[ Page 2561 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Statutes Act (Bill 111). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2561

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

On vote 174. Mr. Gibson — 2579

Mr. Bennett — 2561 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2580

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2563 Mr. Gibson — 2580

Mr. Bennett — 2565 Mr. Wallace — 2581

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2566 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2582

Mr. Bennett — 2566 Mr. Wallace — 2582

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2566 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2582

Mr. Bennett — 2567, Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2583

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2569 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2588

Mr. Dent — 2569 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2588

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2570 On vote 175.

Mr. Bennett — 2570 Mr. Bennett — 2589

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2571 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2589

Mr. Gardom — 2571 Mr. Gibson — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2572 On vote 176.

Mr. Gardom — 2572 Mr. Gibson — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2573 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Mr. Gardom — 2573 On vote 177.

Mr. Phillips — 2573 Mr. Fraser — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2575 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Mr. Phillips — 2575 Mr. Gibson — 2590

Hon. Mr. Lea — 2576 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2576 Mr. Richter — 2590

Mr. Phillips — 2576 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2590

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2578 On vote 179.

Mr. Phillips — 2578 Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2591

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2578 Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2591

Mr. Phillips — 2579 Mr. McClelland — 2591

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statutes Act.

Bill 111 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions I'd like to ask the Minister regarding some of the statements he made yesterday, and a few comments on his department. I don't want to deal specifically with mining in depth because I'm sure it will come up under Bill 3 1, and the balance of money the Minister wishes to extract.

What we're concerned about really is not the tax dollars during the Minister's estimates, but how he sees mining as an integrated base for British Columbia, not only for what it provides today but also what it provides for the future. The Minister talks about immediate revenues and leaving the minerals in the ground if they don't pay. But what is the alternative and what is our obligation to the immediate future in lead time in developing new ore bodies and developing new mines as a taxation base? This is where I see the Minister's failure to recognize his responsibility.

Certainly we know the existing mines are providing taxes, are providing jobs and are providing the economy with a great spurt due to the world record ore prices. This is fine. But what about the lack of immediate activity, the lack of activity we've had in the last 18 months, the lack of the activity in the future, or the lack of activity because of the concern in the mining industry? You know the amount of lead time, Mr. Minister, that it takes to explore and develop a mine, bring it on stream so that it provides those jobs, so it provides the economy with profits and with taxes.

I'd like to know what's happening to specific properties that appeared ready to go, like Placer Development's Berg property. What's happened to these properties when we have world record ore prices at a time when we would expect that British Columbia, like all other jurisdictions, would be going full tilt into bringing these projects on stream? We would expect B.C., like other jurisdictions, to be going full tilt into exploration instead of actually having a decline in the number of permits and people actively seeking new minerals.

I'd like to ask the Minister how he feels he's meeting his commitment to the responsibility for the development of an economic base, not just for his government, but for the government that will replace you and the government that follows, so that they will have the base that will provide not only tax revenues but also jobs and activity that go beyond the mere collection of government revenues.

I think the philosophy the Minister has is looking at mines merely as they relate to the direct payment to the government. But you must realize, Mr. Minister, that in the economic stream people receive benefits from areas of economic activity other than direct government services.

In fact, many people will argue that the economy as it's generated outside the government sphere, if this economic activity is active and full, people can provide for themselves many of the services the Minister feels he is going to have to do with the government.

We are not just talking about mining or resource management as it affects government revenues, but how it affects the economy in general. If you don't have the jobs available in the mining industry how will the government find not only the revenues but also the jobs to place those people who cannot find employment in what may be a declining industry?

What does the Minister indicate? Where are we going to find the economic base to pay for those increased services which this government and future governments wish to bring in for the benefit of the people if, in fact, this has happened? We've had a hiatus on mineral development in this province — not only for 18 months, but it appears for the this year and the year following. There doesn't seem to be any anticipation from mining companies that they will be bringing on stream many of these properties that I'd like to bring up today.

There is the Liard property of Silver Standard; there's Hudson's Bay Mining Stikine Property. What is happening to these properties under normal conditions, under other jurisdictions where there isn't the insecurity, where they don't feel the fear? Instead of looking for co- operation from the government and from the Department of Mines the people involved in the industry feel fear and don't bring into production and on stream projects and mining activity that we

[ Page 2562 ]

would normally expect in this time of world high prices.

You've got to take the responsibility, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, for anticipating that future governments will require this pace to meet the services, to meet the funds and to provide jobs for the people of this province.

You say there's an alternative that if you can't get what you want, you'll leave the minerals in the ground. Well, that's very well, except in this age of technological change, Mr. Minister, we have seen many minerals or ores come in and out of use. And those that aren't developed, those that aren't used, become useless as a base for generating profits or as an economic advantage for the people of the province.

I talk about things like tungsten which doesn't have the impact on the economy. I talk about molybdenum which isn't enjoying the high prices of the other ores that are on the world market because it's now overproduced.

When you talk about mines making tremendous profits — and we talked about Brenda Mines — Brenda Mines is in difficulty because most of its profit is tied up in large inventories of molybdenum, and molybdenum seems to have a very poor future on the pricing market of the world. These mines were brought in as partial copper and moly mines, yet we've seen moly as a mineral worth dollars to the province decline in value in what would normally be record booming times. What assurance does the Minister have that what minerals we accept as useful today and as having economic value, that they will have a use tomorrow?

When you leave them in the ground, Mr. Minister, instead of extracting them and generating cash, they don't earn interest. If they become out of fashion or out of use, you have lost for all time for the people of this province the economic value and what they can create in the way of providing dollars for future industries which may or may not relate to mining.

What we're really talking about is what research has your department done in trying to anticipate those minerals that B.C. now has and their future prospects for continued use. What research has your department done in the way of projections on the world pricing and world markets with relation to other governments, and what minerals we may have that may be declining in value that are developed in this province? What we're worried about, Mr. Minister, is that if the performance of your department of actually developing...and the long lead time necessary to bring these projects on stream, if it continues for the rest of your term we will have a blank spot in B.C.'s mineral development, a blank spot of three or four years, depending on when you next come up for election, that can't be replaced. You know yourself the amount of time it takes to redevelop these projects and get them on stream might make us miss what normally is a high price market in the world economy.

You've been a Member of this Legislature for many years. You come from a mining area and you know the difficulties in the days when there wasn't a good world price on many of the minerals that B.C. is now enjoying the fruits of, when there was a problem even getting mines started. People talk about 40-cent copper, you know yourself that there were days when 40-cent copper was but a pie in the sky dream and that we couldn't develop these mines because we didn't have a market, a profitable market for the mineral. You must know that on the world market copper is triple the original 40 cents we used to dream about, almost triple, and that this condition may or may not last.

I'm asking what research your department has done in predicting the continuation of this price, the continuation of the use of copper, and whether your department can give us assurance that the many projects.... I think there's eight of them for sure that probably would have been, under a different economic atmosphere, brought into production in B.C.

The Alice Arm property and Falconbridge property at Sustut, Noranda's Morrison Lake property and the Granby's Huckleberry property, all of these projects appeared ready to go. In other jurisdictions they're rushing through projects which were not as far along in development as these to bring them on stream to take advantage of these prices. Why aren't these being developed in B.C.? Do you take the responsibility for these not having come in? Do you take the responsibility because the climate for mining, the climate for the extracting of ores is not good in B.C.?

The fact that you've come into office almost simultaneously with the change in world prices, yet B.C.'s exploration and B.C.'s new mining activity have declined at the same time, must be in direct relationship to your stewardship of this department. The responsibility is yours to tell us what plans and what projections you are making to ensure that the governments that follow you will be able to continue to use this as an economic base to provide some of the services in the future. I listened to some of your arguments yesterday and in quoting statistics, I believe one of your statistics was to show the labour relation to the mining industry, and that we have a slightly declining labour force compared to dollar value. There again, I would relate, Mr. Minister, that it's apples and oranges because of the inflationary cost and the change of world prices, the labour content should be related to tonnage and not to dollars. A lot of that increase, jumping from $392 million to $1 billion, is based on the change in price of copper, which has changed drastically during the last

[ Page 2563 ]

year in the world.

If you're going to give comparisons to the Legislature, then you should relate it to a more meaningful set of statistics which is people to tonnage.

We would naturally expect that with technology this would be declining, because if we're going to be competitive and take the benefit of technological change, we are going to have some decline in the rate of labour to tonnage, but don't relate it to dollars when we've had a drastic change in dollars on the world market.

The other thing I was going to mention is that you mentioned the great rip-off that certain companies made on their development costs by writing them off against their profits. I think you've got this usual hang-up that there are five or six major mining companies that are able to do this. But you should know better than anyone in this House the thousands of small companies and individuals that do exploration and do preparatory work but never bring a mine or a claim into fruition and never have a profit on which they have to write those costs off against. You should know very well that the whole industry has some gigantic rip-off in which all exploration and preparatory work is completely exempt because it's written off against profits. Surely, you know very well that there are more than the five or six major mining companies. In fact, the people we're concerned about is that base of prospectors and small mining companies that do all the lead work and the initial work before the major companies come in and take over. Many of these projects and many of these people never get a chance to bring their property into any sort of development where it becomes part of a project, where it is written off against profits.

You know very well that much of the exploration in British Columbia is never written off against any profits in any company. And you should know it better than anyone else in this House, coming from a mining area and being involved with the industry over the years.

I also was concerned about your statements about the steel mill yesterday because I feel that a steel mill of some size would be of advantage to B.C. I do feel, because you are Minister of Mines and certainly we know that nobody would have more interest in developing a steel industry in B.C. than the Minister of Mines, that you were part of the discussion either before or part of the delegation to Japan. The very fact that they weren't able to develop a steel mill, the very fact that the government is coming home empty handed, that we aren't going to have a steel mill in this province is disappointing to us.

I feel the Minister has more of a responsibility to explain to this Legislature whether he has actively worked with the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce and with the Premier in preparation of trying to attract a steel mill to this province. As we know, the west coast of the United States, in California, didn't really develop secondary industry until they got a steel industry during the Second World War. Although they had a larger population base and it took a war to attract it, I think in B.C., with its growth rate and with the type of trading that we may be able to do, that a limited steel mill would be a great attraction for us having a start on good basic secondary industry in this province. I feel it's important.

Secondly, we talked about copper and a copper smelter. There again, with the large amount of copper produced in B.C., which is the bulk of our minerals, I feel the Minister did not give adequate explanation yesterday as to not why he lost it, but what you're actually doing and what you're going to do — over and above this task force. What happened to the two that were scheduled for B.C.? When you mentioned pollution control, what design and what type are you recommending, and where the difference has been in the design of copper smelters over this last year over the two that were apparently slated for British Columbia? You haven't fully explained this to the Legislature, Mr. Minister, what change in the design of smelter that you're recommending to this task force that they bring in for British Columbia.

Those are just a few of the questions that we're concerned about. Before I continue, I'd just like you to answer a few of those. Then I'd like an opportunity to speak again.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say before I reply to the Hon. Member, I noticed that yesterday in a quick off-the-cuff reply I did use the word "Japs" and immediately changed it to Japanese. Now, I've been long enough in this House to know that there are cases where people make statements across the floor which are picked up very quickly by the newspapers and they don't put the following statement in, they put the one thing in. But politics is a funny thing. Politics is something where, especially from the opposition, if our arguments aren't good, we grab onto anything we can. The press grabbed that statement very quickly.

If it's necessary, I apologize for using the word "Japs" when I said it. I apologize in that case for using the word "Japs" because I connected it immediately. I hope the press will also be as willing to put my apology into their papers.

We know the record of the New Democratic Party, back to 1941 when the people who are on that side of the House today, the parties that represent that side of the House today....

[ Page 2564 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon, Minister speaking on a point of order?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm just correcting a statement that was made yesterday which I think is correct. But I will say that the New Democratic Party has got a record second to none in regard to fighting on behalf of the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon. Minister to confine his remarks to his estimates. If he's making a point of order, I think that the point of order was made. I would ask him now to continue with his estimates.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I just wanted to say that I had corrected it and it never was in the press that way. They put it in the press to try and undermine a party that has fought for those people for many, many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In reply to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), they were here for 20 years and they never took a real assessment of the mineral potential of the Province of British Columbia. For the first time we are taking that assessment of the potential of the Province of British Columbia.

In regard to the task force, I would be premature in making statements today on what we expect the task force to be investigating, in regard to pollution and other items. The pollution board did put out a report. The talk of the smelter that was going to be started — that's just not so. The smelter was not going to be started.

They had a public hearing and they never got it off the ground because the only way that they could make it feasible was to have the tall-stack smelter which would destroy the countryside. We didn't go for that, and I'm sure that the previous government wouldn't have gone for it either. The future will tell what we're going to do in regard to the copper smelter.

The steel mill. Yes, I'd like to see a steel mill in the Province of British Columbia but, again, it takes time to get such an item under operation. We spoke of steel mills for many years. You can go all the way back to 1912 when they had a royal commission on a steel mill for British Columbia. I don't know whether they were trying to keep the production of steel down in the eastern part of Canada and that's the reason that we've never had a steel mill. Nevertheless, now that steel is short maybe we can go ahead with the steel mill.

You talk about minerals left in the ground. We have plenty of reserves already blocked out for many years, as far as copper goes, if we want to. When you talk about nobody wanting to go ahead, I notice in The Northern Miner — and I quote from Afton Mines:

"N.B. Keever Jr., president, told The Northern Miner he is preparing to file the government's required notice in the British Columbia Gazette that it intends to apply for a production lease. Afton is planning a 7,000-ton-a-day open-pit operation at its copper property near Kamloops."

I'm sure that Highland Valley will be going ahead very shortly.

When you talk about not being interested, I think we've got to consider the future as well as the present, and I don't think in terms of just a dollar bill. There are many people today who probably would have been glad to have left the ore in the ground until the prices became higher, but they didn't do it.

When you look back over the years, there was a time that everybody thought that coal was going to be of no value. Today it is of greater value than at any other time. These resources don't rot in the ground. There is a move on throughout Canada that we should be depleting these natural resources in accordance to a plan over the future years.

We don't need to rush to get rid of all our resources just because the price is high today. This is a mistake. This is because all that society today in most cases thinks of is the immediate dollar bill. They're not thinking of the needs of the people or the future needs of the people.

I'm sure that when you go down through Nevada and these places and see all the ghost towns and all the mines that have been depleted, you will notice there that the United States wishes now that they had been a little more careful with the depletion of their natural resources so that they wouldn't be so dependent on exploiting foreign resources in order to keep their type of society going.

I don't worry too much about how fast you get them out of the ground. The panic to get rid of them shouldn't be towards the dollar bill; it should be towards what the needs are of the people today and the needs of the future generation.

You talk about the miners. I quoted yesterday the amount of copper that had been depleted in the Province of British Columbia since 1858. Just about 10 per cent of that since 1958 was depleted last year, and yet we didn't increase the number of workers.

We haven't enough miners. The ladies had to fill the breach in the mining industry in British Columbia. We have quite a number of women working on trucks in the mining operations today because we haven't enough miners.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Oh, what

[ Page 2565 ]

an attitude. They want to get them out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're short of miners. There are many areas where their quota has not been filled, and the ladies came in and filled the breach. I have no objection to that at all. But to try and tell me that we've lost employment! B.C. never had it better than they have it today, and we've never produced more metals than we are at the present time.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): No thanks to you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's the future, and as for the Stikine property, we've got to build the BCR to there before the Stikine property can come into operation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Why did they cancel the drilling on that property?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You know that as well as I do.

MR. GIBSON: Who's drilling on that property?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I talked to the Stikine copper people and they know pretty well what they've got. It takes three to five years to bring a mine into production, I'll agree. But this is something that the private interests will have to deal with.

There are some properties ready to go into production. But, as I said before, I don't think that the economy of British Columbia has suffered because we have not rushed out to try to deplete the ore as quickly as possible just because the price is high. This to me is a wrong attitude to take — to get the dollars right now.

We did that with the forestry years ago and finally we had to manage the forests. We've even had to cut back on the forests because we overcut. The day may come when we might have to decide that we've got to go easier on the depletion of some of these natural resources in order to be able to look ahead and say that we will still have natural resources for the future. I'm rather amazed at some of the statements made — as if we should get rid of everything right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Nobody said that. You're twisting it around.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: These things don't rot in the ground. They don't rot there, you know. As long as our economy is going and everybody is doing fine, I don't see the worry that we should bring all these operations into production right now.

Don't forget that if you bring three or four more mines into production and build communities and everything and maybe start to flood the market even with some of these things, it costs the public a great amount of money for social amenities. Mines have shut down year after year. We have four or five or six mines every year that are running out of ore.

So that's all I can say, and I think that that answers your questions as to my philosophy.

MR. BENNETT: Well, with all respect to the Minister, he didn't answer my question. I wasn't saying to mine. I asked what you are doing to plan the mining activity for the future, because the mines that are in existence today that are bringing prices and helping Canada solve its balance of payments and bringing us foreign dollars were developed long before this Minister came to office.

What I said is that the high world prices that have developed since you came to office, which our province can take advantage of.... What are you doing there? There has been no new mining activity, although many were slated and had their work done. There were eight definite projects and at least another half dozen that could have been brought on stream that haven't, that normally would in any other jurisdiction during a period like this.

What is your plan for bringing them on to provide an economic base for future governments? Fine, you're living off the economy generated from facilities developed long before you came to office.

What are you doing to continue the development so that succeeding governments have the same opportunity that you have? Certainly we're taking advantage of world record prices. The British Columbia economy is booming because of our forestry and ore prices in the world. These projects were developed far in advance of your coming to office, but nothing has happened since you've taken the position of Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. BENNETT: No projects have been developed.

I hope you don't take any evidence from the Minister for ICBC (Hon. Mr. Strachan) because I'd hate to see the mining industry deteriorate to that level of competence and management. But what are you doing and what are your plans and what are your projections on the use of copper? What are your projections on prices? I'll ask the same questions I asked. Just where are you taking it? I don't want to hear your speech about leaving the minerals in the ground. Tell us, on a projected basis, what you are doing as Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well....

[ Page 2566 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He doesn't like the answer, that's all.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We produced more copper last year than we ever did. These new mines that are coming on to force, if we were to operate them today, we wouldn't have enough miners to operate them. My opinion is this. You take Highland Valley, Bethlehem Copper, and Afton. I would like to see the day when that could be an economic unit so that when we build a community for that area we will make it last as long as possible — not try and mine things out in 10 years when you could make it feasible for 30 or 40 years. We've got to plan these things so that, when you build a community and schools and hospitals, they will last as long as possible. We don't want ghost towns; we want to make these towns viable and bring happiness to people. Unless we make the people happy and meet the needs of the people, there's no use depleting the reserves of our country.

I say we have got to plan. This is why I brought in the production lease. I don't want a company to go in and, just because the price is high, deplete a mine as quickly as possible. I want them to deplete it in accordance with the social and economic affairs around it and to make that mine last as long as possible.

What need have we got right now for more mines? Is there any great need? I'm not suggesting mines can't come into production. They can apply for a production lease and it looks as though there are some of them who are going to apply for production leases to go into production.

Two years ago or a year ago there was a statement made that the price of copper was going to be low. This is one of the reasons why these mines have not come into production: the price has been low. I imagine these companies are watching very carefully the world prices so they don't bring it into production and then find the price has gone again.

Don't try and tell me we've got to develop everything right now just because the price is high and to bring a balance of payments. These mines must be developed as a base for the economy of British Columbia. Then we must try and develop secondary industry so we'll get the maximum amount of good for the people of British Columbia out of every ton of ore we take out of the ground. Once it's taken out, it's gone forever. Don't worry too much about the economy of British Columbia. It was never booming better than it is today, and it will continue to boom in spite of your hopes that it goes down.

In years to come, your children will look back. If you've depleted all these resources and they're having trouble finding them, probably they will look back and say, "What kind of people did we have back in those days who had so little thought for the future?"

MR. BENNETT: He still didn't answer my question. I asked you what projections you had on world prices on which you based the lack of activity in B.C. You're making an excuse for having no activity. Every other jurisdiction, with experts like you have to advise them, are bringing into production mineral ore deposits to take advantage of these prices. They have a plan to bring them on.

What I've got to say is in British Columbia, since you've come to office, even with this surge in prices, no major mines have opened or developed although many had their feasibilities and their preliminary work done and were prepared to do so.

I asked you: What is your projection on world copper price? You suggested it might fall. What is your department's projection? What research have you done? On what basis are you going to allow these mines to come on stream, as you said, on a gradual basis? Would you give me the advantage of the research your department has done or is this just an excuse you get up and say for things not happening? Would you give the Legislature the benefit of the detailed research you have done specifically to hold these projects up? What research have you done and what projections do you have on the continuing prices for copper?

We were talking about a steel mill, and you said you were interested. But back last August, the trade Minister (Hon. Mr. Lauk) was announcing that date on the steel mill — "Steel Decision Due in Mid-August" — on the type of steel that would be developed in this province and an announcement on the negotiations for a steel mill. That was in 1973. All of the preliminary work on design, apparently with consultation, as you say you had, has taken place with the Minister. Would you please advise us in this Legislature the type and the tonnage of steel mill that will be brought into B.C. and bring us up to date on why we haven't got the steel mill now? This was all announced for last August. As you say, you just told us you were part of the negotiations and the preparations for the steel mill. Could you advise us as to the type of steel mill, how much tonnage, and where it will be located?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The steel mill proposition is still in the planning stages so I'm not going to make any definite statement as to the size of the steel mill. If you're reading out of the press, all you need to do is give the press a few words and, as regards to a steel mill, they can make a story out of it.

Interjections.

[ Page 2567 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We've been talking about a steel mill, but the previous government contributed millions of dollars towards a steel....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Do you want the answer or do you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they don't want you to answer.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The previous government gave millions of dollars to Cominco to set up a steel mill at Kimberley, and they did. When they got through with the subsidy, the steel mill was closed down. They had some problems there and they closed it down, so there was no steel mill there. Before we have a steel mill, a certain amount of planning has got to go into that.

When you talk about copper and the planned depletion, this is the first time we've got an economic planning division in the Mines department. This just came into force January 1. How fast do you think we can have the plans out in regards for economic planning? If the private companies which have these copper bodies are ready to go, if they're reticent about going ahead with them, I'm not here to force them to go ahead and develop those mines. I don't intend to subsidize them in order to get them to deplete the ore of this province. We're going to do it for the needs of the people and it's not going to be done to make profits for a few individuals or for some multinational company outside.

When you're talking of the small operators who have claims, they go to the large companies to develop their claim and take options on them. The expenses those companies put on they delete from their profits of other companies. Practically all your mining in this province is done by large companies outside the basic amounts. The prospector goes out sometimes and finds a mine. The company gets hold of it. It's not a real mine but they'll put it on the stock market. There's more money made and lost on the stock market in regards to those mines than ever gets into the ground.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I said we have the economic planning division now. It was just started in January and you never had it before. The previous government did no planning in mining; everything was done by the private sector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I stopped it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't talk nonsense.

HON. MR, NIMSICK: I gave you the figures for last year, and the exploration did not go down to any great extent last year. The number of claims you were talking about, I gave you that answer last night. I don't intend to repeat myself today. Your arguments as to how fast we're going to deplete the resource will depend on the policy of the private sector that has the bodies of ore. If they don't want to bring them into line right now, fine and dandy. Maybe they figure the price is going to be higher later on and they'll make a better deal out of it.

Our economy is doing very well. I don't see the necessity of depleting our ore or getting into a panic about depleting our natural resources. The natural resource is the very basis of our society. When you look at the United States and how they depleted their resources and came to Canada and other parts of the world wanting to deplete other resources in order to keep their standard of living going, let's try and protect our standard of living in Canada by seeing that these resources will not be depleted in a short time and that we will have a future to our society.

MR. BENNETT: We're in the Minister's estimates and we can't discuss legislation dealing with Bill 31, a proposed mining legislation. But one of the things you are involved in is the preparation of a steel mill. You stand up here and you say you're not prepared to tell the Legislature anything about a steel mill, the type of mill you're asking for or the tonnage. You say you were in full consultation with the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk). Yet you won't enlighten the Legislature on what type of steel mill you're trying to attract to B.C. when the type was announced. The Minister said they would have a deadline and they would have the type and tonnage of mill that was going to be brought into this province last August. You won't share this information with the Legislature. What do you want us to discuss under your estimates?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You question Lauk on that.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Minister, if you won't answer, then the suspicion is true that neither the Premier nor the Minister of Industrial Development trust your opinion or decision and that you haven't been part of any discussions on a steel mill. It wasn't just that you couldn't play rugby that you didn't go to Japan; it was the very fact of the type of misinformation and intemperate statement you made in this Legislature yesterday and today that would disrupt any negotiations in the country like the Japan. I'm not smearing; I'm trying to get some answers about steel mills.

[ Page 2568 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! Sit down!

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: As a matter of fact, it might be a good idea if the Minister of transportation got out....

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I feel the Legislature should be privy to information on a steel mill. The Minister of Mines should have an integral part of the planning of the steel mill and the type and design and tonnage and where it will be located. Surely the Minister could tell us the location of the steel mill, at least.

Surely you were privy to the negotiations and preparation of this government before they went to Japan. Surely they had all that decided before they went to negotiate with the Japanese. Or is it a fact that there is no steel mill and none of this work was done, that there is no location, that the design hasn't been selected, and the steel mill talk was a cover-up for a joyride to Japan? Surely you can enlighten us, Mr. Minister, on just what is being done in preparation for a steel industry in B.C.

We know we have a partial steel mill in B.C. It's a good industry to have because it's recycling. You talked about minerals being wasted earlier. Minerals, after they are extracted from the ground, aren't lost forever. Copper is recycled; the by-products of iron ore into steel are recycled. Many of the products are not lost forever to the world economy. And British Columbia isn't just the sole owner of their own resources; they have stewardship not only for our own people but for the world.

The type of provincialism and nationalism of building a wall around your province, locking up your resources, is what causes war. Other areas and populations and emerging nations have use for these products and need them to develop. Do you think they enjoy you saying, "Well, we're well enough off; we will not share, even for a value (and you don't trade for dollars; you trade for other goods) the type of resources that are needed by the population by the world as a whole because I'm going to sit on these resources." I don't think so, Mr. Minister.

What you are suggesting is, "Do nothing and you can't be criticized. Do nothing and tell everybody it's good planning. Do nothing and say we're leaving the resources in the ground and they'll never be used."

If that decision had been taken years ago, we wouldn't have a steel industry in the world; there would be no train tracks. The CPR wouldn't have gone out west and there would be no B.C. There would be no electricity; there would be no development in the world. A lot of the areas wouldn't be developed. Now, Mr. Minister, you don't just leave minerals in the ground. There has to be a balance of development to meet today's needs and a balance of planning for the future.

All we've done — to get three political speeches from you — is ask you what your plan is. What research has your department done in assessing the time table for extraction, in assessing the world markets on copper? Give us your projections. And over and above copper, we're dealing with a lot of other minerals, some not as commonly known but things like antimony and bismuth and cadmium — all sorts of minerals that may or may not be in B.C. and may be developed. Tell us about the department; tell us what inventory you believe we have in B.C. from your department. What are your department's plans for developing these minerals in the future?

What about the definition of what is a mineral? We'd like some insight during your estimates so that we don't transgress on legislation proposals for this Legislature about what your department is doing. What technical research are you doing? What plans do you have for the mineral industry in B.C.?

It's evident that nothing has happened since you've come into office. You talk about the great economy from the minerals in B.C., but those were from developments before you got here. We'd like to know, after 20 months of inactivity from you, what you are planning to do. Obviously, through action, your plans aren't evident to this Legislature or this province. We'd like to know.

Then you went on, in answer to my earlier question as to your statement yesterday about exploration being written off by the major companies, and you said, "All companies get tied up with majors and they absorb those early exploration costs." That's not true. You know better than to say a statement like that in this Legislature.

The bulk of small prospectors and the bulk of small companies never get taken over by a major, never get taken over by any company that has a profit base on which to write off those earlier expenses. When you start to cloud the issue by talking about promotions on Howe Street you really show your ignorance of the way the market works. Those companies in stock promotion have nothing to do with those companies earning a profit to write off those explorations. That's merely the trading of those shares. But those exploration costs remain in those companies and the company has to operate and earn a profit. It has nothing to do with the trading value of shares.

I think you should still correct your statement of yesterday that the bulk of the exploration costs are absorbed into profits and getting a profit holiday for the mining companies of this country. It's not true. I

[ Page 2569 ]

know many small prospectors who, weekends and holidays, year after year in this province, many from your area, who don't put a figure on their time, who have worked in this industry, who are discouraged now, who have never received any cost back and have never been able to write off those hours seeking to develop minerals for the benefit of this province and for themselves to make profit. They have never written off those costs. Surely they are not going to be comfortable with your statement that the big companies are picking up their losses and writing them off, because they're not. That's the type of people we're talking about and those are the answers we're asking for.

Could the Minister please tell us just what his department has in the way of a mineral inventory, what minerals he's going to encourage to be brought on stream, what projection he has for the copper? Is he holding these mines up on purpose? If this is part of some grand strategy, would you make us privy to the information that brought you to this conclusion?

What do you think world prices will go on copper? For the reason you said, they'll probably drop in a couple of years.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've answered the questions time and again. You don't like the answers that I give you.

I'm not going to say every little prospector, because every little prospector isn't a mine. This is the reason the big operators don't come in and do anything there except maybe come in and put in a diamond drill hole and say, "Well, you've got nothing there. "But don't forget the cost of that diamond drill hole is charged against the profits of that larger company.

The larger reserves. I told you we have an economic planning division, something the previous government never had. It has just come into operation in the first of January. How fast do you think that I can get all the information that you are asking for right off the bat?

Our potential in copper is 2,500 million tons. Our copper reserves in the producing mines are 1,400 million tons. The rate of production of copper potential could amount to 150 years at the present rates. But the demand is going to triple before the year 2000. We're not too worried about these private industries.

If they want to wait a year or two years before they bring a mine into production, that's their business, not mine because I'm not going to dictate their policy unless you're suggesting that we nationalize the mines and operate them ourselves. I'm sure you're not suggesting that; you've accused us of that, but you're suggesting such a move.

MR. BENNETT: Are you suggesting you're not going to?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You're the ones who are trying to put words in my mouth. At the present rate zinc will last 61 years, lead will last 35 years, molybdenum 165 years — that's in the Province of British Columbia. But when we take it across Canada, even copper, lead and zinc, from the information that I got when I was in Ottawa, they say with the triple of production, by the year 2000 we will be running shy of some of these minerals and maybe we should take an assessment as to how fast we should deplete these minerals. So don't try and twist things up the way you're doing now.

I answered the questions with regard to economic planning. The planning was just instituted the first of the year. We're taking an inventory of our minerals — that's an ongoing proposition now. It was never done by the previous government. You left everything to the private sector to handle. Now that we're trying to do it, you are trying to say that in two years we should have it all done. This is impossible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four months.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You can't expect this done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, that's what we've done. We've put an economic planning division in order to make an assessment of all the potential minerals we've got in the province so we will know as near as possible how fast we should deplete them in order to carry on that industry, just the same as in any other thing. This is an industry that once you deplete it, it's gone forever and you're not going to replace it.

MR. CHABOT: How do you find inventory if you don't explore?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In regard to the steel mill, you asked the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) all about that the other day. I'll say that the Industrial Development department has done a lot of work on this steel mill proposition, that's why they went to Japan. I'm not going to make any report on the steel mill until the Premier gets back. He can make the report as to what progress has been made.

AN HON. MEMBER: There'll be no report — you've got to make some report.

MR. CHABOT: You're hopeless.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would like to direct a

[ Page 2570 ]

question to the Hon. Minister of Mines concerning a press report this morning which is of some interest and concern to me as the MLA for that area. The heading is: "Mill on the way to Smithers." That's enough to make any MLA sit up and take notice, especially if he's never heard anything about it.

"An ore concentrator with a milling capacity of 100 to 300 tons a day is on its way to Smithers to be set up for custom concentrating of ores from small mining properties.

"James Rutherford, Vancouver consulting geologist, and a group of associates bought the mill at Colville, Washington, near Spokane, where it has been used for custom milling. 'The mill is now on flat cars, northbound from the CNR yards at Port Mann, and we intend to erect it near Smithers,' said Rutherford. 'It will be the only custom mill in B.C. Mills at mines often mill ore on a custom basis, but are not solely doing custom business.'

"Rutherford said that he believes that there will be plenty of business available as there are 304 mineral properties on map 69-1, which covers the possible trade area.

'There's only about one property in four that's registered on the map, there must be at least 1,000 potential customers,' he said. 'Some of the business could come from bulk sampling of ore bodies,' he explained. 'Other properties could come under a section of the Mineral Act which permits production up to $100,000 a year without a full production lease.'

'Originally, we would expect to operate at 100 to 200 tons a day ore throughput, but this mill can run over 300 tons. We can also buy another mill and mate them to run over 500 tons. We have the necessary funding but we hope to involve people in the area and the mill should be erected in the fall,' Rutherford said.

"He said his group and a group called Community Milling Company Limited believe they can employ about 50 men permanently and up to 100 seasonally."

Mr. Minister, we're very concerned about this. There are people greatly concerned about development plans in the northwest because already there will shortly be a new sawmill brought into Smithers. One of the great concerns of many of the people in the area is the fact that so much development is taking place without any sort of what we consider adequate planning in advance.

The area is booming. It's booming already in the forest industry and, clearly, it's going to boom in the ore industry as well. We're genuinely concerned about the lack of planning taking place to prepare for this tremendous boom.

I'm sorry to hear the Leader of the Opposition make his comments because we're having enough trouble now trying to keep up with the tremendous development. If his ideas were put into force, the whole country would sort of be gobbled up in short order. We like it up there the way it is; it's beautiful, clean, open country. The people on the ground want to have a hand in the planning, so I would direct a question to the Hon. Minister: could he comment on this project and indicate what planning is taking place?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is a release in the paper — these people have not applied for a production lease at this time. I see many headlines in the paper and I wouldn't always take them at their face value.

This may be so, but I'm sure that before they go into production, they are going to have to apply to the department and then I could give you a complete report as to what is going on up at Smithers. But right now it would be impossible for me to say anything because to reply just to a headline in a paper wouldn't be proper.

MR. BENNETT: On one other fast and loose statement from the Minister, again, when he talked about ghost towns. Ghost towns are a thing of the past in B.C. and have been for years because it hasn't been a policy for years to build a town right at the mine site.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: How about Bluebell?

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking about mines that have been brought in in the last decade. I'm not talking about old towns that were developed, old gold towns.

Even the projections relating to properties that were ready for development till you created the climate that stopped them, all of the town sites were developed in existing towns, sometimes as far as 80 miles away from the mine site. I think it's wrong for the Minister to suggest that there hasn't been the planning and it hasn't been the intention of governments in other areas. This has been part of modern-line planning, that the town sites have been developed within existing areas with an economic base. It's been years since they were developing towns at the mine sites.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Logan Lake, it's on line. Do your homework.

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have order, please?

MR. BENNETT: The Minister's statement was brought in strictly in relationship to the mining properties which I asked him specifically why they

[ Page 2571 ]

weren't developed. I asked about eight specific properties and in all cases the town sites relating to those properties were to be developed in a mixed economic base, not on the mine site. It's in the relationship of those eight sites that I asked the Minister why they weren't being brought into production, and the Minister said he didn't want those mines to become ghost towns. Those mining sites were the Berg property, Liard, Ruby Creek, Alice Arm — none of those had projected towns at the mine site.

Those properties we were discussing, Mr. Minister. Those were the properties on which you made the statement that you didn't want them to become ghost towns. There was no suggestion I've ever seen that the development of those properties, under modern development, wouldn't have established the communities in existing areas where they have a mixed economic base away from the mine site. I'd like to clear up this point, have you clear it up, unless you have information that those properties were going to develop on site and were in danger of becoming ghost towns.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't say that those properties were in danger. You said there are no ghost towns. How about Riondel? How about Logan Lake which was built on the copper property at Endako, I believe. Not Endako — Lornex. These are built on those places and I'd like to see them last as long as possible and be developed. But when you're talking about these other places, there have been ghost towns all over this province from mining. But as long as this government is in power, we don't intend to allow ghost towns if possible. You're trying to drag a red herring across the trail.

You're asking questions where the only ones that have the knowledge of whether they want to come into production or not are the people that own the claim. They haven't applied for a production lease in most of these cases.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't apply for the production lease. They have to come to the department for the production lease.

MR. BENNETT: You've scared them about what you are going to do.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What are we going to do? Unless you want us to nationalize the mines and put them into production ourselves....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We don't intend to nationalize the mines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We have no intention of nationalizing the mines.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I think that you are just trying to make a case out of something that's very weak. I know that on behalf of the mining industry you've got to make this estimate — to look as though you're really fighting on behalf of the mining industry. You have to make a good case, even if your arguments are very weak. Even if the information that you have is not correct, you'll still make it to let the mining industry think that the opposition is really working on their behalf.

You know that the statements I've made in regard to the depletion of these resources are correct. The mining industry has had its periods of time that things have been good, and other times that have been bad. But the forecast now is just the same as in the oil and the gas: all these resources are going to be more valuable.

That's the reason the federal government stopped the three-year tax period, which ends at the end of this year. Up until now there were mines that were depleted as much as possible within that three-year tax-free period. We don't intend that that happen again.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's federal. It's not provincial.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was provincial for a while.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I just want to ask the Hon. Minister a few questions to see if his policy and attitude to the Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act, which apparently this government is continuing to support.... It's one of the most blatantly discriminatory pieces of legislation in Canada. It's restrictive and it's unfair. It's racist and it was entered into without Indian consent.

The Hon. Minister asked once, when I was making statements along these lines before in the House, if I would explain to the House what the Act does, and I'd be delighted to do that. What it does, Mr. Chairman, is give the provincial government charge of the development of minerals and mineral claims, both precious and base, in, on or under Indian reserves in B.C.

Even worse than that, it gives the Minister of Mines the right to collect not just royalties or fees or taxes, but the right to collect all revenues — 100 per

[ Page 2572 ]

Then, what happens to those revenues? Are they returned to the Indian people? They are not. They are divided equally between the provincial government and the federal government. So the net effect is that this Indian asset has completely been dissipated to the provincial and to the federal government 50-50 under this legislation, which is the only legislation of its kind in the Dominion of Canada.

It came in in 1943. In my view, it's statutory theft, and I think the Hon. Minister should do the very right and correct thing and see that it is repealed.

I know that in 1968, Mr. Chairman, the federal government announced regulations which gave reserve Indians power to take a very active part in the management of their mineral reserves throughout the country. Band councils were able to grant leases and permits of their minerals, and incentives were also provided for mining exploration purposes.

But those regulations that were passed by the federal government in 1968 cannot and do not apply to reserves in the Province of British Columbia by virtue of this very preposterous statute. As I said, it's the only one of its kind in the Dominion of Canada.

You've heard me raise the point before. You mentioned, when I last discussed it when you had received your portfolio, that you were of the opinion at that time that there was some sort of consultation taking place between the federal government and the provincial government.

I think the time for consultation has come to an end. You've got to do the fair thing for the reserve Indians in the Province of B.C. and you've got to repeal this statute.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, in regard to this Indian Act, we've had discussions with the federal government and representatives of the native Indians, and I asked the federal government to give me a full report. It's currently under negotiations now.

MR. GARDOM: But it's your statute.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was a statute that was put on due to the federal government, and I don't intend to relinquish that statute until I know that the Indians are going to get the benefit. I'm not going to turn that 50 per cent over to the federal government unless the benefits go to the native Indians. At the present time the revenue has only been a few hundred dollars off any Indian reserve, so it hasn't amounted to anything over the years.

As far as getting rid of the Act — in saying that I get rid of the Act — I told the federal government that I want a complete report as to what the whole situation is and how it relates to the native Indians. I'm not going to turn an Act over to the federal government holus-bolus without knowing what's going to happen to it.

MR. GARDOM: But I think you're missing the point. I'm asking you to turn the mineral reserves on Indian reserves in the Province of British Columbia over to the Indian people. They're the people who should own it.

It's true that there haven't been too many revenues from this source because exploration has been shunned by virtue of this preposterous statute.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The federal government has control of the mineral resources. The Act gave us the right to do the developing and to collect their fees off those mineral resources. But if we let that Act go, the mineral rights go back to the federal government, because they are the ones that control the reserves. The Indians do not get it.

This is what I asked the federal government: have they turned over to the native Indians the mineral rights on their reserves? But they haven't done it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think the Hon. Minister.... It would assist him if he would read the Act at some point.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did read it.

MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the ownership of the metals, the Act states: "Whereas the precious metals in, upon or under the lands comprising such reserves are not incidents of such lands, but belong beneficially to the Crown in the right of the Province of British Columbia." So your premise is incorrect.

But at least I get from the statements you have been making to the House this afternoon that your sentiments, I hope, and mine are the same — and I'd like you to state if your sentiments are the same as mine — are that, in your view, these mineral rights on Indian reserves should belong 100 per cent to the reserve Indians.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: With the negotiations that are going on I make no further statement in regard to the whole thing, because....

MR. GARDOM: What is your policy? You're just posturing. You said the federal government had the minerals and that's wrong, and now you're waffling in your policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: He doesn't have a policy.

[ Page 2573 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The federal government said that they get 50 per cent of all the revenue.

MR. GARDOM: Your Act — the B.C. Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But that was an Act put in due to another Act that the federal government had. This is what they tell me. So negotiations are going on. And when we got though with that, we will know. But it is not a burning issue at all. At the present time there is no revenue from the mineral rights on the reserves — only a few hundred dollars.

MR. GARDOM: Who's doing the negotiating?

Because you said negotiations were going on a year ago. You said that on April 5, 1973.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, you know how slow the federal government is.

MR. GARDOM: Who is doing the negotiating?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, my Associate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister not speak from his chair, please?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: My Associate Deputy has been in on it and I've been in on it myself. But it's about three or four months ago since they sat in my office. I asked for a report and I haven't had it yet; that's how slow the federal government has been in replying.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I've no intention in defending the celerity of the federal government. But I do very much again wish to state that I find it unfortunate that you're not prepared today to give an assurance of policy from yourself to the reserve Indians in the Province of British Columbia that you are going to back them 100 per cent to see that the mineral rights on Indian reserve belong to the Indian people.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: If you don't do that, I think that's shameful.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When negotiations are going on I'm not prepared to make that statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister what plans he has in mind to assist all of the small industries which are spin-off industries of the major mining industry with the problems that they are today encountering.

I have a file full of correspondence from geologists, engineers, small manufacturing companies. Oh, sure, bring in the stockbrokers, always try and get that airy-fairy deal so that you can mislead the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please!

MR. PHILLIPS: What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is what the Minister is going to do to help these people today, because many of them are going broke. Mr. Chairman, the reason they are going broke is because there is no money going to be spent, or very little money going to be spent on the exploration for minerals in this province. And it is due, Mr. Chairman, strictly because of the policies of that Minister.

The Minister stands up on the floor of the House and he is arrogant and says he knows all the answers and gives us airy-fairy talk about leaving the minerals in the ground, but...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Listen to who's calling who arrogant!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...that same Minister becomes a coward when it comes to facing these people.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Withdraw!

MR. PHILLIPS: He becomes a coward when it comes to facing these people!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to be more careful in his choice of words so that they be more acceptable in a parliamentary situation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he is practising cowardice, then.

HON. MR. COCKE: You're practising "big mouthery"!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he's...he's...practising poltroonery!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What? What?

MR. PHILLIPS: Poltroonery! That's what he's practising, Mr. Chairman.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Define it and spell it.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you don't know your English

[ Page 2574 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: A poltroon?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah. It's a guy who is arrogant and a coward all in the same breath. That's what it is.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shushwap): You ought to know.

MR. PHILLIPS: These small people in the mining industry, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that personal attacks against Ministers or against Members are not acceptable in parliament.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about his policies, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may refer to policies, but he should not direct his comments directly to the Minister or to any other Member of the House in that manner.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I have made a personal attack on the Minister, I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw. But I want to know why this Minister who is so sure of his policies would not travel to Vancouver in January of 1973 to face these very people, these small people in the mining industry and industries associated with the mining industry, and the prospectors. Why wouldn't this Minister, who is so sure on the floor of this House of his policies, go face these people — 1,000 of them assembled in the Hotel Vancouver? Why wouldn't he go over and explain his policies to them?

I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you why — it's because he can't justify his policies. He was afraid of meeting these very people that he's hurting, face to face — afraid to meet them, Mr. Chairman, face to face and listen to their problems and to discuss their problems with them.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That was Bill 31.

MR. PHILLIPS: Never mind Bill 31!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's what you are talking about.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking about Bill 31 — I'm talking about a meeting, Mr. Chairman, that took place in January, 1973.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I was there.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were not there, Mr. Chairman! You were not there, because I was there and you were not there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister not speak from his seat, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to know why, Mr. Chairman, this Minister, whose government policy it was to have discussions with industry before they brought out new policies, to open government.... Then again, Mr. Chairman, in January of 1974, there was another meeting of over 1,000 of these concerned, small individuals in the mining industry. Where was the Minister? Hiding in his office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that remark. I think it was a most unfortunate remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the remark. He was hiding behind his assistants, then.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to stand up and tell this Legislature why he wouldn't go over and meet these people — people who are today going bankrupt in this province, small people, people whose life's work has been put into the mining industry, people that that Minister's policies, Mr. Chairman, is today killing.

MR. CUMMINGS: Name them.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to go through the file of correspondence? I'll gladly take the time to read the letters. They're here.

Not only is the Minister of Mines blind to the fact of what is going on in his Department — the rest of the Ministers are blind. What a double-headed policy they've got, Mr. Chairman — the Premier and Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) journeying to Japan to find markets for our minerals, and the Minister of Mines saying we will leave the minerals in the ground.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines is hurting many, many small individuals and many, many small businesses in British Columbia today. I want to know why he wouldn't meet with these people when they call a meeting and invite him over to explain his policies, so they can have an opportunity to tell him what is happening in the industry.

We had in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest mining industries of any jurisdiction in Canada — not only one of the greatest mining industries but one of the greatest sources of technology of the mining industry in all of the world, settled right here in British Columbia, the greatest source of technology for exploration and development of new mines of any place in the world.

[ Page 2575 ]

Where are these people going today, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: To play rugby.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are either going broke or they are travelling to eastern Canada or they are having to move to the States or they are going to other countries in the world. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that you don't build up knowledge, technical know how like we have here in British Columbia with knowledgeable people, experts in their field — you don't build them up overnight, Mr. Chairman. It will take years and years and years to repair the damage in the mining industry in British Columbia that this Minister is creating by his idiotic, stupid policies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about his policies and they are idiotic and they are stupid, Mr. Chairman. And they are short-sighted, Mr. Chairman.

What has happened in other jurisdictions in the world where this great socialist philosophy has come into the mining industry? The mining industry is dried up. That's why there is a shortage of minerals in the world today.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there are many known mines in British Columbia today — mines that were explored years and years and years ago. They should be inventoried, but we must continue, for the good of mankind, to search out for new minerals and new mines.

Mr. Chairman, what is the earthly sense of building the British Columbia Railway to that area behind the Alaska panhandle if those mines are not going to be developed? That was the original intent for building the railway — as a resource railway.

Now the policies of this government are going to curtail the development of those mines, so you might as well curtail the extension of the British Columbia Railway.

I would like the Minister to tell me how he is going to help these small individual companies, individuals in the spin-off industries of the Department of Mines. What are you going to do? How are you going to help them today — the ones that are going broke? Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister has many letters himself. What policy are you going to bring in to retain those people in British Columbia? How are you going to answer them? What are you going to do for them? Maybe the Minister would like to answer that question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I have had some letters; he has had some letters. There's none of them gone broke that I know of, so don't ask me what I am going to do for the private enterprise. What do you want me to do? Do you want me to keep them in business if they are threatened? I don't think they are so threatened. They are wanting to get a message across — that is what they are trying to do.

You said that I wasn't at the meeting in January, 1973. You were there and I was there and I was the spokesman for the meeting in January, 1973. It was broadcast afterwards — my statements made.

Don't tell me I've been afraid to go to these places. This last meeting they had, I had other things to do. I felt I was going to violate the privileges of the House by not giving the opposition the chance to debate this issue. You wouldn't have the arguments you have today if I had gone over there to that meeting because the people would have been convinced I was right and you wouldn't have any of these arguments.

Don't tell me my door hasn't been open. I've met every mining official; I've met every prospector; I've never turned a person away from my office at any time. I've discussed everything with them. I'm sure every mining company in British Columbia will vouch for this: my door is one door that has been wide open at all times to the industry.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Mines was not at the meeting. Maybe it wasn't January; maybe it was early February of 1973. There were over 1,000 prospectors....

AN HON. MEMBER: I was there at the chamber of mines.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were not there. I have the complete tape of that entire meeting and you were not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was it held?

MR. PHILLIPS: It was held in the Hotel Vancouver ballroom. You were not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

MR. PHILLIPS: 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't think the Hon. Member needs to doubt the word of the Minister. If the Minister was at the meeting of January, 1973, then we should accept the word of the Hon. Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you this. The meeting I was at of over 1,000 prospectors and small business people in the mining industry, held in the Hotel Vancouver, was one of the largest meetings that was ever there. There was over 1,100 people there, and, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was not

[ Page 2576 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not last year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, let's get the record straight. If you want me to call somebody a liar, I'll do it, but it's a fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: Are you talking about 1974 or 1973?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There seems to be some confusion about this and before we get into a cross....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River if perhaps he could get the date and get this thing settled before we get into any hassle.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe I could help clear it up because I was there and listened to the Minister when he was speaking. It was recorded and played the next day on CBC radio. So possibly if the Hon. Member from across the way would apply through proper channels to have that tape, maybe it would help him out a bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. My direction to the Hon. Member for South Peace River is that there appears to be some possibility of some misunderstanding or confusion. I would ask him to clear this matter up with the Minister before he makes any further charges across the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the Minister where the meeting is that he's referring to.

HON. MR. LEA: The Vancouver Hotel, in the ballroom.

MR. PHILLIPS: What date?

HON. MR. LEA: I'm not sure but we can find out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, let's put it this way: I was there and heard the Minister speak; he was there and didn't hear the Minister speak. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Before the debate, Mr. Chairman, I shall produce the date of the meeting and unequivocal evidence that, at the meeting I'm referring to, the Minister was not there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the most confusing place to be is in this chamber when that Member goes making charges that are rather vague. He doesn't even know where he was, when he was, or if there was a meeting in a particular month. Now, if he comes up with a specific meeting, then the Minister could answer the question. This crazy stuff should not be tolerated in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace River has indicated that he would produce the date of the meeting. At this point, I would ask him to move on to another point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the meeting was not held in January; it was held in early March.

HON. MR. LEA: Maybe it was in Calgary, right?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it wasn't held in Calgary. I'm not concerned about the Minister of Health and what he has to say. The exact date of the meeting is not the point we're arguing here, Mr. Chairman. The point we're arguing is that there was a meeting in March of 1973; it was the largest meeting of persons associated with the mining industry ever held prior to that date in history. That Minister was invited to attend that meeting and he didn't attend the meeting.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Okay, you made your point. What's your next point?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite capable of making my points, Mr. Attorney-General, and I don't need any assistance from you.

HON. MR. COCKE: You needed a lot of help on that one, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you draw that yappy Minister of Health to order. He's always yapping over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 17 (2), I'd ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the person

[ Page 2577 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says his door is always open. His door is always open and his mind is always closed. I remember standing in my place here in the Legislature last year; the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself were giving facts and figures that drilling in the Peace River area for petroleum products was on the decline and that drill rigs were moving out. The Minister of Finance and Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) got up and said we didn't know what we were talking about; we didn't have any idea. Produce some facts and figures. I don't know what yearbook he got them out of, but drilling was indeed on the increase. Both the Member for North Peace and myself predicted that exploration for petroleum products in the province would decline, and the Minister said, "Oh, you're crazy, you're stupid." Just as much as to say, "You don't know what you're talking about."

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You intimated it.

I want to tell you the facts. These are the facts a year after the prediction.

Oh, yes, I must also say that on an open-line programme with Mr. Webster last September, when these figures were again brought up, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, said that's so much capitalist propaganda.

But what are the facts, Mr. Chairman? I want to quote you the facts from an article, "B.C. Drilling Takes a Dive". I suppose the Minister of Mines will probably get up and justify this because of some airy-fairy reason, but the reason is strictly because of his policies and the policies of the Attorney-General and Minister of energy. What are the facts? The facts don't lie, but that government is blind to cold, hard facts.

I'm going to quote from this article:

"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" — in 1972 — "1,146,657 feet."

Now, I'd like the Minister of Mines to tell me that's wrong, that's capitalist propaganda. I suppose he'll get up and tell me that drilling was on the increase. That was in a year when there was a prediction that the price of petroleum products would be on the increase.

Now, I'd like to go on:

"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 at 16,776,595 feet from 14,236,842 feet.

"The report was issued in Calgary by Hans Maciej, chairman of the Canadian Committee on Statistics of Drilling. This is a joint effort of the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Canadian Oil Scouts Association and various provincial and federal government departments.

"Alberta accounted for 76 per cent of all drilling in Canada, both in wells and footage. Wells were up 31.5 per cent at 3,517 from 2,675, while footage was up 26.5 per cent at 12,729,622 feet from 10,066,042.

Now I'd like the Minister to tell me why drilling and exploration and production for petroleum products would be down in 1973 in the Province of British Columbia. New field wildcats in B.C. were down 40.9 per cent to 13 per cent from 22 per cent. And it happens to be that wildcat wells are really the ones that find the production fields. Yet new field wildcats in British Columbia were down 40 per cent last year over 1972. I'd like the Minister to justify that.

The footage in wildcat wells was down 35 per cent to 115,204 from 178,206 the year previous. Now the ironic part of this is that this is what was predicted by the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) and myself. And what did the Members opposite say? They said, Mr. Chairman, that we were preaching doom and gloom.

Oh, yes, we were preaching doom and gloom; it wouldn't happen. The Premier made special speeches on the floor of this House to tell us that exploration for oil and wells drilled would be upped in 1973. But the facts don't bear it out. Neither will the facts in years to come bear out the policies as being good for the people of British Columbia in their mining industry. The same thing is going to happen.

That's why I am concerned here today for the people in those industries — the small businessmen, the geologists, the engineers, the expertise that has taken years and years to build up in this province.

I just have one further comment on development drilling in British Columbia. I hate to belabour this point, Mr. Chairman, but had we not been told that we were preaching doom and gloom and that this wouldn't come to be because of their policies I wouldn't take this time to point out the facts to the government. But I don't suppose they'll even listen to facts, nor will they change their policies. They live and breathe one policy and it's all written in the Waffle Manifesto. It's all written in the Waffle Manifesto.

"Development drilling in B.C. was down 30.1 per cent to 65 wells from 93, and in footage down 31.8 per cent to 301,421 from 441,987 feet. In Alberta, it was up 38.2 per cent........"

Is this a sort of a trend we're going to have, Mr.

[ Page 2578 ]

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's that yappy Minister. Well, I know that his Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is trying to get all the people to B.C. And I know that that government has brought all the socialist supporters from all over Canada to British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you ask the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to keep his remarks to himself, Mr. Chairman?

I'm going to take my seat and I would like the Minister to explain to me how he can justify the fact that drilling in British Columbia took a dive in 1973.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the Minister is speechless. He can't justify it, Mr. Chairman. Is the Minister going to answer my question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I accept the fact that during 1973 there was a decrease in the amount of drilling. Don't forget that the whole situation was in a turmoil throughout the whole of Canada for awhile, and this may have been its reason. Now I can't give you exact reasons, but at the present time we are back to normal again this winter. In 1973 there was a decrease and I haven't got all the reasons, but now this year it has gone up and it is higher, way higher, that it was last year at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says that the petroleum industry in all of Canada was in a turmoil last year. I'll have to reread part of this article. "Oil and gas well-drilling in 1973 showed a sharp increase in Canada over 1972, but was down substantially in British Columbia." The Minister now doesn't know why. But he accepts the fact, he finally accepts the fact, after telling the Member for North Peace and myself that, "Oh, we were preaching doom and gloom."

I'll tell you why drilling is down in British Columbia — why it was down last year.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the Minister of Energy, and he's really the kingpin. All the Minister of Petroleum does is carry out his orders. As a matter of fact, I don't think he runs his department at all. I wonder how he does run his department, because he gets orders from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett); he gets orders from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald); and his real orders come from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what his administrative responsibility is. I don't know how he runs his department because he gets orders from so many other people in the cabinet.

I'll tell you why the drilling was down last year in British Columbia. Because of the policies of the socialist government — that's why. Just as we predicted, you frightened the oil companies out of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're coming back now because they've got no place to go.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they're coming back. Have you got in bed with them again?

Mr. Chairman, I'd' like to move on to another subject. I would like to ask the Minister if there are any known sources of columbium in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What?

MR. PHILLIPS: Columbium.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Nothing that's economically feasible at the present time.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are no known sources that are economically feasible?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The department has no record of this in British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Has the Department of Mines made knowledge available to prospectors who should be looking for this very important mineral? Have you told your prospectors about it and educated them?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That question there.... I don't know what they have directed the prospectors. I have expertise in my department that does this. So if it's such an important factor and if we haven't got it.... Even with our aluminum...we've got to ship

[ Page 2579 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just thought that where British Columbia has its Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) in Japan seeking a steel mill, and since this particular mineral is so important in the processing of steel, I thought that maybe the Minister might have had some sources of it in British Columbia. If not, I thought at least he would be putting out the word that it should be searched for in British Columbia.

In the Province of Quebec there is a new mine, or a new mine coming on development — Niobic. The Quebec government is in partnership with a private company to develop this mine for this particular mineral. I thought maybe the Minister might have some sources of this mineral in British Columbia due to the fact that it's so important now in new processes for steel.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Mines what progress is being made to develop the Sukunka coal.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I answered that yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you didn't answer it to my satisfaction.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): He said it was lukewarm.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that?

MR. WALLACE: He said it was lukewarm.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, in the Peace River area, Mr. Chairman, there are probably more and larger deposits of good coking coal than there are anywhere else in North America. There is a world demand for good coking coal now. If you are developing a steel industry in British Columbia, you should have some definite plans to develop this coking coal, because it is the finest coking coal in the world. The deposits are larger than anywhere else in the world.

So has the Minister any definite plans? Is he consulting with anybody? Do you know what the Premier is doing? Were they discussing this in Japan? Are you dealing with other countries than the Japanese?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Negotiations in regard to Sukunka are still going on. That's all I can answer about Sukunka. We can't go and sell coal when we haven't finished the negotiations as to what participation we have into it. I answered that yesterday. You asked me yesterday if it was hot, or lukewarm, or cold.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't ask you yesterday.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, it was asked over there, and I answered the question at the time.

Now, in regard to the rare minerals, we have an information circular out on rare minerals at the present time. There are a few prospects that may be in the offing around — Revelstoke — that is the only place that we know of any indication of columbium.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. chairman, I would just like to ask the Minister what he feels about the fact that there was a tremendous increase in expenditure on exploration for minerals in the Yukon last year, while the money spent for exploration in British Columbia was down. While you were meeting with your cohorts from the rest of Canada, talking about the development of minerals, I presume you were talking about them on a Canadian basis, and yet the activity in the Yukon is far greater than it is in British Columbia. How do you justify that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, unless you have facts to show it, I don't know whether I am dealing with British Columbia, and I don't relate what I do in British Columbia or what is being done in British Columbia with the Yukon or the other parts of Canada. I know years ago they always used to use all the provinces in Canada to try and justify a position. They might have had a find in the Yukon — maybe they had rushes of doing work there. But I am not dealing with the Yukon; I am dealing with British Columbia. So I don't see why I should relate what is going on in British Columbia.... British Columbia leads Canada as far as economic development goes and good times. So that argument wouldn't hold water.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want to comment briefly on the tunnel-vision statement just made by the Minister. He is concerned only in the mining industry with what is happening in British Columbia. Last night he told us he was concerned with what was happening in all of Canada. I have told every member of the cabinet over there that the good times they are having in British Columbia are due to the sound basic policies of the previous administration. It takes years and years and years to build up an industry.

What you in essence are doing is killing that industry, and it will take years before it finally shows up because things are so buoyant. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines won't be here — he will be in retirement on a good pension, and he won't be here. He should be concerned for his grandchildren.

MR. GIBSON: Just one or two more questions to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. But just before that, I want to take just about 60 seconds to correct

[ Page 2580 ]

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

MR. GIBSON: Indeed it is. It is a point of correction on what the Member said yesterday and it will be very brief. It's pursuant to figures developed by Price, Waterhouse and Company in 1972, which were the most recent available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In regard to the point of order, it is permissible for an Hon. Member to correct the statement attributed to himself or to herself, but not to argue statistics with a Member across the floor. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibility toward vote 174. I think that if you keep it brief....

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I just want to say that Craigmont Mines, which was.... No, he spoke of Noranda, "also American-controlled" — it is in fact Canadian-controlled, 71.2 per cent. Beneficial Canadian ownership. He spoke as well of Brenda Mines as being American-controlled; it is in fact Canadian-controlled, 86.5 per cent Canadian-owned. That is all I will say on that subject. But those are very, very different figures from what that Member led the House to believe.

Now, I would like to ask the Minister a fundamental question. He has very often during this debate spoken of our depleting resources. I would ask the Minister if he or his department has an inventory of our mineral resources that he finds reasonably satisfactory, and how quickly he thinks those resources are depleting.

I will just ask him about three or four minerals at current rates of mining. How many years worth of copper do we have in the proven area and in the potential area? How many years worth of lead and zinc and silver do we have?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is all in Hansard now. Those questions were all answered this morning when you were not in the House.

MR. GIBSON: How many years of copper, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was all answered in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point of order is well taken. If the information is already available it is not proper to put the same question again — it becomes repetitive.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I certainly didn't hear him answer it in that way. Let me ask him this question: does he have an inventory?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I answered that too. I said we had an economic planning division that took operation on January 1 to assess all the inventory of the Province of British Columbia. It is the third time I have answered that same question. I think we are wasting a lot of time by having to repeat these questions. That's the reason we've got Hansard — so you can get the answers if you weren't in the House at that time.

MR. GIBSON: What that says to me, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no inventory and the Minister doesn't have the facts he needs to know what he is talking about when he says that our minerals are depleting at an alarming rate. He just doesn't know the numbers. That is so fundamental to his philosophy, and I don't think it is very good.

I would like also to just briefly put in the record the fact that not all mines are prosperous. Some open and close very shortly thereafter and prove to have been rather disastrous investments for the people who went into them, even in times of very high prices. This article is from The Vancouver Sun of September 1, 1973. It is a sad little story and a short little story. I will read it in its entirety because it is so short:

"Bralorne Resources Ltd. President F.W. Fitzpatrick said Friday the Bradina mine near Houston is closing down, primarily because it is uneconomical. Fitzpatrick said the mine's problems were compounded by an extreme shortage of skilled underground miners.

"The mine, 28 miles south of Houston, and an important factor in the town's economy, closed Friday. But Fitzpatrick said that there will be work around the mine site for all employees for the next 30 days.

"'We are working with Canada Manpower and the unions to relocate the employees,' he said in his statement, 'and we will be continuing contact with the provincial government to explore all possible alternatives in an effort to ultimately reactivate the operation.' A spokesman said the contract with the government has not included an offer or a negotiation for a takeover.

" 'The company's judgment that the copper, lead, zinc, gold and silver property is

[ Page 2581 ]

uneconomic has been substantiated by eight separate outside groups who were retained to assess the mine's metallurgical potential,' Fitzpatrick said. 'It has cost $3 million more than estimated to study the economics,' he said. He said the mine is so marginal that it must operate at full capacity but it has been operating at about capacity since May because of the manpower shortage.

"Fitzpatrick said the problems have been discussed thoroughly with Mines Minister Leo Nimsick and the Mayor of Houston, and that Bralorne, the operators of the mine, agreed to delay a closure announcement until the Mines department had made an examination. A spokesman said the delay in the announcement was to allow the government to examine the problems and not a bid to be bought out.

"Bradina was developed at a cost of $7 million by Bralorne and Pacific Petroleums under a joint venture agreement with Nadina Explorations Ltd. The company said mine construction began in June, 1971, with tune-up operations in March, 1972, with nothing being repaid on invested capital."

I just wanted to put that into the record, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate to the Hon. Members, particularly on the other side of the House, that the mining business is not necessarily a bonanza. There are very real risks in it. The greatest risks, as I said yesterday, are at the stage of prospecting, where you are wrong 999 times out of 1,000. Maybe only one out of 100 comes through.

Then at the development stage, once they're operating mines, even then, they can go belly up with everybody losing, including the town around, including the people who put their money into it. I think this House, in looking at the mining field, should always attempt to retain that perspective, the thought that the mining industry as well as needing taxation when it's highly profitable, needs help when it's marginal. I hope that the Minister and his department will continue along that line.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In regard to Bradina, if you wanted the information that we gave them.... My Deputy went up, went over the mine and gave them a report on the mine and the reasons why they had to close down. It's obvious that they closed down anyway, but they didn't ask for assistance or anything like that.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that. I was just reading it as one of those sad-case examples of what can happen.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just one or two points that I think should be further clarified by the Minister. On this discussion of a copper smelter and the fact that a task force has been set up, I just wanted to ask one or two questions. What was the outcome of the study, project 2364, for the water resources service, June 1972, when they looked at the potential for a smelter near Clinton? This is a very detailed research document with recommendations. We've had the very positive statements from the Minister yesterday that private enterprise has not taken the initiative in developing smelters in this province. The clear-cut implication from the Minister's statement was that this will be justification for the government, presumably through a Crown corporation, to build its own smelter.

I would like to know one or two things: first of all, who has dealt or studied this research project 2364 which very clearly states the environmental impact of a proposed smelter at Clinton, B.C., June 23, 1972? Where did that report go? Who has studied it? To what degree has this Minister's department studied it? What conclusions did they come to?

Based on that, Mr. Chairman, could we then find out what discussions have taken place between the Minister's department and the private sector of the economy to find out the validity of this report and the degree to which smelter planning could be based on this report? I don't understand why it was particularly carried out in the Clinton area, but there must have been reasons why the study in particular was related to the Clinton area.

The fact is, I've read it, not in detail because it's a very detailed report, but it's a very interesting report. The Minister himself talked about the fact that it's now possible to avoid the tall stacks and have a tight control of the SO₂ fumes, a particular matter that's dispersed from the smelters and so on. This is a very general statement that the Minister made yesterday. I feel this House is entitled to much more detail as to where this whole matter of the copper smelter planning lies, particularly since the division of the two sides of this House is basic to the concept that private enterprise does things better than government. I'm not just talking about B.C. or Canada or Britain, or anywhere else. We just happen to believe on this side of the House that there are precious few examples, if any, where the state moves in and carried out an enterprise of this kind without doing it less well than the private sector. Therefore to come up with this statement yesterday that....

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Oh, that's terrible.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I know the Minister of Labour's hurt by that statement, but we just happen to believe that and I think we've got a lot of documentation and proof.

The way in which the steel industry in Britain has

[ Page 2582 ]

The fact is, we had this statement by the Minister yesterday that private enterprise has not taken the initiative in the building of a smelter. I think we're entitled to know what importance or otherwise was attached to this very detailed research study and what discussions have taken place between the Minister and his department and the private sector.

If, in fact, there is enough doubt as to whether a smelter is feasible in British Columbia, neither the government nor private industry at this point in time should be involved in building a smelter. Is this why the Minister set up the task force? Did he want to find out if, in fact, it is viable and feasible in British Columbia under any aegis — state aegis or private sector control? If that's the fact, then I'll be very interested in his answer.

The last point I just wanted to make is that the Minister has talked today that we don't want to create ghost towns. He talked about the deserted towns and villages in Nevada and so on. We're all in favour of avoiding that. This is socially undesirable. He also talked about the costs for social amenities. I immediately recalled a speech by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) the other day which was quoted in The Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, April 9, which states:

"The government plans to establish a comprehensive chronic-care programme in British Columbia with money received from mining royalties. Mr. Cocke could not indicate just how large a percentage of the royalties would go into a chronic care system, but he suggested it would cost the government many millions of dollars."

In his opening statement in this debate yesterday, the Minister of Mines talked about consolidated revenue of the province. I would just like to ask one simple question and I'll be through: does the Minister or the cabinet intend to set up separate accounting so that a certain fraction of mining revenue will be dedicated to chronic-care facilities?

Now, this is a very vital and pertinent question because if we go back into a little bit of history of the former administration, it was frequently accused of having raised the social services tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent to provide money for the running of our hospitals. The few years I was in this House under the former administration, this point was raised time and time again. The statement by the Minister of Health in The Vancouver Sun on April 9, leaves the very clear suggestion, but no more than a suggestion. But I think the Minister of Mines should put the facts very clearly to this House. Is there some plan that a certain specified fraction of revenue from the mining industry will be allocated specifically to provide chronic-care facilities in the province?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This decision is definitely a decision of the Treasury and the Minister of Finance as to how they're going to use the money. My understanding is it will be going into consolidated revenue because our ideas of such socially necessary things as extended care should not depend on any tax from any definite source. It should come out of consolidated revenue and there should be sufficient amounts to look after the whole deal. This is what our aim and object is in this regard, as far as I'm concerned.

In regard to that booklet, that booklet was prepared for the open hearing. At that time they were talking about a smelter up in the Cariboo, and it was an environmentalist idea. After the hearing, which was prior to this government taking over, I had discussions with one of the firms involved, Bethlehem Copper. I think the consortium would have gone ahead but they didn't want to take the sulphur because there wasn't a good enough market for the sulphur. They said they wanted it to go out into the smoke, with the tall stacks. Then they could make it feasibly possible to build a smelter. But we would not go for that type of a smelter; we said the sulphur must be taken out.

I think the time is coming when sulphur is going to be in greater demand. Even if they stock the sulphur, it's far better than letting it go out and killing the vegetation. Sulphur is a resource itself and the time may come when sulphur may be very valuable. To me, to save one resource and destroy another one is not the proper way of looking at it. The idea of the task force is to go into this environmentally and the whole process of the feasibility of a copper smelter in British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure the Minister answered my last question when he said is it feasible. Can I get a clear statement from him that at this point in time, regardless of the particular process that's going to be used, whether you're going to have the tall stacks or their complete removal and control of the sulfur by the other means, is it still undecided that it's economically feasible, no matter who runs the show, to operate a smelter economically in British Columbia? That's what I'm trying to find out.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd say yes. We feel it is economically feasible, but the process and things

[ Page 2583 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off by congratulating the Minister on one thing, which I'm sure he'll be happy to hear, and that is his faith in the private enterprise sector in the mining industry of British Columbia.

In B.C. we have built up over the years a tremendous mine-developing, mine-finding group of people, one of the best that's ever existed anywhere in the world. We have prospectors, engineers, geologists. We've got geophysicists. We've got geochemists, metallurgists, assayers, diamond drillers. We've got practical miners. We've got entrepreneurs. We've even got mine financiers, those fellows on Howe Street that he dislikes so much. They've all played a tremendous role.

I'd like to say that the Minister has shown tremendous faith in these people. He's shown a faith in them that indicates that no matter how much he kicks them around, no matter how he tries to encourage them to go elsewhere, no matter how much he cuts into their varied, everyday pay cheques, he's quite sure they're going to stay right here and be all willing, ready and able when the day comes that he blows the whistle and tells them to get going again.

He's shown the most phenomenal confidence in these people, in this group of people. He says: "They're so good, that no matter what I do they'll stick around and be ready to fight on behalf of mines."

I don't share that faith that the Minister has in this community. I think they're great people. I think they've done great work, but I feel that some of those experts are going to start thinking of perhaps a pay cheque elsewhere, perhaps a management contract in South America. I understand that there are certain B.C. companies — B.C. mining companies — in which you no longer have a chance of getting hired now unless you speak Spanish.

It's a funny thing. The Minister thinks that these people are so great they'll stick around no matter what he does. Here am I, a believer in free enterprise, suggesting that you can damage them by bad policy, and that they're not as fantastic as he seems to think. I find it a curious reversal.

I'd like to start off, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that the Minister has talked quite frequently in this debate about the ore, about the actual rock — let's use copper for the example, but it applies to other minerals as well — as being something finite...as though once you use up ore, there is no more. This of course is technically true; the Minister is correct.

But I would like to suggest to him that there is more to it than the very simple relationship that once you've used something up, you don't have any more. It's like sitting in the parliamentary restaurant: if you use up the cream in the cream jug, there's no more there. Ore is a little different.

As was said by the American geographer, Eric Zimmermann: "Resources are not; they become." Now what I'm suggesting to the Minister is that 30 years ago we didn't have the copper resources in B.C., the copper potential, that we have today. Why not? Because 30 years ago, you had to have a percentage of copper to rock which allowed the technology of that day to develop a mine effectively.

Today, thanks to this great group of people that I have talked about, tremendous technical skill — I quickly admit it's an area in which I just don't have any competence, the type of technical skills that I'm talking about: metallurgy, geophysicist, geochemists....

Now, thanks to their skills, what used to be just rock is now valuable ore.

That's a point I'd like to make to the Minister, because I've listened to him carefully and I think he's tried his best to answer questions. He has constantly talked about ore as though it were a finite thing where we had just as much a few years ago as we have today. This really isn't correct.

We had just as much rock a few years ago as we have today, but it's thanks to the people that I'm talking about that we now have something worth $1 billion a year to the Province of British Columbia. I hope that he'll say a few words about this.

You know, we have talked about ore in a finite sense, but in actual fact reserves have increased for two reasons. There is the obvious one that the Minister has talked about and understands as well as I do — which is, of course, finding a new body. That's a pretty — I won't say straightforward process; it's an easily understandable process. A guy goes out and finds something worth a great deal of money, or he finds, in 99 cases out of 100, something that's worth a lot less than he'd hoped.

But when it comes to the new technology, you're finding, you're developing, you're creating brand new ore bodies not because you're discovering them, necessarily, but because new technology turns what was previously rock into a valuable mineral resource. Now that's a point which the Minister has not said anything about at all.

I'd like to then go back and point out to him that in his constant scare talk about running out of resources and about our kids, and the fact that they will be without resources, he forgets that in the surface of the earth, the ordinary, everyday, average surface of the earth, you've got something like in a single cubic mile of the average crystal rock a billion tons of aluminum, over 500 million tons of iron, one million tons of zinc and 600,000 tons of copper.

That's what I'm trying to get at when I tell the Minister that that's the average. In the one mile of the earth's crust, you probably have enough copper for 500 million years at expected rates of consumption.

[ Page 2584 ]

He should be telling us in this Legislature — and here's a point that I hope he will reply to me on — about technology, and new technology in particular. Just as it has turned rock into ore in the past...that's 0.3 per cent copper. It now has some value where previously it had none; 0.4 per cent is good while previously it had none. As that has happened in the past, what does his department think is going to happen in the future?

For him, to take the present, to use these exponential graph curves in pointing out that we're going to run out if present rates of consumption increase, is simply not realistic. As he knows, cost factors are going to dampen down all those graph curves, even if there are no further discoveries — even if there's no further technology.

He knows as well as I do that exponential graph curves are the biggest red herring in discussing resources. I wish he wouldn't do that when he talks about running out in 64 years. I think that was what you said about zinc, wasn't it, Mr. Minister? Yes, 64 years was the figure he used.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That figure came from the Liberal government in Ottawa.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'm not necessarily defending any government or objecting to any government; I'm trying to discuss some of the factors that deal with your department. We don't have the hang-ups that the NDP does about having to support the Liberal government in Ottawa. We all know that the NDP supports them in Ottawa, and this is causing you people grave trouble.

We don't have this type of difficulty. We can look at things a little more objectively and I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of British Columbia — the point of view of the Mines department, your department, Mr. Minister, and what's happening here.

I think that the figures you gave, Mr. Minister, are simply way off, because you've not said a word about new technology.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder if you could ask, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member just to dampen it down. If he has to talk all the time, we'll yield the floor to him. Otherwise, perhaps he could leave the room or cool off just a little. Would you mind doing that for me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Members standing order which requires that the Members not interrupt the person that has the floor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I trust that the Minister will comment upon this. Unless he does, really, he hasn't been candid with us. I do respect this Minister as being a man who likes to be candid and open and honest, and I think that he has tried to be so. I think that in his response to questions over the last year he's tried to be so too.

I respect him as an individual and I trust he'll say something about this. Because for him to take present day technology and present day exponential graph curves, which are just obviously inaccurate, and then project them into the future and talk in doomsday terms, is wrong.

The fact is that there's plenty of copper in the earth's crust if new technology is developed. He's now got a good department, he tells us. He's spending money on development. I questioned him on what he's been doing with that department at this time last year — actually a little earlier than this time; we went through the estimates a little quicker. I asked him what sort of research would be done, and I'm sure that it's time he came up with something.

Now he says that he's only set up his economic research unit two months ago and I respect that, although I might question him as to why it took so long in getting going when it was talked about during the estimates of last year. Perhaps he'll comment upon that.

But will he also comment in terms of new technology? Mr. Minister, you really don't have the situation that you've described. You really don't have the situation that's been described by other Ministers of the Crown — in particular, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

You have a situation where new technology is constantly changing the level at which you can mine ore. Throughout the world British Columbia has been the absolute pioneer in this area, the absolute expert, the number one jurisdiction. It has succeeded, not through anything that we've done in this Legislature — let's not kid ourselves — but because what the technical people have done has succeeded in turning what anywhere else would be waste rock into valuable ore. That's an important point which the Minister is going to have to comment upon.

After all, if in the Philippines and in South America you get ores that have 10 times the copper content and you have an industry based on it, and yet an industry which cannot pay high wages, cannot pay a tenth of the wages that we pay in British Columbia — and yet they've got 10 times the value of copper in that ore — it just doesn't make a great deal of sense, Mr. Minister, to assume that we don't have something here which is not pretty valuable.

[ Page 2585 ]

I'd like to quote to the Minister just one paragraph, about 15 lines, from "Resources in America's Future; Patterns of Requirements and Availabilities From 1960 to the year 2000, " by Hans Lansburg, Leonard Pitman and Joseph Fisher.

For his information, it's in the Provincial Library and it's put out by Resources for the Future, an excellent institution with whom I've worked in another connection. So I'll just quote from one paragraph there to try and give him some idea of what we're talking about.

"Technology's continuing to yield new and improved methods for reaching minerals and moving them to the surface."

"Greater mechanization of mines, improved equipment of all types, better explosives and so on — as well as greater knowledge of minerals' occurrence and behaviour — are contributing to these gains.

"Improvements in such facilities may be expected to continue, but in the perspective of a 40-year outlook, the further gradual evolution of mining and drilling techniques may be overshadowed by several radically new methods, the most promising of which are noted below."

I won't go into the rest of that but it's on page 490. The Minister can obtain this book from the Provincial Library, and I trust that he will, because all indications are that technology will not stop where it is now. The Minister has not stated it directly, but has based all his assumptions on that premise, and it's a wrong premise. I would like the Minister, with the assistance of his officials, to say a few words about the new technology we can expect, the new developments we can expect in this area, which will simply blow apart his statements about the finite nature of our ore reserves.

Sure, we're not going to create new rocks in British Columbia, but if we've got 600,000 tons of copper in each square mile of the earth's crust, period — just bang just like that, everywhere in the world on the average — surely he could say a few words about new technology and the potential developments there. That's the first point I'd like to have the Minister say a few words upon.

I think — this is where I get back to my first point, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman — it's tremendously important for us to hold together that group of technically skilled people which has created the mining industry of British Columbia and put it in the forefront of exploiting low-grade ores, because if there were developments in the field and we have let these people dissipate and leave our province, we will have lost something irreplaceable, because undoubtedly we won't be able to attract them back, at least in the short run. We may in the very long run when this government is defeated.

Nevertheless, I trust he'll say something about that because for us to lose this group of people, for the Minister not to comment upon the possibilities of these people leaving the province and this technical skill that has been amassed being dissipated, is irresponsible of the Minister at this stage of his debate. He has to tell us whether or not we are going to fall back in this technological race, because we are in the forefront now. All the indicators are that there's going to be massive and dramatic improvements in the future in every area, including I would say pollution control in terms of mining techniques. I'm sure that it would be a disappointment for us to lose these people when we know full well that there are many other jurisdictions which would just love to get hold of them.

The next question I would like to address my mind to is the statistics, Mr. Minister. It's fine for you to say that mineral production is doing very well and you're dead right. Nobody's arguing that point, certainly not from this party. You're also correct in saying that the financial situation of the companies who are actually engaged in the mining is pretty good. After all, as my colleague for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, prices make a big difference to return to companies, and prices are extremely good. How long for, we don't know. So you're right in saying that the industry that's actually extracting ore is in good shape, but, Mr. Minister, you really haven't dealt with the question of the future. You cannot have an industry which is turned on and turned off and turned on and turned off. That's just the wrong way of doing it. To have a steady growth industry that you're talking about, Mr. Minister, when you talked about ghost towns, you're going to have to have some sort of steady, continuous, rational process of exploration, exploitation and finally, of course, the full development of the mines.

I'd like to quote you something from The Province of December 12, Mr. Minister. It's Bob Shaw. I know you don't like headlines, so don't worry about the headline too much. The headline is: "Mining Takes a Dive." The first paragraph says:

"Mineral exploration in B.C. this year has sunk to a level that is low by comparison with every year since 1969.

"The low level of prospecting is attributable to two basic circumstances. First is the absence of a major discovery."

"The second is the apprehension that the provincial government's mining tax legislation, anticipated first this fall and now this spring, may make mining operations unprofitable."

[ Page 2586 ]

Now, I'm not talking about future legislation when I talk about order-in-council 1086. The fact is, although the principles in that legislation are the same, and it would be Bill 31 and I appreciate the Minister's insistence in this respect, the fact is you are, with your activity, discouraging exploration. I'll just give you some of the figures.

"Claim staking is down 56 per cent from last year. Diamond drilling, based on available figures, is about equal to '72 but below '71. Equity financing raised to the Vancouver Stock Exchange is down. The best indicator of exploration is claim staking, while the others are incomplete."

So really, Mr. Minister, I'd like to first question you on where you got your figures from. I suspect your figures are a year out of date, and I don't think they are as up to date as the Mining Association or the Chamber of Mines. I think you're a full year behind them and I'd like you to make a lot clearer your statements about statistics. It's all very well for us to throw statistics back and forward, but we have to have some yardstick and I think that the yardstick should be the most recent year.

The Mining and Exploration Development Review of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, page 3, goes on to say essentially what I've said, I guess:

"It's ironic that with the metal prices and mineral production in British Columbia at record high levels, mineral exploration in '73 is estimated to have dropped by $12 million, from $38 million to $26 million, a decrease of about 32 per cent.

"These figures were arrived at from a canvass of large company exploration budgets conducted during April and May in an assessment of public company financing through the Vancouver Stock Exchange."

Mr. Minister, it's something which you should comment upon a little more. It's all very well for you to say that there are certain people who haven't reported and assume that you can interpolate figures from those who haven't reported. You can bet your bottom dollar that those who haven't reported are those who haven't carried out any mining exploration. That's why your figures are off and I don't think it's right for you to come into the House and say you can interpolate on the basis of the number of inquiries that you sent out which have been replied to, and say that it's not that bad. The fact is that the studies that have been done do indicate that there is something pretty wrong in the situation.

On page 5 from the same report is a quick paragraph dealing with the summary of the various Department of Mines annual reports.

"During the period '74 to '53, over 20,000 mining prospects are described in your annual reports. Exploration work done in these vary in cost from a few hundred dollars to millions of dollars. Only 1,369 became producing mines, and of these only 302 produced more than 1,000 tons each."

It goes on to point out that only one prospect in 250 has a chance of success, so if you'd cut down in your prospecting you're obviously cutting down on the other area of increasing your ore reserves, which is, of course, new discovery.

I hope the Minister will try and indicate a little more succinctly how he's tied his objectives to prevent boom-and-bust ghost towns with this government's policies which are restricting exploration, which is the lifeblood of a steady growth in mining in British Columbia. I won't even say steady growth — I'll say a steady level, because unless he does something to make sure that prospecting is carried out on a rational and intelligent basis, instead of being an up-and-down proposition, you can bet your bottom dollar that behind the exploration, namely development, will also be on an up-and-down basis and this will create the boom towns and the bust towns that the Minister has indicated, and I think with complete sincerity that he wishes to avoid.

The Minister has talked about the mine finding group. Perhaps he might expand a little more on that. I'd like to say just a quick word then at the present time on the steel mill and a copper smelter. The fact is, Mr. Minister, that a copper smelter and a steel mill may well be very desirable in British Columbia, but there is no way we can assume that just simply because of our gut feeling.

I've had a long chat with the senior Canadian civil servant to the United Nations for many years, Dr. Hugh Keenleyside. He came and, of course, has served very well in the Province of British Columbia in a variety of capacities, but in particular in the energy field. Dr. Keenleyside has been involved with the UN's resource development work since 1948. While he in no way wished to comment upon the desirability or otherwise of a steel mill in B.C., he did say — and I know he's right because I've seen literature to the same effect — that time after time the United Nations had to tell developing countries that a steel mill was a great status symbol but it was not going to mean instant prosperity. Time after time they had to point out to nations who were at the United Nations that simply to acquire a steel mill may look good on the surface but it might be a constant drain on the economy in future. Now, that's a danger.

We have heard nothing from the government to indicate economic studies have been done which would point out that this problem does not occur in British Columbia, or will not occur in British Columbia. Unless we get that type of assurance from the Minister, and that type of information from the

[ Page 2587 ]

We know that the Japanese are doing their absolute damnedest to export steel mills. Po Hang in Korea, the industrial zones of Taiwan, they want to get rid of their polluting industries. If they can send it to the new Manchuria, which is British Columbia, they'll just be happier than can be. They really will be pleased because they don't want it on the home islands because they've reached the saturation point in terms of industrial pollution. They want to export their polluting industries off shore, and if they can find a government which is happy enough to provide financing, such as our government appears to be, they will simply be in seventh heaven.

That's the type of thing they're doing now with Korea; that's the type of thing they're doing with Taiwan. At least the South Koreans and the nationalist government on Taiwan have realized what is taking place and what they're getting in return for this type of industrial development. It appears that British Columbia has not.

I'm not raising this to say the mill is no good. I'm simply saying that we in the opposition, whose job it is to assess what the government is doing, cannot assess it unless we get some sort of technical study from the Minister — two technical studies, one on the actual machinery of operation, the technical, the second on the financial. Unless we get that, we're going to be in trouble.

I'll give you another example on this, Mr. Minister, because you may think we're not like the South Koreans and we're not like the people on Taiwan. Take New Zealand. New Zealand went the route of trying for a steel mill and they had a lot of fun. They eventually got themselves a mini-mill. Oh, great! Pollution-free and the rest of it, so they thought. They found, of course, that once they constructed the mill, the economic cost of producing the various types of steel they required was excessive in most cases. My figures might be wrong, but I think there are 163 types of steel they could economically produce. I shouldn't say economically; they could produce usefully only four or five.

Now, I may be wrong on the figures, but the problem they ran into was this, Mr. Minister: they set up their mill; they hadn't done a proper economic study of the market; they hadn't done a proper technical study and they were left with a lemon that was a constant drain upon their economy year after year after year. Take this one step further. What did they do then? They then tried to sell it to the Australians, then sell it to the Japanese. In both cases they failed. Then they tried to, I believe, virtually give it away — just the same way a large pulp and paper company gave you Ocean Falls and Can-Cel because they thought they were lemons too, from the company's point of view.

New Zealand had this problem. I may be inaccurate in my statistics, but I know they've had enormous difficulty with the mill that they established. If they have this sort of problem on the Pacific with sea transportation, with the industrial skills which they have in that part of the world and which we probably can duplicate quite easily, I wonder whether we're not going to wind up with the same type of difficulty in the future.

It's not to say that the concept of a mill is bad or good. It's simply to say that without information from you, without proper studies put forward by your department, you're just asking us to buy a pig in a poke. Your economic planning division has only been set up and I imagine this is the excuse you'll give. But I trust, Mr. Minister, that you will not rush into approving the wild-eyed schemes of your colleague, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), who seems to think he's the Minister of Mines as well, as you've said yourself.

I trust you'll look pretty closely at his proposals because he's talked, for example, about secondary industrial development which may or may not follow the establishment of either a mill or a smelter. A smelter — that's my guess, I don't have the facts to back it up — but a mill...it's quite difficult to say one way or the other.

It's simple for us to say, "Oh well, automatically we'll get a downstream benefit in terms of secondary industry." But the fact of the matter is that the tariff barriers are such that it's quite unlikely we'll get such a great improvement in trade patterns or such an improvement in stable secondary industry. The likelihood is that much of that metal will have to be exported right back to Japan to make the Toyotas and the Datsuns which the Minister of Highways would have us drive on the highways of British Columbia, If, of course, we go into building car plants right from scratch so we can use that raw steel, we are then into another area of potential economic problem in terms of the scale of the market.

Unless this stuff is properly looked at, we simply cannot accept your assurances, or I should say the Minister of Industrial Development's assurances — you have been a great deal more restrained in your comments — that such processing is desirable and good. It's not a question of saying this stage is good or bad. It's a question, Mr. Minister, of pointing out that I think you have failed, just as I think the other Ministers have failed in presenting us with the information on an ongoing basis so that proper decisions, proper analysis, proper judgment can be made.

If you set these things up as apparently the

[ Page 2588 ]

Mr. Minister, those are a few comments of mine. I wonder whether you'd comment upon them, in particular this question of new technology, the question of trying to stabilize the industry, then finally the question of technical and economic studies for smelters and steel mills.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to recognize a former Member of Parliament from my district, Jim Burns. He was a sitting Liberal member some years ago.

The figures which were given in regard to the reserves and the potential, the known reserves of copper throughout Canada, were given in the red book at Ottawa by the expertise, I suppose the best that could be found by the Liberal government. This was picked up when I was down there at the Mines Ministers' conference.

When you talk about cubic miles and the ore, that it isn't finite, I think you're wrong in many respects. If you read the story of copper, you will find that when they started out it was almost pure copper they had to use, but price along with technology has brought about great changes, and also open-pit mining.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Technology created the price difference.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The open-pit mining too has given them an opportunity of using ore of a lower percentage, but...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Technology lowered the price.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...thank goodness we have had to do this or we would have been out of ore a long time ago because you can't find rich ores that they had years ago, when you read the story of copper. So, that is one question.

The figures that were used in exploration expenditures did not include all the companies. One of those companies that hasn't reported yet is Cominco. For sure they had a great deal of exploration. When you say that I am wrong in stating the percentage of those who haven't reported yet and those who have, I can be just as right as you can be. I mean this is a question that you might argue about.

The other questions about economic planning — I've answered that three times already and it's all in Hansard. I can't help it if you're out of the House part of the time. I've just got to repeat the answers to you: the economic planning is going ahead; we're taking an inventory of all our resources in the province. We've got to do a lot of figuring in regard as to the proper use of them.

Now, you were talking about ghost towns. This is the reason I brought in the production leases, so that we would have some knowledge as to how fast they would deplete the mine and that the recovery was because there are some mines that don't recover as high a percentage as they should. They put too much of the production on their resource into the tailing ponds. We are taking an interest in that too to advise the companies so that we can assist them to see that they have a better return. All these questions come up. I hope that answers most of your questions.

When you're talking about going down to so much for a cubic mile, you would have to go down to 0.0000-something — away down. I don't think this is quite possible. When you say there is lots of ore in the earth's crust, there is only so much ore; we're not making new ore at any time. I appreciate some of the information you gave me. With some of it I think you were trying to discredit some of the information I gave you. What I've given you is from the facts that I've got. If you feel that they are not facts, well, that's your opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, another question. I appreciate in particular the Minister's idea and his statement that we're going to do a lot more research and studies, much more than previously. But this raises a question of whether his budget is adequate to do it. It's not a very big increase in your budget, Mr. Minister. I assume that you've been fighting bitterly with the other Ministers, in particular with the Minister of Finance, to have this increased because you're doing new things with approximately 10 per cent more money.

Now, inflation is going to wipe out at least 9 of that 10 per cent; you'll have 1 per cent lower at the very best. Probably you'll have one or two per cent less to do not only what you did previously but also all of the new things. I've had a quick look at it — I think its 4.35 and 4.8, I'm not quite sure — I just don't think they're going to have enough there. I come back to about the first words of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who said that your budget is inadequate in comparison with other budgets.

We will be happy to support you in your battle to get more. You simply don't have the money. Let's be blunt: you don't have the money there to do all the things you've talked about. There's just no way it can be done, assuming, of course, that your department was operating relatively efficiently a year ago and relatively efficiently previous to that. How much extra money are you going to need for all these economic studies? Are they going to be farmed out to

[ Page 2589 ]

Finally, I'd like to say that there is such a thing, Mr. Minister, as rolling decision-making. You get your Premier and your Minister of Industrial Development all fired up for a steel mill or all fired up for a copper smelter, and then, having committed themselves to certain things, it's going to be that much tougher for you with the good economic, social, environmental, and financial analysis you promised to get for us to say, "Hold on, we can't use that process; we have to use this process. We can't do it here; we have to do it there."

A situation is developing in B.C., as I see it, where everybody is jumping on the bandwagon for some of these developments without you having done the groundwork in terms of economic analysis, in terms of financial, in terms of technical, in terms of environmental. I'm a little worried by this because I've seen, at the federal level, as well as at the provincial level, as well as elsewhere in my time as a political observer for the External Affairs department, the same type of rolling decision-making take place. Politicians get committed because they sounded too damn enthusiastic in past weeks or years for a certain proposal. A report comes up which they tend to pooh-pooh and then we go on that way.

I think you yourself, Mr. Minister, put your finger on it when you pointed out that the Minister of Industrial Development was talking off the top of his head last year when he was talking about the steel mill. You hadn't done the studies; you didn't know exactly what was going on. You were being a lot more practical and realistic about such a proposal. But now we've got him in Japan committed to a project which you admit yourself you haven't properly studied.

This isn't a very wise way of going about important decision-making. If we get such a development in B.C., we may — I say we may — wind up in the position of the New Zealanders. We may, on the other hand, simply wind up with another white elephant that's going to cost us money year after year, millions upon millions of dollars, which we, of course, will be pumping into it to keep it alive and which indirectly will be a subsidy to the Japanese industrialists who you appear to feel are getting a little too much of our hide at the present time.

I just wonder whether we're going to grant you enough money. Perhaps you'll propose amendments to your estimates, Mr. Minister, to up them. I think in certain instances we'd be happy to vote more money to your department. We can't put such a proposal forward but we hope you will.

Everything you've said today and yesterday has shown us that you don't have enough money to do what you think — and I accept you as being an honest man in this regard — should be done.

Vote 174 approved.

On vote 175: general administration, $3,458,716.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to ask about the planning function of the chief of Economics and Planning. Does he develop feasibility studies required for the production lease under Bill 44? What's the planning function of the chief of Economics and Planning?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's what I was speaking about. This is the Economic and Planning division we have set up. He's the chief and he has to do the planning for the department and for the resources.

MR. BENNETT: Under Bill 44.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Under the department, not just under Bill 44.

MR. BENNETT: But he will be doing all the production leases under Bill 44.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not necessarily. The production leases have got to come over my desk finally.

MR. BENNETT: When you advertised for a chief of Economics and Planning what sort of qualifications did you attach to the job?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We had it all listed out but I haven't got that here.

MR. BENNETT: Doesn't it come under this vote?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Which?

MR. BENNETT: This vote we are discussing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I have to request that only one person be on the floor.

MR. BENNETT: It comes under this vote. What qualifications were demanded of the person who sought the job? What are the qualifications attached to the job?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: As far as I can figure out, he's a highly qualified person whom we've hired. We listed out all the requirements he had to have. Now, I don't pack them around with me for every individual we hire. They were posted.

[ Page 2590 ]

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would think that when this vote was coming up, as one of the key positions, the Minister would be able to tell us....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just point out to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that if the information is available from another source — public information — it's not necessary to ask the Minister that information.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I just wondered if we could get some idea from the opposition. Do they wish to continue with the Minister of Mines estimates, finish them and carry on past 1 o'clock, or do you want to leave them until Monday?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to thank the deputy Premier for this kind suggestion that we negotiate on how we proceed. We in this party would be delighted to proceed as expeditiously as possible. We think this type of discussion might well perhaps take place earlier than one minute to 1 o'clock in future, but that's a minor point.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Are you willing to proceed?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We'll continue. We have no objection; we will finish Mines.

MR. GIBSON: One short comment only: I hope in next year's estimates there will be more money provided for Economics and Planning.

Vote 175 approved.

On vote 176: grants and subsidies, $41,500.

MR. GIBSON: Could the Minister quickly list the major grants under this item? If the Minister wishes to send me a note of the grants, that would be equally acceptable to me.

The point I wanted to make was that I hope these grants in future will be increasingly oriented to research in independent institutions dealing with the improvement of metallurgical processes, concentration processes and smelting processes applicable to B.C., and so on.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got them right here: proposed grants, mine rescue: $24,000; Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: $500; British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines: $10,500, to build up animosity against the department; (Laughter.) Chamber of Mines of Eastern British Columbia: $4,500; miscellaneous engraving plaques, trophies, et cetera: $2,000.

Vote 176 approved.

On vote 177: grants in aid of mining roads and trails, $800,000.

MR. FRASER: Has the Minister the list of where this money is going to be spent on roads, this $800,000?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, there are a number of small roads....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could provide that information?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's not broken down as to how many places, but it is the same amount as we had last year.

MR. FRASER: To get these grants, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Is that the way it's handed out?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, we're very just and very fair.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, out of the $800,000 provided for this vote, only $447,000 had been expended in the first nine months of the fiscal year. I think that is another indication how exploration has fallen off. I've heard rumours to the effect that applications under this grant programme are very low for 1974.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I suppose they're doing so well maybe they haven't made application for it. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Of course, this is the small prospector and the small developer, Mr. Minister, under $50,000. I gather as general policy it's 50-50 sharing, and the small man seems not to be coming forward this year as in previous years.

MR. RICHTER: Isn't it true that the Omineca mining road is covered by this vote?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

MR. RICHTER: There has been very little progress; about three allotments made last year. You still had a very substantial amount of it left. Is this not an important road in the development of your northern policy? Can you not get on with that road faster than you did before?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Than probably you did before.

We're progressing on it. Some of it's coming under

[ Page 2591 ]

Vote 177 approved.

Vote 178: grants in aid of roads and trails, petroleum and natural gas — approved.

On vote 179: grub-staking prospectors, $ 100,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The vote is enormously out. Is this because you plan on having more of these people working for the government?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In the construction of the Cassiar-Stewart road, you mean?

M R. D.A. ANDERSON: No. We are on grub-staking of prospectors in this case.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, there is new legislation on the order paper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You told us earlier that very few people were taking advantage of this. Is this why you think your programme is so attractive?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Twenty-two took advantage of it last year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Twenty-three. They certainly didn't spend the vast amount of money.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They didn't spend as much as they....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. Now you are tripling it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was on an entirely different basis before. I am not going to discuss the new bill, but this here is almost on a welfare basis. I think our prospectors are so independent that they would sooner not accept welfare that way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we understand then that your expectation is that instead of 22 or 23 prospectors having a crack at this, we are going to have hundreds and that the new B.C. Crown corporation for exploration will be going great guns — is that right, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat difficult to understand how this vote has increased by such a vast amount as well. I wonder if I couldn't just ask the Minister if he can explain how he is going to tell if these people are bona fide prospectors. What kind of regulations are going to be set down? How are you going to know who these people are?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We will discuss that under the new bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, we've got $100,000 here, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about, in anticipation, I suppose of a piece of legislation that hasn't been before this House yet. Some way you've got to protect the taxpayers' money in this instance; you have to discuss this $100,000. Who is it going to? That is what I want to know. How are you going to tell who gets that money and what kind of qualifications are you going to demand from those people that you give that $100,000 to?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I just got bawled out a few minutes ago for not having sufficient money to do certain things. Now when I put what I think might be sufficient money to do certain things, then you object.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't win, Leo.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They have been telling me all along that the prospector is the man that finds the mine, the man that's at the bottom of the ladder. He needs assistance, and I feel that we can give him assistance. That's why the increase in the vote. I don't think that the grub-stake situation that you had before — giving them a ham sandwich and sending them out to try and find a mine for some industry — worked out. Now we will do it the other way.

Vote 179 approved.

Vote 180: special mineral surveys, $200,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the aircraft logs for January to December, 1973.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:08 p.m.