CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Assessment Act (Bill 151). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 3739

Oral Questions

Staff problem at Jericho Hill School. Mr. McClelland — 3739

Consultant fees paid to A. Koehli. Mr. McGeer — 3739

Qualifications for election to community resource boards. Mr. Wallace — 3740

Cost of dairy and hog income assurance programmes. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3741

Apology requested by Victoria mayor. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3741

Security of tenure of LCB chairman. Mr. Chabot — 3741

Possible purchase of property from Daon Corporation. Mr. Morrison — 3741

NDP policy on investment return. Mr. Gibson — 3741

B.C. pulp shortage. Mr. McGeer — 3741

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 50). Second reading.

Mr. Cummings — 3742

Mr. McGeer — 3742

Mr. Fraser — 3742

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees Association Incorporation Act (Bill 51).

Second reading.

Ms. Brown — 3743

Statutes Act (Bill 111).

Committee, report and third reading — 3743

Securities Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 116).

Committee stage.

On section 59.

Mr. McGeer — 3743

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3743

Report and third reading — 3743

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 121).

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 11.

Ms. Sanford — 3744

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3744

Mr. Gibson — 3744

Mr. Curtis — 3744

Mr. Wallace — 3744

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3744

Mr. Gibson — 3745

Mr. Morrison — 3745

Mr. Wallace — 3745

Amendment establishing section 14.

Ms. Sanford — 3746

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Mr. Gibson — 3746

Report stage — 3746

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 122). Committee, report and third reading — 3746

Companies Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 127).

Committee stage.

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Amendment to section 3.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Amendment to section 5.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3746

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3747

Report stage — 3747

British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 17).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3747

Mr. McClelland — 3747

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3747

British Columbia–Alberta Boundary Act (Bill 30). Second reading.

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3747

Mr. McGeer — 3747

Mr. Curtis — 3747

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3747

Department of Economics Development Act (Bill 71). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3748

Mr. Chabot — 3748

Mr. McGeer — 3748

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3749

Mr. Wallace — 3749

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3750

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3751

Point of order

Lack of quorum

Mr. Curtis — 3753

Routine proceedings

Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 146). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 3753

Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 87).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 3754

Mr. Wallace — 3754

Mr. Chabot — 3755

Hon. Mr. King — 3755

Division on second reading — 3756

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Second reading. On the amendment to postpone second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3757

Mr. Phillips — 3759

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 152). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3757

Mr. Phillips — 3759

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 152). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

Mr. Fraser — 3768

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3768

Mr. Curtis — 3768

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

Motions and adjourned debate on motions.

On motion 27.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

On motion 28.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3768

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3768

Mr. Curtis — 3768

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3769

Royal assent to bills — 3769

[ Page 3739 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a group of young people who are from the Island Youth Centre near Nanaimo. The Island Youth Centre is one of the resources operated by the province that is available to young people and is shortly to become co-educational. I would ask the House to welcome these young people.

Introduction of bills.

ASSESSMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Assessment Act.

Bill 151 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.

Oral questions.

STAFF PROBLEM AT
JERICHO HILL SCHOOL

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Education, regarding Jericho School. I understand that four of the teachers in the school for the deaf have resigned. Four others have said they are leaving and are looking for other jobs. The parents in the school seem to be in panic at the moment about what they can expect for the school in the future. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House whether or not she is aware of the situation and what's being done to correct it.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Member, I've just been very recently made aware of it and I'm having a look at the situation. I will inform you what I have found out and what we intend to do about it. I'll see you personally about it, if you like.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right. Just a supplementary. I understand that Mr. Walsh in your department was warned some three months ago about this and I would hope that some action would be taken quickly.

CONSULTANT FEES PAID TO A. KOEHLI

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister paid any consultant fees to Mr. Albert Koehli with regard to advice on any housing project involving Community Builders Ltd. or any other firm with which this gentleman is connected'?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The answer to that is no, but I have paid consultant fees to Mr. Albert Koehli for other projects.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could he tell us what those projects are?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I could give you some examples; I couldn't name them all. He has given some assistance to the United Housing Foundation, preparation of plans for duplexes in Burnaby, and others — I can't think of them all off hand, but not related to Community Builders.

MR. McGEER: Is it a directly stated policy of the Department of Housing, Mr. Speaker, that no consultant fees will be paid either to aldermen or to private consultants connected with the building industry that might involve either these communities or these companies in future dealings with the provincial government?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Would you like to ask the questions one at a time?

MR. McGEER: It's the same question. First of all, with people who aren't on city councils, is it a stated policy of the department that consultantship shall not involve ultimately the firms with which they're connected being involved with receiving provincial government assistance — housing projects? Is that policy or isn't it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Consulting for which fees are paid do not relate to projects involving the companies by which consultants are employed.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, on the same subject to the Minister. I wonder if the Minister would indicate at what point in time he, the Minister, first became aware of Mr. Koehli's position with the firm of Community Builders Ltd. Was it before or after Mr. Koehli was invited to serve as a consultant to the Department of Highways?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've known of Mr. Koehli's connection with Community Builders from the first of my acquaintance with him. He, I believe, was also used in a consulting capacity in no way related to Community Builders prior to my appointment.

[ Page 3740 ]

MR. CURTIS: A very brief supplementary, with the concurrence of the Member for South Peace River. Does the Minister know how long Mr. Koehli has been associated with Community Builders?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I would say quite a while — probably before 1972.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To the Minister of Housing: in view of the fact that the government purchased Dunhill Developments Ltd., in the Minister's stated words, "…to obtain a management team for the housing industry in British Columbia," are there any consultants involved in the management fee of upwards of a quarter-of-a-million dollars over a five-year period, and what housing projects…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. One question at a time, I think, is a wise policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are there any consultants in the management team that you purchased with Dunhill Developments?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You're referring to some management contracts which extend for some five years for consultant…. Contracts extending five years…I really don't understand the question.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking you about the management team that you gave a contract to from Dunhill Developments after purchasing it. You stated in the Legislature that one of the purposes of purchasing Dunhill Developments was to get expertise and a management team for the housing industry. Are there any consultants in that management team?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Not that I'm aware of. You might be referring to two-year contracts that we have signed with four of the senior personnel.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Housing advise the Legislature what projects this management team are presently involved in to provide housing for the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They're involved in some land development on behalf of the department in Squamish and in Saanich. They are building a 200-unit senior citizens' project in the West Point Grey–Kitsilano area of Vancouver. I'm trying to think of specific government projects, not wind-up projects that they have — another project which they've more or less initiated, a rental project.

They're well employed. I could say that they are looking to put a certain number of duplex properties, which we have, on the market. They are also, of course, continuing with the Burnaby property they have where they will be building a condominium; a couple of North Vancouver properties and others.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one last, final, short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are all of the housing projects that this management team is involved in on land that was acquired through the take-over of Dunhill Developments?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION
TO COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARDS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Human Resources if he could tell us what restrictions there are on individuals seeking election to the community resource boards? Is the sole qualification residence in the community concerned?

HON. MR. LEVI: I didn't hear the first part of the question.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if you could tell us, Mr. Minister, what restrictions, if any, there are on individuals seeking election to the community resource board, for example, on the Dunbar–Southlands–West Point Grey election where nominations closed a few days ago. Could the Minister tell us, are there any restrictions on a citizen living in that community?

HON. MR. LEVI: They must be a Canadian citizen or a British subject in order to participate.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Could the Minister confirm that our native people are not allowed to seek election to these boards, or that a person who did apply to be nominated was turned down and told that she could not seek election?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not aware of that, Mr. Member. I'd appreciate if you would let me know the details. I'm not aware of it.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Am I to take it that this sounds to the Minister like an administrative error and not in keeping with the spirit of the whole business of the community resource board elections?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, for instance, you're talking now about a native person. They certainly would be eligible, in my estimation. But I'd appreciate letting me know what that particular was.

[ Page 3741 ]

COST OF DAIRY AND HOG
INCOME ASSURANCE PROGRAMMES

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, on Monday I took as notice a question from the Hon. Member for North Okanagan about the cost of the income assurance programmes to date. For the dairy income assurance programme we have figures from December to March inclusive, that's four months — a total cost of $5.89 million. The hog assurance programme, which was announced at the time as an income programme only, for the first six months, that's December to May inclusive, a total of $47,406.

APOLOGY REQUESTED BY
VICTORIA MAYOR

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Public Works: may I ask the Minister whether he has replied to the May 31 letter from His Worship, Peter Pollen, mayor of Victoria, asking for an apology for the "unfounded and dishonourable remarks from the Minister," and I again quote — the Minister this time — that "there was an underhand deal carried on by the City of Victoria with respect to the Reid property."

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You better be careful or they'll throw you out again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): To date I am not aware of such a letter. When I receive the letter, I will answer it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. May I ask the Minister for confirmation if he has not received this letter from Mayor Peter Pollen, dated May 31, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question has been answered, surely.

N. DAVIDSON TO CONTINUE AS
CHAIRMAN OF B.C. LIQUOR BOARD

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Attorney-General: In view of Mr. Neil Davidson's resignation from the Silver Star Provincial Park Board in Vernon and his public letter of condemnation of the policies of the Department of Recreation and Conservation and the B.C. Forest Service, I was wondering if the Attorney-General could tell us if he continues to enjoy security of tenure in his position as chairman of the B.C. Liquor Board.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I don't think that his opinion in any other field — and I haven't read the letter — would have anything to do with his duties as the chairman of the B.C. Liquor Board.

POSSIBLE PROPERTY
PURCHASE FROM DAON CORP.

MR. N.R., MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transportation and Communication. Could he advise the House, has ICBC purchased or are they negotiating the purchase of property from Daon Corporation, a large piece of property which is located at the northeast end of Burrard Street Bridge in Vancouver?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transportation and Communication): I'll check on that. I'll take that as notice.

NDP POLICY ON INVESTMENT RETURN

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the most important economist in British Columbia, the Minister of Finance. I would ask him for clarification of party policy, and ask if he adheres to the profit limit stated by his national leader, Mr. Lewis, the other day, of 8 or 9 per cent return on investment.

HON. MR. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): Unlike the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, we don't have two divisions at the provincial level, one known as Social Credit provincially, and federally Liberals — or Liberal provincially, but disavowing themselves federally from the Liberal Party. I've noted with the….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you give me a chance? I still buy my underwear from your leader. (Laughter.) I'm not familiar with our leader's statement. I'll check it out and let you know.

MR. WALLACE: That's why you're always so warm and cheerful. (Laughter.)

B.C. PULP SHORTAGE

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands and Forests with respect to pulp shortages in British Columbia. Did the Minister request from the B.C.

[ Page 3742 ]

primary producers, before or during the time he was refusing to table the Gottesman contract with Ocean Falls here in the B.C. Legislature, details of the production contracts and selling prices of the B.C. primary producers?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): As Minister, Mr. Speaker, no. But with respect to my staff, I would have to take that as notice.

MR. WALLACE: As supplementary to that answer from the Minister of Resources, could I ask him was the request for that information withdrawn, and if so, who has to order for it to be withdrawn?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Every question seems to be taken as notice. I don't know whether we can keep asking questions until we get the reply back from the first one, really. Could you wait patiently for that?

MR. CURTIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, you might find the question in order. It is simply on the subject of kraft paper. I wonder if the Minister has….

MR. SPEAKER: If we all agree that it's not a supplementary, it probably would be in order.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Does the Minister or his department have any kind of contingency plan to deal with the predicted, projected kraft-paper shortage which is going to be of significant proportions in 1974? — 20,000 tons is one figure which has been mentioned.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have asked our staff to review that question in terms of producers in British Columbia that need that commodity. I think there's been some work done with the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, but we have no specific recommendations at this stage that I'm aware of.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Private bills. Second reading of Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that standing orders for the day show private bills first.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to stick by standing orders.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 50, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You can do better than that, Roy.

MR. CUMMINGS: I've forgotten it.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate on the matter?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I wonder if in closing the debate the Member would give us some indication of the depth of study that he as a Member and chairman of this committee has put into this legislation. I know that a number of questions were raised in the private bills committee with regard to some of the provisions.

I must say, as a Member from the City of Vancouver, that I am naturally going to stand behind all the reasonable wishes of the city council. But questions were raised and I think they should be fairly dealt with by the Minister, who is also a representative of the City of Vancouver, and give us some idea as to the justification for these particular amendments.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would just like to make a few comments in general on this bill. I don't think it should be in this House with us at all — An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter. I would like to know if this government is considering putting them under the Municipal Act where all the rest of the municipalities of British Columbia are.

Why should they have their separate charter and take up the important time of this Legislature with their amendments? Then we have to deal with the amendments to the Municipal Act. I think the City of Vancouver belongs under the Municipal Act as the one Act for all the municipalities of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate on the bill? The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain closes the debate.

MR. CUMMINGS: After considerable thought, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. First of all, I would like to put the question on all of this debate.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3743 ]

Bill 50, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATION INCORPORATION ACT

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): This is just a simple amendment which is repealing section 4 of the original 1956 Act and replacing it with new objects of the association. There isn't anything controversial in this bill except possibly that it now gives school trustees the right, if they are so requested by the respective boards, to do negotiations with the teachers' federation on their behalf. It doesn't make it compulsory, but it says that if they are so requested they are able to do so.

Bill 51, An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees Association Incorporation Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 111.

STATUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 111; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 111, Statutes Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 116.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 116; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

MR. McGEER: I didn't want this to go all the way through without any debate at all, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Attorney-General…. This section makes the Act a proclamation Act. I wonder if the Attorney-General can tell us how long we will be waiting before this comes into effect, whether there is any important reason why it shouldn't come into effect now and whether the bill, as it is now amended, keeps our B.C. Securities Act in line with Ontario's and the other provinces who are trying to make their securities Acts more or less uniform. Doesn't this result in important departures, in other words, from standard legislation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, as we said on second reading of the bill, there is a new departure because we are setting up this appellate body which is outside the civil service. The reason it is a proclamation bill is that there will be a corporate and financial services commission consisting of part-time people who can sit on appeals under the Securities Act, Companies Act, Societies Act and some others.

We can't really enact the law declaring that there is a commission until there are bodies to constitute that commission. But we will do it as soon as we can after this session of the Legislature.

Section 59 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 116, Securities Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 121, Mr. Speaker.

LAND REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 121; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

[ Page 3744 ]

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name which adds one section, called section 11(a).

The purpose of moving this amendment — and I hope that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will accept this amendment, because I feel it is very, very important — is to enable the government to begin to make an inventory of how many people are purchasing land in this province who are non-citizens.

Some time ago there was a provision in the Land Registry Act for people who were purchasing land in this province to state what their citizenship was. That provision was removed some years ago, so at this time we in this province simply do not know how many people are purchasing land who are not Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.

My hope is that the provincial government will move in the future, although the amendments at this time do not provide for this, to prohibit the sale of land to non-citizens.

Section 11(a) would make provision for people who are purchasing land to state what the citizenship is. That, Mr. Chairman, in my view is the first step in enabling us to find out how much of our land in British Columbia is being purchased by non-Canadians.

We who travelled on the Gulf Islands with the municipal affairs committee were told over and over again: "There are so many people from other countries who are purchasing our Gulf Islands, and we would like you to put a stop to it." But right now we don't know how much of that land, either on the Gulf Islands or anywhere else in the province, is owned by non-citizens.

On the amendment to section 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment, as the Hon. Member has said, is to begin the information-gathering process whereby the people of British Columbia can, because of their residence and citizenship in this province and country, control the land in which they live and be masters in their own province.

I support it. I think it is an excellent amendment, and I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this forward because I think she has initiated this whole question of local ownership of our land, so far as this provincial government and this province is concerned. As a matter of fact, I think this is kind of an initiation which is almost the first in Canada, with the exception of the Prince Edward Island thing, which is in the courts.

So I congratulate this Member for the initiative which she has shown and the government will be pleased to accept her amendment.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely delighted that the government is prepared to accept this amendment and I congratulate the Member who moved it. I think it is a great step forward in determining just what is the status of foreign ownership of our land in British Columbia because wise policies can best be developed with information, and we simply haven't had this kind of information in the past.

I hope and trust that the amendment, as written here, will prove sufficient to get all the facts and figures we need, and I trust that if and when it is passed the Attorney-General and his department will keep it under close review to see if we need ever closer reporting provisions. I would then look down the line as soon as possible to some sort of action being taken, once the information to base the policy on is available, as quickly as possible to restrict the alienation of British Columbia land.

I understand the constitutional difficulties in that regard. I don't believe there are any constitutional difficulties insofar as registration of nationality is concerned. I very much support this amendment and congratulate the government for accepting it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment. I do echo the words of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to the need for a much bolder step by this, and if not this government, the next government of the Province of British Columbia.

We see the trend throughout the country now towards more careful scrutiny and control of foreign land ownership. This is a first step, but I think it should be recognized as only that.

MR. WALLACE: I also feel that this is a very worthwhile amendment, particularly because of the point already stressed that it is the basis for information without which we cannot make intelligent legislation.

There is one point in this whole business of foreign ownership of land which always puzzles me. The Attorney-General talked about being masters in our own home, and I've often wondered if the implication behind that is that if a person from another origin owns land in this country somehow he is not subject to the same rules, laws and regulations to which I, or any other Canadian citizen, is subject.

I'm only asking a question because I don't know the answer, but this statement which the Attorney-General made and which I frequently hear made that we have to control our own land…. I'm always of the impression that municipal, regional, provincial and federal governments can legislate as to the use of land. As the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has said, there are few issues

[ Page 3745 ]

which are more important with a growing population than the judicious use of land, but I'm always a little puzzled by this implication that somehow a different set of rules applies to someone who owns land who wasn't born or didn't come to Canada compared to the Canadian resident.

I feel that in the continuing public debate, and political debate, on this very emotional subject of land ownership, particularly owned by, in this case, a person who is not Canadian or a landed immigrant, this aspect of the emotional debate should be perhaps also discussed widely to provide that part of the information which the total subject, in my view, merits.

We are supporting this amendment very confidently because first of all it gives us the facts and figures on numbers of people and the acreage and so on. But I would just make the comment in supporting this amendment that there are these other aspects which I think are often commented upon in a purely emotional sense that because a piece of land is owned by a "foreigner," to use the word, there is some feeling that it is badly used, or misused or in some way or other a different standard or a different kind of rule, or a kind of legislation seems to be available to that foreign landowner which is different from the Canadian. I would welcome comment on that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is an old rule which is now embodied in our Canadian Citizenship Act that an alien can freely dispose and own property just as much as a native resident of that country. And that old rule originates from the time of the English infestation of Scotland, when the English wanted to be free, as large, absentee, noble landlords, to dispose of the grazing lands of Scotland without any kind of inhibitions being placed upon them because they were absentee owners. That was extended into Ireland. The Irish estates were owned in London, and their posterity still owns great sections of London.

We dispute that that rule is a proper one, and yet under the Government of Canada that is still embodied in the Canadian Citizenship Act. We, as a government, at the conferences that have taken place, have asked the Canadian government to remove that because those few little words, that aliens can own property under the same terms as anybody else, mean that we in British Columbia will be increasingly subjected to absentee ownership of the very land in which we live. We don't think that's an acceptable proposition.

We think there should be a benefit to being a native and a resident in a province in terms of ownership and perhaps in the terms of the taxes you pay, and so we asked the federal government to remove that ancient and unjust rule — fair in terms of those who have international capital to buy up the lands of another country, but very unfair to the residents of that particular country.

MR. GIBSON: I would just like to make one other representation to the Hon. Attorney-General. This amendment, as I read it, while it is a great step forward, does not get at lands which are currently owned and for which there is no application for registration. It gets only at the lands as they pass through the registration process. It may well be that it would be an impossible administrative burden to say let's do the whole thing at once, and then it would require staffing and computers and all that kind of thing. Since this amendment will catch the new applications for transfer and give us the information on that, in order to complete the statistical picture with respect to foreign ownership of British Columbia lands, would the Attorney-General consider bringing in, at a future session, a further amendment to this Act which would require that the beneficial nationality of ownership of all lands in the province should be registered within a certain time?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It will be considered.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to know also if the Attorney-General could advise us what he means by foreign. Does he mean someone who lives in Alberta, or someone who lives in the United States or someone in Europe? What's the definition of that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read the bill. It's in the amendment.

MR. MORRISON: It doesn't specify.

MR. WALLACE: I certainly appreciated the Minister's response to my original comment, but he didn't answer the question. I'm agreeing that certain people in other countries, resident in other countries at the present time, own land in Canada. The question I asked — and I didn't get an answer — is: does that person have any different status in regard to the laws governing land use in this province?

Whether the land is owned by a Scotsman or an Englishman or a Canadian-born, he pays taxes, he's subject to the zoning laws and he's subject to municipal, regional, provincial and federal legislation.

All I was asking was the question as to whether or not the foreign owner — by being an absentee owner, or perhaps living here on a temporary or intermittent basis — is in fact granted any particular benefits. Or is he subject to any additional penalties compared to a Canadian citizen owning land? That was all I was asking.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not at the present

[ Page 3746 ]

time.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On the amendment establishing section 14.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing on page 27 on the order paper, which establishes section 14 to this Act. The reason for adding section 14 is that the department, now that it has accepted the amendment to section 11, will require time to prepare the schedules and the changes of forms. I would so move that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the government supports that amendment, which is necessary and consequential.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the need for this amendment, but I just hope it won't be too long. I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us some rough idea.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's really a matter of redrafting the necessary land registry application forms, and I wouldn't anticipate delay.

MR. GIBSON: It will be given priority, then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. There are one or two other bills that are of equal importance that are before the House, but it will have priority.

Amendment establishing section 14 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 121, Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 122, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 122; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 122, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 127, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 127; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 28 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 5 standing in my name on page 28 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

[ Page 3747 ]

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 28 of the order paper to this section. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 127, Companies Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HARBOURS
BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly simple bill. It increases the borrowing power of the B.C. Harbours Board by $25 million. As the House is aware, it already has the borrowing power of $25 million. This amount has been spent on the purchase of farm lands, rights-of-way and railroad construction, and almost all of that initial authorization is now used.

There are no immediate plans for any further port development, but it's to allow the port authority to take steps that will probably be necessary as the development of our ports becomes critical in the years ahead.

So this bill allows the B.C. Harbours Board to increase its borrowing authority from $25 million to $50 million.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that this bill is probably a direct result of the so-called northern development deal announced by the provincial government, and it has to do with the harbour at Prince Rupert.

I recall in previous arrangements that British Columbia wasn't going to find it necessary to put out any money, that CNR and the BCR were supposed to look after their own capital costs, except for the normal sharing costs with the province.

It would seem to me that we've thrown away some of the control and have sort of given in to the CNR and given them some kind of a special deal, and that this $50 million is now going to be needed to spend directly to subsidize CNR operations within the boundaries of British Columbia.

While we can support the bill, I think that concept is one which is all too prevalent in the government: losing out in negotiations to arms of the federal government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In answer to the point raised by the Member, I can assure him that there's no intention of spending any of this money in the Prince Rupert harbour area.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 17, British Columbia Harbours Board Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA–ALBERTA
BOUNDARY ACT

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McGEER: I'd just like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether the wishes of the community of Fernie will be taken into consideration when drawing up the new boundaries between British Columbia and Alberta.

MR. CURTIS: As I read this, there is no federal involvement spelled out in the bill. I wonder if the Minister would comment on the reason for that absence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Which absence?

MR. CURTIS: The federal presence. There is no federal involvement mentioned in this bill.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The federal jurisdiction

[ Page 3748 ]

has been contacted at the staff level, Mr. Speaker, so that they are fully aware of the actions jointly being taken by the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Alberta. As the Members may know, this bill really deals with the gaps between the dashes on the map. As I recall, Fernie doesn't quite fit into that slot, nor Golden.

So I would move second reading, Mr. Speaker, complete without amendment. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: And almost without comment. (Laughter.)

Motion approved.

Bill 30, British Columbia–Alberta Boundary Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 71.

DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): In moving second reading of this Act I think it should be pointed out very briefly that, as I have said earlier in the estimates of my department, the new department has been reorganizing over the past several months, acquiring new staff and creating new positions to move away from just being a branch of economic statistics, statistics which may or may not be useful to both government and the business community, and into, in addition, an advisory group of civil servants, economists and analysts who can give the kind of up-to-date expertise and advice to government and private industry that is required in this day and age.

The bill in: itself allows for this kind of activity and shortens the name of the department considerably. The initials, of course, of the department, D.E.D., are most unfortunate. I thought I had better point it out to the House before the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) did.

The Act is fairly straightforward. It's a modest bill creating and setting up a very dynamic new department, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, speaking very briefly to this legislation, in changing the name from the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to the "Department of Economic Development," I hope the Minister is going to include a little bit of economic diplomacy, as he suggested was to take place on his journey to Japan a little while ago. I hope the department will become a buoyant, radiant, vibrant department of government. I hope it won't only be a matter of organization.

The Minister suggested from the day he has been in the cabinet that he's going to do all this shuffling and rearranging in the department. It seems that's all he has done; shuffle here and shuffle there. He has done very little else. He has written a few letters, which the taxpayers have had to pay, through the way of advertising in the newspapers, even though he went to Japan, to indicate to the people who produce steel there that there is a critical shortage of steel in British Columbia. Lo and behold, a few weeks later he comes back and he puts ads in the paper, asking people if they're aware of any shortages of steel in the province.

Now, Mr. Minister, you've got to become a little more organized. You've got to stop the wiffling and the waffling. You've got to stop the shuffling within your department so that you recognize what your rightful role is as a Minister of the Crown.

I hope and I pray, for the well-being of the people of British Columbia, that you will do a job, that your department will become functional and that you will tell your colleagues to stop instituting policies and programmes and making statements that frighten investment capital away from this province.

You have a responsibility in your role to attract secondary industry. I hope you'll stand up to full height when you're in the cabinet speaking to your colleagues and tell them that many of their statements are detrimental to the attracting of secondary industry in this province and that you won't tolerate those kinds of statements and that kind of behaviour by your colleagues because you feel you have a responsibility in your department to ensure that future jobs are created in British Columbia for all British Columbians and for those people who would love to become British Columbians.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister says, it's a little bill. The little Minister is a good friend of the Attorney-General and he is sort of the Attorney-General's protégé. The Attorney-General used to have this department and he thought so well of the Minister leaping to his assistance on so many occasions that he brought him right along into this portfolio.

We certainly welcome this change because it's going to be a test of learning whether the problem has been with the Minister or whether it has been with the department. It's going to expand now and develop. I certainly share the wishes of the Member for Columbia River; we hope for an effective, robust department.

I would feel personally much more optimistic about this department if the Minister could give us a

[ Page 3749 ]

categorical guarantee that Dr. Mason Gaffney would not be associated with it in any way.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): While the bill is short, in essence it is a very significant change that we're making for this department — far more significant than just a change in name would suggest. As Members will note, having read the operative section of the bill, this department is now becoming the repository of all matters in this province concerned with economic developments which are not specifically assigned by legislation to some other department.

This casts upon this Minister and upon the staff of this department some very serious and expanded responsibilities. It has been popular in this House to criticize the Minister who has held this portfolio in the past and now to treat the matter somewhat facetiously. That's because of the way in which the department has carried on in previous years. But with this particular legislation, we are placing firmly in this department a responsibility for economic development which that department has never before had.

I know the Minister recognizes the burden that responsibility carries with it. In supporting this change, I do so in the knowledge that the Minister can expect careful watch to be taken in the way in which he and his department perform their responsibilities. We will, a year from now, be looking for a very responsible report as to the way in which these new broadened responsibilities have been carried out in this province, I know the Minister recognizes the burden that responsibility carries with it. In supporting this change, I do so in the knowledge that the Minister can expect careful watch to be taken in the way in which he and his department perform their responsibilities. We will, a year from now, be looking for a very responsible report as to the way in which these new broadened responsibilities have been carried out in this province.

I say this not in warning to the Minister but only in recognition of what I believe he recognizes in this legislation.

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to enlarge a little on the comments of the Member who just spoke, particularly in relation to the Minister's duties. There seems to be a considerable overlap, at least in the debates that go on in this House, as to exactly which Minister seems to be related and in what sphere to development.

Section 4 spells out all matters relating to economic development of the province not assigned to any other Minister. It seems to me there is an overlapping when one talks about economic development that inevitably involves in a very close way Lands and Forests, Municipal Affairs, and Mines and Petroleum Resources.

It's a puzzle to me sometimes to know whether one Minister knows what the other Minister is doing. I've tried to demonstrate that in a specific way in departmental estimates the other day when it was obvious the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) had no idea of what was going on in a recreation development even after he had a letter three months previously. This kind of thing.

It is not fair to criticize this Minister because of the sins of the past, but this department was a source of mockery to the opposition in the hands of the former Minister, and the former administration, who perhaps took first prize for being the Minister who never answered a single question.

So this Minister, in being given this authority through Bill 71, must realize that we on this side of the House are very eager and very keen to see some real economic progress in the province under a very well coordinated management by this Minister and by the other Ministers with whom he has to work in close cooperation.

I don't feel that the record to date is very encouraging. One of the most recent statements by this Minister about economic development was a bitter attack on the effects the proposed federal budget would have on economic development in this province. Yet we have this same Minister in the cabinet of this government bringing in exactly the same kind of legislation provincially which is proposed federally. I find it very contradictory that this Minister should, in fact, make this kind of public statement about the damaging effects of proposed federal taxation which in many ways is similar to measures being taken by his own cabinet in the field of provincial taxation.

I don't think it is a very reassuring answer, Mr. Speaker, to be told in this House that it is simply a constitutional concern and that the only reason this Minister was getting up-tight about it was the federal government was intruding into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

When we are specifically approving and supporting this bill, as we will, giving the Minister very clear-cut and fairly widespread authority in the very important area of economic development, I have to say that so far, while he may well be an improvement on the previous Minister, we, in this party at least, are somewhat concerned when there is talk of the financing or the negative effects on the financing of economic development that we should have the kind of apparent contradictions where this Minister and the cabinet reject increased federal taxation but apparently find that it is all right to impose similar taxation at the provincial level. I'm talking particularly about royalties and similar forms of taxation.

[ Page 3750 ]

To return for just a moment to the question of overlapping departments, just in the last few days when I was in the Peace River country there was great concern about the DREE agreements — where there is a provisional decision on the DREE agreement. Certainly the people in the Peace River area are wondering just exactly which Minister is really the final person who is responsible in dealing with the federal government.

For example, perhaps the Minister can clarify this: the rumour in the Peace River country two days ago was that most of the negotiations for the DREE agreements are in the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). Maybe the Minister can clarify if one Minister or more than one Minister is involved, and who finally signs agreements involving federal-provincial cooperation in such agreements.

I just raise these points because it seems to me that in this House we frequently have confusion as to which Minister is responsible, or to which degree there is overlap and coordination between different departments.

As the former speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) made plain, we are, in fact, with this bill providing duties, powers and functions for all matters relating to economic development except the ones where other legislation clearly delegates it to other Ministers. But economic development so often involves other Ministers that we in this party are very concerned to know what really efficient degree of organization is being set up to ensure that this bill, in giving the Minister these powers, at the same time guarantees a clear delineation of authority and also some assurance of real coordination and cooperation of the efforts of overlapping departments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to be here to discuss the Member from Kokanee's bill. We think that it is an interesting thing that he wishes to change the name of his department. The present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is the only Minister sitting on that half of the cabinet who is here to listen because he is worried about an amendment that might get stuck in there to change the name of your department to Attorney-General, and he is trying to protect himself.

Anyway, we see that the bill does not include economic diplomacy, which we feel the Minister might like to comment upon. It doesn't include mariculture, which we feel he might want to comment upon. We just hope that in summing up the debate he says a little word or two about some of the other areas of considerable interest to him.

One thing that comes up in this bill at this reading is the whole question of economic development — the growth of the economy as a desirable end. I guess the government has made the decision that it is desirable in the general sense and I don't think that is necessarily a wrong decision. I wonder however, in spite of some of the questions made by members of the Minister's party, whether or not he is going to say much about the no-growth concepts, about the relationship of his department to other departments of government with respect to controlling the use of resources and the rate of industrial development in the province.

This may not be the best moment to raise it, but there have been statements made by the Minister of the Crown, in particular in discussion of matters relating to the Minister of Mines which are interesting and which indicate that the government believes that the export of raw materials in terms of mine ore is an undesirable thing. I wonder if the Minister would like to say a word or two about what his views are as to how this should be extended in the future.

For instance, are we to close down Kitimat because it imports foreign ore? Are we not to have a steel mill because that, indeed, would require, for almost the total ore amounts, foreign ore to be imported into B.C.? It's the other side of the coin. If we don't like to have our ores exported, are we going to, at the same time, carry on economic developments, which the Minister is closely interested in, which depend upon the importation of foreign ores? I think in particular of iron and aluminum.

I would like the Minister to comment, perhaps in closing, on the scope that is provided here. It seems extremely wide. I have noticed that since he came back from his economic diplomacy tour he has hardly said a word about that tour and what it achieved. He's taken on the federal government in his major speeches, made no reports to the businessmen of the province in terms of the great opportunities that he found or did not find in the Far East. He decided to talk about that old, old thing — the Port of Vancouver problem — which every politician in British Columbia who doesn't have anything else to say always winds up taking a crack at.

Not to say there is no problem. I agree. But it is something that is so obvious, I wonder why the Minister fell into the trap of not commenting on his exciting new department or, indeed, his tours abroad to get trade and further business for B.C. He chose instead to ignore all of those things and go and talk about that particular subject which, as I said, has been canvassed so often by all of us so frequently that it has, indeed, become the subject to use when you have a business audience to speak to and you've got nothing else on your mind to think or talk about.

The same is true, of course, with respect to taxation. His savage attack on David Lewis' policies and his intervention into the federal election were intriguing, Mr. Speaker, and can only be interpreted as being really under the scope of this new bill. Under

[ Page 3751 ]

this bill he can attack anyone he likes because everything to do with economic development — whether it be assigned to the federal government or any municipal authority as well as the province — is apparently going to be under his purview.

Perhaps he will say a word or two again as to why, with a department which I think has great potential, he has in recent months been talking so little about it and has been launching off into great speeches on subjects which are the concern of either other Ministers — indeed, not only other Ministers of this government but other Ministers of other governments at other government levels.

I would be intrigued to learn from the Minister what precisely he and his department intend to do. I would be a little less interested than perhaps he himself thinks I am in such subjects as taxation policies and the Port of Vancouver, all of which have been thoroughly canvassed by politicians at other levels. Not that these are not important subjects but he keeps harping on them to the exclusion of telling us about his own department and what he is doing.

Mariculture was something that intrigued him for a long time — he happily went off climbing mountains in Japan to look at lakes where fish grow. We had fascinating reports on that and he could have learned beforehand, as indeed I tried to tell him, that he was wasting a day of his valuable tourist trip in Japan when he could have been looking at the bright lights or something else….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be pompous.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. May I interrupt to say that we are not here dealing with the estimates of the Minister….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely. I'm just talking about the scope of the department, which is very wide here. I'm intrigued, because the Minister himself has dwelled in recent months with his imaginative speeches on so many other subjects well outside the purview of his department, even outside the scope of Bill 71, that I wonder whether this bill is an attempt to bring him into line, to tell him that his true job is here in the Legislature, and not only here in the Legislature but here in the Legislature dealing with economic development, not playing second fiddle to the Attorney-General and trying out his chair to see whether it fits and is comfortable.

I wonder whether or not this bill isn't indeed a bit of a reprimand to the Minister for going too far in other areas, not only trying to take over powers from other governments, but also powers from other Ministers. Perhaps, in the light of the broad scope of the bill, he would like to say a word or two about that.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, in closing debate….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the Hon. Minister does conclude the debate.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I said you do conclude the debate. I'm supposed to say that, according to standing orders.

HON. MR. LAUK: Oh. I'm gratified to hear, Mr. Speaker, that you're now conforming to standing order…whatever number it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: What did you say your name was? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: David Anderson!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He's trying to take over from the Speaker, too.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with just a few remarks of import made by the Hon. Liberal Leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson), a very few — and what remarks of import he did make I'm sure will occur to me in a moment — the Liberal leader reminds me of the statement made by Field Marshal Montgomery when he was describing a young lieutenant. He said: "I cannot see how anyone can follow that officer into battle, unless, of course, out of some profound curiosity." (Laughter.)

I appreciate, of course, his kind warnings and admonitions that I shouldn't involve myself in other areas which don't concern me, such as the wholesale blackmail attack of the federal government on provincial rights in western Canada. I suppose he would think that we should remain silent and let them juggernaut over provincial rights and take away what has been ours primarily by way of royalty on primary resources in these provinces since the beginning of Confederation.

I disagree entirely with the comments made with respect to making comments on that situation or the disastrous state of port development in the City of Vancouver which has plagued our economy and economic development in this province for so many years. It is absolutely essential that the provincial Ministers not only in representing my portfolio but in other related portfolios comment, and comment frequently, on the kind of irresponsible programmes of other governments, particularly the federal government when it affects our role.

With respect to other concepts — the export of ore

[ Page 3752 ]

and so on — I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that everyone realizes in this province that what we want to do here in the best and shortest way possible is to refine and fabricate from the metals that we produce in British Columbia here at home. That's the concept.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How about importing ore?

HON. MR. LAUK: As far as importing ore, of course, that must be and will continue to be the practice of industry in this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Double standards.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't think particularly it's a double standard, Mr. Member. I think that what it is is an economic reality.

I appreciate the comments made by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) on how important a task I have as Minister, and I will comment on some of the things they've missed.

It is very strange, Mr. Speaker, that Members of the opposition will miss some of the good things that this government is doing in its various departments. I'm not saying they are doing it on purpose. They just seem to overlook it. They have a tendency to criticize and not praise. And that is most unfortunate, because quite often they forget the word "loyal" in loyal opposition, and once in a while it would be such a refreshing thing to have Hon. Members on the opposite side stand up and say: "You've done a good job." (Laughter.) I would really appreciate it. I would be able to go home so satisfied, and tell my wife of what a community of leaders we have here in this assembly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We told you you'd make a great Attorney-General.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised a few things. I think I've dealt with the attack on the federal budget. I will continue to attack the federal budget, and I hope that other responsible Members of this Legislature will do the same thing, because the very survival of this province depends on that kind of irresponsible move being prevented.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I won't comment on Bill 31, Mr. Speaker, as the other Members have done, and I will probably take my place in that debate in due course.

The comments made by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I hope don't frighten my colleagues. I know that section 4 sounds wide-ranging, but it does confine itself to economic development. I'm not going to take over the role of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) or the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), and I think maybe the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) might have a problem. I don't know. But I don't think they are particularly frightened.

In terms of Lands and Forests, of course there has to be close cooperation between the two Ministers. The responsibilities of both interrelate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Exactly. What do you think? That they are Balkanized departments that operate in secret? I know that's what occurred for 20 years and that's why we got relatively bad government and bad decisions in terms of economic development.

MR. FRASER: Balderdash!

HON. MR. LAUK: The communication between Deputies and senior civil servants on all levels in various departments has never been more efficient and more effective. We have interdepartmental committees set up that meet regularly and discuss matters of policy and implementation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. I'm glad you made that point. The Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), of course, stands up and says something about ads and steel shortages. Rather than poke fun at my good friend from Columbia River once again, I like to keep that to the corridor because he's pretty good at it himself….

The ads were placed, Mr. Speaker, to inform those who may not have heard or may not be aware that a service is being provided. The bulk of the shortages we feel we understand, and know where they are, how much, and how they will occur over the next few months, and this information is being provided in the way that I outlined in my estimates.

The record to date of this department, some of the things that you've ignored, is that through the department the Development Corporation and the department have been assembling and will assemble industrial land throughout this province to do two things: to assist those who must otherwise invest great amounts of capital in land to set up their operations. We will lease them at reasonable rates to industrial areas so that they need not worry about a great initial capital expenditure on land.

Secondly, it is an objective of this government to do whatever it can, whatever is in its power, to

[ Page 3753 ]

decentralize industrialization. And this will occur, we hope, by providing reasonably priced land through leases in other areas of the province.

The Development Corporation is now underway. It has a programme with criteria for small business loans. It has a project with a certain amount of money with respect to special projects which are going to be beneficial to the economic development of this province. The officials of the Development Corporation and my department communicate regularly with other departments with respect to the kind of development that should take place.

We have conducted many surveys, not like the ones in the past, and if I speak just one or two more minutes perhaps I'll get rid of the entire opposition and move second reading. (Laughter.)

We've got greater contact with the business community. We've solved, at least at this stage, the steel shortage. We're moving towards a more permanent solution of steel supply in this province.

We've conducted trade missions and the Minister responsible, I say to the Member for Oak Bay — I don't know whether he's still in his chair or not — the Minister responsible for DREE is myself, and I conduct the negotiations on the subsidiaries, just so there is no confusion and I'll be saying that to the good people of Peace River region on June 14, when I make a trip up there.

I move second reading.

MR. CURTIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I perceive your point of order before you say it.

MR. CURTIS: It seems to me that our numbers have shrunken below the point of quorum. Is that not correct?

MR. SPEAKER: It appears that the presence of at least 10 Members of the House, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers. Standing order 7 says:

"Whenever Mr. Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, the time of the adjournment and the names of the Members then present shall be inserted in the Journal."

I appear to be in the position that I must adjourn the House. I'm short one Member. I think I do also have a power which I would in this case invoke, and that is that I intend to declare a short recess for five minutes.

The House took recess at 3:40 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:43 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I think I should remind Hon. Members that there is a duty to attend the service of the House. There was a failure, a want of a quorum as provided under standing order 6.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did that nicely; let's go home.

MR. SPEAKER: It hasn't happened for 20 years that I know of — 25 years.

I would ask the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) to continue his remarks on Bill 71, and he can continue to talk to me if he wishes.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Did you make the motion? Oh, that's right; I'm sorry. There was a motion made but I couldn't entertain it because there was a want of quorum. Would you now make the motion?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, is he responsible for driving us all out?

HON. MR. LAUK: Now that they are all here, Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to repeat my remarks. It would only take about 25 minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

HON. MR. LAUK: No? Well, all right, I move second reading then.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Department of Economic Development Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 146.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, there is not much to say about it. It's a group of amendments that were felt to be necessary for the efficient and intelligent operation of the development corporation. Several of them were requested after they were considered by the new board of directors of the corporation, and they make good sense. I think that the bill speaks for itself.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3754 ]

Bill 146, Development Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 87.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of rather important amendments contained in this particular bill to the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

There is the provision for the exclusion of public schools, of hospitals and of municipal councils from the provision of the Public Works Fair Employment Act. This was in actuality provided for through amendments to those specific Acts in the previous session and represents more or less legal housekeeping in including those provisions in the amendments to the Public Works Fair Employment Act itself.

In addition to that provision there is a need to establish some criteria for resolving disputes which develop between labour and management in areas which are not controlled by the collective agreement requirement of the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

Members will probably recall that my rationale for removing this function from the discretion of the Minister of Labour's office was that I found objectionable the authoritarian approach whereby a Minister of the Crown has the arbitrary authority to set terms and conditions of employment.

So for those areas which are now not covered by a collective agreement we provide that the labour relations board may resolve issues that arise by making reference to a collective agreement which exists in a similar industry, and resolving disputes on the basis of a reference to that collective agreement, so that the concept of collective bargaining remains as the basis of regulating the relationship between employees and their employer.

There is the additional provision, Mr. Speaker, for some control as to the manpower of work forces involved in government contracts. In my view, this is something that is long overdue. It's my feeling that there should be the ability of the government to ensure that our native Indian population in the northern remote areas of the province have a fair opportunity to participate in large government contractual undertakings that occur from time to time in their area, and that local populations, wherever contracts may develop in the province, have some access to the employment opportunities that accrue from those contracts. That provision is now written into the Public Works Fair Employment Act.

I commend these amendments to the House. I would observe further, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments were developed in consultation with a committee of the construction industry, representing construction labour relations, and the trade union council involved in that industry. They're fully supported by those bodies.

I have no hesitation in submitting these amendments to second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly interested to hear the Minister's final comment that these amendments are brought in after consultation with the construction industry. I wonder, in just clarifying that, whether or not in fact the construction industry and the construction labour relations board are satisfied precisely with these amendments and whether the Minister has had any further consultation or discussion with them after the bill has been tabled.

I'm sure the Minister remembers that this party opposed the bill when it was first introduced last year because we have a differing philosophy, and we agreed to differ on that. We also felt that our concern was somewhat proven when soon after the bill was passed by the House we have an example of it being wrongly applied — for example, to the moving industry — when in point of fact that assurance was given to this House quite clearly that this applied only to construction on public works under the aegis of the provincial government.

I hope that by expanding the power of this bill, as indeed the bill clearly does in section 3 in particular and the section that relates to hiring practices…. I would agree with the Minister that indeed it would be very useful and very fair to ensure that local populations and, in the instance he has quoted, native Indians should be given every opportunity on government projects in a certain area.

Nevertheless, my concern goes a little further because of the very specific power that is granted to the Minister in that part of the bill. The Minister may "by order" prescribe manpower requirements and conditions in respect of the contract — the minimum number of workers that must be employed and the conditions of their employment and so on. While the example the Minister has given certainly meets with our agreement, the fact is that that power goes a great deal further in the general terms in which it is expressed in this bill.

We have the same kind of reservations about the degree to which government is insisting either on unionization as such — or where the company has less than the requirements in the eyes of the Minister, the Minister can then impose conditions existing in similar contracts.

We feel that this is just another extension of this government's power toward having control. The

[ Page 3755 ]

Minister himself used the word "control." In giving second reading of the bill he said "control of the work force on government contracts." In our view, this is undesirable. For this reason we will be opposing second reading of this bill.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, looking at the bill it is quite obvious that it is a watering down of the provisions of the original Act — the Public Works Fair Employment Act — passed last year. I can readily understand the Minister saying that he's discussed it with CLRA.

I want to say right now that CLRA accepted the principle of the original Act without these amendments. After all, CLRA represents a group of 800 unionized contractors in British Columbia. Certainly they would accept the provisions of these amendments which do give a little bit more consideration to non-union contractors in the province.

But has the Minister really talked to those people who are concerned about this legislation that you are introducing at this time — associations such as exist right here in Victoria such as the Right-to-Work Association? Certainly not. The Minister hasn't talked to those people who are concerned about the type of legislation that you have introduced here, which is rash discrimination against the workers of this province who deem not to be associated with the trade unions.

Don't you think that right should exist in this province for workers who do not want to be associated with a trade union? Don't you think their rights should be respected? Don't you think their employers should have equal rights to bid on government contracts — whereby you deny them that right?

After all, those employers, those small contractors and those workers who do not have a collective agreement should be given the same kinds of rights as the union contractors in British Columbia. They pay taxes just like the larger contractors in British Columbia, and they should have equal rights.

You don't give them equal rights under this legislation. It is harsh discrimination, that's what it is. You're watering down the discrimination slightly.

The Minister suggests that he is taking away discretionary power. I think the Minister should look at section 2(b). He has ample discretionary power to govern the job site, to indicate how many workers and what the conditions will be on the job site.

Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation because it does help a little. It improves the harsh kind of discrimination that was instituted in the Public Works Fair Employment Act in its original inception.

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

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) brought up a number of points that I would just like to comment on. He questioned the application of this Act and suggested that perhaps we have a difference of opinion in terms of whether or not collective bargaining should be the method by which fair standards are developed for the expenditure of public funds.

That is really the heart of the matter — whether or not an individual politician, as was the case in the past, dictates the terms and conditions of workers on the job, or whether or not this should be accomplished through the collective bargaining process.

In terms of exercising power, I submit that it is far more repugnant to anyone who respects individual rights to have a Minister of the Crown, or indeed any politician, dictating what terms and conditions the job shall carry. I suggest that collective bargaining is the appropriate method in all countries in the western world to regulate the relationship between the employee and the employer.

The powers relating to manpower. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that certainly I would have no intention of arbitrarily exercising that power without consultation with both the trade unions involved and the company involved who has won the contract. Obviously it would be necessary, in exercising that kind of power, to determine the availability of local and qualified tradesmen who you could include in the work force. There would be a good degree of consultation required in that exercise, and that certainly is the intention of this office.

With respect to the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), well, his response is predictable, Mr. Speaker. He gets up and defends the right-to-work groups in the City of Victoria. That is predictable and understandable. That's why, I suggest, we had the kind of chaos in labour in this province for many, many years. It was because we had a Minister of Labour under the former Social Credit government who had a disdain for trade unions.

MR. CHABOT: Point of order. Would you have that Minister withdraw that statement, please?

MR. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): You weren't referring to him, were you?

MR. CHABOT: He was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, in case you forget, that I had disdain for the trade union movement in this province. I want him to withdraw that statement. It's a lie.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member goes too far in stating that it is a lie. I think

[ Page 3756 ]

that the proper course is merely to ask the Member to withdraw an imputation that he takes personally. If it was intended personally, I'm sure the Hon. Minister would do so.

HON. MR. KING: I'm prepared to do that despite the fact that the Members across there throw charges across the floor of lying and so on. I accept that. I don't even take it seriously any more. I wouldn't think of asking that Member to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. It is perhaps too much to ask from that side of the floor that we have freedom from personal attacks…

MR. CHABOT: You know it is a lie.

HON. MR. KING: …vindictiveness and all kinds of innuendoes and irresponsible charges that are hurled across the floor. I don't expect anything better from that side of the House. I certainly wouldn't put myself on the same level by asking for a retraction from the Hon. Member.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that he stood in his place and he did in fact support an organization which calls itself the right-to-work group that does in fact have a disdain and an animosity for the trade unions of this province. In the name of freedom, which is a very questionable premise that they put forward, they take that posture. And the man who formerly acted as Minister of Labour in the former government supports that view. I think that that is a classic indication of why we had chaos and turmoil on the labour front under the previous administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a vicious man.

HON. MR. KING: I think, personally, that he is a harmless little man, and I don't take too seriously his rather intemperate outbursts and accusations of lying. I notice that he confines them to the House. So long as he does that, he will probably get by with it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: I want to make this other point. Their hostility to trade unions is something that's not quite necessary with respect to this bill. In the first place, a collective agreement can exist without a formal trade-union organization, without a certified union. If the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) had done his homework and taken the interest when he occupied the office of Minister of Labour, he would know that.

His attacks on trade unions and the need to belong to a trade union are not valid in this case because there is no such requirement in the Act. The Act requires that a collective agreement be in force, and that does not necessarily imply membership in a trade union. There are contracts in this province in existence now where there is, in fact, no certified trade union.

So I think the fears are rather empty. I think it serves only to, once again, display the basic hostility which the Social Credit opposition has for the trade-union movement in this province. I don't object to that; I think it's a record that is plainly understood by all the citizens of the province. They'll pay for it at the next election.

I move second reading.

MR. CHABOT: Twist! Twist!

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

NAYS — 2

Bill 87, Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Recorded.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Adjourned debate on Bill 31.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister adjourned the

[ Page 3757 ]

debate on the amendment.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): When I got up to reply to some of the arguments put up as to why this bill should be hoisted for six months, I was a little afraid I might carry over the 11 o'clock deadmark….

AN HON. MEMBER: Deadmark?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The 11 o'clock deadline…so I adjourned the debate. Now I have an opportunity to reply to the Members as to why we should not hoist Bill 31 for six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on Leo, accept it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, last night is not today. I had a sleep on the bill since that time and I found the only reason any of you would want to have the bill hoisted for six months is to give the mining industry possibly a chance of getting a few more millions of dollars that rightfully belong to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said we were in a very risky business. That was the reason he thought we should hoist the bill. He said that, because I made a statement the other night — something about stockpiling ore — that was another reason why we should hoist the bill.

The statement I made the other night, I think, was quite a reasonable one. If the mine was employing a number of men, and a community was depending upon that mine, and it came to a point where the mine was going to close down because it had reached the cutoff price and yet had plenty of ore left yet, we as a government could tide that mine over by stockpiling the ore until the price came back to where they could make it. Then we could sell the ore on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I stated that this was done. It was done with refined metals in Trail during the last Depression when we stockpiled many, many tons of refined lead and zinc. The company later on sold it at a much higher price. I think this is good business. If a company can do it on their own, fine and dandy. But if a company could not do it on their own, there is a possibility that the government could step in.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay also talked about clarification of definitions. I went very deeply into this during my first talk on second reading when I moved it. I'd like to say that it doesn't matter what you put in a bill; if you take it to three lawyers, you will get three interpretations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right; you should only have it to one lawyer and get one interpretation.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, it's been right through the mill.

Interjections.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) criticized me for using 70 cents rather than 80 cents or $1 copper. I say that anybody can use any figure they like and that could be the average. But when you look ahead for 1974, at the time we brought this bill down, it was a little bit more difficult to state that the price was going to continue to rise or continue high. I don't think anyone can make a firm statement on that at the present time.

The Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) said that there was no consultation. I had two years consultation on this bill.

MR. FRASER: But who with? You never listen to anybody.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, my goodness! I am rather shocked at you people telling me that I don't listen.

MR. FRASER: Did you get your executive assistant on that campaign meeting yet?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I listen very carefully, and we had many meetings in consulting about this bill and the principle of royalty. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I think it was, or the Hon. Member for North Peace, speaking about the meeting we had in regard to royalties and the presentation that the industry made in regard to royalties…. We weren't satisfied with the method because it would be a nightmare to try and apply what the industry proposed to the government. So there was a reason that we didn't accept their proposal in regard to royalties.

The reason that I suggested we have royalties…. Royalty is not a tax. It's a payment for the product you use. In every mining industry in the province that sublets a mine for others to operate — and individuals also — the first thing they say to the people who are going to produce from that mine is: "What is there in it for me?"

Royalty is a common practice with most of them. I've got the contract let out by the CPR; and right at the beginning it's a royalty that they ask for. A

[ Page 3758 ]

royalty is deducted as a cost item for the product that they're using.

MR. GIBSON: How many mines in the province right now…?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's a cost price for the product that they're using. This is a principle of business, that you pay for all the products that you use in the operation of your industry — each and every product.

Now why should you say — and I'm sure that no supplier in this province would — to any company when they want to buy something from them to get something from them: "If you make a profit, you must pay me for this article; but if you don't make a profit, I don't want anything for it"?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think we've had numerous rulings from the Chair that we must speak to the amendment. I suggest that the Minister is speaking to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well made.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Okay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Minister to speak to the amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I was just answering the very argument they used during the discussion on the amendment. I'm a little surprised that the Hon. Member would get up…because they were trying to prove why the bill should be hoisted for six months. They were talking about the 99 failures out of every so many. That was the Hon. Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) who spoke about that.

MR. WALLACE: I spoke strictly to the amendment last night.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You didn't stick too close. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister address the Chair, please?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, they were talking about every city….

MR. WALLACE: What about the federal budget?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The federal budget. That would be speaking to something else that wasn't proper on this amendment; But that's not the reason we should hoist it. I don't think that the province should run scared from the federal government to uphold their rights. If we were to run scared now and withdraw the bill because the federal government came out and made an announcement, this would be rather foolish.

When the constitution was written, it was written that the province had the ownership and control of the resources of the province. All we're doing in dealing with these resources is that we are going to sell them to the people who are going to use them in the operation of their business.

MR. WALLACE: Lougheed used to think that, too.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The Hon. Member for North Peace said that every city in the province was dependent upon mining. I'll agree because most of the letters that I got were from Vancouver; and Vancouver is the biggest mining area in the world — especially down around Howe Street where there are many, many claims staked out.

They say there were letters from little people. I got a letter, Mr. Speaker. I got a letter from a company that I worked for for 40 years. I now receive a small pension from them. This is what they state after talking about Bill 31. They're not too emphatic about Bill 31 in their letter, but they do say that if you want to do something about it, you might consider using a time-honoured, democratic process and write or telephone your MLA to see that Bill 31 should be withdrawn and reviewed.

I hope this is in accordance with the amendment, Mr. Speaker, because I'm talking about having it withdrawn or reviewed, and that's exactly what the amendment calls for.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I further quote:

"You may also wish to express your feelings about the bill in a letter to the Minister of Mines. Both the Minister and your MLA can be reached at the Provincial Legislature, Victoria, B.C."

Mr. Chairman, as a dutiful subject, I did. I didn't write a letter to my MLA and the Minister of Mines, but I confronted him with the arguments about Bill 31. After I got through, he was so convincing (Laughter) that I had to go along with him.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Did he understand you, Leo? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I tried to use all the arguments that the industry had proposed to me, but he was overpowering in his convincing argument that

[ Page 3759 ]

we should have royalties and that the bill should not be withdrawn and not be reviewed.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting to listen to the Minister of Mines talk about probably the most important legislative matter to be brought before this Legislature in quite some time — the legislative measure that will affect the economy of British Columbia probably more than any other piece of legislation that we have had in the nearly two years of socialist reign here in the province.

Before I get into the main reasons, Mr. Speaker, as to why this bill should be withdrawn, or at least postponed for six months, I would just like to comment on a couple of remarks made mostly in jest and in triviality by the Minister. That's the way he looks at most of the very serious legislation that has been brought before this House.

It seems to be a joke in the Minister's mind that he wants to kill the economy of British Columbia; but he says it's because we want to give the mining industry a chance to get more millions of dollars.

Well, that's a cliché and that's where the Minister of Mines always sort of attacks the opposition when they talk. He tries to build up in the minds of the people of this province that it is the mining industry that the opposition is concerned about.

I want to tell you right here and now that the opposition is concerned about the people of British Columbia and the jobs of the many thousands of people that are involved in the mining industry. We also feel that the mining industry should pay their fair share. I want to set the record straight.

What we want the bill postponed for six months for is to give the government another opportunity to open its eyes to the facts. A six-month postponement of this bill will give the government a chance to see the results of this legislation. Because within six months, without putting the bill through, there will be a suspension of mining activities, and you will be able to see what would happen if the bill were actually passed.

MR. CUMMINGS: Where's your leader, if this bill is so important?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister says that he has had…. Mr. Speaker, I hope I'm not going to be confronted with that chirping Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain while I'm making my talk. If he has something to say, I wish he'd stand up and contribute to the debate. You know we in the opposition, when we're trying to talk, Mr. Speaker, get a little tired of the chirping and the chaffing and the noises from across the floor.

Certainly when they have their opportunity to stand up and speak in the debate the entire backbench is practically quiet. The silence is deadening!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the amendment. I would ask the other Hon. Members to obey standing order 19(2) and allow the Member to speak in silence.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that he has had two years of consultation with the industry and he doesn't need another six months. Out of that two years of consultation the Minister met with some of the executives of some of the mining corporations, but when it came time for the Minister to go out and meet face to face with the hundreds of people involved in the mining industry — the people who I am speaking for in this Legislature this afternoon — he became afraid.

AN HON. MEMBER: He took a power.

MR. PHILLIPS: He took a power, that's right. When it came to getting right down to the crux of the situation, he wouldn't attend the meetings — he became afraid. So he has talked to a few mining executives and he scans the financial statement and says: "Oh, you made millions of dollars of profit." He doesn't look at the debt retirement or what the complete financial status is, but he takes a look at the end figure. Particularly last year, profits were the result of world demand and high prices for minerals — world demand and high prices caused by similar legislation in other communist countries that created a false scarcity, thereby shoving up the price of metals. That's why.

The Minister didn't go back two or three years and take a look. I intend to point out some of the areas of failure in mines. In previous years the price of copper was normal and it should be normal. There is no reason in the world to have the tremendously high price for copper that there is in the world today. There is lots of copper in the world — millions and millions and millions and hundreds of millions of tons of copper. So there is no reason whatsoever for the people of this world, and in particular the people of British Columbia, to have to pay a premium in our present day and age for a metal as necessary as copper. They are paying that premium due strictly to the stupidity in other countries of legislation that is similar, Mr. Speaker, to exactly what this Minister is trying to pass through this Legislature at this time.

Just one further comment, Mr. Speaker. The Minister says that if you are going to buy something you are going to have to pay for it. He refers to the royalty on a mineral as something that you are going to have to pay for. I remember last year, in this Legislature, where he referred to it as a popcorn stand

[ Page 3760 ]

where you have to pay for your popcorn. I would suggest to the Minister that there is no such resemblance at all. None at all. If you had to go out and search for the popcorn and you didn't know where it was, and you had to spend hundreds of dollars to find that hidden popcorn, and then when you did find it you weren't sure it was all there or how much was there and you had to spend millions more to get it out of its hiding place, you would have to pay more for popcorn and the price would go up and people wouldn't be able to afford it. That's exactly the whole theme of your bill.

So it is not that simple. If the government had the ore in its hand and went to the mining company and said, "Here is the ore — you pay for it," then there might be some similarity. But there is absolutely no similarity between finding an unknown quantity and spending the millions of dollars to find it and the millions of dollars to develop it all of which, as the Minister should know full well, might be a complete waste because when the product comes onto the market the price could have changed.

I'm just commenting, Mr. Speaker, and I'm just about through, on the Minister's remarks. The last thing he said was that he convinced himself that this was good legislation. I want to tell you that when that Mines Minister looked in the mirror he didn't see the Mines Minister, he saw the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the true architect of Bill 31. He didn't see the Mines Minister at all. As soon as he saw the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in that mirror he knew that there was no backing out — no backing out whatsoever.

That's how the Minister was able to convince himself that he couldn't really do anything with this bill. The true source of power in that government, the true architect of this legislation….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is just one more reason, Mr. Speaker, why this bill should be hoisted. It isn't really the government's policy and it isn't really the Minister's policy. It's the policy of the great architect — the man who wouldn't sign the Waffle Manifesto because it wasn't strong enough. That's why the Minister can't withdraw this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we would like to see this bill suspended — you can sit back and relax, I'm through discussing the Minister for the moment — is so that the many thousands of people involved, not maybe directly in the mining industry but in industries that serve the mining industry, will have a chance to come to the Minister and point out to him cold, hard facts as to what the results of this legislation will be.

Another reason that this bill should be suspended is due to the very fact that the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province said he wanted to look at another legislative body in Canada in the Province of Ontario which brought in mining legislation to make the mining companies of that great province pay their fair share.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mining companies are fighting that, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: They can fight it. That doesn't matter to me. Just let me carry on.

In the Province of Ontario…and I agree with them. They are taxing their mining companies on their profits. If they have windfall profits then the people of Ontario are going to share in it. But if the price goes down they are not paying for something that they cannot possibly financially or economically take out of the ground. There is where the people lose. There is where the people of British Columbia will lose.

The Minister can talk about buying the ore when it reaches a certain price all he wants to. If he would just learn a few lessons from other jurisdictions…. If we had a six-month suspension of this bill, let the Minister of Finance go to Ontario and study that legislation. Let him go and talk to the mining industry in Ontario. Let him go and talk to the Minister of Mines in Ontario.

I have to say that I agree with the method of the Province of Ontario of returning to the people some of the excess profits when the price is good and they do have windfalls. But you can't tax them before they have it or the mineral will stay in the ground. The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) knows that.

No, Mr. Speaker, we are not against the people of British Columbia getting their fair share from the resources of this province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think you're going to convince yourself, too, that you're going to vote for it.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not going to convince myself. You must realize that the mining industry in British Columbia has been built up over a long period of time. As I said in this Legislature last year, the mining legislation in British Columbia is probably the best mining legislation in any jurisdiction in the world. Other provinces came here to study it. Last year a phenomenal thing happened. As I pointed out before, there were excess profits because prices went over, above and beyond the wildest dreams of any of the people in the mining industry. They never dreamed that the price of copper would go as high as it did. The reason it happened last year was because

[ Page 3761 ]

there was a shortage created in the world market or it wouldn't have happened. When you see situations like that it is thy same as our stumpage on trees. It is based on the New York price and when the market goes up the returns to the people of B.C. go up. But that is after the tree has been cut down.

As I have said before, a mineral is not a natural resource like a tree that you can see, like agriculture, like coal — not even like the petroleum industry, which takes a great deal of money to search and find out. It runs in various veins. Geologists can pretty well determine where it is going to be. Not so with the mineral.

We have no idea how many tons of various ores there are in British Columbia because they are hidden, usually in mountainous terrain. They are sought out with great difficulty by the prospectors. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in your riding it takes many hundreds of thousands of dollars even to find out what is there once the claim or some show has been found.

Therefore minerals are not a natural resource. We don't know what we have in natural resources until the money is spent to find them and prove them out.

It's not like a river. That power, that energy is there for the eye to see; all you have to do is send a surveyor out there to find out how great it is. But you know it's there. Minerals don't come into the same category — none whatsoever.

What bothers me is that when the prospecting of minerals ceases in British Columbia — which it will do — it is going to be too late if this legislation becomes law. If you suspend it for six months, then the results will be visible. The Minister will see what is happening in this great province of ours. Then it won't be too late for him to kill the bill. If it becomes law, it will then be too late. That's why we're pleading with the Minister to hold this bill over.

We have another province with a socialist government — the Province of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, the government there decided to do something similar to what this province is doing to the oil industry. What happened in the Province of Saskatchewan? Maybe if they had held their bill in abeyance for six months or a year it would have opened the eyes of the government.

Who is paying in Saskatchewan today for the policies of that socialist government years ago? Who is paying? It is the people of Saskatchewan who are paying, and paying dearly. They are in the one province in this Canada of ours who could be today taking in millions and millions and millions of dollars from the oil industry. Why are they not? Because of the shortsighted policies of a previous socialist government in that province.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about my children in just a few moments. I'm going to talk about people and I'm going to talk about the future people in this province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are you on the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly I'm on the amendment!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I doubt it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Had the Saskatchewan government, at the time they were bringing in this legislation to tax the oil companies out of Saskatchewan, held that bill up for six months or a year — which we are asking you to do — they would have seen what was going to happen to the oil industry in Saskatchewan. But they didn't. They rushed it through.

Today we're speaking for the people of British Columbia, not for the mining industry. We're speaking for the people of British Columbia. That's who we were sent here to represent. We weren't sent here to represent the mining industry; we were sent here to represent the people. That's what the whole mining industry is about — people, like the people in Saskatchewan who today are losing because of short-sighted legislation of that government years ago. I'm not going to read the whole article but I do want to quote from it, if you'll….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! I would ask the Hon. Member to try to make his remarks more relevant to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm making my remarks relevant because I have to point out what happened in the previous jurisdiction and why this Minister should hold this bill up, Mr. Speaker.

Fred Presley, chairman of the Oil Service Technical Workers Association, centred in Estevan, writes. This isn't talking about any oil company; this is talking about an association of service technical workers. He says:

"The industry has given supply and service firms advance information indicating that there will be 200 new wells drilled in southern Saskatchewan in 1974. But so far only six have materialized."

These are people who are involved in this, not the oil industry.

"This has proved to be particularly catastrophic for the southeast area of the province because the supply, service and production industry makes up some 25 per cent of the region's economy. In the City of Estevan alone, oil industry property tax assessments

[ Page 3762 ]

total $1.7 million a year. Four firms have already been forced to close down.

"The Blakeney government has now promised grants and loans to keep the service industry's 1974 profit at 1973 levels. At the same time, it has broadened tax incentives to the oil companies in the hope of luring them back into the field."

This is a direct result of short-sighted policies. That's why we want the Minister to suspend this bill. We don't want him to come back into this Legislature, offering incentives, using taxpayers' money to keep service industries alive. That's exactly what will happen. If he holds it up for six months, maybe he will open his eyes; maybe the Minister of Finance will open his eyes and see what is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their eyes are open but their minds are closed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there it is. This is a direct result and a true case in Saskatchewan of what will happen in the Province of British Columbia if this bill goes through. The people of British Columbia will be the ones who will suffer. The people of British Columbia will become unemployed. Then the Minister of Finance, with reduced revenues from the mining industry, will have to subsidize industries or let them go broke.

Just another interesting article along the same line out of the Northern Miner: May 2, 1974. It's entitled: "The Wrecking Crew."

"We are all human and therefore find it hard to suppress a chuckle, however bitter, when the opportunity to say, 'll told you so,' occurs in the case of Saskatchewan, where New Democratic Party policies have led precisely to the tragic situation that common sense predicted."

That's what we're trying to point out. If this bill isn't suspended, it will be the same type of catastrophic situation in British Columbia that common sense dictates to us will happen.

"Saskatchewan voters fell for the barrage of NDP propaganda, promising to take it away from the rich and giving it to the poor, and elected the socialists, perhaps thinking that they are the poor who will get it all. Saskatchewan is getting it now all right — right where it hurts most, right in the pocket book."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What year was that?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's happening right now, Mr. Minister of Mines.

One of the reasons this bill must be suspended and held is to point out to the government the error of their ways. It is the policy of this government to enlarge on its socialist policy for people. Those very people whom this government wants to help will be the ones who will suffer when the kitty is dry, when people aren't employed and when the economy is not vibrant and the tax dollars cease to flow.

We're asking this government to do exactly what they said they wouldn't do. We're asking them not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Maybe with a suspension of six months, they will realize there are no more golden eggs coming from the mining industry. Then, Mr. Chairman, they will take a second look.

It's too bad that this particular day here in British Columbia where we're debating this particular bill comes from such an odd set of circumstances. Had the world price of minerals and the high demand not happened in 1973, I doubt very much, in all sincerity, if we would be debating Bill 31 here in this Legislature today. I doubt it very much.

But there was a bonanza for the Province of British Columbia last year; a bonanza not brought about by any policies of the government in power. It was a bonanza brought about by stupid, idiotic policies of other jurisdictions, as I said before, creating a false shortage.

Expenditures on exploration for minerals in the Province of British Columbia declined last year, as I predicted in this Legislature during debate of Bill 44. Had Bill 44 been suspended for six months, Bill 44 might never have been passed. Mining exploration did dwindle in the province last year with only those moneys being spent which had been committed in previous years. New money was not committed in the Province of British Columbia last year for the exploration and the seeking out of new ore bodies.

But what happened in an area far more severe in many instances than in the Province of British Columbia, in the northern jurisdiction of the Yukon? Money spent for exploration and seeking and development of new mines more than doubled in other jurisdictions, in the Northwest Territories and in Ontario. In a time when the highest prices ever known for certain minerals were being paid, moneys for development of new ore bodies in British Columbia declined.

Why? Strictly because of legislation passed in this Legislature last year by the government. Had they suspended or held up the passing of that bill, they would have seen, as we are trying to get them to see now, the error of their ways. The facts would come clear. When unemployment and people start moving out who were involved in the mining industry, when they start moving out of British Columbia, then they would see. In our own area, north on the Alaska Highway, already one mine which was going to be re-opened and was going to go ahead has stopped because of this bill — and it's not even law yet.

[ Page 3763 ]

I want to mention this mine in particular because this is just one more reason why this bill should be suspended. I want to refer to Churchill Copper Mine, which is located 80 miles west of Fort Nelson in northern British Columbia. This mine went into production when the price of copper was 70 cents a pound. I remember it well. As a matter of fact, I drove into that mine over miles and miles of very, very dusty road and looked at it. The price dropped and the mine shut down after 18 months to await a better copper market. And it came. They reopened in January of this year.

Right across the mountain from Churchill Mines is another mine known as Davis Keys Mine. This mine was also going to be opened up with either a trench or a road connecting the two mines. All plans for that, Mr. Chairman, because of Bill 31, have been suspended., But in the first quarter of this year, Churchill Copper resumed operations and they thought they had made $1,075,000. But under the proposed legislation this is a windfall profit, and the company expects it will be reduced by royalties to $184,000 — not even enough to service that mine's debt. That mine, really, since the day it opened up, hasn't made enough profit to pay good interest on the money that was originally put into the mine.

How can the Minister of Mines justify this legislation in view of what is actually taking place to date? That's why we're simply asking for another six months. Does he ever ask himself when the creditors will get their money? Who is getting a fair return on investment? Because copper prices were high in 1973, does that really mean windfall profits?

Who would the windfall profits go to? The windfall profits would go to mainly the small investors who want to keep their money in British Columbia, who want to do a little gambling and a little risking. The Minister stands up and he talks about the barons of Howe Street. Maybe he doesn't realize that the billions and billions of dollars mainly that have gone into mining in British Columbia have come from small investors, people like you and me, who want to invest in British Columbia.

We hear lots of grandiose talk about why Canadians don't own their own industry. Governments in Canada don't give them a chance to own their own industry.

Maybe if this legislation is suspended, the government will be able to wake up and look further than beyond its nose. I think this government has its nose pressed against a mirror and it keeps trying to convince itself that it is right.

This government was not elected to ruin the economy of British Columbia. They do not have the mandate to do that. This is why those involved in the mining industry must continue to get their message out. This is why we need a six-month suspension.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the mining industry of late has been trying to tell a story, but it's very difficult for the small industries connected with the mining industry to get their story across.

I was interested in an article issued by the United Steel Workers that recently came over my desk. In the article it says:

"Huge increase in metal prices in 1973 shot net after-tax profits for the British Columbia mining industry to about $300 million last year."

The figures from the profits of the mining industry are not even in yet so I don't know where the United Steel Workers got their figure. But it goes on to say:

"Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act, now before the British Columbia Legislature, seeks to protect the people of B.C. from the gouging of their natural mineral resource by the mining industry solely for profit-making. Very modest royalties on mineral production, as contained in Bill 31 would guarantee at least some of those profits would remain in the Province of British Columbia for the benefit of the people of British Columbia."

I wonder if the United Steel Workers would be interested in keeping some of the funds they collect from the workers in British Columbia in the Province of British Columbia for the benefit of their own workers.

I'd like to just point out a few facts — and these are all the reasons why this bill has got to be suspended. It's got to be suspended; we must have time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be a little clearer in showing why it's relevant to this amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, Mr. Chairman. I'll just take some 1972 figures because I don't think the Minister is aware of the fantastic amount of money put into the economy of British Columbia by the mining industry. I don't mean by mining companies; I'm talking about the entire industry. These are facts and figures which are true facts and figures from 1972.

Funds expended in the Province of British Columbia by the mining industry were $731 million. That's a lot of money to put in the economy — and supposing, that amount of money stops going into the economy. Maybe in 1972 the government did not get the rightful amount of taxes from the mining industry. Maybe.

But why punish the entire economy of British Columbia? Why punish the people who depend on this industry for their livelihood? Why punish them? After all, Mr. Speaker, what are our natural resources for? What are the natural resources of British

[ Page 3764 ]

Columbia there for?

They are there, Mr. Speaker, to benefit the people of British Columbia. It's their natural resource. And those natural resources that are in the Province of British Columbia will not benefit the people of this province one iota — not one red nickel — as long as they remain buried in the ground and unfound.

Mr. Speaker, on a six-month hoist on this bill, when the money stops rolling in, when the unemployment increases, when the true facts of the results of this legislation are brought down on this government, then they'll take a second look. But, Mr. Speaker, if the bill is passed now, it will be too late.

Out of this $731 million expended by the mining industry nearly half, or $350 million, was paid to suppliers, people who supplied that mining industry. They are all taxpayers. Anybody who sold something to a mining industry bought something else and paid a tax, a 5 per cent tax — and all the other taxes — and it went to the coffers of the province. These are the people who pay taxes, not the mining companies — the people involved, the 50,000 people directly involved in the mining industry.

What will happen when they become unemployed or they don't sell? Where will the money come from for the government to provide the services to the people they want to help? That's why the natural resources were put there. They were put there for the benefit of the people. If this bill goes through, those very people I'm talking about will have a chance to see the results.

That's why we need another six-month suspension: not for the mining companies, but so that all the people of British Columbia will see the results.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let's hear it for the mining companies.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking for the mining companies, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm talking about the people, the taxpayers of British Columbia, because you're too short-sighted to see the fallacy of your ways, Mr. Attorney-General.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please, and address himself to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe if this bill were suspended for six months we would be able to find out who the true architect was of this bill — who the true architect is and what the true intent is.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You don't have to look any further.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Gaffney and his think-tank had a chance to survey this bill. Maybe he would recommend that it be suspended for six months, as we are doing.

I won't take the time to go into further ramifications of the dollars involved and how the people of British Columbia will be suffering because of this legislation. But it bothers me to see the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, when we're asking him — not to kill the bill, not at this time — to suspend it…. It's a reasonable request, and he sits there in this House with his simple, senile smile….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the adjective "senile." I think that that is inappropriate in a parliamentary debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the word "senile."

Mr. Speaker, he knows full well that if this bill were suspended for six months he himself would be convinced that the bill should be killed for all time.

All we are asking is to let the people of British Columbia have the opportunity to find out the true facts. Because they are being given a bill of goods now about corporate rip-offs, about excess mining profits; and it is not the true story of how it affects the ordinary taxpayers. A six-month suspension will let these people realize the true effect of this legislation.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Maybe in six months the facts would sink into you.

MR. PHILLIPS: One other reason that the bill should be suspended is because it is a poorly written bill, a very poorly written bill.

In the bill, for instance, there is a description of the word "mineral." I'm not going to go into all the poorly written areas of the bill, but in this one instance it says:

"Mineral means any non-living substance formed by the process of nature which occurs within, upon or under land irrespective of chemical or physical state, but does not include soil, earth, surface water and ground water."

Do you know that that description, interpretation, in its present form means that if I should die tomorrow and my body goes under the ground…?

AN HON. MEMBER: Animal, vegetable or mineral?

MR. PHILLIPS: It comes under the jurisdiction of the Mineral Act.

[ Page 3765 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Nobody would stake a claim over you.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. According to this Act, Mr. Speaker, the vegetables in my vegetable garden come under the jurisdiction of the Mineral Act.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: They certainly do, because they are a non-living substance formed by a process of nature which occurs under the earth.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have to look at this interpretation of the word "mineral." What are other far-reaching effects?

HON. MR. LEA: We're after your garden.

MR. PHILLIPS: You might be after my garden, but this is stupidity. This is a poorly written description.

AN HON. MEMBER: We sure wouldn't be after your body. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: You go ahead and laugh, Mr. Minister. You'll be laughing on the other side of your face some day. I'm warning you right now. If he's got the sense to realize what he's doing, he'll be laughing on the other side of his face. I didn't write the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address himself to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I don't know how I could address myself more to the amendment. I'm pointing out how poorly written this bill is. Just one clause. Now if the description of that one word is so poorly written, how much thought went into the other areas of the bill?

I'm not even sure what other areas…. If you plan a compost and you cover it with earth and a chemical reaction occurs, the Minister of Mines has the right to come in and charge you royalty on that compost when you take it out and put it on top of your garden according to this description, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You've got to go back to the….

MR. PHILLIPS: I've got to go back? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that Minister had better go back somewhere and find out exactly what a mineral is. Maybe he wants the power to take my compost from me.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, at the present time this province is ablaze with fear and hate of this government. They said they were going to be an open government. They said they were going to listen. All we are asking here today is that this government take another six months to listen to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, where is this open government? Where is this government which was going to listen to the people? Hoist this bill; just hoist this bill and let the people of British Columbia have their say.

MR. CUMMINGS: Where's your leader?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there was an announcement over the radio today at noon about another government that was going to bring in similar legislation — the Government of the Province of Manitoba. That mining legislation was not as harsh or as hard on the mining companies as this Bill 31.

The Members of the opposition in the Province of Manitoba stood in their Legislature and pointed out to the Minister of Mines of Manitoba, Mr. Sidney Green, what would happen to taxpayers and taxes and the economy of the Province of Manitoba if that legislation was passed. That government in the Province of Manitoba, which was interested in the people of Manitoba, took a second look, something this government has never done in the nearly two years it has been in office. It hasn't taken any second looks yet.

All we're asking is for this government to take a second look. Is that an unreasonable request, Mr. Chairman? Not at all.

I'm going to read the announcement; the purpose of it is to back up this amendment we presently have:

"Sidney Green, Minister of Mines, has agreed with the opposition. Because of the complexity of the bill, with its three-tier royalty provisions, he is postponing the bill until the next taxation year."

Not just for six months, but for the next taxation year. Maybe by that time the effects of his legislation will come more clearly to him. Maybe he will withdraw the bill in its entirety.

Is six months too short a period of time? To back up our amendment, I can recall legislation being shoved through this Legislature and the Premier standing up and telling us of the urgency of it. Much of that legislation today has not brought one iota of

[ Page 3766 ]

good to the people of British Columbia.

I remember when the Industrial Development Corporation of British Columbia was being established for about $25 million to establish secondary industry in the province. The Premier stood on the floor of this House and threatened the Members for North and South Peace River when they asked to have certain provisions made and when we asked in one particular instance to have it hoisted for six months. No, he stood up and he said he was going into our riding and he was going to tell how we're against it.

That has been well over 14 months ago. To date, not one single, solitary benefit from that legislation that was crammed down our throats has accrued to the taxpayers or to any secondary industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I think this government, if they were at all serious and truly responsible to the people of British Columbia, to the taxpayers of British Columbia, would take a second look. It won't hurt their dignity. They're not necessarily backing down. They can justify it because they want to find out the true effects of the legislation.

If this legislation comes into being, there will be many copper mines in British Columbia that will be closed down. Many other marginal copper bodies will not be developed. The government says: "Well, the minerals will not rot in the ground. They'll be there for tomorrow's generations."

But will those mines ever be reopened? Will those ore bodies that are presently discovered ever be developed? No, because of Bill 31 they will not be developed. In particular, copper ores vary in grade. Copper mining in British Columbia is not good at the best of times because of the proximity of the ore to transportation and because of the low grade of the ore.

But because of the technology developed right here in our province, copper mining has been feasible — but strictly only because of technology developed here in the Province of British Columbia, technology that today is vacating our province. Today geologists and other technicians are searching elsewhere for jobs in the mining industry because mining in British Columbia is slowly grinding to a halt.

Another reason I would like to have this bill suspended for six months is to allow the government to do some research into the copper industry in British Columbia. They have said they are going to set up a task force to check into the industry. Why do they need a copper task force?

Here's an ad in the paper, Mr. Speaker. The Government of British Columbia is going to set up a copper task force.

"A task force has been appointed to inquire into various facets of British Columbia's copper mining industry."

Wouldn't it be better to wait until this task force brings in its report before this damaging legislation becomes law? That's just one more reason that this government should take a second look and hoist this bill for six months.

"The task force will propose recommendations regarding the development strategy for the province's copper resources. But first many questions need to be answered."

Don't you feel, that if we're going to establish a task force to check into this one area of our mining industry, this bill should not be put through until the results of their findings are brought to the Minister?

It seems ironic to me…. No, I'll go further than that: I'll say it seems stupid to me to bring in legislation that will have as much effect on the copper mining industry as this Bill 31 will do — it will effect copper probably more than any other mineral — while we're establishing a task force to go out and bring in recommendations. It just sounds idiotic and stupid.

This is one more reason why this bill should be hoisted for just six months until the end of the year. After that time we'll know what is going to happen in the federal election. We'll know what government is going to be in power in Ottawa. We'll know what their thoughts are.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It won't be Social Credit anyway.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): It won't be NDP.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: This copper is very, very interesting to me because of statements made in this Legislature by the Premier, because of the policy of the government. Did you know that in the world today there is enough known copper to last the entire population of this world for thousands and thousands of years?

No, the Minister shakes his head. He didn't know this. Yet he wants to leave the copper which could accrue some immediate benefits to the taxpayers of British Columbia in the ground.

If this bill were suspended for six months, it would give that Minister of Mines an opportunity to do some research. When he did some research, he would find out that on the floor of the ocean there are literally tens of thousands of square miles of nodules of various minerals, mainly copper, in an area over the size of the ocean floor, an area greater in size than the entire square miles in the whole of Canada. Enough copper to last the population of the world for thousands and thousands of years.

[ Page 3767 ]

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the Minister says we can't exploit our minerals now; we can't develop our mines now. Our children or our grandchildren will have them.

If the copper mines in British Columbia are not developed within the next five to seven years, they will never be developed.

At the present time hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to find a means of processing this ore body from the floor of the ocean. This ore body can be brought up by means of large vacuum pumps similar to those used….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now! Mr. Speaker, this is interesting for me to see the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). I know he has little faith in the technology of the world. He has little faith in mankind as it is. That's why he is a socialist, I guess. He has no faith in the future, he has no faith in mankind, and he has no faith in himself.

HON. MR. LEA: Point of order. I think the Member assumed I was saying something about his reference to technology. All I said to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) was, "How can he keep talking like that and go on and on and on and say nothing?"

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Members please address the Chair? That would avoid the across the floor reference to….

MR, PHILLIPS: I just want to make one comment on what the Minister of Highways said. I am pointing out to him something that he didn't know previous to my saying it but he says I am not saying anything new, because the Minister has a closed mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking on the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm talking on the amendment because I am pointing out to you that you are not aware of the vast resources of copper elsewhere in the world. That is why you need to do some research.

Mining off the ocean floor will supercede man-mining. The Americans, Japanese and Russians are all involved in developing this new technology. Why did they start this search in the first place? Because jurisdictions similar to this brought in stupid mine-killing legislation and dried up the source. The markets which require this mineral are looking elsewhere.

I have said in this Legislature before that we don't know on this earth the amount of our resources. We have no idea. Before we will ever know the true extent, we must spend millions and millions of dollars to find them.

Do, you think if there was a Bill 31 hanging over the head of the companies in the countries that are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into finding this new technology, they would even bother? No, Mr. Speaker, there would be no new technology in finding copper or getting it from the bottom of the ocean floor if there was a Bill 31. None whatsoever. The Minister of Mines would say, "This one is mine before you even get your hands on it."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he is really arguing the question of the advisability of passing the bill when what he should be discussing is the advisability of delaying the question of second reading until six months hence.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry if I maybe haven't made myself clear. If we delay the reading of the bill until six months hence, it will give the Minister a chance to do some research. He will find out that what I am telling you here today is true.

We also have manganese nuggets off of the coast of British Columbia and we don't know what else.

MR. CHABOT: In abundance too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, certainly in abundance. As I've said before, the known copper deposits on the floor of the ocean are estimated to be able to do the population of the world for thousands and thousands of years.

The point I am trying to make is that by that time, Mr. Speaker, maybe there will be some other source found. I have faith enough in the resources of this world and the way the whole world was put together. But no other source will be found unless the government delays a reading of this bill for six months, finds out exactly where they are going, knows the true results of it and then will suspend the bill.

Another reason I would like to see second reading of this bill delayed….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, at the request of the Premier — and this opposition is certainly always cooperative because we are interested in the people's business — I will move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the Legislature.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3768 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 152, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): First, I want to thank the Members of the opposition for their cooperation in allowing us to have second reading at this early date.

In moving second reading, I suggest the time to debate this bill is in committee. There are, I think, only five validating sections in the bill. I think they are reasonably self-explanatory.

I move second reading.

MR. FRASER: On behalf of this party we support this. This is really the goofup bill to correct goofups that were made by different municipalities. We have no objections to this.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Likewise, Mr. Speaker, we will support second reading of this bill, but there are a couple of matters I have spoken to the Minister about briefly.

There is a provision in here which will provide certain other opportunities for forgiveness to the municipalities in respect of very specific matters. This apparently is in this particular legislation because it is companion to other matters which are also in this legislation.

I would be pleased to know if the Minister could indicate that, when next we have revisions of the Municipal Act, those rights of forgiveness will be properly enshrined in that statute rather than to continue to carry them forward in the enabling and validating Act.

There is one other matter dealing with certain bylaws in the municipality of Burnaby. We can deal with that specifically under committee.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we support this bill. Having spent a few years on the other side of a bill such as this, I realize its importance and significance for individual municipalities which have a problem and which look to legislation of this kind to correct some ills and errors which have occurred over the past year. We endorse this bill.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would just point out to the Hon. Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) that I am in agreement that the rights that are given should be in the Municipal Act. This section was put in this particular bill due to the fact that the forgiveness on the sewers payments are in this Act. I agree that they could be transferred over to the Municipal Act.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 152, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to proceed to motions 27 and 28. I think we could do them together. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, in moving motion 27, this is to allow the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters to visit such islands as they deem necessary in the continuing study of the islands' development that was started last year. This motion will allow the committee if they so decide to visit some of those islands.

Motion approved.

On motion 28.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, this motion is to allow the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters to look into the question of taxation for the assessment committee that brought in its report a little earlier this year. It also provides if necessary or if the committee decides, for the holding of hearings outside the City of Victoria.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Committee in the conduct of its responsibility following the passing of this motion will be empowered to examine legislation of any other jurisdictions. I wonder if the Minister in this motion is indicating that the committee may travel outside the province. I happen to know that there are some very interesting taxation procedures in Switzerland and in Hawaii, and I'm certain that the deliberations of the committee would be enriched by the opportunity of examining at first hand the legislation in those other jurisdictions.

We might be able to add some supernumeraries to the Committee to ensure that we are properly guided on any such excursion. We have some Members of this House and those associated with this House with great experience in travelling about the world and a guided tour would be most helpful.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the assurance of the Minister who proposes this motion that to the best of his ability and within the limits of government responsibility the words "the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and

[ Page 3769 ]

records and to hear representations" et cetera will be followed as closely as possible. I think that obviously the advisers to the present government have already looked at this. It would be rather pointless for the committee to in effect be going through the motions on a matter as important as this. Therefore if some of this information and research has already been undertaken, will it be made available to the all-party committee in order that it can file a meaningful and comprehensive report on this subject?

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

HON. MR. LORIMER. In answering the question from the Hon. Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis), I presume that he's referring to myself and other possible committee members of the government group. I can assure the Member we have not considered in any way changes or examined any papers in regard to the studies the committee might be going into. Obviously the committee will be free, as the motion suggests, to look at whatever documents can be made available. It certainly hasn't been done in advance, if that's what you're referring to. I think that's probably what you have in your mind. That has not been done.

I was sorry to hear the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) bringing up the question of examining legislation in other jurisdictions. I'd hoped that we could discuss this privately in our own committee room. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Secret meetings.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Hon. Administrator is coming.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I've been advised that His Honour the Administrator is with us at this very moment, so if the House would agree, we could call him.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all Members please rise?

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Real Property Tax Deferment Act

British Columbia Day Act

British Columbia Tartan Act

Blind Persons' Rights Act

Metric Conversion Act

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974

Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974

College Pension Amendment Act, 1974

Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1974

Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1974

Pharmacy Act

Statutes Act

Islands Trust Act

Securities Amendment Act, 1974

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2)

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974

Municipal Amendment Act, 1974

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please your Honour, we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and humbly beg to present for your Honour's acceptance Bill 148, intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1974.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tomorrow we'll deal with legislation, unless anybody wants to go back to estimates. (Laughter.) Routine bills and perhaps back onto that routine one, Bill 31; all the ones with sweeping powers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.

[ Page 3770 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 3744 et seq.:

121    Ms. Sanford to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 121) intituled Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974, to amend as follows:

By adding after section 11 the following as section 11A:

"Citizenship declaration

"11A. (1) Every person claiming to be registered as owner in fee simple or claiming any charge on land, other than a money judgment, shall include with his application for registration a statutory declaration, in a form prescribed by regulation, stating, if such be the case, whether he

(a) is a Canadian citizen; or

(b) has been lawfully admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act (Canada) for permanent residence; or

(c) is a citizen of a foreign country or state.

"(2) If the person referred to in subsection (1) is a citizen of a foreign country or state, he shall state in his declaration the country or state of which he is a citizen.

"(3) Where such person is a corporation, in lieu of the declaration required by subsections (1) and (2), the application shall include a statutory declaration, in a form prescribed by regulation, stating the number of directors of the corporation and whether or not they are Canadian citizens or have been lawfully admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act (Canada) for permanent residence.

"(4) If the statutory declaration required by subsection (3) shows that any of the directors are not Canadian citizens or have not been lawfully admitted to Canada, as aforesaid, the declaration shall contain particulars as to the names, addresses, and citizenship of those directors.

"(5) Where the facts stated in the declarations required by subsections (1), (2), and (3) materially change after such persons become registered owners, they shall forthwith give notice, in a form prescribed by regulation, to the Registrar, of the change.

"(6) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by order, exempt a corporation or a class of corporation from the requirements of subsections (3) and (4), and the exemption may be made subject to such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers necessary."

By adding after section 13, the following as section 14:

"Commencement

"14. (1) This Act, excepting this section and the title, comes into force on a date to be fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor by his Proclamation, and he may fix different dates for the coming into force of the several provisions.

"(2) This section and the title come into force on Royal Assent."

[ Page 3771 ]

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 3746 et seq.:

127    The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 127) intituled Companies Amendment Act, 1974, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 8: By deleting the word "and" at the end of the line.

Line 10: By deleting the period at the end and substituting the word "; and".

By adding after clause (c), the following as clause (d):

"(d) in the definition of 'reporting company', by striking out the word 'Commission' wherever it appears and substituting the words 'Superintendent of Brokers'."

Section 3, line 15: By deleting the word "corporation" and substituting the word "company".

By deleting lines 19 to 28 and substituting the following:

"(e) a subsequent bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration who, before registration of the mortgage, either has obtained possession of any of the property charged by the mortgage or has registered in his favour a bill of sale of any of the property charged by the Mortgage, void in respect of that property at the time of and after the purchase; and

"(f) a subsequent bona fide mortgagee of any of the property charged by the mortgage, whose mortgage is registered in accordance with this Act, the Assignment of Book Accounts Act or Bills of Sale Act, void in respect of that property at the time of and after registration of the mortgage in favour of the subsequent bona fide mortgagee."

Section 5, line 9: By inserting after the word "company" the words "given by that person to the company".

Line 11: By inserting after the word "that" the words ", or the directors are of the opinion that,".

Lines 20 and 21: By deleting the word "a" at the end of line 20 and the word "subsidiary" at the beginning of line 21, and substituting the words "an affiliate".

Section 11, line 2: By deleting the number "228" and substituting the numbers "221, 228, ".

The following motion is referred to on page 3768:

27    The Hon. J. G. Lorimer to move—

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters, upon prorogation of the House, to examine into and study the following matters, namely:

(1) The question of the future development, including the development of community plans, of the Gulf Islands and such other islands in the vicinity as the Committee may consider appropriate, excluding those already studied by the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters in 1973.

(2) The existing sections, of the Municipal Act and other Acts affecting local government, and any orders made under these Acts, with a view to recommending any changes considered appropriate which may have an effect on the future development of the said islands.

The Chairman of the said Committee shall, between Sessions, file with Mr. Speaker a monthly report setting forth particulars of the meetings and a general statement of the activities and expenses of the Committee during the preceding month.

[ Page 3772 ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 3768:

28    The Hon. J. G. Lorimer to move—

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters, both during the Session and upon prorogation of the House, to review real property taxation procedure in British Columbia, with particular emphasis on making recommendations to the House at the next Session respecting real property tax legislation necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of real property taxation and, in order to assist its deliberations the Committee shall examine existing legislation that bears upon the taxation function at the Provincial and municipal levels and may examine the legislation of any other jurisdiction:

And that the Committee be empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear representations from such organizations and individuals as may in their discretion appear necessary:

And that the Chairman of the Committee shall file with Mr. Speaker a monthly report setting forth particulars of the meetings, proposals for agenda, and a general statement of current activities and expenses of the Committee during the preceding month.