[ Page 2535 ]

CONTENTS

April 25, 1974
Night sitting

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 174.

Mr. Smith — 2535

Mr. Wallace — 2541

Mr. Fraser — 2549

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2552

Mr. Chabot — 2554

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2556

Mr. Chabot — 2556

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2556

Mr. Gibson — 2556

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2558

Mr. Smith — 2558

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2560

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 174: Minister's office, $68,724.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You know, Mr. Chairman, it's amazing to see the smiles on the faces of the few Members of cabinet who are here this evening, and the lesser Members of the backbench that are not even represented in the House this evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: What vote are we on here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SMITH: "Order," the man says. It's obvious that some of the Members are not prepared to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. So I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will not accept the motion.

MR. SMITH: This time you're wrong, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue with his remarks? The Chair has made a ruling that it would not accept the motion, considering that no business has taken place as yet. Therefore, the motion is out of order.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You're outvoted, in any event.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Not by much. Where are all your Members?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I will accept your ruling.

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

MR. SMITH: But I suggest to you this, Mr. Chairman: when we discuss the estimates of the second most important portfolio as far as revenue to the Crown is concerned in the Province of British Columbia, and the impact that it has on the people in the Province of British Columbia, it's an absolute disgrace that we have not the cabinet here in attendance and very little of the backbench — very little of the backbench of the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address himself to the estimates?

MR. SMITH: I will address myself to the estimates, Mr. Chairman; you had better believe I will.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): When?

MR. SMITH: Right now, Mr….

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you at dinner tonight?

MR. SMITH: You know, it's amazing to hear the comments of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) and the members of the cabinet who don't even have the courtesy to tell us what the orders of the day will be or what will be called.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address himself to vote 174, please?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will address myself to the votes of the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Come on now, Ed; be fair.

MR. SMITH: You know that I've been more than fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: But somewhere along the line it has to be said that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's going to say it?

MR. SMITH: …whatever we try to say on the floor of this House is held up to ridicule by the Ministers. We've heard statements from the Hon. Minister whose estimates are under debate this

[ Page 2536 ]

afternoon and this evening that should be held up to ridicule by everybody in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oooooohhhhh!

MR. SMITH: But what has happened…I'll suggest to the Minister that not a word will be said about the statements that he made in the press tomorrow. Not a word, not a word. And that's okay, because we're accustomed to that kind of treatment in this House by both the press and the Chairman and the people who say they're the government of the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Left-wing press.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address himself to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister under vote 174?

MR. SMITH: I was about to get to that point, Mr. Chairman.

Under the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources I'd like to suggest to the Minister that there's a difference of opinion — and we have a Minister applauding that — between ourselves and the Members of government. I feel that the Minister….

HON. MR. LEA: You're the reason we won't put TV in the House.

MR. SMITH: I feel that the Minister is handicapped in trying to accomplish the goals of resource development in the Province of British Columbia — because, after all, you're charged with the development of mining and petroleum resources. You're handicapped by the advice that you have received from the people who are not professional in that field. And I'm not talking about the long-time civil servants; I'm talking about the political hacks that have been appointed.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): By my department?

MR. SMITH: By yourself, yes, that's right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, my God!

MR. SMITH: You're handicapped by the other cabinet Ministers who have a different plan regarding the Province of British Columbia than you should have as Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

There are many ways to accomplish the desired goal of everybody in the Province of British Columbia. That is to return to the people of the province an equitable amount of dollars in the form of taxation for their resources that we have here. You said yourself that they're non-renewable resources. So let's talk about those non-renewable resources for a little while.

Let's talk about the fact that in the mining industry many, many new mines might have come into operation and would have come into operation if…

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If!

MR. SMITH: …it hadn't been…. I'll tell you; I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Might or would?

MR. SMITH: They would have come into operation if it had not been for the policies of the NDP. They realize that your policy is to remove the individual and the private mining firms from the Province of British Columbia. I can't put it any plainer than that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: You could if you tried.

MR. SMITH: The policy of the NDP is to remove these people from the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. I suggest to you that that's a sorry day, because that is not the way to go if you expect the mining industry to play the important part that it has in the economy of this province for many, many years.

The government is entitled and the people of the Province of British Columbia are entitled, through taxation, to share on an equitable basis through the resources that we have in this province. I don't disagree with that and nobody in the opposition here disagrees with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes you do. Oh, yes, they do.

MR. SMITH: But there's a difference, Mr. Chairman, between equitable taxation and punitive taxation, which results in the removal of not only the industry but the people that work in that industry in the Province of British Columbia.

If you're concerned about the fact that mining and minerals are non-renewable resources and the resources that we have eventually will be depleted…. And I agree that that will happen, because mines will be mined to the extent that they can be mined. And minerals will be depleted to the extent that they can be depleted. Instead of the attack that you have taken, all you had to do, if you were really concerned about this and wanted to spread it out over a long period of time, was limit the

[ Page 2537 ]

production in any given location the same as we have done in the petroleum resource industry in this province.

HON. MR. LEA: Who's we?

MR. SMITH: The people of the province, my friend and the experts in the field of petroleum production who work for this government as they did for the former, not because you're NDP or because we are Social Credit, but because they are professional in the field that they represent.

They know what they're doing and they've gained from the experience of other places in Canada. They have found that in the petroleum industry you don't extract all you can extract from a given petroleum find or a given natural gas find as quickly as it is possible to do that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: The reason you don't do that is that there are many problems involved. If they were allowed to do that, it would probably destroy the asset and the mineral and the petroleum resource you were trying to extract from the ground. It would be no good to anyone anytime in the future. They learned that the hard way because of the experience of other areas of North America.

HON. MR. LEA: I'm glad the chief isn't here to hear you say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get a haircut?

MR. SMITH: It is unfortunate the Minister of Highways doesn't really realize what he is saying….

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get a head?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I guess it is, because this indicates how much experience he has in this field. I am sure if the Minister doesn't understand, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources doesn't understand what I am saying. There are many members of his staff who do understand what I am saying.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He never will understand.

MR. SMITH: If you are concerned, as we all should be, about the depletion of that resource, you set up a system of extraction which is based on a period not of five years but maybe 20 years, as you do in the petroleum industry.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You are all for my production leases, then, eh?

MR. SMITH: I'm for the moderation and the continuation of the business of extracting minerals from the Province of British Columbia…

AN HON. MEMBER: And giving them away.

MR. SMITH: …and the petroleum resources of the Province of British Columbia. We happen to live in a part of the North American continent which is favourable to the location of these particular resources.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You would give them away.

MR. SMITH: The chit-chat that comes back to me from across the House, particularly from the cabinet Ministers, indicates the complete ignorance the cabinet Members have about the resource industries in the Province of British Columbia. In that respect, I sympathize with the Minister who is in charge of Mines and Petroleum Resources. If you have no more support in the programme you are trying to implement and if you are listening to the advice of these people who chit-chat back and forth to me across the floor of the House, then you are in real trouble in the Province of British Columbia.

None of you have started to realize the fact that in this area there are two things you must keep paramount in mind. You have to continue the exploration for those resources wherever they may be found, and make it attractive for people to do that. The second thing is that you extract from the resources when they are developed an equitable amount of taxation…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, go get a helicopter.

MR. SMITH: …so that the people of the Province of British Columbia realize returns in the form of social services and benefits that you and I and everybody else in this House wish to provide.

It was said before on the floor of the House this afternoon and I will say it again tonight: the attitude of the NDP is that they want to go for the quick kill. You are prepared to sacrifice everything for future generations to grab as much revenue as you can right now. You are going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg for the Province of British Columbia.

I'm not an expert in the field of mineral production in the province, but I know from this report that there are many, many potential mines. If the Minister would like me to read the number, I'll do

[ Page 2538 ]

it; but I think that's a waste of time because I'm sure he has the report. In that report you will find, as I have, that there are many, many potential mines which may or may not come into production in the Province of British Columbia. It's listed there; all the known discoveries and the people and the mining companies who have discovered these and who are prepared to develop them — in the event that they get fair treatment. This is all they ask for: fair treatment from the provincial government.

The funny thing is that they will develop those resources without calling on the Province of British Columbia to subsidize them, without calling on the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources to put up any particular amount of funds to help them operate. They will raise their capital outside of government finance. They are prepared to share in whatever success they have with the people of British Columbia on an equitable basis. I would like to stress that word "equitable" because I think that is the key and that is where the NDP differs with those of us in the official opposition.

We believe there is a point beyond which you cannot go as government without destroying the industries that private enterprise has created and the jobs that go with them. Remember, Mr. Minister, if you destroy the industry, you destroy the immediate jobs of thousands of people in the Province of British Columbia and you destroy the jobs of many more thousands who are not directly involved in the industry but, because of their particular positions, render services to the resource industry in this province.

Frankly, as a Member of the opposition and a person who has lived in an area where resource industries have played a great part in our development, I am a little bit fed up with the attitude of the NDP. As sure as I stand on my feet, you are out to destroy those industries in the Province of British Columbia.

I can only conclude that you wish to destroy them so you can take them over at your price. Then what are you going to do? You are going to say: "Well, they couldn't cut it; they couldn't do the things we wanted them to do so we had to take them over. Now we are going to return to the people of the province greater returns than they have ever seen before." That is absolute nonsense. What will happen is, with the lack of expertise and the lack of initiative that will come about in that particular situation, the return to the people in the Province of British Columbia will be far less than it has ever been before.

None of us know and can accurately predict what will happen in the field of resource development today and forecast one, two or three years ahead — except to say this: the world is short of energy resources. Hopefully, as a province which has an abundance of those resources, the price will continue to escalate and, because of that, we will be fortunate enough to reap an abundant harvest for the people of this province.

We didn't put the resources or the minerals in the ground and we didn't put the natural gas and the petroleum there. But I can tell you this: when you deal with petroleum resources, not only in British Columbia but in all of North America, you can take a ruler and lay it on a map from the Gulf of Mexico right through to the Mackenzie Delta in the north and you will find 90 per cent of the major oil and natural gas discoveries will be in an area within 50 to 150 miles of that line. That is a phenomenon of nature we had nothing to do with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member relate his remarks to the Minister's estimates?

MR. SMITH: I am, Mr. Chairman, but I'll tell you that if the attitude that's expressed across the floor of that House is the total attitude of the cabinet, then we're in sorry straits in the Province of British Colombia. We're in sorry straits in the Province of British Columbia. It's time that you as Minister stood up and told some of your colleagues how far out they are in their thinking because they're not even close to what they should be thinking about resource development in the Province of British Columbia.

I'm trying to explain for the benefit not only of the Minister, who I think knows this, but for the benefit of the other Members of this House, what has happened. We're in a fortunate position. Twenty years ago, everyone in the Province of British Columbia would have said that the greatest detriment we have in this province is the mountain ranges that occupy about 90 per cent of the land.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, don't get smart, my friend. I'm talking about serious problems. If you don't want to listen go out and play with whatever you want to play with, but don't try to discount what I'm saying, because this is where the gut issues are going to be discussed in the Province of British Columbia and this is where they're going to be decided.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Don't be frivolous. You know, it's unfortunate that…

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is whining again.

[ Page 2539 ]

MR. SMITH: …we have to put up with that sort of garbage in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order, I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member standing order 17 (2): "When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him and the Chair nor interrupt him except to raise a point of order." I would ask the Members not to interrupt the speaker, please.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Minister of Highways thinks he's in a whirlybird.

MR. SMITH: What I have to say I think is important, not only to the people who sit in this House, but all of the people in the Province of British Columbia, because the attitude that you take and the policies that you adopt will mean a continuous future and prosperity in the province, or they'll lead us down to destruction in this province. I'm convinced of that, Mr. Minister.

You can sit there and smile if you like, but I know what can happen and how fragile the balance is between a viable, growing economy and one that goes into a recession. There's a very fine line of demarcation, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm concerned that you have not learned in all the years that you have been a Member of this House what that line is or how to define it. But I do know that not only industry in the Province of British Columbia, but many of the people in the service of this province know what that line is and what you can extract in the way of revenue without doing permanent and irreparable damage to the economy of this province. All I'm suggesting to the Minister tonight is that instead of taking his advice from people who have no expertise or experience in this field, he listen to some of the people who obviously must have been in his office in the last year and will continue to come to his office, provided he allows them to do so.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: My door is always open.

MR. SMITH: You set up a commission to investigate the possibilities of a copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia. Now for goodness' sake, if you want to do what you should do as a Minister for the benefit of people in this province, then send that commission out and ask them to listen to the people who are engaged in resource development in the province. They may not agree 100 per cent with what they say and that's fine, but at least listen to them and take their ideas and suggestions.

HON. MR. LEA: Did you do that, Ed?

MR. SMITH: Yes. Let me tell you that the Energy Commission, which is not part of your responsibility, turned out a report on the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia. They went throughout the province and they held a tremendous amount of public hearings, but at least 50 or 75 per cent of the facts and the figures that were included in that report came out of a report that was prepared a year earlier by the Canadian Petroleum Association. It was almost word for word, Mr. Minister. So in that respect, and for all of that information that they accumulated, there was no reason for them to go out, but I think that there is a reason in the mining industry for people to go out and investigate what is going on and what our future is, because we're not going to use the minerals that are here in the Province of British Columbia.

Our main market is an export market and it probably always will be with the population that we have and the projections of the population. So we've got to figure out a way of returning to the people of this province a fair return for the sale of those resources and at the same time be competitive in the world markets.

In that respect I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that the commission that you are going to appoint has its work cut out for it. I would hope there'd be no restriction on where they go or what they listen to. I would hope that there's no pre-prepared report set out by any member of your department which will dictate to them the recommendations that they must make when they return their report to the cabinet, because this is the type of problem that we see in many of the things that have happened in this province in the last 18 months, that many of the commissions that have been appointed and many of the people who have gone out and supposedly listened to the people of this province have been sent out on a sham battle. The decisions were already made before they ever went out into the field. That's unfortunate because I think that the people collectively in the Province of British Columbia in the resource industries have a few things that you could profit by listening to. They can tell you things that are based on experience.

Certainly there's a tendency perhaps sometimes to over-exaggerate the problem, but if that is a small fallacy on the part of the industry, there's a much greater problem and fallacy on the part of the NDP. That is that you are prepared not only to exploit the industry, but to emasculate it to the extent that it will not exist in the Province of British Columbia without ever knowing or ever considering the ramifications and the complications of the things that you do and you say in the public sector.

[ Page 2540 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No responsibility.

MR. SMITH: No responsibility, but we can and we have developed a very viable economy in the province, against many hazards, because there's no other province in Canada that has the same problems we have of communication between one part of the province and the other.

First of all, we have about 80 or 90 per cent of the province covered by mountains. That certainly doesn't lend to good communications. But the very fact they are there has perhaps provided us with an opportunity no other part of Canada has. Hundreds of thousands of years ago the mountain ranges were created and came about in this particular part of Canada as we know it. Because of that, there is an abundance of mineral wealth. Immediately east of the mountain ranges in the Province of British Columbia there is an abundance of petroleum and natural gas that extends, as I said before, from the Gulf of Mexico right through to the Mackenzie Delta.

As legislators, if we are prudent and wise, we will develop those resources to the best interests of the people of British Columbia. It doesn't mean takeover; all it means is that you share equitably in the amount of revenue that may be available. This may go up or down.

Fortunately, today it's on the increase, as we have seen in the sale of natural gas in the last year. I'm the first one to suggest the price of natural gas will probably increase. Certainly, if you look at what has happened in the Province of Alberta and the contracts they have negotiated in recent months, we must consider that that particular energy resource is worth more today than it was a year or two years ago. Between the companies who are prepared to invest their money to develop that resource and the province which wishes to extract taxation on an equitable basis, we are in the driver's seat.

The thing that bothers me most is that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, while he's prepared to accept one concept with regard to the development of petroleum resources in the province and the rate with which they will be removed from the ground, be it either natural gas or oil, he's not ready to accept the same concept with respect to mineral development or the extraction of it.

If he is as concerned as he said he was about the extraction of mineral resources in this province and that we are going to run out, then the simple solution is to limit or set up a system of extraction, particularly in the periods, as we are now, of high returns. But at least give the companies the benefit of knowing that for as long as that mine is capable of production they will be allowed to operate and hopefully make a profit, which in turn will return to the taxpayers of the province a substantial amount of revenue in the form of taxation.

But that is not the socialist way. I suggest to you tonight, Mr. Minister, that the way you are going spells disaster to the mining industry in this province. If it spells disaster to the industry, it certainly must spell disaster to the people who work in that industry and who know no other occupation or vocation. I think you should give serious thought to that problem because it is a problem in the Province of British Columbia.

Between the petroleum industry and the mining industry in this province, we have been fortunate enough to see private enterprise inject and invest not a few hundred thousand dollars, Mr. Minister, but several billion dollars. That didn't cost you or I or the people who live here one red cent. They invested that money on the expectation that somewhere down the line they would be able to return to the people who raised the capital for them a fair investment return on the money put in; not extravagant, not over abundant, but a fair return.

The funny thing about it is this (it's not funny; it's sad): in many industries in the resource area, many of the people who have invested money have not received a return yet because the industry is not built to that point. There is potential there, particularly today when we are in the driver's seat. There's a tremendous demand for mineral resources outside of Canada.

I think anyone has the right to invest in those sort of things and expect a return. But as sure as I'm standing here, Mr. Minister, if the return to an industry in the province and through them to the people who are the shareholders in that industry is less than, for instance, government bonds or guaranteed securities at 6 or 7.5 or, today, 8 to 8.5 per cent, then there's no attraction for anyone to invest in resource industries in the province.

If an industry makes a profit — and many of them hopefully do that (not all of them do) — you share abundantly in that profit and so does everybody else in the Province of British Columbia. But when they are unfortunate enough to get into a position of a loss, you and I and every other resident in this province say, "Tough, but we're not going to pick up any part of that tab." The only conclusion I can come to with the type of legislation we have seen and the attitude of the Minister, even though it may not be his own attitude but the attitude expressed collectively of the cabinet in this province, is that you have never taken this point into consideration. Somewhere along the line, slowly but surely, you wish to remove these particular industries from the Province of British Columbia and take them over at your price.

There are people in the province — I don't know how many — who would agree with that philosophy and say that's great. But they've never really looked

[ Page 2541 ]

beyond today, and I don't think you have either, Mr. Minister. If you look beyond today, you would realize that the expertise of these people who have devoted their lives to certain industries in this province is the one thing that has made and created a viable and a growing economy in the Province of British Columbia. It has paid for all our social services, including hospitals and schools. It has helped to provide a better standard of living for the people in this province than we should really be able to expect.

The last remark I must make to the Minister is this: in all of this time, I have never heard the Minister make one remark which would have supported those things which have put British Columbia in the position it's in today. I don't think you really realize what makes a province grow and what provides for the people who are here the benefits we desire. I think we realize that more than you do.

It's about time you started to realize that the resource industries in the Province of British Columbia are not something to be sucked clean by the profiteer because you don't care about tomorrow. They're something we have that is very fragile in many respects. But they can and they will continue to produce the benefits that we have been fortunate enough to see in this province for many years to come if you'd get off this socialist philosophy and forget the Waffle Manifesto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay on vote 174.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That was very significant, Mr. Chairman, that you're reminding me of the vote. I was interested this afternoon that you kept talking about the administrative responsibility of the Minister. This seemed to me a very substantial divergence from custom because I always….

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): He hasn't got any. He hasn't got any ability.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't talk about his ability, Mr. Member for Cariboo. I was just saying that it seemed to me there was an uneasy anxiety on the part of the Chairman to direct the particular direction in which we might discuss this Minister's vote. And how we can discuss any Minister's vote without touching on policy or past legislation…. I clearly remember a phrase you used this afternoon that we must not discuss legislation past, present or future. Now how we can conduct our responsibilities as opposition Members with no reference to legislation past, present or future…!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just clarify this point for the benefit of the Members.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that you may refer to legislation. However, you may not discuss the merits of past legislation, nor may you propose legislation, but rather you are to deal with the Minister's responsibility of administering his department and existing Acts that are under his particular jurisdiction. Of course you have to touch on policy and on the administrative matters that arise out of that legislation or out of those Acts. But it's a case of not discussing the Acts themselves.

MR. WALLACE: I think you're telling me to dance around Bill 31; that's probably what you're telling me to do. I was never very successful as a dancer. I'm rather cloddish and heavy-footed, even though I'm just a little guy.

The other problem I have here is that I have such a strong personal liking for the Minister. He's such a benign, Santa Claus kind of figure. I've got the same problem I had with another Minister. But in this particular case I was even given the privilege of being responsible for this Minister's health care at one time. And now I have to stand up here and develop a less amiable kind of approach to a man that I like very much.

Anyway, I think his policies are all wrong. (Laughter.) I think he's a fine man and I like him and I've enjoyed his friendship and I hope I always will, but as Minister of Mines, I think he's a disaster for British Columbia. And whether this very fine man is just echoing what he's told to echo in cabinet or whether in his administrative capacity as Minister of Mines he is actually initiating policy of his own and bringing in a kind of legislation which I think is very damaging for British Columbia, I don't know.

Regardless of the way in which this policy is developed, I do feel that in the Department of Mines the people of British Columbia are witnessing the most clear-cut division between your side of the House, Mr. Minister, and our side of the House. I think every citizen in British Columbia believes that we must have judicious use of our resources. Mr. Minister, you said that in your opening remarks today, and I accept them.

What I like to believe on our side of the House, which is so different from what you believe, is that you don't seem to take cognizance of some of basic elements of human nature. One of these basic elements of human nature is that every single human being who is interested in his initiative or his efforts likes to be reasonably sure of some reward. The biggest disadvantage, in my view, of the socialist philosophy is that you people start off from the premise that there's something wrong about wanting to make a financial profit. You make that so clear in

[ Page 2542 ]

your mining legislation and in your attitude to the mining industry in this province — and others, including forestry.

I have no wish to repeat the magnum opus that we witnessed from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) this afternoon. I'll try to be reasonably brief, Mr. Chairman. I just pray to God that we don't have a recycling of that Member's speech when we do get to Bill 31. (Laughter.)

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this is a very important part of the British Columbia economy. The mining industry, per se, provides provincial and national wealth and it provides jobs and it provides secondary and tertiary employment. It would be very wrong if anybody in this House underestimated the very important place which mining plays in the total economy of this province.

I've heard the Minister being quoted as saying that the people in the mining industry are always crying wolf, that this kind of protest which we're hearing from the people in the mining industry in British Columbia in 1974 is so typical of what they're always doing. They're always crying the blues and they're always crying wolf.

I'd like to quote from a very well-produced magazine which is entitled "B.C. Industry, the Business of British Columbia," from the second quarter of 1973. There was a very interesting piece of information there and I'll just quote. It's talking about the predictability of mining, or the lack of predictability, and the lack of being able to apply reason, perhaps, to events that you cannot foresee.

"Efforts by Chile, Peru and Zambia to stabilize world copper prices by the inter-governmental council of copper-exporting countries, appear to have been less than successful. Experts as recently as six months ago were predicting a world copper surplus through mid-1975, yet prices shot from 48 cents per pound in November, 1972, to 98 cents by July, 1973. And in the same period Chile and Zambia, both with arbitrary mineral management programmes, suffered substantial output shortfall — in Chile to the tune of 200,000 tons."

So we have experts….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you're behind the times. The fighting is all in Portugal, my friend. Chile's a thing of the past. All the fighting is in Portugal.

But this points out, I think, the very realistic fact that it's a rather unpredictable industry and one cannot foretell — never mind international changes — national and provincial changes.

I know that it isn't customary to talk about the civil service, Mr. Chairman, or civil servants, in this House. In the remarks that I want to make I want to make it very plain that I'm not being in any way critical of the civil service or civil servants. Nevertheless, this isn't exactly a kindergarten in which we're talking part. And when certain public statements are made — and I notice you're getting very edgy, Mr. Chairman, but I assure you that I will not transgress the privileges of the House…. When we have public statements which are most relevant to government policy, I think it's important to quote them.

I would like to quote from the same magazine certain comments by Mr. John McMynn, who incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is quoted as being the man who will try to make Bill 64 palatable. It's very interesting that Mr. McMynn, who is, as we all know, the Deputy Minister, is quoted in this magazine interview as saying:

"Obviously the industry isn't going to continue to invest if it cannot make a profit. Companies might just as well put their money in the bank if that's the case."

This is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, very relevant to the policy of the Department of Mines. The Deputy Minister goes on to say:

"I would say that a company has to make 13 to 15 per cent on a mine — otherwise why do it? With a Canadian mine averaging 10 years of life you've got to get your capital back in less than that time. Equipment is worth nothing unless you have a mine around it. You'll get 10 cents on the dollar for it, if that."

Now, I respect these comments, because they sum up exactly the philosophy we have on this side of the House and that we have in this party, that mining (1) is a very important part of our economy, and (2) depends on risk capital from the investor. Investors only involve risk capital into mining if there is some reasonable chance that tomorrow morning they won't wake up and find some order-in-council which changes the whole ground rules or changes their reasonable potential to make a reasonable return on their money.

When I started out by saying that I think this Mines Minister is a disaster, I was really trying to focus on the fact that in the mining industry in this province right now, despite this hideous bill that we can't mention or debate, there has been a great deal of uncertainty and apprehension and fear by the investor and by the established companies. Can you blame them, Mr. Chairman? Can you blame them in the light of the Waffle Manifesto, the general policy which this government has outlined in relation to resources that more must be recovered for the benefit of the state? And with the bill that we can't mention, why should there be anything but apprehension and

[ Page 2543 ]

fear in the minds of the investor?

I think even this Minister and certainly his Deputy Minister realizes that the whole continuing success, if not the very viability of the mining industry, depends on reasonable confidence by the investor and that the legislation to be produced by this Minister and his department must not be punitive or remove a reasonable possibility that the investor will get a reasonable return on his money.

What is a reasonable return? Well, I think later on in this article — I can't just find the exact place — the same Deputy Minister talks about first and second mortgages realizing 10 to 12 per cent, and even Canada Savings Bonds provide you with 7 per cent.

On that same theme, Mr. Chairman, I think we should just put it on record that the average return from the mining industry in the six years ending December 31, 1972, was 8.09 per cent, which is about the same as Canada Savings Bonds. The Deputy Minister, I think, is looking a little questionable about that. I'm quoting from an editorial which was published in the Northern Miner and republished in a Toronto newspaper.

"In the six years ended December 31, 1972, the industry's return on shareholders' equity averaged 8.09 per cent. In 1971 it suffered a loss of 0.4 per cent and in 1972 the return on the shareholders' equity was 1.7 per cent."

All I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that if the Minister and his department keep saying that the mining industry are crying "Wolf," I think they've got every reason to cry "Wolf" in the light of these kind of figures in conjunction with the kind of legislation that we've been seeing.

The Minister incidentally also, in another quotation I have here, in talking about Bill 44 said that the Minister and the department was to go beyond mere administration of the department and was to deal with resource management. I think the Minister mentioned that in his introductory remarks today too, that he considered it his responsibility to deal on a wider front than the mere administration of the Department of Mines, but to put forward ideas and concepts and policies on the wider front, namely resource management.

Here again, I think we have the clearest definition between that side of the House and this side of the House because we both believe that many of these resources are not endless and that we have to show prudence and consideration in not only the revenue we derive from them but in the environmental impact of mining, whether it be chamber mining or open-face mining or whatever. I think both sides of the House are agreed on this, Mr. Chairman. We don't agree on too many things but we seem to agree that resource management is a challenge of the 70s and the 80s in the years ahead and that it should not just be a matter of grabbing every bit of ore that's available and marketing it at the highest dollar value. There's more to it than that and I think we're all agreed on that. There again, the difference arises when we decide how the ore should be mined and marketed.

I just feel that in discussing the difference we've got to acknowledge the fact that this party and this side of the House seem to believe much more in encouraging the initiative of the individual — the little man. This is why this debate is so ironic, Mr. Chairman, because that party was elected to office for various reasons, but one of the reasons was the tremendous emphasis they placed on the claim that they were really the only political party that was interested in the little man.

HON. MR. COCKE: They wanted to dump the Socreds too.

MR. WALLACE: That was another motive. It's quite true that many well-meaning but misguided voters felt that they wanted to dump the Socreds at any price — and what a price! (Laughter.)

If I become too political I'll be ruled out of order. The worst kind of speech to make in this House is a political speech, I have discovered.

Really, one shouldn't be facetious about this because one of the reasons you were elected, Mr. Minister of Mines, was that you were a party which claimed to be very eager to look after the interests of the little man in the light of history which showed 20 years of a government who really didn't care very much about the little man. They were interested in big moneys and big companies and big business. With the utmost respect, it looks to me like the leader of the present Social Credit Party (Mr. Bennett) is in no way different from the predecessor in that position, that it is only the dollar sign he's interested in. I haven't seen too much evidence that he ever takes part in debates where the well-being of human beings is their first interest.

MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

MR. WALLACE: It's obvious that I've touched a nerve in the Cariboo. (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, before you touch that button, I just think that Hansard will show that the point I'm making is very valid.

To get back to the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Mines….

MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

MR. WALLACE: The big difference lies in the manner in which your party thinks a judicious use of resources should be made and the way in which we regard it as the best method of it being made. We are very concerned that you've clobbered the little man. I

[ Page 2544 ]

don't want to refer to past legislation too much, Mr. Chairman, because you've already given me guidance on that, but with fees and rentals…. I forget all the different titles that you use, bat the fact is you made it more expensive and more difficult for the little prospector to go out and do the job he has been doing for centuries. The fact is that the little man is very important in the mining industry and while it may be true that companies move in later on and buy out the prospectors' claims, nevertheless the little man has a very important role to play. This party was certainly concerned about that.

The general philosophy of this Minister as related to mining and other Ministers in the resource industry…. We can be philosophical as much as we like but the practical facts and the figures show that you are having a damaging effect on the industry.

I'll quote the Minister himself. This is from his yearly estimate of mineral production.

"Only one new mine opened in 1973. Currently no major mines are in the development stage. Increased quantity of production in 1974 is not anticipated. Any increase in value of production is contingent on the continuation of current high metal prices and the economic well-being of mineral consuming nations, notably Japan."

The Minister himself, Mr. Chairman, is making it quite plain that if world metal prices do not stay high — and you cannot continue to depend on such nations as Japan — the mining industry is in trouble.

The corollary to all that, Mr. Chairman, is that mineral production in the Yukon in 1973 will increase from 102 million to 135 million, and production in the Northwest Territories will increase from 124 million to 145 million. I think figures have been quoted earlier on today, and I won't repeat them, as to mineral claims that Have been made in this province in 1973 as compared to 1972. Mineral exploration in 1973…. Despite these high metal prices, the mineral production has dropped by $12 million, a decrease of 32 per cent.

I am quoting from a report put out by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. I like to quote figures and back them up and say where they came from, Mr. Chairman. I will just say that these figures were arrived at from a canvass of large company exploration budgets conducted during April and May and an assessment of public company financing through the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am quoting from page 3 of the "Mining Exploration and Development Review" which is dated January 1, 1974.

The point I am trying to make — and I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because it has been made this afternoon several times — is that we can philosophize all we like. We can have our own thinking as to the proper way in which the resources should be used, but when you get down to brass tacks and facts and figures, we have had a definite decrease in production and exploration and the staking of claims. Claim-staking between 1972 and 1973, Mr. Chairman, dropped by 55 per cent.

Claim-staking in the Yukon went up 100 per cent, and in the Northwest Territories it went up 300 per cent.

Now I don't think it matters really where you stand on the political spectrum, Mr. Chairman. But anybody in a province like British Columbia, with an expanding population and an expanding world demand for metals…. For us to look at these figures and recognize that while everything is on the downslide in British Columbia, and everything is on the upswing in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which are neighbouring parts of the country, we have to ask the question: why? At the At the same time, the report that I quoted from earlier by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines states that there is a continuing world demand that has, as the Minister well knows, contributed greatly to the high price for copper.

So in a world situation where the world is just asking for mineral resources, here we are in a province rich in these resources — and what do we find? Production is decreasing; the staking of claims is decreasing. And while it is decreasing in British Columbia, at our next door neighbour's it is increasing. Now it is pretty difficult to avoid any other conclusion than that this province is so blind in its ideology that it is driving away the risk capital and the interest of the mining industry in British Columbia. I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion.

We have the comment from the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) that it's had its ups and downs. I agree that it has its ups and its downs, but what one has to follow is a general trend. This trend in 1973 was started in 1972, and it is quite clear that in 1973 a restriction in the flow of capital developed in this province.

I have quoted the diminution in exploration and in the staking of claims, and there were no new mines scheduled for production. There was uncertainty as to the future of the industry itself. At this time last year we were emphasizing the uncertainty. But if I can just tiptoe around a certain bill for five seconds, Mr. Chairman, we've certainly got rid of one aspect of the uncertainty.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Tiptoe around the million dollar tax in Alberta — Conservative rip-off!

MR. WALLACE: Well, Alberta is a very successful province. One of the reasons way Alberta is so successful is that it has a good Conservative

[ Page 2545 ]

government — that's right! There are two reasons….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please? And would the Hon. Members not interrupt the Member who lies the floor, please? Order!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be very happy to continue to address the Chair, if you would just keep Little Mountain quiet.

But in this situation that I have outlined where other provinces and other territories are having a definite upswing in exploration and claims taking, British Columbia's history is one of decline. I think we have to recognize that one clear reason is that the investor who is likely to put capital into the mining industry in British Columbia is scared out of his wits at the attitude both expressed verbally by Ministers of this government and by the legislation which has been introduced and is being introduced.

I find it very surprising, particularly in light of the earlier quotation I made, that the Deputy Minister obviously has the personal philosophy that unless the investor can reasonably count on 12 to 30 per cent return on his money, he won't put money into mining. I have always assumed that Deputy Ministers had some sort of influence over Ministers, but I am a little surprised that we have this situation developing in the province today where we have a Deputy Minister whose interview in this magazine, to my mind, marks him as a first rate, Conservative kind of thinker.

And yet, here we have him advising the Minister of Mines. The next thing I discover, Mr. Chairman, is….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Could you try and get a little order in the House, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon? That wasn't a very convincing call for order, Mr. Chairman., Not only do I find that the philosophy espoused by the Deputy Minister is very typical of the Conservative philosophy, but I find that when we have to look into the advisability of a copper smelter, one of the Members of the task force is a former leader of the Conservative Party. This becomes more and more confusing all the time, Mr. Chairman.

But it does show, Mr. Chairman, that this government certainly looks for the best people to give it the best kind of advice.

Anyway, it seems very clear that not only is this whole industry very dependent on the willingness of people to risk their money….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And their lives, too!

MR. WALLACE: And their lives — and I am going to get to that in a minute. I'm glad you raised that, Mr. Chairman, because I want to take issue with some of your statements about mine safety. But I will get to that a little later.

I won't quote the whole paragraph as there are a lot of figures, but in this same report by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines…. My goodness, Roy, you really are wide awake for this time of night. I didn't even think you would be here.

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

MR. WALLACE: Well, as I said earlier on, Mr. Member, I know the Minister to be a very warm, human, natural individual and I am sure he has the same demands on him that we all have on each other.

This report that I quoted from earlier: "The hazards of mining are apparent from a review of the annual report of the B.C. Department of Mines." I don't want to go back to 1874, but it does go there, and it says that during the period 1874 to 1953 — 20,000 mining prospects are described. It goes on to talk about different exploration. I am not going to go right down to the last figure, but the final conclusion is what it comes to, Mr. Chairman. I think this is very interesting. It says:

"It can be said that in the history of mining in British Columbia, there have been about 80 mining companies which have been profitable to their shareholders."

That is less than one in 250 which has been a success. When you realize that's the kind of potential prospect of success which people have when they start putting their money into mining, I think you have to realize that surely it must be one of the most high risk….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: What about your Dairy Queen? There has been a lot of money made off the Dairy Queen franchise, Roy. Four per cent off the top, did you say this afternoon? That's probably why you can afford to sit here and do nothing.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that if my income was 4 per cent off the top of a Dairy Queen franchise, I probably would be very

[ Page 2546 ]

comfortably off too.

But, Mr. Chairman, you really should keel) better order in this House. It makes speech-making very difficult. We're having a change of Chairman. You had better look out, Roy.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: But seriously, Mr. Chairman, we had a few interruptions before you took the chair and I hope you're going to keep the Dairy Queen Member quiet. The Minister is back in his chair and looking more comfortable.

The only way the mining industry is going to continue to survive in this province is that the tax, in whatever way, shape or form, and the amount has to be reasonable. It has to consider the fluctuating nature of the mining industry and the tremendous risk involved in putting your money in mining.

It wouldn't matter which government it was — right, left or up the middle — if this basic principle is not followed…. Up the middle, down in the middle, on the left, on the right; I don't think it would really matter which government was in power. If it followed the kind of policies your government is following, the mining industry is destined for complete disaster. I've tried to point out that you can argue with our philosophy and we can argue with yours, but if you look at the facts and the figures and the diminution in exploration and claim-staking which I've mentioned, it's very difficult to come to any other conclusion.

Somebody mentioned the Waffle Manifesto. I think your party is clearly dedicated to that. I know you didn't sign it but I know a lot of people who wished they hadn't. That Waffle Manifesto places tremendous emphasis on the power of the state to control the means of production. I won't quote from it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's why Alberta is doing it so strongly.

MR. WALLACE: Alberta happens to have certain other advantages that this province doesn't have. One of them is a brilliant Progressive Conservative Premier, which certainly helps. We can talk about the Waffle Manifesto but we've got an even more recent but equally clear-cut document in the form of the Kierans report on the resource industries in Manitoba. I won't quote great reams from the Kierans report, but that report makes it quite plain that there's about three or four options to private enterprise.

Very briefly, he talks about establishing Crown corporations. I would have thought the examples we'd had in Saskatchewan as to the abysmal failure of Crown corporations to try and do what private enterprise has done for many years successfully would be enough to dull the enthusiasm of even the most Red socialist. Establishing Crown corporations. Investing in existing resource corporations. The other interesting third option; greater revenues by increasing royalties, taxing reserves, raising licensing fees and rentals, and imposing heavier provincial income rates. Isn't that typical socialist approach? Kill the goose that lays the golden egg. That seems to be the cry. That is the kind of left-wing philosophy Kierans is promoting in Manitoba.

I suppose in the short run this Minister might even come back here a year from now and show us that revenue has increased. What I would like to know is what the picture will be three or four or five years from now. The mining industry isn't the kind of industry which changes its course or financial success or lack of success in a short period of time.

I again have to dance very carefully around Bill 31, but I just say that one of the very serious implications of the overall direction and philosophy of this government in the mining industry is that it will take time for the industry to go into retreat and regress. By that time, it may well be too late. This attitude or this philosophy and policy that's described by Kierans in Manitoba — and I repeated the general ways in which he considers there should be more and more and more extracted from the industry: increasing royalties, raising licensing fees and rentals, and imposing a heavier provincial income tax rate….

MR. D.E. LEWIS Muswap): A Liberal said that?

MR. WALLACE: He once was a Liberal. He sounds to me a little pink. But if he was once a Liberal, I would suggest he is one of these Liberals who in his later years is having hot flashes and looking a little red.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not as pink as the Premier of Alberta.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the Premier of Alberta has no problems; he has the situation well under hand. The only problem with the other provinces is they just wish they had the natural resources that Alberta has, and the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be serious.

MR. WALLACE: The Member says, "Be serious." I'm trying to be very serious. We listened to the statistics and facts and figures which other Members of the opposition parties have quoted today. It's very important to realize that we can each believe in our philosophy all we like. But the facts and the figures make it very plain that interest, investments and involvement in the mining industry in this province is already beginning to decrease. In a later debate I'm

[ Page 2547 ]

sure we'll be able to produce reasons why we think that gradual decrease which has occurred in the last 18 months will suddenly take a nosedive. I think the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano and his lengthy oration….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You don't really believe that?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I do believe that. As far as I'm concerned, if I personally had half-a-million dollars to invest and I thought mining was where it should go, I would take a very long look at British Columbia compared with many other alternative options where mining exploration is going on. I don't really know how the Minister could consider it otherwise.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Go down to Chile and places like that.

MR. WALLACE: We have to express this concern in the opposition because we feel that side of the House is so all bound up in its ideology and the Kierans kind of thinking and the Waffle Manifesto kind of thinking that it can't even see the facts and the figures in 1972 and 1973. I repeated them; the Minister has not tried to deny them. I think he knows the statistics in his own department, and they show there is a reduction in claim-staking and exploration in this province with a corresponding increase in the Yukon and the North West Territories.

I would just like to touch on one or two smaller points in finishing. The Minister said he's very interested in mine safety. He interjected a few comments a minute ago. Again, let's not philosophize; let's talk about the facts and the figures. In 1972 there were 17 fatalities in the mines, and this represents an increase of six over 1971 and is greater than the 10-year average of 14.6. I know you were distracted by your friend with the tangled propeller over there (Hon. Mr. Strachan). (Laughter.) Or your leaking oil or whatever it was.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you go and. buy an ice cream cone, Roy, and come back tomorrow.

I'm quoting from the annual report, 1972, page A205.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's just when I took over.

MR. WALLACE: Okay, well the Minister's obviously taking refuge in someone else's statistics, but the fact is that in that year there were 17 fatalities and these represented an increase of six over 1971 and is greater than the past 10-year average of 14.6.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was down to seven in 1973. Five, believe me, five in 1973.

MR. WALLACE: In the words of the leader of the United Steel Workers of America, Len Williams, who said that the working conditions in B.C. mines are the most deadly in the country. He said statistics show a death rate of 1.75 for every million hours worked in B.C. mines. The Minister says that he has improved this situation, Mr. Chairman, but here in The Vancouver Sun, December 18, 1973, we have a big headline which says that the union wants Nimsick ousted.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of you want Nimsick ousted.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we want the NDP ousted, of course, but you have to chip away at it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, you sat over here for 20-odd years before you made it and you realize that we have the same problem now. I'm not planning to be here for 20 years, but you have to start somewhere. I think we are all agreed on that.

At any rate, this attitude by the United Steel Workers of America was one suggesting real concern that the Minister of Mines was not adequately aware of the dangers, or adequately motivated to find out what the solutions were to this problem and what policies would prevent these accidents recurring.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Give the follow-up on that one.

MR. WALLACE: We'll probably hear the follow-up from you. I'm asking a question: what have you done in 18 months to improve the situation which as recently as five months ago was causing the union some very considerable concern?

It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, part of this quotation from The Vancouver Sun. Again I say this with the greatest respect for the Deputy, I'm just quoting; I'm not attacking your Deputy, Mr. Minister. It says here in The Vancouver Sun on December 18, 1973:

"The union has also been extremely critical of Deputy Mines Minister John McMynn and some of his inspectors, stating that McMynn has been running the department because Nimsick doesn't know the mining industry."

As I say, I'm in no way attacking the Deputy Minister, I'm just reporting word for word the sentiments and concern of the United Steelworkers.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's one man's opinion.

[ Page 2548 ]

MR. WALLACE: Well, it's more than one man's opinion. This happened to be the opinion of both a gentleman by the name of Mr. Falkowsky and also….

MR. CUMMINGS: Another Scotsman.

MR. WALLACE: I don't think he's a Scotsman with that name, Roy, do you?

MR. CUMMINGS: From the Wallace clan.

MR. WALLACE: No the Wallaces….

MR. CUMMINGS: No loyalty.

MR. WALLACE: If it was MacFalkowsky….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that this was also the feeling of Cominco as expressed in this article, that there was some lack of concern about accidents that were happening in the mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Of Cominco?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Cominco confirmed that they won't let Falkowsky in to conduct his own inspection because no useful purpose would be served.

We've got a real triangle here: the Minister saying that the safety situation in the mines is all right; we have the mineworkers' union saying that there are serious problems; and we have Cominco putting up the shutters so that the union can't even carry out any investigation of its own.

There's another earlier clipping that talks about a fatal accident at the Similkameen open pit copper mine on August 29, 1973, involving a man driving a truck, which the union says both the company and an inspector declared safe although another man quit his job rather than operate the truck.

The Minister has stated earlier on today that most of these accidents unfortunately are related to trucks. I felt that he might have gone into more detail in telling us what measures he's bringing in or has brought in to try and reduce this.

Another clipping I have here from November 5, 1973, relates to workers at Cominco, in zinc tank rooms at the smelter. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in his usual efficient manner had directed that all these employees should be X-rayed for respiratory problems. Maybe the Minister of Mines could tell us what was discovered when you did X-ray all these people. Is there a higher incidence of problems among them?

Anyway, this was November 5, and I just ask the question that the Minister of Health recognize the problems and the danger to these workers. The questions are very simple and I hope the Minister will answer them. Were these men all X-rayed, every man-Jack of them?

HON. MR. COCKE: No, some of them wouldn't submit. Some of them didn't go in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Member for Oak Bay continue?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure the Minister of Mines will have a caucus with the Minister of Health and will come up with the statistics when I sit down. But if the individuals refused the X-ray, that's a right and freedom that every individual should have. Bat I would like to know how many of the total were X-rayed, and of the percentage that was X-rayed, what was found? Was there in fact a higher incidence of respiratory problems as a result of the exposure to these zinc contaminates?

Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman; the Minister has set up one more task force to look into the advisability and feasibility of a copper smelter.

I happen to think this province should pursue a policy of processing its ore. I think it seems quite unreasonable that we should ship out the ore to another country and import the finished products when in fact we could be creating jobs by having the processing and refining and the production of copper products right here in British Columbia.

I also, I think, echo the thoughts of many citizens in British Columbia when they wonder what the pollution consequences of a smelter might be. I was very interested to read a study that was done by the Pollution Control Branch in this province. The report was issued November 30, 1973. It's entitled: Report on Pollution Control Objectives. The conclusion on the front page by Mr. Rudsepp who at that time was chairman of the Pollution Control Board, says: "The board has accepted these objectives as amended herein as the board's policy for pollution control in British Columbia's mining, mine milling and smelting industries."

I wonder when the Minister responds to these comments could he tell the House if in fact this study, which was completed as recently as November last year, will be the guidelines by which any decision to build a smelter in this province will be decided. In other words, was this study done just as window dressing to reassure the public? Or is it in fact outlining…. It's as a result of a public enquiry held by the Pollution Control Branch, and issued, as I say, in December, 1973. 1 won't quote from it, but it goes into great detail as to the basic standards that must be met by any member of the mining, mine milling and

[ Page 2549 ]

smelting industries of British Columbia.

With this announcement today that we're looking at the possibility of a copper smelter in British Columbia, I'd like to ask the Minister: will the task force be made clearly aware of this study which has been done, the conclusions drawing from it and the objectives defined? Or will it in fact decide on the smelter primarily on its economic basis?

There's one philosophy in this NDP which was very clear when it sat here in this House in opposition, it was that it always put human welfare ahead of dollar values. It was always highly critical of the former administration which tended to think only of dollar bills and not of the welfare of people. Whether that is true or false really isn't the point.

While there may be economic advantages which the province would derive from a copper smelter, can we be assured by the Minister that the kind of work done by many very hardworking and conscientious civil servants in the Pollution Control Branch, as summed up in this document, will in fact be a very basic guideline for the work to be carried out by this task force?

MR. FRASER: I have a few remarks to make to the Minister. Before I do that, I really have enjoyed with a lot of interest the observations today of the Liberal and Conservative Parties on mining. First of all, I'll deal with the Conservative Party. I realize how much mining there is under the rose bushes of Oak Bay and how knowledgeable they must be about that. I was quite interested in that, and, of course, Saanich. But on the Liberal side….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, I'm getting off the Liberals. I don't hold the whole thing up for an hour talking about nothing; I'll get it over with in a hurry. The Liberals are all talking about mining and there isn't one of them who has had a bit of dirt underneath their finger nails all their life — and they're talking about mining. I've come from the riding of Cariboo where mining all started in this province, Mr. Minister, in 1861 by the one and only famous Billy Barker. I'd like, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, to bring us forward in mining in this province from 1861 to 1974, particularly for the information of the Minister and the Liberal and Conservative Parties.

HON. MR. COCKE: Let's have a moment of silence.

MR. FRASER: Who was Billy Barker? Billy Barker was the fellow who is the reason for all of us being here tonight. You fat cats over there in the government wouldn't even be sitting on those fat seats, including that Minister, if it wasn't for Billy Barker finding gold in Barkerville in 1861. I want to tell you something about Billy Barker and his mining endeavours.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He's a good friend of mine.

MR. FRASER: I want to tell you something about Barkerville tonight which started this whole province in the first place. It's still in the riding of Cariboo. Do you want to know how they vote in Barkerville? I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not for long.

MR. FRASER: There are nine registered voters in the poll of Barkerville in my riding of Cariboo. Until I ran, five NDPs and four Social Crediters. With this Minister, they're going to vote the next time nine Social Credit and nothing for anybody else. I've got the word.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: I'm telling you that you people don't know anything about mining, including that Minister. I'm going to proceed to tell you. Anyway, Barkerville is still the gold capital of the world but the Minister won't acknowledge it. I want to tell him there is lots of gold there today; Billy Barker only scratched the surface. There would be lots of activity in Barkerville today if it wasn't for that Minister. They're all scared stiff and they won't go in there.

I see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) smiling there and I want to say something about him. Do you know what he decreed last week? He decreed there be no more gold panning in Barkerville. Did you ever hear such a ridiculous situation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Cariboooo.

MR. FRASER: The gold capital of British Columbia and the world, and that pollution-kook follower (Laughter), the Minister of Recreation, says there will be no gold panning in Barkerville. How ridiculous can we get? Just for a minute I want to discuss gold panning. None of these people understand; they've never had a gold pan in their hands. They don't know what it's all about.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, they probably did it in Knott's Berry Farm down in Los Angeles or somewhere. (Laughter.) But you haven't done it in Barkerville.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

[ Page 2550 ]

MR. FRASER: I'm going to tell you something about it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Who are you attacking — the NDP?

MR. FRASER: I'm attacking all you kooks who think you know something about mining, Mr. Chairman, including the Liberals and Conservatives under the rose bushes in Oak Bay. Who ever found any gold there? If it wasn't for the gold they found in Barkerville there'd be no Oak Bay, there'd be no Vancouver South, there'd be no Fort Steele either, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: The mine would be better in Quesnel.

MR. FRASER: Yes, and no rose bushes either. But the hurdy-gurdy girls and all Barkerville. Well, we're still having some fun with that today up there. I'm not dealing with Bill 31 hopefully, but everybody is quite afraid to go ahead, even to pan gold today.

These pollution kooks really get me. Their big advocate there is that guy who is going to have the whole country in a park. We're going to eat porcupine pie, as I said earlier. I really believe this. They don't want anything to go on because the little placer miner is going to pollute the odd stream and river and so on. All I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and those wise guys over there, is that the run-offs of the Fraser River and the Quesnel River put more pollution in the streams than any placer miner ever did.

But what happens? That Minister has allowed these pollution kooks to take over from his department. He issues a mining licence to a placer miner but it isn't worth the paper it's written on because the pollution kooks come along and say, "Oh, you've dribbled a little bit of dirt down in the stream and you're shut down. You're out of business." What a ridiculous way to run a mining department. I'm dealing with the Minister of Mines here. Placer mining is going to come to a stop because of all the pollution kooks and we'll end up eating porcupine pie because that's all that will be left to eat.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Right. I'm quite amazed at this mining discussion here. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) says there is lots of mining going on there. I have a message today that 2,000 people in exploration out of the Kamloops area alone are out of work, and I'd like to hear what he has to say about that.

The other Member here involved with mining, in his riding is that phantom Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). He was here an hour ago. He has been gone for a month, Mr. Chairman. I understand he's going to take your job as Chairman. He's been over in England taking a course in chairmanship. I think my good friend, the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), is going to lose his job.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: But why isn't he here talking about mining activity in Atlin? Where is he? He's gone. He knew I was going to get up and he left. I can't understand these people. They are elected by these people to represent them and they say nothing. Well, anyway, I'll speak on their behalf and on behalf of Atlin and Kamloops and so on and so forth. I think they certainly are letting down their ridings, Atlin and Kamloops both, because they're certainly affected by this kooky socialist legislation and their policy on mining.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a drink of water.

MR. FRASER: I don't need a drink of water. I've got a few more things to say about mining here. Maybe I'll have one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making me thirsty.

MR. FRASER: Why aren't they here? Cariboo has always been famous for mining. It still is; but Atlin, I think, has probably more future in mining. I can't understand why that Member doesn't get up here and say something.

I'd like to say something about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He got up and made a great big speech the other day about mining. He had the audacity to say that they need the revenues from mining to look after nursing. Don't let the public of this province buy that garbage from that Minister. You have the money in the bank to get on with the job from all this extra revenue you're trying to grab from the innocent people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Don't give us that bunch of garbage, Mr. Minister. That's absolutely what it was.

On mining in general, we know lots about it in Cariboo. Right now ail the investment has come to a stop in this province. I regret that and I think that Minister should regret that. The only mining we have going on in the Cariboo now is mines that are already invested in under a government they had confidence in. They wouldn't be operating today if they knew you guys were coming along, I'll tell you that. There will be no more investment in mining in the Cariboo where there are lots of minerals.

[ Page 2551 ]

You know, some of these city kooks here are talking about invisible minerals and all that. We know in the Cariboo that there are lots of minerals in the ground: silver, gold, copper, all kinds of it. All they need is some incentive to go there and develop it. Don't give us that bunk that you know it might or might not be there. We know in the Cariboo that it's there. But they won't go and look for it under the guidelines that your government gives — and that is that as soon as you find something you'll come and conscript it.

This reminds me of the army days, you know. We never had the word conscription before until we had the socialist government here with their mining legislation. Now we have it back again; the word "conscription" is back. Conscript everybody that wants to invest a buck, and take it away from him after he gambles it. And that is not the way to treat the individual.

All kinds of individual citizens have been effected by your kooky proposed and existing legislation — the individual person, all kinds of individuals. Never mind those big companies; they can look after themselves. As a matter a fact, Mr. Chairman, I think they're in bed with you people anyway — but not the individual shareholders, no way.

I realize that the Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman, seems to really take a great privilege of sitting back and laughing about this. He seems to accept the heavy responsibility that he's brought onto this province and he really rejoices in it. I just say to him: Shame! — shame on him, Mr. Chairman, for the attitude that he takes about this.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What do you want me to do — cry?

MR. FRASER: I'd just like to comment on another thing, Mr. Chairman. You won't allow us to talk about Bill 31, but the Premier of this province can go out and talk in public about it. The Minister can go out and talk about it. But in the most hopefully democratic area you can have you've cut the conversation right off, and I can't quite see that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The proper time to talk about Bill 31 is when it's up for discussion.

MR. FRASER: Well, why do they talk about it all over the province in British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may talk about it outside the House.

MR. FRASER: I'd just like to mention another thing about comments made about a copper smelter in this province. Copper smelters were laid on to go prior to the election of this government. I would just like to say here and now that one of them was in that Minister's riding and the other was in my riding of Cariboo.

We're now 50 years away from any copper smelter going ahead in this province because of the election of that government, I am talking about a pollution-free copper smelter. They made all kinds of political mileage in 1972 that the prior government would put them in and pollute the whole country. They knew at the time it was a bunch of garbage, but in the meantime they've chased it all away.

There will be no copper smelter in this province unless the government builds it. And I wouldn't put it past them. I just want to remind them that we know full well what happened to the copper smelters following August, 1972. Where it was certainly contemplated, there now won't be any copper smelter come into this province.

I would just like to say that due to the non-confidence of the investment public in mining — and not only in the Cariboo but all over this province on the exploration side — what has actually happened, and is going on right now, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that it was chipped off into so many secondary and tertiary industry levels that it has already had a direct effect on little people in this province.

I will relate to you an incident that just happened in the Chilcotin part of the Cariboo riding., An exploration company had a guide who has pack-horses and so on. He'll guide for companies in the summer, and in the fall he's a game guide. He had a party to go out with, starting on the first of June this year, and it would have derived him $10,000 worth of revenue with a small firm. And it's been cancelled because of your policies.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

So it's feeding right down to the little person, never mind the big companies who are quite…and I'm referring to exploration that is happening. This person hires a lot of natives, Mr. Chairman, and of course those natives won't have any payroll either. I will have something to say about that later to the Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Radford) in his estimates. But it's really sad to see the effect.

I would just like to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister is absolutely hopeless. He doesn't know what's going on in his department and doesn't appear to be able to do anything about it. Everything is going from B.C. to the Yukon, and they're really rubbing their hands up there, I'll tell you, getting the investment exploration and so on that we're chasing out of here.

The multiplier effect is tremendous. I just mentioned a tip of the iceberg, but it's going on all over the province. It certainly is having its effect

[ Page 2552 ]

throughout, and it will continue to do so unless policy changes go on.

I would just like to close on this final note and say that this Minister really isn't in charge of his department, because we have the resource Minister dictating to this Minister. This Minister is a veteran politician, and I admire him for that. I'd like to see him for once come back and tell that big boss of a Minister of Lands, Forests and the Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) that you're running the mines department, not him.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I think I should straighten out a few questions.

That kooky legislation — placer mining legislation — that you're talking about, where you've got to get a permit from the Parks Board and from the fisheries: that's kooky Social Credit legislation and we have carried it on. (Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was talking about processing and whether we were going to live up to the standards outlined by the Pollution Control Board. We certainly will. When they talk about the former government, the only way that they could have let the smelter go ahead would have been outside of the pollution control, with the tall stacks. We know what happens then when sulphur is emitted into the air. So this is the reason there hasn't been a smelter up there: because they didn't see fit to take the sulphur out of it.

In regards to safety, I don't know whether the Hon. Member was in here when I spoke on that at the start. I covered that question in the statement that was in the paper in regard to B.C. being the most deadly in the country for mining. That was incorrect. I don't know where they got all their figures from, but according to the statistics it is definitely incorrect. It actually came out to 0.793 instead of 1.75.

The fatalities in 1970 were 13. The figure you got was in 1972 when I took over. We changed the mines regulations. We brought in about 120 amendments to the mines regulations in regard to safety. This year the fatalities are down to five…or seven, including two in the outside area of exploration. But it has been cut down. With the regulations that we put into force I'm in hopes that we will reach the zero point in fatalities in the near future.

With the regulations we brought in and the improvements and the co-operation between the employers, the employees, and the inspectors that's going on, I'm sure that we're going to reach the zero. I hope to reach the zero as soon as possible, but you will always have the odd accident that will happen.

The statement that you read from the paper was one man's opinion. If you read this paper correctly, if you had read the whole thing correctly instead of just excerpts, you would find that he went back to, I think, 1965 with some of those accidents that he was talking about, and criticizing the regulations.

Following that statement in the paper, the officials of the steelworkers union did come out and state that this was one man's opinion and not the opinion of the steelworkers union. So you can take that paper and quote it any way you like, but with all the changes we made in the regulations I am sure that you will agree with me — and I know the Hon. Member for Oak Bay wants to be fair about it — that we are doing things to improve the safety conditions in the mines.

When they were talking about everything on the downslide in B.C., they were talking about the reduction in production. Well, I brought that question up here at the start, too. In 1972 the exploration was $30.3 million; in 1973 — and we only have 79 per cent of the reports in yet — we have $24.7 million. So when the reports all come in, I think that exploration will be about the same.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's $31.3 million. You can quote the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines if you like, but these are the statistics. I've just got it down as the exploration — expenditures on exploration. I suppose it wouldn't be development into the production of the mine, but it would be just the exploration.

In regard to the staking of claims that you talked about being cut down: when we brought the legislation in last year I expected that people would be a lot more selective in staking claims when the work requirements went up. Also, there was a rental.

I had a man just yesterday talking to us — he said he staked 500 claims one time; he went out and staked 500 claims. Well, you could stake as many claims as you liked in all the moose pasture you wanted to when you didn't have to pay any rentals for it.

Now 500 claims is 25,000 acres of land. Show me the prospector or the company that wants to tie up 25,000 acres of mineral lands at one time. That is only done to keep others from having an opportunity to go in there and explore for mineral rights.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there are lots of requirements besides that.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So in regard to clobbering the little man, I don't think there was any time the little man was clobbered more than in the previous years, because the little man was always gobbled up by the bigger fellow. Don't cry too much, because the prospector, on many occasions, although he found the ore, got very little out of it. And when you speak about the….

[ Page 2553 ]

MR. FRASER: That's socialist garbage!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When you talked about Chile, Peru, Zambia…I don't know why you were comparing them to British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: I wasn't. I was just pointing out how unpredictable that was — that prediction for a surplus.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Zambia's shortfall was due to when the tailing pond went back into the mine. That's one of the reasons they went out. Their management was not under Zambia, but under the Anglo-American or Roman-Antelope Group.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, there was a prediction by Price Waterhouse two or three years ago that exploration — this was before this government got in — that exploration was going to go down, and the amount of money that was going to be spent on it was going down. When you look at the staking of claims, staking of claims has gone up and down. When a new find is made, then you'll find people rushing in and staking all sorts of claims. When there are no new ore bodies found, then the staking of claims goes down.

As I said before, I expected that the claim-staking would go down because they are more selective in their staking of claims now than they were before. This is quite possible.

Now in regard to investment of money, the Hon. Member for…. Oh, he's gone out; I guess that's North Peace River (Mr. Smith). Investment capital in exploration is tax deductible. It's the people of Canada that pay for the exploration and development of these mines. It is tax deductible. Many oil companies come from Alberta province and they explore for minerals in this province. They develop claims and then they deduct it from their profits in Alberta and they don't have to pay any income tax.

MR. FRASER: Why don't you phone David Lewis and tell him to do something about it?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When you talk about the losses not being shared by the people, I wonder if any of you have lived in a mining camp that has shut down, where the people who had invested their life-savings in their homes had to leave them and got practically nothing for them — in many cases, nothing at all.

Don't ever tell me that the mining company takes all the brunt. The man that goes down in the mine and the people that work in the mine, they take a lot of it also. So if there are any losses, they are the ones that really lose.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) talked the same talk last year that he did this year when I increased the royalties on oil to 40 per cent. He said that it was a disaster for the oil industry. He said that they were going to lose everything up there, and that we would restrict production. He said it was all a myth. I agree with it now that what he said was just a myth.

For the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), I would like to say a few words. I wish his dad were here, because he taught me the policies that I am putting forward today. I remember the night that he made a great speech in this House about the lumber companies and about how we should have got a $100 million back from the lumber industry in royalties and percentages.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He sure did fail his dad! He failed his dad! When he talked about exploration — of course, I corrected that. The exploration today doesn't concern Crown grants. The United States is finding that they need metals from other countries, because you go down through some of their states and you'll see ghost towns, one after the other of mines that have been worked out.

When you talk about the B.C. Rail and the expenditure to the taxpayer of the province dependent on the mines, these are the things that the people of British Columbia spend. We say that we don't want to give our resources away — that they should assist in the expenses that they incur. If you want to read the story of copper, read Joralman's book. It is a very good book and very interesting. I think you'd understand the story of copper not only in the present day but from the time it started.

On open-pit costs, he said that he was taking $5 a ton. Open-pit costs are usually around about $2.50 a ton, so the $5 would be giving them a 100 per cent profit.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I wasn't talking costs; I was talking the value of ore.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The copper smelter is 10 years behind and should have been built years ago. The gloom and despair that he has brought about isn't warranted when you read the papers these days about the high profits that are being made. I think that the companies are doing very well. I'm glad to see them make a profit because I know that the higher the profit and the higher the price goes, the more money that we will get in the Province of British Columbia.

I am not too worried about the Howe Street boys

[ Page 2554 ]

who operate in many cases, and stock mines that are not mines at all. Sure, there is money made and lost, but it is more like what happens down in Las Vegas.

The question of some of these things makes you wonder what really happened. You were talking about figuring and the figures you bring out. I don't know whether you've ever heard the story about the company that wanted to hire an accountant. To the first application they said, "What is two and two?" And he said, "Four." So they went to the next fellow and said, "What is two and two?" He said, "What answer do you want?" So that is sometimes what happens; it depends on what figures you want to put in.

MR. FRASER: What did you do with that $100 million?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So that's what happens in some cases. Those are all the answers to the questions I've got. I'm very pleased, though, that the chamber of mines put out a pamphlet so that you've got something to work from. If you didn't have that, you would have nothing to work from.

MR. CHABOT: I've listened very attentively to some of the answers given by the Minister this afternoon regarding the mining industry in this province. One I found extremely peculiar was that dealing with the question of copper and the world demand for copper. He suggested it wasn't necessary for us to travel to the country of Japan to establish our markets; Japan comes to us for copper. It wasn't necessary because of the world shortage and world conditions and the problems encountered by some of the countries because of political policies. There has been a shortage of this particular metal and, consequently, we don't have to travel to Japan.

However, we find today that we have a group of individuals and the Premier of the province, the chief executive officer of this province, in Japan. I was told during the estimates of the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), just prior to the recess of this Legislature, that he was going to go to Japan in an attempt to secure additional coal markets. We already are shipping coal, of course. Kaiser Resources….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think he said coal markets.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, he did. Absolutely. I asked him that question very specifically. He told me he was going to Japan with…. He talked about the steel smelter and his intention to attract Japanese investment capital to British Columbia to establish a steel industry here. I questioned him on the matter of coal and whether he would be discussing the question of markets on coal with the Japanese. He said, "Certainly; that's one of the reasons wily we're going to Japan."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're hammering on our door for coal.

MR. CHABOT: There is a certain inconsistency between what you're saying, Mr. Minister, and what the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is saying.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I do know about coal.

MR. CHABOT: I do too. I happen to come from that part of the world, though probably not quite as close as you are, Mr. Minister, to the coal fields of the Kootenays. Nevertheless, the Minister very clearly stated he was going there in an attempt to increase the kind of markets for the coal which we have in abundance here in British Columbia. There is a very serious inconsistency within that cabinet of yours, Mr. Minister, dealing with your attitudes as to whether you should travel the world markets to sell our mineral products we are talking about right now.

You suggest we should let them come knocking at our door. The Minister of Industrial Development, whose prime responsibility is to establish markets and establish secondary industry in the province, says he is going to Japan to find markets for coal; yet you say they should come knocking on our door. I think the cabinet has a responsibility to be more consistent than what you have displayed here today.

The government hailed a great day just a few months ago regarding the development of a coal field up in the Peace River country — Sukunka coal. They talked about the establishment of a coal port in Squamish. There were the environmental studies taking place. The Premier was extremely keen on Squamish over Prince Rupert, even though Prince Rupert is substantially closer to Japan than Squamish is. The Premier, because of the fact no doubt that he is the president of the B.C. Railway, was most emphatic to move coal over that railroad. That might have had some bearing on the fact that the government was interested in taking a 40 per cent interest in that coal field.

Yet we've heard very little for the last several months about the potential and the future development of this coal field. I think the, Minister who is involved in the development of the natural resources and involved in the coal development of British Columbia should indicate very clearly tonight whether there has been any progress in recent months with the potential development of Sukunka, whether the government is going to take a 40 per cent interest, and where that particular issue and that particular situation presently stands. Is it a dead issue; is it a live

[ Page 2555 ]

issue; or is it a luke-warm issue, Mr. Minister? I think you should tell us.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Luke-warm.

MR. CHABOT: Well, you say Luke-warm. Yet the Premier stands in his place and says, "We're going to take a 40 per cent interest; we're making the environmental studies. The coal mast be moved over the BCR. It's only a matter of time until this coal…."

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, Mr. Minister. I happen to have the floor at this time. What we're discussing right now, Mr. Minister, even though the heading on your estimates is Lands, Forests and Water Resources, are the estimates of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Mr. Minister, you've been here a few years; I think you've observed a few things. I hope you've observed just what takes place in estimates. What takes place in estimates is that the Member stands in his place and asks the Minister certain questions. It's customary, I think, in most instances for the Minister, after the Member has made his statements, to stand and reply. Whether he replies with knowledge or lack of knowledge is immaterial, I guess.

I'm asking you to tell me just where we stand at the moment in view of the fact that the Minister might be in Japan at this very moment attempting to sell coal — not necessarily Kaiser coal, not necessarily Fording River coal — but he might be attempting to sell Sukunka coal. If so, you must be apprised; you must be aware, no doubt, of what the Minister is doing in Japan. If you don't, there's a serious lack of communication within the executive council of British Columbia.

Are they leaving you out from some of the major policy decisions in this province? Is there a two-tier form of government in British Columbia? Is there a little caucus of cabinet Ministers who make the decisions? Is there another group on the outside which are not informed of what that power group is deciding in British Columbia? Is that the type of government you have here?

I think you have a responsibility to tell us what is taking place. The people out there in the province want to know what form of government they have. They have some ideas of what type of government you are delivering and they are very disillusioned. But, nevertheless, I think they should know once and for all what really takes place in cabinet — not necessarily the specifics of the cabinet decisions, but who holds the power and what few Ministers control the decisions within your cabinet. It appears there are Ministers who are more influential than other Ministers. I think, Mr. Minister, you should stand in your place and name those Ministers who make those decisions that have a very serious impact upon the economic destiny not only of the mining industry but of the whole economy of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of this Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the true Minister of Mines? Stand up.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I want to speak very briefly about Granduc Mines. There was a very vicious attack against the operation of the Granduc Mines delivered by the big guy from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings). It's quite obvious to me that he doesn't understand the trials and tribulations the operators of that mine were faced with a few years ago.

That mine happens to be in the riding of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). I'm sure he appreciates that Granduc copper mine being there, creating the hundreds of jobs from which people in his riding are benefiting.

A few years ago there was a very serious tragedy at that mine. There was a slide just at the portal of the tunnel they were driving. I forget how many miles that tunnel was — something in the neighbourhood of 21 miles of tunnel….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Eleven miles.

MR. CHABOT: Eleven miles, the Minister tells me. I think I'm confused with the number of people who were killed because about 21 miners were killed in that tragedy. Because of that slide, it was necessary to refinance the operation of the future development of that mine.

It was necessary as well for Granduc Mines to look for additional capital. They couldn't find that capital in Canada; they had to go to the United States to continue the development of that mine. Without the investment capital from American Smelting and Refinery that mine might never have been open today. Those hundreds of jobs up in the constituency of Atlin….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's got nothing to do with this vote.

MR. CHABOT: It certainly has. We're discussing Granduc Mines and the production of copper in this province. The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain — the big Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) — attacked Granduc Mines. He said

[ Page 2556 ]

it shouldn't be here because it's American financed. It helped open the constituency of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) by creating jobs for people.

I wonder if the Minister supports the kind of attack made against this major copper producer in this province, the kind of attack made by the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. At the moment the government is jeopardizing the copper industry and jeopardizing the future of Granduc Mines, and I wonder if he will tell me whether he supports the vicious position taken by the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain made a statement of the ownership of the mines. I didn't notice any vicious attack on those mining companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member for Columbia River continues I might point out that I did rule out of order the comments by the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain inasmuch as he couldn't relate them to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister's estimates. I would direct the same comment to the Member for Columbia River. Would he please relate his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister?

MR. CHABOT: Certainly. My question is very simple. Is the Minister determines to destroy the economic viability of Granduc Mines? Is that his intention? Is the reason for his direction an attempt to destroy by his policies, legislation, and direction Granduc Mines? It has American financing which they had to secure in order to keep the development of the mine in progress.

I was wondering if the Minister would elaborate a little further on the question of Sukunka coal which I put to him a few moments ago. Not only am I concerned and the people of British Columbia, but I think those people who are more closely located to the coal fields are very interested in finding out just where the development of this potential coal mine presently stands.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is a quick answer. My nature isn't to destroy anything, and the Hon. Member knows that. I don't intend to destroy the Granduc mine or any other mine in the Province of British Columbia.

Sukunka is still a live issue, but not as lively as it was a little while ago. I don't know what he means about the markets for coal, but I'm sure we can find lots of markets for coal when we're ready to ship the coal.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to hash over the answers the Minister gave to my remarks earlier on. We obviously disagree on a lot of things.

I do want to correct one thing he said. He said that I spoke of cost of ore as $5 a ton. I wasn't speaking of costs, Mr. Minister. I was saying that minimum value for ore is $5 a ton. Cost of mining, I appreciate, in an open-pit circumstance is much closer to $2 a ton.

Mr. Minister, you said just before you sat down a while ago that you were glad the chamber of mines put out a pamphlet so the opposition would have something to work with in dealing with your estimates. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad it does, too.

Why does your annual report take so long to get out? When do we expect the 1973 reports? — maybe October or November, 1974. How late is it going to be? Why is it that other departments can get their annual reports out much more quickly than your department? Surely these statistics are collected on a current basis. I would have thought it could be put together more quickly. If it's a question of staff, Mr. Minister, come to the House and ask for the staff. I'm sure it would be met with warmth.

The Minister thought that the decline in claim-staking was not something that reflected the decline in exploration expenditures in the industry or exploration trends, but rather just something to be expected because of legislation he had brought in having to do with rentals on claims and so on. He said it was common to tie up all kinds of land and just sit on it and hold it. But what about the work requirements, Mr. Minister? He didn't mention those.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I did.

MR. GIBSON: I didn't hear you mention those. The work requirements are far more significant than the rental you impose. You've imposed a rental of $10 a claim — which rental I disagree with, incidentally. I'd rather see that money going into exploration work, rather than into the coffers of the government, which are already over brimming. Surely you should have mentioned the work requirement. So I don't really think that that rental was a significant factor in the declining claim-staking. I think it was more the policies of your government.

At the same time you said that the claim-staking was down because there's no particular rush going on now; there's no particular attraction. Well, Mr. Minister, I don't know, we're in the middle of the best prices and profits this industry has ever seen, and yet exploration and staking is down. That just doesn't go together to me. What that says to me is that the prospectors and the people that go out to find things are scared, scared of your government.

You spoke of exploration expenditures, Mr.

[ Page 2557 ]

Minister. I am very puzzled with the figures you were using. You were using somewhere a figure, I think, of $24 million worth of exploration expenditures.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I heard your father give the same speech in the former government.

MR. GIBSON: He wasn't using the same annual report, Mr. Minister, because we have a bit newer one now — not much newer but a bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: The exploration expenditure in 1972, which is from your annual report of 1972, on prospecting and exploration on undeclared mines — in other words, off-property exploration, not on developed-property exploration — is $39 million. That coincides with the figures given by the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines for 1972.

These off-property exploration figures, I would submit, are the most significant ones because that is the new exploration that's going on. It's not the exploration that's being done on declared or operating mines or development on declared or operating mines. That's essentially an improvement of existing properties. The undeclared mines or the off-property exploration is what's finding the new mineral wealth of British Columbia. So that was $39 million in 1972.

It was $28 million in 1973, according to the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines. We have no figures from you because the annual report hasn't been published yet. Now the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines projects — and their projections have been pretty darned good — for 1974 something in the neighbourhood of $14 or $15 million. That's another drop, another disastrous drop, of more than 50 per cent after a drop from $39 million down to $28 million.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They predicted that the price of copper wasn't going up, too, a couple of years ago.

MR. GIBSON: They may be able to predict the exploration a little bit better than the price of copper. The price of copper is hard to predict, as you know, Mr. Minister.

So it seems to me that the Minister hasn't made a very good case for not saying that the exploration in the industry is in an absolute nosedive.

I'd like the Minister to comment a bit on the growing bureaucracy of the regulations of his department. And I want to read to him a copy of a letter to the Minister.

"I have just finished reading over your new regulations," — this is dated March 18, 1974 — "regarding assessment work under the new Mineral Act. Whoever drew the regulations up sure didn't think of the poor prospector. Apart from the bureaucratic mish-mash, I can cope with it to a certain degree as I have a good education. But what about the less educated prospectors? The poor people will surely be weeded out on their assessment reports. I can see very clearly what's going to happen: letters, reports and more letters from the Victoria Mines department. More time and money will be spent on such bureaucratic nonsense and so more taxation on the people.

"I've been a prospector in B.C. for over 20 years, and never before have I seen the prospector get such severe treatment. Higher staking fees, recording fees, grouping fees, company licences will accomplish what they've set out to do, and that is to weed out the prospector and the small mining company.

"The new mining laws are really severe on the prospector. Thousand of mineral claims will lapse" — as they have, Mr. Minister — "and not be renewed because of heavy cost and bureaucratic regulations governing assessment work. Perhaps this is what the Mines department wants. If so, keep it up; you're on the right track."

That's a letter from Salmon Arm, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: No, it's not a Mr. Abbott; it's not him — somebody else. I'd like the Minister to comment on the unquestionably more onerous quantity of red tape and regulations that his department has put in. Then I'd like him to comment on something else. We've been pretty much strictly on the hardrock side so far. Their was some talk earlier on about the petroleum side. I'm not sure if the Minister made a remark that it was staying up there, but he couldn't have. Listen to these figures. First of all, here's a report put out by the Department of Mines. In the newspaper here, April 11, 1974:

"Natural gas production in B.C. decreased in January compared to a year earlier, according to figures released by the provincial Mines department. The average daily production of marketable natural gas in January was about 1,150,000 cubic feet. In January, 1973, the average production was about 1,275,000 cubic feet. Throughout 1973, gas production was consistently up over 1972 figures."

So what happened in 1974? In January of 1974 it went down. Crude oil production was exactly the same in January as a year earlier. It should have been

[ Page 2558 ]

up in this time of an oil crisis but it was exactly the same: about 61,000 barrels a day. But footage drilled decreased from about 140,000 feet to about 115,000 feet.

There's one report which indicates that, in the petroleum side of things, matters are not improving. In petroleum, just as in hard- rock mining, exploration is the lifeblood of the business. Here's some more disturbing figures. This is a report of April 16, 1974:

"Oil and gas well drilling in 1973 showed a sharp increase in Canada over 1972, but was down substantially in B.C.

"The number of wells drilled in B.C. was down 29.1 per cent to 165 from 213 while footage was down 24.3 per cent to 867,921 feet from 1,146,657 feet.

"For all of Canada, the number of wells drilled was up 20.7 per cent to 4,621 from 3,827 while footage was up 17.8 per cent."

Later on it's noted that new field wildcats in B.C. were down 40.9 per cent to 13 from 22; and in footage, 35.4 per cent down to 115,000 from 178,000. Mr. Minister, these new wildcats are again the really new exploration, the real lifeblood. Beyond that, the total exploratory wells were down 19.4 per cent, down to 100 from 124, whereas Alberta was up 38.3 per cent. Development drilling in British Columbia was down as well; down 30.1 per cent to 65 wells from 93, and in footage down 31.8 per cent. In Alberta, it was up 38.2 per cent. So there again, down 30 per cent in B.C.; up 38 per cent in Alberta.

Now, Mr. Minister, I realize that our hydrocarbons are not as prolific and abundant as Alberta, at least so far. But I really do have to ask you for an explanation of these figures. You have argued that your policies were such as to encourage this side of the industry as well, and yet again here we have not only a decline in production but a substantial decline in the exploration work.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Firstly, I'd like to say in regard to the figures on exploration, if you look at page A9 and you add A and B together on undeclared mines, you will total about 31.3.

MR. GIBSON: How was that again?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: On the physical work and surveys: 31.3. You total 29 million and 1,191,000, you'll come to 31.3.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I see. I was even giving you the benefit of the administration costs.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So that question is answered. In regards to the annual report, we're going to make every effort to have it out a lot earlier. The annual report of Mines is a very extensive report and I think everybody should appreciate the information carried in the annual report. It goes back over the years. You can get a picture of the whole mining industry for many years back which you can't do in any other report I know of. I don't like to discontinue that type of report. The reports we get in to add to the statistics from the companies take a certain amount of time. But we do hope the next report will be out quite a bit ahead of any past report.

There are no recording fees; that's included in the rental.

The $200 work requirement of the claim. I brought that up and I don't think that is out of line when you consider that $100 came from 1891. The dollar has changed considerably. Now they can charge up almost everything, even their prospecting time, to their work on the claims. So I think we've benefited the prospector in that regard.

In regard to oil and gas, we had trouble in the Beaver River gas fields which did cut down production on gas.

In regard to the drilling, it depends on the number of rigs you can get. Our last sale was highest per acre we ever had. I don't know whether they were short of gas rigs. Sometimes it depends on the winter as to how council drilling they can do up in the north. They can only do their drilling during the cold weather when it is frozen over. That's all I can answer on that question.

MR. SMITH: I would just like to speak briefly on the matter of exploration for petroleum products, natural gas and oil in the Province of British Columbia. The Minister who has just taken his place suggested that the amount of exploration is dependent upon the number of drilling rigs which are available at any given time. It would seem to me that the Minister has a very short memory.

It was only about a year ago when I stood in my place in this House and told the Minister what was happening with respect to the exploration for natural gas and oil in the Province of British Columbia. At that time I told the Minister that in all of Canada there were only a certain number of drilling rigs available to do all the exploration work that would be done, regardless of where it was to take place in the Canadian west. From the information I had and from what I could see was going on in the northeastern part of British Columbia, the drilling contractors who had drilling rigs available were bidding their rigs out to the Province of Alberta, the North West Territories or the Yukon.

The reason for that was clearly and definitively spelled out by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and myself on the floor of this House. That is because of the attitude expressed by the Minister and by the cabinet with respect to drilling activity in the Province of British Columbia. The

[ Page 2559 ]

drilling companies decided at that point that there was really not too much future for them in the Province of British Columbia.

I've got to admit that the price to the producers has been increased as a result of an increased export price for natural gas. But believe me, Mr. Minister, the year and a half the amount of drilling dipped down in the Province of British Columbia has done irreparable damage to our drilling programme in this province. The people who are responsible for that happening is the government of this province and, above all, you as a Minister who represents Mines and Petroleum Resources.

There seems to be a tendency on the part of the Minister and the other Ministers of the Crown to discount anything said by the Members of the official opposition. But the things we have said and the picture we have tried to paint about the things I know best, because I live in that part of the country and so does the Member for South Peace River, are factual and true. We knew what was going on and we tried to communicate that as best as we could across the floor to the Members of the government and particularly to yourself as Minister. The fact that you are not prepared to listen to that is not our fault.

I would like to pose a question to the Minister now. We know there is a shortage of petroleum and natural gas in the North American continent. It will receive a premium price, particularly in the export market.

We can look at what has happened in the Province of Alberta. We know the price there has increased substantially on the export of natural gas in the last six months or less, let alone what happened before that. They set the trend because they are the big producers of natural gas in Canada.

This province will receive the benefit of any contracts that the Province of Alberta negotiates merely because we produce natural gas for the export markets. It follows that the government of British Columbia will receive increased revenue from the export of natural gas, increased revenue to the point where, if I wanted to use the same terms as the NDP have often used, they will receive windfall profits — or the government will.

We also know that the price of oil is going up which will result in an increase of anywhere from 8 to 10 cents per gallon in the price of gasoline in the Province of British Columbia.

The question that I would like to pose to the Minister now is: what are you prepared to do to reduce the impact of that increase to the people who live in British Columbia in light of the fact that you're fortunate enough right now and will continue to be fortunate enough to realize windfall profits from the sale of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia? Will you use that windfall profit and that income to reduce the impact of the increase in the price of gasoline to all of the consumers in the Province of British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that there is a bill on the order paper, Bill 18, which is the Energy Amendment Act, 1974, and the subject matter of this bill is relevant to the remarks that were made.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, in all deference that there is a bill on the order paper with respect to the regulation and sale of petroleum in the Province of British Columbia, this Minister is responsible for mines and petroleum resources in the province. The question I have asked him is a legitimate question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: We know that the price of natural gas and the export market price has increased substantially.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Minister of Health has a point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Member across the way is being frivolous. He's asking a question of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources that should be referred to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). He was asking whether or not the royalties….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Where is the Minister of Finance?

MR. FRASER: Yes, where is the Minister of Finance'?

HON. MR. COCKE: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, will be here in due course and that Member, if he's not too impatient, can ask the Minister of Finance that very question.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Peace River may direct a question to the Hon. the Minister of Mines, providing it is relevant to his administrative responsibilities.

MR. SMITH: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that while the Minister of Finance may be indirectly involved in this, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources is directly involved in the sale of and exploration for minerals and petroleum resources in the Province of British Columbia. He knows that we are today receiving a greater profit…

[ Page 2560 ]

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Don't you trust us?

MR. SMITH: …windfall profit, as the NDP love to say, from the sale of natural gas to the export market than we have ever received before. All I'm saying and asking the Minister is: will he recommend that the profit from the sale of natural gas to the export market be used to reduce the price of gasoline to the consumer in the Province of British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not permitted to request that one Minister tries another Minister.

MR. SMITH: No, I didn't ask him to do that. I just asked if he would recommend that this would be done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That is a question that I would discuss within the cabinet, not on the floor of the House, if I wanted to recommend it. But it's not in my jurisdiction to dispense the money; it's my jurisdiction to collect the money.

Vote 174 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick files answers to question 184.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.