish. Surely this is a government that came to power saying that it would do a great deal in every way possible to enhance jobs in this province. This attitude to mining and the fear of government involvement, partially or totally, does nothing to improve the job situation.

In discussing this bill and in talking about power, we are always reassured by the government that this is just a small housekeeping bill. We had that comment from the Attorney General when I rose to speak; here was just another of these housekeeping bills. I just shudder to think what kind of bill we're going to be faced with when the government admits that it's something much more than housekeeping. It's difficult to imagine what more power could be given to the Minister of Mines under this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, there's no power for expropriation in there….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You should be honest and take the power to expropriate. Then we know where you stand.

MR. WALLACE: Well, here we are again with the Attorney General soothing the situation as best he can by saying there's no power of expropriation. I think the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) makes the point very well: maybe you would be better to expropriate. If there was any skulduggery involved in that, there would be access to the courts to decide whether the settlement was fair, as in the case of B.C. Electric.

This way isn't the fair way; this is the way to put everybody in the industry into fear and apprehension. The value of the mining stock drops, there is less investment, and everybody in the industry is in a state of fear which depresses the financial value of the industry, making it much easier for the government to take over partially or directly. In many ways, as the Member has just said, it might be a more honest and more direct way to grant the powers of expropriation; at least the investor and the public and the whole community of British Columbia would know where we stood.

At the moment, there is this uncertainty because the public and the investors and those who might be willing to put risk capital into mining are wondering what that government might do. In a matter of such importance as the natural resources, it is very bad for the economic future of this province if this kind of uncertainty and suspicion is allowed to continue.

I read the same kind of comments from the forest industry: they wish the so-called blueprint for the use of our forests would be unfolded by this government so that we know where we stand and so that the investor would know what the long-range plans for the use of our timber resources are. Mr. Speaker, I think it's obviously falling on deaf ears.

The Attorney General's repetitive comeback really misses the point completely — or he chooses to miss the point. But the fact is that this is bad for the economic future of this province. At a time when we have all kinds of rich resources in the ground which could provide the kind of tax money to pay for our social services, private investors are holding back and I suspect they'll continue to hold back.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps when he winds up the second reading of this debate he will tell us in more specific detail just exactly how he plans to use this

[ Page 1134 ]

power. Maybe you can assure us or give us the promise of amendments. The government's always telling us it will listen to our amendments. Maybe you should have a few of your own, in light of the criticism you received from this side of the House.

The fact is that this is a depressing influence in the powers it provides to investment in the mining industry. In our opinion and in the opinion of our party, everybody is suffering as a result.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to reiterate the remarks the previous speakers made when this bill was introduced a few moments ago.

The Minister and the Attorney General have said it's just a housekeeping bill. You know, Hitler had a theory, Mr. Speaker, that if you tell a lie often enough the people will finally believe it. I'm beginning to believe the socialist government that we have in British Columbia is working on that same theory, that if you mislead the people often enough they will finally believe you.

Unfortunately for the socialists we have in the British parliamentary system an opposition. It is the duty of the opposition to tell it like it is. That's why we have to tell it like it is with regard to this bill and with regard to 99 per cent of the bills that the socialists have brought in in the past session and are bringing in this session. They are trying to create in British Columbia a complete socialist state with the Waffle Manifesto being the blueprint. Regardless of how you cloud this in niceties, regardless of how much you smile, Mr. Minister of Mines, this is what is happening in British Columbia.

I fear for the economy of British Columbia because the job of governing this province as it was before you took on all these additional responsibilities, before you created all of these state-owned industries — the job as it was was too big for the government that took power a year ago last August.

Under ordinary circumstances, as the province was being run, the job was too big. Now that you are in the process of creating this fantastic octopus that is going to have its tentacles into every phase of life and industry in British Columbia, the job is too big, because there isn't enough business experience over there to look after it.

Already the activities of this government of piling blunder upon blunder are being recognized by the population. I'll tell you they're concerned and they're going to be more concerned when they realize the full impact of this Bill 76.

The government hasn't proven in the year or more that it's been in power that it can even run a simple operation like a ferry without blundering it, making blunder after blunder. The British Columbia–owned railway, the same thing, blunder after blunder. The people are finding out exactly how much business experience this government's got — none, absolutely none.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you read the Minty report on your blunder?

MR. PHILLIPS: I read all about how well the British Columbia Railway was run; I read all about how well the British Columbia Railway was run.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just read the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, would you please confine yourself to the principle of this bill which has to do with the organization of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources of the province?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

It has to do with creating another department in order to take over the petroleum industry in British Columbia. That's the intent of this bill.

The housekeeping. Sure, the housekeeping is there; the bill is there; but the true intent behind the bill is to take over completely the petroleum industry in British Columbia. That's what it's all about. That's where it is.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've been sniffing glue. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what you said!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General says I've been sniffing glue. I haven't been sniffing glue because, if I did sniff glue, I would be able to see what is going to happen in British Columbia and then I would have to tell the people about it. I've got a bad enough dream right now, Mr. Speaker. I visualize what's going to happen right now. I don't know what I would do. I would see so many blunders….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You need my help.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would see the economy of British Columbia going to such depths of despair that I really don't know what I'd do. I'm having trouble enough just containing myself without sniffing glue.

[ Page 1135 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I take it back. You don't need a stimulant of any kind.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll be your social worker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's stuck in his own glue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Nationalized industries have got what seems to be a better idea. Of course, when they take over these industries, or they threaten to take them over, they create and attract from all of Canada the better-idea men. I don't know where these socialists come from. I think, Mr. Speaker, they come out of the woodwork.

When they read this bill in all parts of Canada and England and all over everywhere, they'll be flocking to British Columbia to get in on the action. The idea is that they make the service dear and less attractive and then they can do away with those parts which they don't want.

And who suffers, Mr. Speaker? The population of British Columbia. This is just another tentacle of the octopus that the state socialists are building up in British Columbia, the one-headed monster with tentacles reaching out into every phase: financial, mining, lumber, transportation, agriculture. The bills are all there and this just adds to the collection. Another tentacle, Mr. Speaker.

It's unfortunate because when this government came to power the Premier used to stand in his place in this Legislature and say, "Trust us, trust us, trust us. We're not going to do this." I stood in this Legislature at the spring session and predicted almost word for word what would happen in the mining industry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's happening?

MR. PHILLIPS: Exploration is ceasing in the mining industry because of legislation that was introduced in the spring session. I predicted it, it happened. And I hate to stand here and say I told you so.

But the Premier stands up and he says, "Oh, but look at the profits, look at the profits, look what's happening in the mining industry." The Premier hasn't got enough business experience to realize that what is going to happen five and 10 years from now has to be planned now. And the Premier knows better — or at least he should know better or he should give up the Department of Finance to somebody who does. I don't know who he'd give it to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stick to the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Premier, I'll stick to the bill and I will advise the people of British Columbia that this is just one more spike in the coffin, one more spike in the coffin that's going to seal the lid on mining explorations and on petroleum exploration. And what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll resign if you'll resign if you're wrong. Certainly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right.

MR. PHILLIPS: And you've been wrong already. I predicted it and I was right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You say there's no more metal exploration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your point, is it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly. Now the Premier gets all upset, Mr. Speaker. I can understand why the Premier gets all upset.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is my bill. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the whole House and not carry on a conversation with just one Member?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Mines says it's his bill, but the Minister of Mines is going to be long gone in about, oh, I predict maybe a year-and-a-half, two years at the most. The Minister of Mines is going to retire peacefully — to his constituency. But I wish he'd do it now before he completely destroys his department. When there are no jobs and no exploration in the oil patch the Minister of Mines will be cozily retired on a great big pension, laughing about the great socialist state he created.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Like W.A.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: He'll be long, gone. And unfortunately, if the mess he creates is left on the shoulders of the Premier, well, the Premier is going to be long gone also.

[ Page 1136 ]

We've got to take a good look at natural resources. One David Cass-Beggs, just recently at a convention in Harrison Hot Springs, predicted that we are phasing out of the Industrial Revolution — and this has a lot to do with this bill because it was really the discovery of petroleum products that created the Industrial Revolution, as we know it today; it was the beginning of the real Industrial Revolution.

Mr. Cass-Beggs, who is in charge of one of our largest energy-producing utilities in British Columbia — B.C. Hydro — says that towards the beginning of the '90s, the end of the '80s, the use of hydrocarbons as we know it today to create energy is going to be phased out. We might phase this out not knowing how much is left in the ground. That's what really bothers me. We don't know how much.

We talk about an energy shortage, and we say we've got to take over the Department of Petroleum Resources because the oil companies are ripping off our resources. It's the oil companies that have discovered what is there.

The millions and millions of dollars that it requires to produce the energy from the petroleum resources we know now is not going to be available from the public of British Columbia. You would break them as taxpayers, and the Minister has got to realize that.

There is untold petroleum energy underneath the surface of the earth that we will never discover unless the incentive to discover it is there — unless the Minister plans to go out and buy up his own exploration company and his own drilling companies. If he does, Mr. Speaker, the public of British Columbia are going to be investing millions and millions and millions of their tax dollars creating this department, creating this corporation, and it will be many, many years before they ever realize any return on that investment.

Now is that what you intend to do with the tax dollars? Is that what you intend to do? You say you want to protect the tax dollars of the people of British Columbia? It'll be years and years, if you start a petroleum corporation, before they will realize any true revenue and if you had the business experience that you should have to run this government, you'd know that.

But no, you carry on blindly, based on a theory that looks good on paper, Mr. Speaker, but nowhere in the world has it ever worked in practice or application. Why does this government have to be driven blindly on to create a socialist state in this province that the people didn't give them authority to create?

Mr. Speaker, I have to vote against this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: After all that?

MR. PHILLIPS: I have to vote against it, Mr. Speaker, because it isn't just a simple bookkeeping bill, as the Minister would like us to believe. The sad and sorry part of it all is that when the situation which this bill is going to create comes to fruition and the people finally realize what a mistake they've made, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) will be off somewhere nice and neatly retired.

Mr. Speaker, it's a shame. It's a shame that the affairs of British Columbia are being run today in such a horrible way; it's a shame that such a large one-headed octopus is being created. It will take us ages to get all those tentacles back out of every facet of life in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have two heads.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You had a hydra-headed one on the Hydro.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a sad and sorry rainy day here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to vote on that?

MR. PHILLIPS: The government, with their crushing power, will crush it through. With their overwhelming power you can be assured, Mr. Speaker, that second reading of this bill will pass.

They've got too much power. It's gone to their heads. But we in the opposition will stand here and fight until all our energies are gone to protect the rights of the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the rest of your…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The last speaker drove his own Members out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I promised at the start that I wouldn't filibuster my own bill and I want to thank the opposition for cooperating with me in that respect. I thought for a while that it was going to get out of hand, but it has done pretty well.

I'm just going to say a few words about what the last speaker said before he leaves for a cup of coffee. He said that the Industrial Revolution was started when they found oil. Actually he should have said steam, because we still get some steam around here. But the discovery of steam was the start of the Industrial Revolution.

[ Page 1137 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: With the run on hot air, you could keep it going forever.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did take exception when the Hon. Member talked about a "lie" and "misleading." It made me think of a former Member in this House. I don't want to be compared to him in any way, but I think that the Hon. Member must have been thinking about him when he spoke about this problem, because Mr. Gaglardi, when he was in this House one time said, "if I am telling a lie it's because I think I'm telling the truth."

I think you had a very difficult job in trying to prove there was something wrong in this bill, because you didn't really attack the bill at all.

Now I'm going to go over a few of the remarks made. The one man who should know something about the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resource's is the former Minister of Mines, the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter). I always appreciate his talks in the House; I appreciate all the talks, because it's from these debates that you get a lot of information.

I don't know which one it was who gave the information, but the former Minister of Mines was talking about the wide-sweeping powers in this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Swooping powers!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I notice that there was a bill passed under the previous government — I have it in front of me, and there were many other similar ones — and this was Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It states at the end of it: "The Minister of Finance shall pay from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the costs, expenses, and compensation required to be paid in respect of the acquisition of land and improvements."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, shame!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When you talk about wide-sweeping powers, you shouldn't talk to me about them because I know what wide-sweeping powers are and what it has done in my area in regard to the acquisition of land on the Libby pondage, on the acquisition of homes in the Natal area. When you talk about acquisition, that was the kind of acquisition that I've got no time for. You stole some of those properties from the people. I don't think it was…. Well, we're still having problems with what was done by the previous government. Orders-in-council, any of this, has to be made by the cabinet, so you don't need to worry about the wide-sweeping Powers. As far as having these powers, you've got to be prepared for any possibility. My office has been over-run by people who own claims and want to get the mines going to have us participate in them.

Maybe I'm very conservative. It's very difficult to get any money out of me. That's one of the problems that they've got. It's difficult to get any money out of me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They won't get it out of me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Take him on for a partner.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to make sure that whenever we make a deal…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Co-op Car Sales, Don.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: …in regard to any participation, we want to make sure what the mines are all about. That is the reason that we brought in some of the legislation last spring.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that we should have a good….

AN HON. MEMBER: Co-operation.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, he said "judiciously looking after the resources of the province." How can you judiciously look after the resources of the province if you haven't got the information concerning how these resources are going to be depleted? You're dealing here with a non-replenishable resource, a resource that's not only going to benefit our generation but it's going to benefit generations to come. I say that when we talk about the judicious use of this resource we must consider the needs of the people.

There are many other things that I'd like to go through for the Member for North Peace River, but a lot of them are just repeating. Nobody went into detail as to what I was doing wrong, so I can't very well go into the whole picture.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) had a letter about a placer miner and the problems that he had. Don't forget that this province was built first on placer mining, and today you haven't got any actual gold mines in the province. We hope to ensure that we'll have copper and other minerals in this province long after we are gone for the next generations that are coming up.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 1138 ]

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 15

Bill 76 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This bill deals with steam, and I promise you that it's got nothing to do with the opposition.

Geothermal energy comes from down in the earth. They usually drill from 2,000 to 8,000 feet. The steam that is produced — some of it is called wet steam, some dry steam. The steam that is produced is used to produce electrical energy to run dynamos.

This originated in 1904 and Larderello, Italy had the first plant, from what information I can gather. Today we have electricity produced from geothermal energy in New Zealand, Japan, Russia, the U.S., Mexico, Iceland, Chile — Chile is only in the exploration stage — El Salvador, France, Taiwan and Turkey.

Every one of these places has the control of geothermal energy under the Crown — or under the public. The only place that develops it privately is the United States. The others do it for the public good, not for the profit that they can get out of it.

They reserve the rights to the government agencies. The purpose of this bill is that we will place the rights to this geothermal energy under the Crown so that in the future, if anybody wants to claim it, they will have to come to the Crown.

I move second reading.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a steamy bill. There's only one question that I would have, and I would hope that the Minister would reply when he winds up the debate. Where existing resorts do have certain rights on hot springs, will this legislation supercede the right that they would have through the Water Rights Branch or to anything of this nature?

I realize that not only does this occur on the surface of the soil, but it also occurs under the seas. We have what is known as hot spots, or hot boils, where the minerals come up and they are deposited on the floor of the sea. Will this have any bearing on those particular hot spots? There are a number of them on the west coast of the Province of British Columbia where the minerals, through the intense heat, come to the surface of the soil and are deposited in the water on the floor of the ocean.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister replies, is there any further debate on the question? The Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It is usually 2,000 feet down or more than they drill, so it's not applying to the hot springs as they come to the surface. It applies to the steam that you can develop away down in the earth. So that answers your question. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 77 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 80.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MINES REGULATION ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is an amendment to the Mines Regulation Act, Mr. Speaker. Governments have been accused of doing too much regulation by order-in-council, but this is one area where it has always been done by legislation. It involves quite a number of regulations and commenced some 75 years ago when they started to develop safety conditions in the mines. Each year new technological changes bring a great number of new problems. One of these technological changes has been the open-pit mining of today, where you have very large trucks operating — 100- and 200-ton trucks. We find quite a number of accidents have happened and we've had to tighten up on the regulations considerably in that regard.

Another point in this amendment is the reclamation for exploration and developing purposes.

[ Page 1139 ]

Previous to this summer reclamation and exploration only applied to those places that were producing. We passed an order-in-council, which is included in this now as legislation, where a person who is going to explore or develop with machinery must present their plans for reclamation to the department, which I think will be well-accepted by everybody here.

Another very important item in the bill is the certification of miners. Any who were here in previous years will remember that I fought hard many times to have the certification of miners. I feel that mining is very risky, very hard work and that it's the sort of work that needs a great deal of experience, just as much as you'd need as a plumber or a machinist. You need a great deal of experience when it comes to mining.

Another problem is that if anybody hadn't been down in a mine I'm sure that they wouldn't go down there unless it was that they had to have a job. Undoubtedly, many of them like it after they get there for a while. Nevertheless, every time you go underground you take your life in your hands. We've had many very serious accidents in mining. The safety regulations built up over the years have improved the safety record of the mines, but not sufficiently. To some extent, we can put the best regulations on paper, but unless they're carried out and unless they're policed on the job…. Don't forget that these regulations are made for the men who are working on the job, and what I'm trying to do is to get across to the men that it is their job to police these regulations and see that they are lived up to. It is the duty of management also, but it concerns the safety of the men in the mines.

We have at the present time safety committees in most mines that go around checking on the safety conditions. Last spring I had some problems. Prior to this government coming into power, the inspectors used to go to the mines and take management along with them, but they didn't take any of the employees along — the men that were really concerned about the safety conditions.

Due to this, they built up a suspicion between the employees and the management. Sometimes the employees figured that management and the inspectors were in cahoots. I agree with the previous Minister of Mines (Mr. Richter) that this was not so, but that suspicion arises there. I gave instruction to my inspectors that when they go to a mine to inspect it they must take along with them at least one member of the safety committee so that they know what is going on as well as the management. It has worked very well, but it takes a little time to get it really across.

With the new regulations, I'm sure that we're going to have better times and a better safety record in the mines and that less people will be killed and maimed in this great industry.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has described, this is a regulatory bill. The only point on which I can't agree with the Minister is the fact that where a mining company disturbed any soil previous to going into production, formerly it was my instruction that they must get the necessary reclamation permit to take care of any disturbances, any trenching or any redirection of seepage that might come in by way of melting snow and so on. This was certainly practised, to the best of my knowledge. If it wasn't, I wasn't aware that it wasn't being practised. It's most necessary when you disturb any soil that the necessary precautions be taken for reclamation of that and also for safety purposes in relation to hillside sliding and problems of this nature.

Now, the only other recommendation that I would have for the Minister, and actually I got this from the Minister when he was in the opposition…. When I had the Coal Mines Regulation Act before this House on previous occasions, it was his recommendation that they go to an appropriate select standing committee for study. They did, and the committee approved them. Now I would recommend that with this type of regulation, this would be a good forum before which to put the legislation for scrutiny. However, I do know….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's been to committee all summer.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, but not a select standing committee of this House, because a select standing committee of this House never was given any function by way of the former Legislature back in the spring; nor did they sit during that period of time. I do know — and I practised the same practices as the Minister has — that industry plus the unions plus the departmental people have promulgated these regulations in concert together, and this is a very good forum in which to have such regulations promulgated. However, for the benefit of Members who may not be conversant with mining, such as the Minister is and probably myself and maybe others in this House, it is exceptionally educational to know that the individuals progressively are being protected by new regulations in light of new technology that's coming into force and effect in the mining industry.

We will support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: We, too, will support second reading of this bill, as we will with respect to Bill 95. Certainly every Member of this House must be in favour of continued safety improvements with respect to the operation of mines, both surface and underground. We've had too many tragic accidents,

[ Page 1140 ]

too many serious injuries and lives lost as the result of carelessness, and we would hope that continued improvement of regulations would reduce the number of accidents which arise from causes which can be prohibited.

I would like to join with the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), however, in suggesting to the Minister that he is being remiss in not sending legislation of this kind to the select standing committee. I recall that in 1967 I was on that committee, and with the Hon. Minister had the privilege of going through a complete revision of the Mines Regulations Act of 1967 and of the Coal Mines Regulations Act. It was done in a select standing committee, and we had the unions and we had the companies' representatives come before that select standing committee and make their representations known. Members were able to sit down with the officials of the department and say rule by rule: "Why are you making this change? What was it before? Why will it be better?"

That was the system and it was such a unique experience under the former administration that it was a pleasure and a delight for Members of the opposition, as the Hon. Minister then was, to have this opportunity of bringing the people who were actually going to work and live by these regulations come before the committee with Members of the House and make them understand that there were no errors being made.

Well obviously there have been changes since 1967 which have resulted in new rules being required. Shouldn't we have the opportunity of satisfying ourselves in this House that the employers and the employees agree with precisely what has been done?

The Minister commented a moment ago that it was studied by a committee all this last summer. What committee? We know of no committee.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll tell you. Sit down and I'll tell you right away.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know, you'll tell us of a committee composed of your Members and of members of the industry and the union all inside the pocket, nice and quiet, working out all these things. But we want to know, because it's our responsibility when we pass this legislation. If anything goes wrong it isn't the committee that gets criticized. You know, the widow of a miner who is killed as a result of the inadequacy of one of these rules will be writing to her MLA about it, not to the committee that we don't know anything about.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I wasn't an MLA just yesterday.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Minister was very democratic when he sat on this side of the House, but how great the change is. Well, you tell us about this wonderful committee that resolved the matter and if need be, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we'll have to go through every one of these rules in committee. I trust that the Minister will have his deputy and his mine safety officer and his committee and they'll be able to answer to our satisfaction the need for every change.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, we don't want your answers because, you see, you're just a politician. It's been a long time since you counted nuts and bolts and were underground doing any work. We want the people who know what's going on, this committee who helped to draft these rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Two points I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we do appreciate the fact that while the Minister has not gone the whole way, in other words, he's not putting this to a committee of the House, at least this type of regulation comes before the House and it's not to be done by himself in secret or the cabinet in secret. We do appreciate that he's gone halfway. Unlike any other Minister in this whole government, this man at least has gone halfway to meeting some of the objections that we put forward to the pretty poor legislation that's come before us. He's not gone far enough, but having gone halfway it's hard to criticize the man very much.

I would just like to point out to the House and of course to the Minister that his cooperative attitude has led of course to response from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Richter), myself, my friend for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) and probably the Conservatives — I don't speak for them at all, but they will be speaking for themselves. We are quite willing to accept decent legislation on regulations in this House, and we're quite willing to take extra time in committee to consider it, but we cannot of course accept regulations simply passed by cabinet of which we know nothing until the things come out.

I would point out that when a responsible and constructive and cooperative approach is adopted by the government as this Minister has done, the opposition responds. It's unfortunate that this Minister is unique in this respect and that he's been unable to sell his ideas to his colleagues.

On the bill itself, I think it's well drawn. I've had a close look at it. It's fairly well done. We're going to have comments in committee. There are areas where we'd like to check on various things but it is still possible, if the Minister so wishes, to send it to the House committee prior to having it in this room in

[ Page 1141 ]

the Committee of the Whole House. In other words, send it to the special dozen or so Members of the Legislature who are specifically charged with looking at things of this nature rather than to all of us. It's still possible to do that and I trust the Minister will give serious consideration to the proposals of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WALLACE: This party indeed supports the principle of carrying out any changes which will enhance the safety of workers in what is a very hazardous occupation.

The detail in the bill frankly is not something that I personally can criticize intelligently but I would expect that this bill has been brought about by close communication and discussion with the mining industry and with workers in the mines and their representatives.

I'm pleased that the attempt is made in the bill to give organized labour a role to play in developing safety programmes. There was publicity given recently to an incident and an accident in a mine where I understand the miners were dissatisfied with the quality of mine inspection. This kind of bill, while it's very detailed, obviously attempts to bring the management of mines and the regulations governing the mining process up to date in keeping with technological change.

Here's another bill, Mr. Speaker, where we're all trying to learn more about technological change with respect to its relationship to labour relations, its relationship to mining, and you can name almost any other very active industry in our society nowadays where this constant reappraisal of the conditions under which men and women work is most apt and appropriate.

So that while I regret that I am not in a position to appraise the details in the bill, the principle is something that the Conservative Party strongly supports.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the remarks very much, particularly with regard to going to committee. I got on a mines committee when I first came into this House in 1950, and I looked ahead for a lot of committee work. The only committee work on mines that I ever had was the one that the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen mentioned, in 1967, I believe, or 1968.

The only reason that that was sent to committee was because there was hot potato in it, and that was the time the great hue and cry went up about reclamation, if you remember. The principal item in that committee's work was the reclamation section of the Act.

As far as all these new regulations, during the summer we had our inspectors, representatives of the union and representatives of the industry. They discussed all these regulations. They're the ones that are going together in bringing about these things.

But I'll say just this much, that I've advised the unions that they should have classes to instruct their membership in studying to know what the regulations are. Also, we are having a meeting next week of the inspectors, calling them in to give them the new regulations and holding a briefing on the new regulations. I move second reading of Bill 80, An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 80 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 95, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill all I will say is that it almost parallels the mines regulations amendments. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines — I'm sorry — the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. (Laughter.)

MR. RICHTER: I don't mind the promotion, Mr. Speaker. I'd take it gladly.

I just want to reiterate what I said before to clear the air as to the exact date of the other change in the regulations in the spring of 1969. I became Minister in 1968 in May.

However, we will support this bill in the official opposition. We hope that the regulations are successful in accomplishing what they are intended to do. I know the staff will carry out their duties. I hope that the unions, in cooperation with the management, or management in cooperation with the unions, will be able to administer their own operations to the advantage of the employees and those who do take the exposure to things that might happen. I will support the bill.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move second reading of Bill 95, An Act to Amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act.

Motion approved.

[ Page 1142 ]

Bill 95 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 97, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE QUEEN ELIZABETH II
BRITISH COLUMBIA CENTENNIAL
SCHOLARSHIP ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provinci al Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in 1971 when we celebrated the centennial of the province, to commemorate the visit of the Queen and other dignitaries to join our celebrations we set up a British Columbia centennial scholarship which was to be given in the amount of $5,000 as a scholarship to a person who graduates from a public university in British Columbia, who is normally domiciled in the province, is a Canadian citizen and who is a person of unusual worth and promise.

It's now our opinion, after having seen this in operation for such a short time, that the amount of money provided in section 1 is not sufficient. Therefore, we are recommending in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that we increase the figure 5 to 7; and secondly that we add a further subsection which in effect allows the scholarship winner to continue in post-graduate education. For that purpose we allow a further $3,500 during the third year of his study.

I think it is a good bill. It is a bill that really is only just in the making, as it were. We have already found out that the sums of money involved are not quite sufficient. It may well be that the inflationary trends over the last two years have caught up with section 1. I move second reading of Bill 97, An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 97 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 94, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SOIL CONSERVATION ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, this is another housekeeping bill. In the spring session we had Bill 42 to draw a sort of geographical line around land that we feel has a high agricultural capacity. Since then there have been instances where people have been defeating the purpose of that Act by removing the soil from within those boundaries.

There presently is a Soil Conservation Act on the statutes. The legislation before us simply includes references to the Agriculture Land Reserve so that the Soil Conservation Act will have some tie-in with the Agriculture Land Reserve. It really doesn't do much beyond that.

It does set up a system of permits where people may still remove agricultural soil from within the Agriculture Land Reserve, but does insist on some sort of a permit being obtained before that can be done.

We have had instances where citizens have been concerned about agricultural soil being removed in some areas. In some cases, when we check them out, we find that they are agricultural areas; in other cases they aren't.

What we are saying in this amendment is that if this is happening, or about to happen, within the Agricultural Land Reserve, then a permit must first be obtained so that the Land Commission will know what is going on. It also provides for advisory boards so that there will be the opportunity for local people to discuss what is happening with the Land Commission.

I move second reading.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say that we in the official opposition agree wholeheartedly with the concept of the bill. I would also like to remind the Minister that there are occasions when highways are pushed through farmland. I don't suppose it is going to stop because we are going to have to have highways, and from time to time they are going to be pushed through agricultural land.

I would hope that maybe he would get in consultation with the Minister of Highways and see that when this comes about, the topsoil could be stripped off, put in piles and possibly sold to farmers who want to build up some not-so-good land.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are occasions, particularly in our part of the country, when they are pushing the highway through a particular piece of land that has maybe not necessarily been used for agriculture, that they run on tremendous storehouses of peat moss. I think this should be set aside, piled up and given to people who want to upgrade their own gardens, or sold to people who want to upgrade and put some fibre into their present land, instead of having it buried and pushed off and covered up by the Department of Highways.

In other instances, where it is left open, the Highways department makes sure that if you are going to go in and get some for your own garden, you have to go through three or four ditches in order to get it. So this is something that could be taken under consideration. I would hope that the Minister of

[ Page 1143 ]

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would look into this. It may seem small but in some areas quite a large amount of topsoil would be ruined if piled under highways.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): We support this legislation. Clearly, there have been abuses. Not all of them have arisen, of course, since the establishment of the Land Commission under Bill 42 in the spring session. As a matter of fact, the Capital Regional District found it necessary to move in this regard with respect to some electoral areas just a matter of about 10 days ago.

This is, in our view, very good legislation. Hopefully, it will overcome some of the abuses which have been occurring, apparently, in all parts of the province.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on the suggestion of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), just a reminder, I think, that the Land Commission Act does rank higher in pecking order than does the Highway Act. So even the Highways department will have to come to the Land Commission when they want to start building highways over agricultural land. That would be an excellent opportunity to see that this very valuable topsoil is, indeed, saved.

I now move second reading of Bill 94, An Act to Amend the Soil Conservation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 94 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
IMPROVEMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 3.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. This amendment is similar to one proposed by another party in this House a short time ago. I agree with the intent of Bill 68, Farm Products Industry Improvement Act.

I agree with what the Minister is trying to do, and I support him in that. That, unfortunately, is as far as we go because here in section 3, where he has given the authority to invest in shares, debentures or other securities of an agricultural enterprise that is a corporation, or to purchase an interest in an agricultural enterprise that is not a corporation, is where we differ in philosophy.

The Minister of Agriculture has said that he needs this power and that certain groups want him to be a partner. I feel that the government should give the support to these industries. I feel they should, Mr. Chairman, give them a foundation to work on by loaning them money or giving them outright grants. They should give them the footing so that they can create the new industry that they want to do — assist them in the groundwork.

As I said yesterday afternoon during the debate on the setting up of the fishery up on the north coast for the native Indians, that is the theory that we should work upon. Make them the donation, loan them the money, and, if they can't make it, well, fine. But if you've got your fingers in there, Mr. Minister, if you are a partner, certainly there's no way they are going to go broke.

Now you discussed the other day, during second reading, that the people who want to start the alfalfa cubing plant have come to you and said, "We want you to be our partner." Well, I can understand that because if you are their partner, "Big Daddy" government will see that they never go broke. "Big Daddy" government will keep on putting in money to shore it up. Now if it is going to be a viable industry, it should be run by itself. There are instances all over the Province of British Columbia where the government has helped agricultural industry. We have one in our own riding. It's known as a seed-cleaning….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think you should be involved by owning shares, Mr. Minister, of the small food processing or agricultural industry. I think you should loan them the money, as I said before, at low interest, give them an outright donation, do anything you want to, but keep your sticky fingers out of the operation. Because there is where you and I differ on philosophy.

Who is going to be the sufferer? I'll tell you who's going to suffer. It's not only going to be the taxpayers of British Columbia; in many instances, it will be the very industries in which you participate. They will not operate efficiently if they know Big Daddy is there always ready to pick up the losses.

I agree that we've got to have secondary manufacturing and processing plants for food, but it can be done by individual initiative and individual enterprise.

We have a sad and sorry tale of mismanagement

[ Page 1144 ]

and failure when this was tried in the Province of Saskatchewan. Surely to goodness this government can see and learn something by the errors created during the socialist regime in Saskatchewan. We have another sad and sorry tale of failure and mismanagement by the same type of thinking in the Province of Manitoba. Now why, Mr. Chairman, we have to repeat, can't we learn from the errors of previous administrations and of administrations in other provinces? Why do we want to head down this path of complete state socialism where the government wants to control everything and everybody?

You can accomplish your objectives by giving a base for this group to work on. Loan them the money. If you want to forgive some of the payments or give them longer terms, fine; but let them have the initiative, let them do the things they want to do. If they go broke, as the Premier says, that doesn't mean we're going to stop loaning them money. Let them go ahead and go broke.

Take this out of this bill and it would be a wonderful bill. Do you agree to my amendment, Mr. Premier? Oh, the Premier doesn't agree; I'm going to have to go on a talk a little bit longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agree!

MR. PHILLIPS: What's going to happen here, for instance, is that there may be a plant processing food under the individual-enterprise system and along comes the government.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's a bear story about that too, Mr. Premier.

This is a very serious matter and I'm terribly disappointed that the Minister of Finance is making light of my talk in here this afternoon.

There will be instances where private enterprise is already operating a food-processing plant or an enterprise to deal with agricultural products. Along will come Big Daddy. Another little group over here will want to start up and they'll go to Big Daddy and they'll say, "Look, we want to start up a poultry-processing plant over here. We want you to come in as our partners because we know full well that if you come in as our partner, well, I'll tell you, there's no way we're going to have any problems. Every time we have a problem, we'll just go to Big Daddy."

Pretty soon, the other operation is going to go broke. Big Daddy will say, "Well, you couldn't run it anyway because we've used unfair competition. We've told these farmers that if they don't sell their products to us, they won't get any grants to buy their machinery."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, maybe they wouldn't, Mr. Member, but this is exactly what could happen. What eventually will happen is that the Minister of Agriculture, one arm of this big octopus controlling the entire economy of British Columbia, will spread out and put his arm around that particular phase of the business and squeeze it until it succumbs. Once it succumbs, it'll lay down and Mr. Minister of Agriculture will have complete control.

I don't want to see this happen. I'm worried about it happening. I don't think the Minister of Agriculture wants this to happen, but his philosophy is forcing him to leave this in the bill. He can say, "Maybe we're not going to use it, but we must be ready for all occasions." Well, the Legislature now meets twice a year. If he wants to do something, he can always bring it in the Legislature.

I know you've created such a situation in the agricultural industry where you want to rush this thing through. You're trying to pull it out of the fire. You've just about got agriculture starved out now by Bill 42. You've made a promise that you're going to save it. It doesn't matter what legislation you have to bring in; you're going to save it by hook or by crook. That's the reason for this bill.

Well, you can still leave old individual initiative out there and it'll come through. Give us the scope, give us the help that you wanted, but keep your fingers out of the operation of these operations. If you've got something big that you really want to invest in, if it's a multi-million-dollar plant that you feel is necessary, all right, bring a separate bill into the Legislature. If it's good, we'll support it. I'll guarantee that. If it's good legislation, we'll support it, Mr. Chairman.

But don't continue to take away from this Legislature the powers of the legislator. There are quite a few ridings in here that represent agricultural ridings. What you're doing is giving the Minister the right to go into any operation he wants to without bringing it back into the Legislature. This is the type of legislation that gets us mad over on this side of the House. That's why we have to stand up and fight against it.

The Minister of Agriculture, when this legislation is passed, doesn't even have to go back and consult with the agricultural committee, in spite of promise after promise after promise in this House that we are going to consult with those involved. We're going to have committees and we're going to let them bring in recommendations. By this bill, you take all of that completely away from any legislative body whatsoever, and the government is becoming a government by order-in-council. Everything is done and everything will be done by order-in-council.

[ Page 1145 ]

Mr. Chairman, one of the problems with this order-in-council business is that the farmer has to deal with the bureaucracy which is bound to grow in the Department of Agriculture. They will be the ones who say how much money will be invested by the Crown.

This will happen. Some groups of farmers will want to start an operation and they'll have to go to the bureaucracy in the Department of Agriculture. They'll try and shake this bureaucracy to get a little more money out of them. If they were cut-and-dried deals the farmers could go and say, "Loan us the money; we're going to pay it back. We don't want your participation." Who is going to be making the decisions? If the government is going to enter into the business world, it's going to buy shares, it's going to have to receive more consideration than if you just lowered the business.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon the Premier stood on the floor of the Legislature and said, "We are going to give this fish co-op money. We don't even care if they never pay it back, but we're going to let them run their own affairs." That's the policy we're talking about. The Premier says, "We're going to let them make it or break it by themselves. We're not going to go in there and tell them how to run that cannery. No siree."

Now, do you mean to tell me that a group of farmers who have been farming all their life and want to start a processing plant haven't the knowledge and enterprise to go in and run that operation by themselves as well as the Indians who are going to run this cannery? Do you mean to tell me that this government doesn't have that much faith in the farmers in this province or the people to want to start small processing plants?

Why the difference? Why treat another segment in this manner? Why is that? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. That's a farm cliché too, Mr. Minister.

How did you, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), ever break through that barrier? How did you get those people in your riding to receive this grant without having the government go in there and send in their bureaucracy to tell them how many fish to put in the can and who to hire and what equipment to buy? How did you ever break through? You must have had lots of help.

What I'm doing here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, is pleading for the farmers of this province who want to get together and run and manage their own affairs without this government going in and telling them how to run it by buying shares and so forth. I'm pleading for the farmers of this area. Sure, some of them will come and say, "Oh, we sent Big Daddy in there because if we go broke we know Big Daddy will be in there to help us."

Mr. Chairman, I realize what the eventual aim of the government is. That's what really concerns me. It came out loud and clear during Bill 42. This government not only wants to get their hands on all of the agricultural land; they want to control all the production. They create situations. They want to make the Minister of Agriculture the super-farmer who is going to control all the means of production and the processing of that means of production.

I, Mr. Chairman, cannot agree with that. Therefore, I'm going to have to vote against this bill unless this amendment is passed.

Amendment negatived.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wonder if the Minister would indicate why under subsections (f) and (g) he finds it necessary to take unto himself the right to cancel the repayment of principle or interest in whole or in part. He has the power to make grants. He has the power to make loans. If he does decide to make a loan, it seems to me that it is offensive for him then to take on the power to cancel the amounts that are owing out of that loan.

A lender you may be — take great care in the loans you make — but once you are a lender, then that loan should be repaid. I wouldn't object if the Minister took the power to perhaps suspend for a period of time the repayment of principal or interest if there were circumstances that justified the exercise of that power, because any reasonable lender does that anyway. But to cancel principal or interest is the worst thing that a lender can do.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I have no specific instance where we want to use that today. But it is quite conceivable in the case of breaking new ground with industrial development that after they have played the game according to an agreement with the government to do certain things, and if, in spite of this cooperative enterprise, the need for writing off the balance receivable arises, then we have the authority under this. It's simply a matter of trying to cover all the bases.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wanted to make a brief comment with regard to section 3 about the announcement by the Department of Agriculture that there would be a processing plant established in the Okanagan area somewhere. I believe that it's already been established that that processing plant will go into the Member for Shuswap's (Mr. Lewis') riding.

I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention a

[ Page 1146 ]

reminder that the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board has taken a fairly strong stand on the need for this processing plant in that area. One of the reasons they've taken that strong stand is because there is a record of failure in that area of both producers and processing plants in the past.

They've laid out some pretty good reasons in a report to the Minister; I don't know if it has ever been made public. They say that that area cannot support a processing plant at this time. If that's the case, and if the case is as strong as the board says it is, then this section certainly becomes more important because it will obviously be used to bail out a failing enterprise. That's the kind of thing that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was concerned about.

There seems to have been an undue amount of pressure for this kind of decision from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). He's a large egg producer in that area and he can't get his old laying hens processed without shipping them down to the Fraser Valley. I think that's the reason there has been the pressure for this processing plant in that constituency. His comments in Hansard are well known. He's been talking about it ever since we came to the Legislature in the spring session. He began and he's been going on about his tired roosters and tired hens ever since. He wants a processing plant so he can facilitate his operation a little better.

I could go through the whole sequence of events which started around April 12 in Hansard and continued right through as late as October 19 when the Minister finally announced that there would be a processing plant. While he didn't say Shuswap, we know that that's where he meant that the plant was going to go.

The B.C. broiler board feels — and I think there's good evidence from other people — that this processing plant should not go in that area but that the government and the department should consider the Kootenay, Prince George or Peace River areas of the province if they really want to implement their election promises about decentralizing agriculture in British Columbia. These areas are now being provided by the Alberta government. Perhaps it would make some good sense for us to get in there and start providing British Columbia products in those areas that need it and can support it.

In the Kamloops-Okanagan area, however, nearly 100 per cent of the production is British Columbia production. So why not move to decentralize into those areas which are presently being supplied by Alberta?

The applications in the Fraser Valley area right now — mainly due to Bill 42, I might add — are mainly coming from 5- and 10-acre parcels…on both Vancouver Island and in the Fraser Valley. The board now has almost 300 applications. People are waiting to get quotas and to get established as broiler chicken growers.

The industry can be established in that area, but it must develop according to the kinds of policies which have already been set down — policies which, contrary to some of the comments from the Member for Shuswap, do not necessarily discourage the entry of new producers. The record of new producers is very good over the last few years. So industry in that area should be developed along reasonable and natural lines, not because of any political persuasion from any Member of this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I think our concern here, once again, is that once this government gets itself involved in shoring up enterprises which may or may not be successful, then the danger is that we never know how that operation is being operated, because we would just continue to pour money into it for political reasons rather than economic reasons. That's the danger of this kind of section. It's the reason that our amendment was put forward, and it's the reason we oppose this kind of legislation by this government.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I understand that while I was out of the House there were references made to myself in regard to a poultry industry coming to the Interior of the province. Well, I'd like the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) to know that I have been working for some sort of equality in farming in this province for several years. And I'd like him to know just what's happened under the government — that he now is a Member of — for years.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not a Member of the government.

MR. LEWIS: Thank God you're not, and I hope you never are.

I'll give you some instances of what happened under that government. They established marketing boards, which I'm not in opposition to. But the manner in which they carried on their business after they were established is very questionable. We can go on to the Turkey Marketing Board, the Broiler Marketing Board, and the Egg Marketing Board, and you can see the types of injustices that have happened. Monopoly in that industry was centralized in the Fraser Valley with no responsibility shown by that party for the rest of the province.

I have no interest in a poultry plant for my own use in the Interior of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: What are you going to do with your old hens?

MR. LEWIS: Well, the same thing I'm doing now, giving them away to the tourists. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1147 ]

I'll tell you one thing….

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): For how much?

MR. LEWIS: I'll tell you one thing, my friend: under your free enterprise system you've made many, many rich people in this province. We can go into Wall & Redekop, the poor little real estate man, and who gets the quota in turkeys, broilers and eggs? — Wall & Redekop. Go into the broilers…Panco. Turkeys…Panco. It stinks, and it's all set up underneath the party that you're a part of. If you want figures and facts I can put them down on paper and present them to this House for you. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, just briefly, Mr. Chairman, the only one I know of who has located the poultry processing plant in the Shuswap riding is the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) applauded that locating, but you're the only one that has said where the plant is going to be, to the best of my knowledge.

I have said that there will be one in the Interior. I have said that the justification for that plant is partly there as there already is a significant volume of turkey production and there is the laying-hen population. Beyond that we recognize there will need to be some broiler production to make the plant feasible. The Broiler Marketing Board is considering putting broiler permits into that area of the province and will be persuaded to do so in time to get….

MR. McCLELLAND: Considering? — being forced.

HON. MR. STUPICH: They're being persuaded, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: This is not because of political pressure from the Hon. Member for Shuswap. This was a decision made at the NDP convention when we prepared the programme for the 1972 election. We're a party, Mr. Chairman, that believes in following our election promises and in keeping those promises.

Interjections.

Sections 3 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Farm Products Industry Improvement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 69, An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 83 — Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 1148 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE TAXATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 84; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 84, An Act to Amend the Taxation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 87, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE
CO-OPERATIVE LOAN ACT

The House in committee on Bill 87; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just one question to the Hon. Minister. I notice that the section provides for loans to the co-operative. Has the Minister of Finance given any indication to the co-operative or would he give an indication to the House as to the type of interest that he may have in mind with respect to loans that will be made under this Act? Will it be at interest rates comparable to banks or at some lesser figure than that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we have not yet determined what the interest rate will be, but I would say it will be much lower than the current rate. We will try to keep it as low as possible.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, would the interest rate that will apply to loans provided or made under this Act be similar and compare to loans that might be available under other Acts for farmers in the Province of British Columbia? Is that the intent?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would be difficult for me to answer that specifically. It would be the intention, Mr. Chairman, to keep the loan rate down in the agricultural field and in this type of project.

But I must point out that there may be a variation in loan rates, certainly between loans out of the trade and industry department compared to agriculture and this type of project.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the question of interest was raised in a previous reading of this bill. The answer now satisfies me just as little as it did then. Is it not possible to establish this? Is there any reason for not having…? Is it tied in with the Indian fishermen's assistance programme of the federal government which puts $10 million into the purchase of boats?

What is the reasoning behind an Act which simply doesn't refer to the rate of interest?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's just that we haven't come to a conclusion in terms of the government negotiating group and the native Indians. What we were faced with was an agreement in principle as to the method of the operation. We had some differences of opinion about the structure of co-operatives. We resolved all those differences of principle and we've brought the legislation in for the go-ahead. Now we'll be meeting very quickly to determine the last areas, and that includes the interest rates. But we'll negotiate with them what the interest rates are.

It's again part of the concept of not pronouncing our decisions through the group, but rather a process of sitting and negotiating and coming to an agreement. We want to avoid any kind of paternalism in the relationship.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, in relation to the comments made by the Hon. Premier — and I am very empathetic to the approach that he wants to take — he did make reference to the fact that there might well be differences in interest rates between the Industrial Development Corporation, the agricultural assistance programmes and programmes such as this.

I would assume — and would like confirmation of this — that in the industrial development programme, for example, there would be a publicly-known interest rate and that it would be an applicable rate to all loans of even a certain category, and the same in agriculture.

I think what may well be concerning the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is that we wouldn't want any implication that one group could negotiate one form of interest…

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no.

[ Page 1149 ]

MRS. JORDAN: …and another group another rate, so that there would be pressure upon the Minister of Finance in any way — or any of the programmes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate that, Madam Member. This particular bill, because of the characteristics of dealing with what is really a social problem as well as an industrial concept, tried to be vague because of the type of negotiations we are carrying on. Certainly we would avoid the dangers in the other programmes of being able to bargain or the favouritism that could come up unless we laid out categories and rates for those loans in that category.

I appreciate your question, but this one is peculiar. In all of these areas we will be much more lenient, much more flexible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment to this section standing in my name on the order paper.

In speaking to the amendment, just a couple of short comments, Mr. Chairman. One is that, as I have said before and I said yesterday afternoon, I like this bill. I like the spirit and the idea behind it of giving to these native people the right to manage their own affairs and either loaning them the money outright or donating them the money outright without the government coming in and telling them how to run their business. I think the same principle should be carried on to those fishermen who are going to supply this cannery.

Now the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), who is from that area, says that the co-op wants to control and own the fleet so that they can be assured of a steady supply of fish. Well it's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that not only are the co-op-owned fishing fleets going to be supplying to the cannery but also fishing boats that are individually owned by Indians who have the enterprise and the entrepreneurship to go out and own their own boats. Right?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member's comments, but I would point out that under our standing rules this amendment is out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's spending money.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would alter the whole approach and it's spending money.

Mr. Member, I'm sympathetic, but I think it's out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I….

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not going to spend money. You're going to loan them money to buy their own boats. I don't see how that's out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Because a point of order has been raised on the amendment I must make a decision. I would rule that the amendment is out of order in the hands of a private Member under section 67 of the standing orders.

MR. PHILLIPS: On what grounds?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a message bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: The amendment doesn't purport to spend any money. Not by a private Member….

MR. SMITH: With respect, Mr. Chairman, you've ruled an amendment out of order in view of standing order 67.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is correct.

MR. SMITH: I submit, Sir, with all respect, that the amendment does not in any way commit the government to any further expenditure than they would have been committed to under the original intent of the bill. All it does is extend the same privilege of obtaining finance for a boat, if that is what the money is going to be used for, to persons other than ones who belong to the co-operative. In other words, they would have a choice of financing their own boat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would quote standing order 67 first and then make a further comment:

"It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by Message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the Session in which the vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed."

I would draw your attention to the phrase "to any purpose." Under the standing order, this amendment clearly directs money to be used for a certain purpose, and, under the standing order, this must be introduced by a Member of the Crown.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think it's pointless to have a lengthy debate on a procedural point of this nature because it simply takes the time of the House. In actual fact, the Member's amendment would simply have the same category of people, namely Indian people who are fishermen working for the co-operative, make use of the same amount of money

[ Page 1150 ]

for essentially the same purpose: the purchase of the boat. The restrictions that you are placing would mean that it would be virtually impossible….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've made a ruling. If the Hon. Member does not agree with the ruling, he may….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly I don't agree with the ruling. It doesn't make sense.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, fine.

MR. PHILLIPS: You've got too big a majority.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, challenge the ruling then.

MR. PHILLIPS: You've got too big a majority.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, your ruling has been accepted, I think, with some considerable reluctance. I would like to address myself to section 2 and point out to the Premier that our concern in this section is in terms of the individuality and the creation of this ability within this well-motivated programme. It's our feeling that the responsibility of government is to create an environment in which individual potential can meet its maximum and achieve its maximum and, in so doing, can accept its maximum responsibility.

While the idea of creating a co-op to process the fish is excellent, we feel there should be greater latitude in the ownership of the boats. It's been proven over and over again in many other countries that where you have cooperative ownership of machinery which has a deteriorating life and whose extent of life depends to a large degree upon the handling of that machinery on an hour-to-hour basis, the maintenance of that machinery and for that machinery to work to its maximum life, repairs to it must often be done on the spot with the initiative of the person who really cares for it.

There has been a great tendency in almost every jurisdiction where you have cooperatively-owned machinery to run into inefficiency and lack of maximum output because the person does not own it. They think, "Well, I can take it in, get it fixed and I'll get another piece," and there is an actual loss of time. If you own something yourself, you'll be much more interested repairing and maintaining that machinery yourself. This saves in terms of money and of time.

A great danger in co-operatively owned equipment is that the equipment will be maintained under a co-operative attitude which is well meaning but extremely inefficient.

In trying to assist the native people to find their rightful place and use their rightful initiative, we've got to be very careful to not drag down those who have acquired or developed or inherently have more ability and more desire and more drive than the others.

I can't see why there shouldn't be the option, if you want some co-operatively-owned boats, for the individual native Indian who wants to own his own boat to take advantage of this programme to own his own boat. Surely in making the co-operative unit itself successful, the individual ownership of the boats by the natives would stimulate that. The main function of the unit is within the processing plant. That's where you get the co-operative management and that's where you get the co-operative input.

In plugging into that — and I don't mean to call it a Tinker-toy programme, but think in terms of the Tinker toy — if you get the initiative of the individual in that plug-in, it will have an opportunity to be a more successful programme than if you try to put the lid on it and, in essence, bring down some people who might well be the essence of carrying that into a greater area of success.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, sometimes you allude to Tinker-toy things and other statements and then draw off by saying, of course, you don't want to refer to it. In this instance, quite honestly, you just don't know what you're talking about. That happens so many times in this House that it makes it very difficult for us to take you seriously on issues.

This is a co-operative. Are you trying to suggest to us and to the native Indians involved that the integral part of this co-operative could be privately-owned by individuals? If they get mad and walk off with their fishing boats, the whole venture goes down the tube. That's why the group themselves wanted this protection.

How in the world can you have a co-operative cannery with the boats privately owned? What will happen is that the boats will leave the cannery and go and sell their fish somewhere else and the people standing on the production line in the cannery won't have anything to can. It's elementary: unless you've got fish to can you don't have a fish cannery.

To come in here and suggest, as you did say — and I'm trying to draw your words back as correctly as I could make note of them — "not drag those with more ability to those with less ability," is a presumption of some kind of rat race that doesn't belong inside a co-operative. A co-operative is a sharing of ownership among all the Indian people, regardless of their task in this venture, on an equal basis. The janitor of this cannery is just as important as the captain. That is the concept that native Indians have tried to teach us white people that we haven't learned, much to our disadvantage.

[ Page 1151 ]

If we allowed the fish boats to go out and operate on their own, then what is the motivation of the janitor and the girl who is packing the fish to work hard for an equal share?

This is not a rat-race, capitalist enterprise. This is a co-operative of a group of human beings who have decided, when coming to this government, that they wanted an equal opportunity as a group of people to work together. One of the things they asked for was a guarantee of supply. The only way of having a guarantee of supply was to have not only the machinery owned by the cooperative but the boats owned by the co-operative as well.

I find the flowing glossiola from that Member sometimes very, very disconcerting. I tried to ignore it, but I got such nonsense as: co-operatively-owned machinery would mean neglect at the work place. Has she never heard of the Industrial Revolution which destroyed the pride of individual workmanship by taking people out of cottage industries and putting them on the assembly line? Have you never seen a film called Modern Times that Charlie Chaplin produced in the mid-30s predicting the kind of worker alienation that exists now in industry?

Don't you realize, madam, that in some instances in northern industrial job sites they are suffering from 80 to 100 per cent turnover at the work place? From the town of Houston we've just had a report from the Noranda Co. that in the last year they had over 150 per cent turnover at the work place.

Madam, private ownership of a machine at the work place doesn't ensure the worker falling in love with that machine. To suggest that co-operatively-owned machinery will somehow destroy individual initiative is totally absurd claptrap but it is part of that kind of flowing nonsense that comes out of that Member consistently on every piece of legislation.

This is a venture by human beings who have said: "we are equals; we are going to go into this venture as equals. We are going into the white man's world, not with a gift, not with a handout, not with a grant, not with paternalism, but we're going to go into the white man's world together. Unlike the white man, we will work together as a group and we will use the tools, the boats and the factory site as a means of providing independence for the group."

Madam Member, the kind of philosophical jargon that you and your friend from North Peace River throw out, as if it were the most qualified word handed down from the mouth as a way to survive in life, is absolute nonsense. Some people do love each other and wish to co-operate with each other, and we should encourage that as much as possible. Competitiveness is not necessarily the major psychological attitude to develop a mature person. As a matter of fact, it may be the opposite.

Love and understanding can be a far greater force than the acquisition and ownership of a hunk of machinery. When people themselves come to this mature decision, which is far more adequate than any white man that I know, then for goodness' sake we should not stand in their way but admire them as a group of people who have said "This is our self-help project; we want to own this together, use it together to better our lives and to better our community." We should stand back in admiration and facilitate that desire as much as possible.

To suggest that we should impose our white man's ideas of individual ownership on them in the hope that they would emulate us is a disastrous course, in my opinion. We just can't buy that philosophical junk that you keep on peddling over there. I haven't stood up in this House before because you always relate it to other industry. But this is a co-operative; and I am compelled in a discussion of a co-operative to point out to the Member that a co-operative means co-operation, and co-operation means joint ownership — just like a husband and wife are equals.

So I reject any suggestion that they should own their own little fish boat so (I quote) "not to drag down those with more ability." I just find that whole analysis somewhat offensive and loaded with paternalism and part revealing of the kind of attitude we've had to the native Indians in the past.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to suggest that this has been a fine example of what we have to bear the burden of in this House: a Premier who just cannot accept any suggestions from any other party in this House that in any way might tread on his philosophical toes without standing up and resorting to his flamboyant, childish, whining…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, my gosh.

MRS. JORDAN: …insults and innuendoes…

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: …and to pulling down a Member. Really, when I listened to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, I hadn't realized that we had indeed witnessed the second coming in British Columbia. Because to hear that Premier talking, he has the priority and he has the prerogative on everything that is good in this province — on righteousness, on the concern of man's humanity to man and…

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Save the world. Save the world.

MRS. JORDAN: …he will save his philosophy and destroy the province, Mr. Member. If his mind was open as much as his mouth is open, then we might have a better opportunity…

[ Page 1152 ]

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: …in this province to bring about…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …social reform and not some radical socialist ideas.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I assume I'm going to have the same latitude as the Hon. Premier in this debate.

Immediately you speak in terms of destroying the co-operative system because I offered an alternate suggestion. That, Mr. Premier, can only attest to the rigidity of your thinking. If you want an assured supply of fish — and naturally the co-operative does want an assured supply of fish — then all there has to be is an agreement attached to the terms of the loans to buy the boat that the supply from that boat is indeed directed by agreement to the co-operative cannery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who buys the cannery?

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to indulge in the sort of pranksterism and childish emotionalism that the Premier likes to do in this province, but I do think that once again we've seen an example of how he gets up and he wraps a very deep and very dedicated philosophy in terms of motherhood. I think that when he speaks of this programme, we can think in terms of what is going to happen in other co-operatives in British Columbia.

I think, in terms of the bills we have been passing in agriculture and in other areas, that indeed the basic philosophy of this government, and the basic thrust of this government — wrapped in motherhood as it is — is in fact to do away with all individualism in the Province of British Columbia — whether it's in terms of the native Indians, whether it's in terms of the individual farmer, whether it's in terms of the individual small businessman. And all we have to do in speaking to this is wish this programme well.

We would like to see a more open-minded point of view on the part of the Premier and the Minister of Finance. But we do caution the people of British Columbia to mark his words well and to study them, because there's an underlying philosophy here which he consistently tried to deny, but which he consistently covers up with this jokesterism of his and this whining approach and this presupposing that he has the monopoly on all the good avenues of success in life as far as people are concerned.

MR. PHILLIPS: It was very revealing to me, Mr. Chairman, to witness the Premier in action unveiling some more of his philosophy a few moments ago, saying that if the co-op didn't own the fishing boats, they couldn't be assured of a supply of fish. Well, I want to say that I think there would be a more guaranteed supply of fish if the individual Indians owned their own fishing boats, because then they would be more apt to go out, work harder, bring in a bigger catch. You're also going to be buying fish in this cannery from individual boats, but to say that a co-operative….

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's what they want themselves.

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen, you had your little speech; let me make mine. To say that the co-operative can't survive unless they own the means of bringing in the produce is to say that for any of the agricultural ventures that this government is going to get together and have joint ownership in, they're going to have to own the farm and the farmer. That's what he's saying absolutely. That's the philosophy of this government.

To say that the Indians love one another and they're going to co-operate in this thing and they're all going to be equal: my version of that, Mr. Chairman, is that that's one of the problems of the Indians today. We put them on the land and said, "You're joint owners of this land," and we've done away with any individual initiative that they might have had. That's one of the problems.

I'm probably not as well versed in it as many in this room are, but that's my version of it. We've been treating them like a group who all love each other, and there is no individual enterprise in them. That's what the problem is today. No, I say there will be many fishermen in this area who would like to own their own boats, and who would do a better job if loaned the money — who would look after the equipment better.

To say that the janitor in this co-op is going to have as much stake in this is not deliberate reality. I've been in co-operative operations before — and let's not kid each other. Pretty soon out of the co-operative comes a hierarchy that runs it. Look what's happened to your co-ops in the food market. You said that it would reveal in the agricultural committee this spring in our session that the co-op food growers aren't working because they're run by people who aren't doing the job, and they've ceased to function. Let's live in the land of reality. We josh together here….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've made a suggestion that will function. For the Premier to get up and, honest to

[ Page 1153 ]

gracious…

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: …sometimes you make me lose respect for you, Mr. Premier — getting up…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: …and putting on — now listen!

Oh, Mr. Chairman, there goes the Premier again: "Vote against the bill." Unless he can sell his whole package…no one can do anything. No one can make a change. That government over there with its crushing majority…. Whatever they say is absolutely right.

Oh, they were going to listen. Oh, they were going to accept amendments. They were going to consult with people. Well throw it out the window. You've no more intention of doing that than I intend to fly to the moon tonight.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on this section I'm very, very disappointed. As I said at the beginning, when we were having a nice calm debate here, (Laughter) I liked this bill. I liked the attitude behind it. I liked the idea of the government giving the money. But we tried to make a suggestion on that monopolistic, crushing theory over there on the opposite side. We tried to give you a little of our business experience and acumen so that you could accept it and really do something that would be just fantastic.

Everything would be right with this bill if you'd accept that amendment. I realize the amendment has been defeated, but the Premier didn't need to get up and talk like that because of suggestions….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why shouldn't I?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the guy with the contract.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 87, Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative Loan Act, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Now, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order. Is it customary in the House when you call for a vote and there's no dissenting voices to call a division? Is this part of the rules and procedure? If it is, fine. Would you be so good as to quote to me the rule that covers a situation like this?

MR. SPEAKER: I'll quote the rule as I understand it, Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: The majority rules.

MR. SPEAKER: No. Order, please. The discretion is vested in the Speaker, according to May, to determine whether a division should take place in a situation such as this. It appears on many occasions that the House wants to record its opinion and it would be rather, shall I say, risky for a Speaker to go against what may be the opinion of the House when it wants its opinion recorded. Consequently, it would only be where it appears to be frivolous that I would intervene on that request, whether it came from either side of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought I heard a no.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If, in fact, there is no dissenting vote in the House and yet the House has a reason that it wishes to record the vote, would it not then be proper for the House to ask leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Any Member is entitled to call for a division from anywhere in the House. I would point out that it's up to the Speaker to decide, according to May, whether or not to exercise his discretion to refuse that division if it appears that it would be unnecessary.

MRS. JORDAN: We accept your decision, Mr. Speaker. Could you outline for the House your reason for agreeing to the vote in this particular instance?

[ Page 1154 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it's been a custom in this House for many years — 17 years, I recall — to do it regardless of the amount of ayes on one side or the other. I hate to change a custom.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been here too long.

Bill 87 read a third time and passed on a unanimous division.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC
SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Bill 102 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

Bill 103 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TEACHERS' PENSION ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act.

Bill 104 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MINERAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Mineral Act.

Bill 101 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MINERAL LAND TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Mineral Land Tax Act.

Bill 107 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Motor-vehicle Act.

Bill 99 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act.

Bill 100 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
REVISED STATUTES ACT, 1966

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Bill 106 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Bill 73 standing in my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Permission to withdraw the amendment in my name to Bill 80 on the order paper today.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.