[ Page 3831 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting

Routine proceedings

Summary Convictions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 103).

Third reading — 3831

Land Registry Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 121).

Third reading — 3831

Trade Practices Act (Bill 126).

Third reading — 3831

Companies Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 127).

Third reading — 3831

Human Resources Facilities Development Act (Bill 82).

Committee stage, report and third reading — 3831

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

Committee stage, report and third reading — 3831

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 102). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3831

Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 114).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3832

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3832

Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act (Bill 133). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3833

Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 140). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3833

An Act to Ratify an Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of November, 1964, Between the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian National Railway Company, and Her Majesty the Queen in Her Right of Her Province of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 145).

Second reading — 3833

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 138). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3833

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act (Bill 147). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3834

Logging Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 149). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3834

Strata Titles Act (Bill 14 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3834

Mining Royalties Act (Bill 3 1). Second reading.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3834

Hon- Mr. Barrett — 3836

Mr. Richter — 3840

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3841

Hon. Mr. Lea — 3844

Mr. Fraser — 3846

Hon, Mr. Hartley — 3850

Mr. Dent — 3851

Mr. McClelland — 3851

Hon. Mr. King — 3852

Mr. Chabot — 3854

Petition Driver's certificate premiums. Mr. Smith — 3857

Routine proceedings

Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 154). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 3857

FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders. Report on Bill 103, Mr. Speaker.

SUMMARY CONVICTIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 103 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 121, Mr. Speaker.

LAND REGISTRY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 121 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 126, Mr. Speaker.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Bill 126 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 127, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 127 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RESOURCES
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): 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 82, Human Resources Facilities Development Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 152, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 152; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): 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 152, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this amendment to increase the credit allowed for logging tax paid against income tax payable is necessary to keep the credit allowed current with income tax rates payable in 1974. The bill therefore proposes to adjust the offset allowed for logging tax paid to match the change in the corporate income tax rate payable in 1974.

In addition, the amendment has been requested by the Government of Canada who collect the tax for the province under federal-provincial agreement, which would simplify the calculation of instalment payments required to be made through the current year by individual corporations who do not have income tax deducted at their source.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Bryson. (Laughter.)

[ Page 3832 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's too early in the morning.

This amendment is very good, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we accept the bill and will be voting in favour of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately I've lost the opportunity of giving a detailed analysis. (Laughter.) I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 102, Income Tax 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 114, Mr. Speaker.

ACCELERATED PARK DEVELOPMENT
FUND AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in 1971 the Legislature of the day passed the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act, which provided a sum of $15 million for park development work over and above the regular amounts provided in the estimates for expenditures.

This was to speed up the development of the province's recreational areas. In 1972, this wonderful new government passed an additional $10 million to add to the existing Act. Now, in 1973, after having doubled that Minister's budget — he's not here today; he's out spending it and building parks in the province — we are adding another $5 million.

I now move second reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We have no wish to delay passage of this bill which obviously is going through. We have our traditional objections to the use of funds which I think we should express at this time.

We feel the Premier's objection to funds when he was in opposition made a great deal more sense than his support of funds now that he has taken power. That is our view. We have expressed it before and, as it has been often repeated in this House, I have no intention of going further at this time.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the statements made by the Liberal leader. This is not the kind of bill the principle of which you are either for or against. On the other hand, we are for it. But I don't want to interpret that you are against it. (Laughter.) If you can interpret that out of the Blues then you would be a step ahead.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 114, Accelerated Park Development Fund 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 133, Mr. Speaker.

LEASEHOLD AND CONVERSION
MORTGAGE LOAN ACT

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act is two-fold in scope. It provides for conversion loans for the conversion of existing residential dwellings in approved areas. The target for this year would be to enable 3,000 of these conversions to take place and to provide mortgage moneys for these conversions. In a time when we are faced with many of the problems of urbanization, this is an opportunity to take advantage of existing urbanization without creating further problems of transportation infrastructure.

We have had preliminary discussions with some of the municipalities to be involved. It is receiving a fair amount of interest.

Under the leasehold mortgage Act, this would allow us to give first mortgages on Crown land which is being leased, There will be two types of interest rates available: There will be the specified interest rate not to exceed that of Central Mortgage and Housing or NHA residential rates. Also, on the basis of adjusted family income, there will be lower interest rates set by regulation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: At least as low as 6 per cent, Mr. Member. This is what is meant by the eligible interest rate, so that will be at lower than the market CMHC rate.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 133, Household and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

[ Page 3833 ]

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 140, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The amendments to the Provincial Home Acquisition Act would change the definition of eligible apartment residence, requiring its incorporation under the cooperative Associations Act for it to be eligible. We find this necessary because people are using the availability of government grants and second mortgages as a selling point in rather dubious types of conversion, selling unspecified numbers of shares in a rather questionable manner. There is no way we can check up on these things when the conversions are done under the Companies Act or if such a conversion were done under a 99-year lease.

There are other measures being taken in other bills under the Real Estate Act. This is, I believe, consistent with that and it doesn't prohibit other types of conversion from taking place. That is, it does not limit conversions to strata titles; it does not prevent people who have been in a converted apartment residence from taking advantage of this. It will require that they become associated under the Co-operative Associations Act and then we will have some way of controlling which can be changed to the detriment of the people in this. This is a technical change.

The other major change would be a change of eligibility requirement. I might say that in the previous bill, Bill 133, the eligibility requirements for a supplement are similar to the ones we find in this for the grant. We have had a great deal of difficulty with people in the armed services, in the RCMP or something, or people who were born and have lived in British Columbia having to move out of the province for a few years and then returning. We have changed the eligibility requirements in order to open this up and make it more fair to the people of British Columbia.

I move second reading Motion approved.

Bill 140, Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act, 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 145, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO RATIFY AN AGREEMENT
BEARING DATE THE 16th DAY
OF NOVEMBER, 1964, BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCE RUPERT,
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY, AND
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN HER RIGHT
OF HER PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to An Act to Ratify an Agreement…. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's all in order; all parties have agreed to Bill 145. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 145, An Act to Ratify An Agreement Bearing Date the 16th Day of November, 1964, between the City of Prince Rupert, Canadian National Railway Company and Her Majesty the Queen in Her Right of Her Province 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 138, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker these are some housekeeping amendments to the Motor-vehicle Act, I find that the explanatory notes are probably the best explanatory notes I have ever noticed in the House. Here are a number of items:

It eliminates the problem of moving unlicensed vehicles.

It eliminates the need for tourist vehicles to have registration stickers.

It eliminates the need for a holder of a learner's driver's licence for a driver's insurance certificate.

It makes it easier for dealers who have dealer plates to turn them in once they have overcome their time of greatest use and get refunds. Generally, it is first-rate legislation for housekeeping.

I move second reading.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Perhaps I should bring this up in committee. Yes, I will bring it up in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the best speech you've ever made.

[ Page 3834 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 138, Motor-vehicle 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 147, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the special committee appointed by the Legislature to review assessment procedures unanimously called for creation of a province-wide assessment authority independent of taxation function, either municipal or provincial, whose control must be such that it will result unmistakably in complete independence. I want to thank the House for bringing forth this bill in such a non-partisan way, and I look forward in committee stage to discussing any particular aspect of this bill. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 147, Assessment Authority of British Columbia Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 149, Mr. Speaker.

LOGGING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this logging tax Act is the result of what the task force that reviewed the Crown timber disposal recommended. The task force recommended amendments to the Logging Tax Act and Income Tax Act to allow logging operators to write off all logging tax paid against income tax payable.

The amendments proposed here implement these recommendations. They reduce the rate of tax from 15 per cent to 10 per cent and adopt the definition of logging income used in the federal Income Tax Act to allow full credit of logging tax paid against federal income tax payable. The resultant loss in provincial revenues will be offset by an adjustment in royalty rates as recommended by the same task force.

I'd like to thank Mr. Peter Pearse, who headed up that task force. Fortunately for us, he was an unsuccessful contestant for a Liberal nomination in Vancouver. Having lost that nomination, he became available to the government with his expertise and came forward with these wonderful policies and recommendations. I know we will see the complete acceptance of the Liberal group in this House.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 149, Logging Tax 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. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 141, Mr. Speaker.

STRATA TITLES ACT

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is basically a new Strata Titles Act. It does encompass quite a few parts of the previous Act unchanged, but it's essentially a new Act.

It accomplishes four main purposes. It provides for protection of owners of strata lots and for smoother running of the strata corporation. It updates the former Act to accommodate the expansion and sophistication of recent condominium developments.

It brings in two entirely new procedures. Part 2 permits the phasing of strata plans, and that is the completion of strata buildings by phase. Part 3 permits the building of strata plans on land leased from the Crown or from other public authorities. I move second reading.

Motion approved, Bill 141, Strata Titles Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3 1.

MINING ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound adjourned the debate on the amendment that would, in effect, substitute the words "six months hence" for the word "now" in the main motion.

On the amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr., Speaker, on the amendment, I suggest to the Premier and to the Minister of Mines, wherever he may be, that there is real wisdom in deferring consideration of this legislation for the limited period

[ Page 3835 ]

of six months. I do not intend to deal with my principal objection, which is to the creation of a royalty, but rather to the implications of introducing and passing this legislation now.

When the Minister opened the debate on second reading, he was kind enough to refer to remarks that I had made earlier in this House in the course of a debate with the Minister of Finance. I don't think it was really a debate — it was an appropriate exchange of opinions across the floor in which the Minister of Finance and I are in complete agreement. Those remarks, Mr. Speaker, dealt with the right of the provinces to gain the revenues from provincial resources. I don't intend to repeat those remarks again except to say that I remain unaltered in my view that the provincial government should be the master of its own resource revenues.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the opening of the debate, the Minister made reference to intents of the national government as expressed in the recent budget to preclude the deduction of royalties or other taxes levied by provinces on their resources in the determination of what might be income taxable under the federal statutes.

Whatever one may feel about the position which I take regarding provincial and federal revenue resources, it is folly to ignore the possibility, indeed the stated intention on the part of the present federal government to interfere in that particular field. We are obviously heading for a confrontation between Ottawa and the provinces and British Columbia in particular with respect to these revenue sources.

I hope that in the days and months that are to come when that confrontation takes place and when there are meetings between the federal government and the provincial governments, once and for all we will see these revenue sources clearly defined as a provincial right. But until that takes place, until that constitutional problem is resolved, I think it the utmost of folly for the government to proceed with legislation of this kind. Whether or not you accept entirely the position which has been taken by industry that with this royalty bill and with the impact of the stated intentions of the national government the total tax rate would be about 104 per cent, nonetheless the implications are such that industries like the mining industry will be in fact taxed out of existence. Mining is our second industry in British Columbia.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) last night in his remarks on this debate gave evidence that the number of claims in British Columbia has dropped significantly. We all know from communications which we have had from constituents and others in this province that exploration is grinding to a halt and that this is having serious implications on the service industries throughout the province. Therefore to persist at this particular time and until this tax problem between the two levels of government is resolved is only to ensure that exploration will continue to be depressed, that the discovery of new mines will be delayed, that the development of mines will be hindered, and that those citizens in the Province of British Columbia, whether they are directly engaged in mining or whether their enterprise is of a service nature attached to the exploration and development of the mining industry, will be seriously affected.

It's a little short of irresponsible, in the face of this situation, for the government to persist — and I say this entirely separate from the views I have upon the principle of the legislation as such. We can debate that later.

It is folly to take one of our major resource industries and to whipsaw that industry between the fiscal desires of two levels of government in Canada. As I say, I think the Province of British Columbia is entitled to the major share of tax revenues from provincial resources. That is my position. But you cannot deny that the federal government constitutionally also has a right to make a demand upon the incomes from those endeavors. To take the industry and to grind it between those two levels of government in a debate in which the industry has no control must be foolhardy on the part of the Minister who has stated in this House and elsewhere that this resource is the people's and that it should be developed for the benefit of the people of British Columbia.

What is happening to the industry by reason of this legislation and other actions of government is contrary to the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I would hope that the government will see some wisdom in deferring consideration of this bill, allowing the mining industry in all of its segments, for the time being, to be freed from the concerns which this legislation raises, and that the government of British Columbia would meet at the earliest possible moment with the Minister of Finance of Canada (Hon. Mr. Turner) and resolve this tax problem which has such serious consequences for the mining industry. In doing so, they will only be benefiting British Columbia with respect to this industry but, I suggest, they will be serving a similar purpose for our other natural resource industries as well.

The implications are quite clear: as provincial demands for revenue continue, as we continue as we are in this province to make increasing demands upon the natural resource segment, we come closer to the day, in the forest industry for example, where the national government will take the same action that they propose to take with regard to the mining industry. That will be the next one, the next industry which will be affected by a debate and a conflict between two levels of government in Canada.

[ Page 3836 ]

I think it is of critical importance that this contest between these two levels of government be resolved at the earliest possible moment. There is no reason that this industry should suffer from that controversy.

I think the government should lift this bill, accept this amendment, postpone it for six months, by which time the national election will be over. Whichever party forms the government and whoever will be the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will then have the opportunity of meeting with the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Mines and their support staff of British Columbia to resolve this problem which is not the creation of industry but by which industry is most seriously affected.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to two points on why the government is opposed to the motion to delay the implementation of royalties on mines in the Province of British Columbia.

First of all, I wish to continue my exchange of opinions regarding relationships with the federal government and the British North America Act with the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). He states that there is no basic difference of opinion and philosophy and attitude in terms of the law that exists.

The law that exists, Mr. Speaker, makes it very clear that the provincial government does indeed have not only the authority but the responsibility to maintain its presence in the resource field. To suggest that we should await the outcome of the federal election to discuss this contest that he's describing would be to concede that somehow there is indeed a contest, when in fact by law — and I'm not a lawyer but you are — there is no contest.

The facts are that we have the responsibility under the British North America Act for the husbanding of the resources of this province. To give the impression that somehow we would await the outcome of the federal election to tussle with the federal administration as to what type of taxing authority would take place on the resources would be a tacit admission that somehow we don't accept the strength of the BNA. I reject that completely.

My Conservative colleague (Hon. Mr. Lougheed) in the Province of Alberta has had enough trouble in attempting to define the limitations of the federal authority in regard to his resources in that province. Aside from my own political-philosophical differences from my Conservative colleague, I must say that I stand behind him 100 per cent in his argument about the constitutional responsibility he has as the Premier of Alberta in defending his right to tax his resources.

If you come to me with the proposition, as I've outlined already, that all non-renewable resources, beginning with natural gas and oil, were to become publicly-owned under the federal government, then I would have no hesitation in accepting your argument and surrendering provincial authority by way of mandate. I would go back to the people of the province and ask them to agree. But I am convinced that all oil and natural gas in this country should be publicly-owned. I would accept that as a challenge politically for an election, but we have no federal leadership prepared to do that.

As long as these resources are in private hands, many of which are foreign private hands, there is no way the Government of British Columbia will allow any federal government to intrude beyond the British North America Act.

So, Mr. Member, I suggest to you that regardless of whether it's Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum that wins — my party unfortunately won't get enough seats; I hope they become the official opposition — but whether it's the Tweedle-Dee Liberals or the Tweedle-Dum Tories, they are both committed to private foreign ownership of these resources. As long as that situation remains in this country, then we have a responsibility as the Government of British Columbia to ensure that the BNA Act is protected here in this province and the taxation rights do not leave the people of this province.

Now, having said that, to hoist the bill in the face of the kind of federal situation we have now would be to say to any federal government that succeeds in this election, "You do whatever you want, boys. We haven't got a policy of our own and we're not prepared to stand up and defend the BNA Act". I want to tell you now: I am a Canadian, a Canadian first. But under the existing law it is our responsibility to protect British Columbia's interests that have been delegated by the BNA Act, and that's what we intend to do.

Any weakening on this bill by any MLA on the argument that we should await the outcome of the federal election can be interpreted as an attempt to weaken the BNA Act. I completely reject it. I completely reject that particular argument.

Now, for the Socreds to start talking, that's nonsense. That's a whole new entry into the federal field by them. They have no history of a position, so their interjections aren't even worthy of comment.

I dismiss that approach as being very, very dangerous to our own authority under the BNA Act.

A number of other arguments have been used as a reason to hoist this bill, Mr. Speaker. One of the arguments used was that the mining companies are all of a sudden decreasing their investment because of Bill 31.

Interjection.

[ Page 3837 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the lawyers call that a "canard." I used to think that was only known as a shipping line. But apparently it has something to do with a little bit of a story that's used as a dodge or a front or a red herring — with no pun intended to the Cunard line, spelled differently.

I'd like to point out to the Member of the opposition, who obviously likes to stick to facts, that the mining industry proposed back in 1971 to cut back in this province. They said so in a report known as the Mining Industry Report, 1971, by Price-Waterhouse.

We weren't even in government in 1971, much to the regret of the majority of the citizens of this province. Nonetheless, we were not the government. In 1971 with the Price-Waterhouse report the mining industry said: "We're easing up, boys."

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Even in 1968.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In 1971, the report showed that $1 billion was invested between 1962 and 1971; and 73 per cent of this was invested between 1968 and 1971.

Planned capital expenditure is shown from 1973 to 1976 as being $102 million. This was only a 14 per cent increase over the four preceding years. It's nothing.

It's the way that the Liberal Party is attempting to pull figures out of a hat to fight a bill while they front for the mining companies, when the mining companies themselves before we were elected, before the socialist hordes were at the gates, before the people's government was running the business for the people, said: "We're slowing down."

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of record can't be eradicated. It can't be juggled; it can't be punched through holes; it can't be hidden away. The fact is that the mining company said back then in 1971: "We're cutting down." Now, Mr. Speaker, to have that bunch over there…. Really, they're all one bunch together when it comes to a bill like this. They'd all like to give the mines back to the private owners, the way they've been doing it for 100 years in the province.

The history of this province by Margaret Ormsby, by Michael Robbin, by anyone who'd done an authoritative study of this province, has indicated that the biggest give-away gangs that ever existed were the self-perpetuating, free-enterprise, establishment governments in this province. Whatever the mining companies wanted, they got.

MR. D.E. LEWIS: (Shuswap): Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Buttle Lake…poison our atmosphere…in the park; anything, they got it. In 1971, after having got for over 100 years, they're going to get. They planned to get and their getting was getting out. But they didn't know that the prices were going to go up then. They had no idea, after they made these investments, of the exorbitant profits they were going to make. They were being open and honest in 1971, saying, "We've got to scale down."

Now let's look at what a delay would mean in terms of returning revenue to the people of this province for six months. Let's take a look. For those of you who have read in the newspapers those huge full-page advertisements crying on behalf of the mining companies…. I haven't seen anything quite as pitiful as that since the old United Appeal ads. You would think that the mining companies of this province were in need of my care as a social worker, rather than an accountant. Let's take a look.

In 1973, the net profits of the mining industry in one year in this province were $300 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get your figures?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's $300 million. From the mining companies themselves. I like to stick to the mining companies themselves, Mr. Speaker. I don't want anyone to believe that the mining companies would tell fibs.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): State your source exactly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Price Waterhouse said in 1971 that the industry was getting down. Now we'll go through this. Kaiser Resources in their annual report, 1972, shows a profit of $3.4 million. In 1973 the profit went from $3.4 million to $13 million — an increase in only one year.

Get that, all you trade unionists out there, all you civil servants, all you working people, all you pensioners. Don't ask for more money from the government. Don't ask for more money from your employer. Just do like Kaiser did; one year they had an increase of 282 per cent.

MR. GIBSON: How much had they lost before that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, how much had they lost before that! One could even weep across the nation for the poor mining companies. One gets the impression from the Liberals that the only reason the mining companies are in business is for the opportunity to continue to lose money.

Bralorne Resources: in 1972 a skimpy $649,000 in profit. In 1973 they went up to $2.3 million — an increase of only 254 per cent in one year.

MR. A.R. FRASER (Cariboo): Your arithmetic is

[ Page 3838 ]

wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: My arithmetic's wrong? I confess, I'm quoting from their own annual reports, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Up the percentage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Placer Development, 1972; $16.6 million they made in profit. Under the socialists in 1973 they made $71 million.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): It's enough to bring tears to glass eyes. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Placer Development's profit went up under the socialists in one year by 332 per cent. I can see them in the board rooms rubbing their hands and saying: "Bring on more socialism; we never had it so good."

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not their fault they're under socialism.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not their fault that they're making these huge profits. That resource was placed in the ground by God, not by Bralorne Resources.

Craigmont Mines, 1972 — $2.5 million; 1973 — $10 million. They only have an increase of 300 per cent in one year, and you want us to delay this bill where this modest Minister is asking for a very modest return. If anything, we should be asking for twice as much, Mr. Minister — twice as much.

Cominco: why, that poor little struggling subsidiary of that poverty-stricken company known as the CPR, the CPR that was given a 10-mile wide strip right across this nations, free, by governments just like you people, because you believe in the myth of the golden spike — right in the heart — poor little Cominco…. What happened to poor little Cominco? The CPR, that poverty-stricken corporation that has nothing but my sympathy, in 1972 made $20 million; in 1973 their profit was $42.8 million, an increase of 114 per cent.

That's an increase of 114 per cent, Mr. Speaker. In this day and age let the public of this province know that with profits like that old-age pensioners who are pensioned off by Cominco have to parade in front of that company's office in Trail to ask for a mere pittance, a few crumbs, from this company that made $42 million off the people of this province.

You stand in this House and tell us to delay while those people have to picket in front of Cominco offices asking for a better pension. They struggled and sweated and created this massive wealth for that company; and their reward is the freedom to picket in front of the company asking for a better pension, while they ripped off from those pensioners enough money to enhance their $42 million profit.

Noranda Mines: I want every British Columbian to know that in this House today the Socreds, the Liberals and the Tories are defending Kaiser, Bralorne, Placer, Craigmont, Cominco, Noranda and Bethlehem. They're up against it. They're defending all those corporations against whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all taxpayers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you know who they're defending them against? The people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The odds are against the people, Mr. Speaker, but I think the people are going to win this time. I think the people are going to win.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it upsets the establishment Vancouver group. I know it frays on your cuff.

That's what happens to Bond Street linen when you have to do a little bit longer work than normal. (Laughter.) We've been here a little longer than normal and the cuffs get a little frayed.

Mr. Speaker, we get the impression from that group over there that it was a miracle that the capitalists came down from New York, from London and from other parts of the world on a cloud of gold to help us poor citizens of this province.

You, Mr. Member, of all people — the next national leader of the Social Credit Party. Of all people! He's going from disaster to disaster. Of all people! He spoke for a party that once believed in monetary reform and fighting for the little people. How can you sit there with that group which claims…with millionaires now in your group? When Social Credit has millionaires joining its ranks, something has gone wrong with the old funny money. How can you sit there and allow your great party…

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, I'm sorry, you're right. Order. It's not a great party; you are a once-great party….to be used as a front by the mining companies of this province.

Now for the scare. Oh no — we have a new 57-vote slide-in winner, a 57-sliding-his-way-into-office winner, telling us…. . land-slide Gibson — just enough strength left to plunge the dagger in. He's here, and what is he telling us? — Oh! the mines are going to close down. He's been going all over the province leaving the impression with the workers that the mines are going to close down.

I want to read from a Cominco bulletin. God help me from reading from a Cominco bulletin, Mr.

[ Page 3839 ]

Speaker, but I must do it on occasion to be fair. This is what this Cominco bulletin says, Marcy 29, 1974: "To our B.C. employees…" — I've got a special message for you gang. It's got nice printing — head office. The head office is down in Vancouver; it doesn't want to get too close to the pollution up by Trail, you know. It might choke the board room a little bit. You know, the only lead poisoning is up at the mines. The lead poisoning in the board is in the other end of the anatomy. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, what does it say? It says right here: "How will the Cominco employees be affected by Bill 31?" Do you know who wrote this letter? Jerry Hobbs. Good old Jerry! He was up speaking at the chamber of commerce in Dawson Creek the other day, warning of the evils of Bill 31, whipping up the 140 delegates from the Chamber of Commerce, telling those poor little shopkeepers how they are going to lose while he had $42 million in profit last year. This is what he said in his letter — signed by Jerry Hobbs:

"How will we as Cominco employees be affected by Bill 31? First, let me assure you that, barring anything unforeseen, your company sees no curtailment of existing operations in B.C. If Bill 31 is passed."

Now what do you know? We got the impression that the mines were going to close, that disaster was going to strike, and here is Jerry Hobbs saying that there is no danger whatsoever to their jobs under Bill 31.

Now, match this up with good old Jerry saying to the workers, "It's okay gang, don't listen to what I say in Dawson Creek. Don't leave town, we're makin' too much money. I've got a speech to make up in Dawson Creek but in the meantime, stick around gang, the mine's still got to operate."

What is that mild Minister asking for? What does that modest man who has had 25 years experience in the House want?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Santa Claus? Do you know what he discovered, Mr. Speaker? He discovered that the ordinary people of this province pay a sales tax — 5 per cent. Do you know what this Minister is proposing, which the mining companies are opposed to? He wants the mining companies to pay a 5 per cent royalty, equivalent to the sales tax, on their purchases of our ores.

Mr. Minister, I'm almost embarrassed to admit that is all we are asking for. It is a historical disgrace that the mining companies have not been paying at least that 5 per cent all these years.

While running that letter to its employees, Cominco is part of the mining group that was placing these ads — "The Mining Crisis in British Columbia." Jobs! (Laughter.) I hate to repeat that in-House joke, but jobs! nonetheless. There it is. There they are. It says: "the Mining Crisis in British Columbia — Jobs."

They've done more to help the layout men in newspapers in between elections than any other group I know. Look at this one: "Has he a job today? tomorrow? New mines." Yet, under Bill 31 it is all happening — the whole world is caving in.

Interjections and laughter.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look at this one: "Bill 31 is supposed to give British Columbians the biggest share of our mineral resources. In fact, it will wipe out jobs, payrolls, even whole communities!" Jobs! (Laughter.) Where do we read that page? We have the picture of the former miner — "will he be a vanishing breed?"

All the while, these people are telling their employees, "Don't worry gang, Bill 31 won't affect you. Please don't leave town. Please don't leave your job. We are making so much money we can't afford to have you leave town. Ignore the ads because we are just involved in politics against the people's government in Victoria. That's got nothing to do with you. "

While these ads were appearing in March 27, 28 and 29 in the higher priced section of the newspapers, while these ads were attempting to scare the people of this province, while this political front in conjunction with their friends in the opposition were making all of these moves, and while certain MLAs were running around making speeches with the Yukon and B.C. Chamber of Mines, what do we find on page 61 of the same editions of the newspaper — back in the back pages for the little folks to see? Under "employment opportunities" it says here: "mining and lumbering." Up at Kaiser they need a first aid attendant. The Jordan River mines need two long-hole drillers. Noranda Mines needs millwrights and electricians. Cassiar Asbestos needs maintenance electricians, millwrights and mechanics. Lornex needs industrial instrumentations, industrial electricians, machinists, millwrights, pipe fitters and welders. Noranda Mines needs a Bell copper division instrument technician. ABC Employment, "we hire anybody for anything," says they need aircraft operators, rotary drillers, HC mechanics and millwrights.

The same day the ads are running that the mining industry is going to close down, they are running ad after ad advertising to hire people to come and work in the mines.

All they are hoping is that the business community in downtown Vancouver can hold hands with the opposition and read the big ads, but that the workers will still read the small ones and still come to work.

I didn't want to bring this up. (Laughter.)

[ Page 3840 ]

MR. SPEAKER: You're really not supposed to read papers in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know, Mr. Speaker. I didn't want to bring it up because after doing this today I'm sure that every single public relations man for the mining companies will be fired. The job of the public relations man, one of which I don't have because I don't need one, is to try to make somebody believe something that isn't quite so. But don't be so dumb, don't be so stupid as to hire a public relations man who is placing an ad in one section of the paper saying that the jobs will go, and then ads in another section of the paper saying, "Come on up here gang, we need you to go to work."

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the ICBC ad?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, you don't want to talk about Bill 31 anymore. (Laughter.)

Mr. Member, through you, I will spread forgiveness and light throughout this province if you recant today. I will not tell how you have been taken in to support an amendment by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) who's not here today and who doesn't show up very often.

So, Mr. Speaker, let it be understood that by voting for this amendment to delay this bill, it means that every single day we delay is a day further from proper chronic care in this province. That's what it means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Every single day you delay….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't ask them to be silent. These are guilt-inspired interruptions. Thank goodness it's a Friday morning so it won't get in the weekend papers.

Mr. Speaker, every single day we delay…. We are asking just what the ordinary people have with the sales tax — five per cent. The Minister should be mildly chastised for not asking for enough, but I'll take his word for it. I still don't think you're asking for enough — 25 years ago when you were more radical, you would have asked for more. (Laughter.) But I'm taking his advice, Mr. Speaker.

But we can not delay and I say to you that this amendment is purely a device to protect those companies from paying their fair share. That's all it is, and we're against it absolutely. We want a return for the people of this province.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): It's been very entertaining here this morning with the display that the Minister of Finance has put on in relation to Bill 31. I don't know how anyone could be so humorous on such a serious matter. However, the Minister of Finance can put on quite an act.

I'm rather surprised because this is a very serious matter. It goes without saying that the bill in itself, which the amendment was moved on, was conceived and promulgated strictly on a philosophy. Now as I see the situation, and I've studied it closely and I did when I was Minister of Mines, the matter of obtaining a greater return from the resource is not opposed. And certainly if the Minister of Mines had studied the matter and amended the Minister Tax Act, in a fashion by which it would have a bearing on the net profits, then I don't think we would be having this debate here today.

Certainly the mining industry didn't oppose paying 15 per cent on net profits over $10,000 and we could have very easily incorporated amendments into the Mining Tax Act which would take care of this very well. We would have received an additional return which the government seems to be bent on obtaining for the simple reason that they are past masters at expending the taxpayers' money and seem to be insistent on getting more than they do under the present tax system for which the mines are paying a very substantial tax bill.

However, the Minister has mentioned on a number of occasions what the mining companies are going to expend, and the Premier gave us a good demonstration here this morning by flopping a newspaper on his head and comparing ads. Naturally, in speaking of the ads for jobs, no the mining companies haven't closed down. They have intimated that they're going to continue on, but that's not the problem. The problem is creating an incentive or creating an opportunity for the discovery of more minerals because when a mine runs out….

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources). The problem is royalties.

MR. RICHTER: The problem is not the royalty, Mr. Minister, and you know it's not the royalty because you could have obtained a very substantial return from the mineral resources of this province by way of amending the Minister Tax Act. You know that.

What's the difference? It's a dollar on either side. But on one side, certainly as far as the federal government is concerned, they don't enter into this at this time. They can by way of legislation, but that is a matter which is in abeyance until such time as a federal government is elected, and the necessity of discussing, if you have to discuss at that time, is the matter of an increase in the Mining Tax Act.

But on a royalty basis, then you might run into a

[ Page 3841 ]

few problems there with the federal government. However, the thing is, this is provincial legislation and this is going to be an impost imposed by the provincial government on the mining companies, big, small or indifferent. It will also affect the many, many other trades such as in the field of equipment, the field of geology, the outcome of opportunities for engineers, all of which receive a remuneration for their endeavours, and they pay income tax, they pay sales tax and you name it. And the corporations pay corporation taxes.

Now, it's very, very simple to devise legislation which would have been past this House already. And the Premier talking about every day that is wasted is a day we miss as far as chronic care, that's nonsense. This is a retroactive bill. It goes back to January 1 of 1974. Let's not have this nonsensical chit-chat from the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Would you want it delayed for six months??

MR. RICHTER: Well, supposing it is delayed six months. At least you would bring in an acceptable piece of legislation, a realistic piece of legislation and it could still be retroactive, Mr. Minister. You have brought in legislation that's retroactive for more than one year. You brought in legislation that was retroactive back to 1971 and 1972.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You know better than that.

MR. RICHTER: I know very well your government did it because I had to pay the additional taxes, and so did you, by way of income.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was federal.

MR. RICHTER: That was not federal. Had this government not brought in the necessary legislation here, it would not have applied, and you know it. Even your Minister of Public Works… I saw him hurrying off to the tax department.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Where are you going spieling? Where do you go to spiel?

MR. RICHTER: I'm not going spieling anywhere, my friend.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: There's an ad that says Frank Richter's going to spiel in Ashcroft.

MR. RICHTER: That's a wonderful place to spiel. Now, I'm not going to spiel there now because I've already been there and spieled, my friend. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: You're deader than a doornail. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you spiel the goods?

MR. RICHTER: I really spilled the beans up there — too bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're dead if you ride up that way.

MR. RICHTER: As far as the legislation is concerned, the need for an amendment is because the terms are very, very vague and its application leaves a lot to be desired as far as clarity is concerned.

If I hadn't gone to Ashcroft I wouldn't have caught this cold, either; it's so chilly up there.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

However, we're finding that it is not only the mining industry that is opposing the legislation, we have many others. Civil liberties groups are opposing it and we have various other groups who are concerned with their future in this province. I'm concerned. The only support that I can see is the support that has been given by also another advertisement. This is put out by the steelworkers. I'm not opposed to the steelworkers, but they're opposed to the Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're not opposed to the bill.

MR. RICHTER: No, they are the only ones who are supporting it. But they are opposed to the Minister, because they picketed his mine-rescue competitions in Kamloops. This is the very area which the Minister should have done something — explain to these people that what he was doing was in their interest.

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I must sit down. I just can't go on with my voice the way it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I am not an expert on this but it occurs to me that the Hon. Member would want to continue later if that would be all right and if the House agrees. In the meantime, I would recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We completely agree that the Member is having a little trouble with his voice and a cough. He should be entitled to take the floor again.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a classic speech from the

[ Page 3842 ]

Premier. He was in great good spirits. He has passed a great number of bills this morning, and we all helped. He feels that it is now time to give us a little bit of theatre, and he gave a great performance. But if you start looking at what he said in terms of the amendment before us, it doesn't go very far.

First, to talk of the federal-provincial conflict: obviously there is a provincial jurisdiction here that is extensive. But quite clearly there is also a federal ability to tax as well which has been extended over the years and has been used over the years and may well have been extended in the last two or three months dealing with oil and gas.

It's a grey area. To suggest that it is exclusive in obviously wrong. The Premier has talked to Premier Lougheed of Alberta. He has suggested that he has supported him on his position regarding resources. Yet constantly he has blamed the federal government for not getting more in terms of keeping down the Canadian price. So even he, in his statements, has been quite contradictory on the question of federal involvement in resource policy and resource taxation.

The reference to public ownership to federal government is really not a factor which affects this particular amendment or this particular bill.

The resources: certainly many of the companies are in private hands. But, as we all know, they are fully controlled by legislation — federal and provincial and sometimes municipal as well. To suggest that because there is private ownership of companies and therefore they can do precisely what they want is just perfectly absurd. What we are seeing instead is the sacrifice of an industry — using it as a pawn in a battle in the federal-provincial tax tug-of-war.

I really think it is the wrong thing to do because, clearly, in this area there is obviously some federal jurisdiction. Until that is resolved a little more amicably, perhaps by sitting around a table, perhaps by legal means, a declaratory judgment of some sort in this area, we are not going to do anything but harm the industry by pressing on with legislation such as this.

We have had a large number of figures, Mr. Speaker, about the profits of companies. The estimates of the bill, of course, and the reason why we want the bill to be given a six-month delay, is the fact that it is not a profits tax. My Hon. friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has made clear time after time that increases in profit taxes would be welcomed by us in this House, taxes specifically on the mining industry. We have recommended that. He, indeed, has gone through the arithmetic to show how the amount of revenue raised could be equivalent to the mining royalty.

We really feel that the Premier, in his constant references to profits of various companies — Placer, Cominco, Bralorne, Kaiser, and the rest is only emphasizing that the way for the people to get more back from the operations of these companies or more from the operations of these companies is by way of getting a high profit industry and taxing it in an equivalent or similar fashion. You go after the profits, not after the royalty, because the royalty does nothing whatsoever to improve the profit position. I'll get into that in a moment.

I think all his figures outlining profitability of companies only proves that really and truly he is confused as to what a royalty is and to what a profit tax is. Here in this bill and in this amendment we are talking about royalties. It is a tax. It raises money.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's paying a price for a product.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a price on a product, but essentially it's the government taking money on that product from the companies concerned. It has an effect which is other than its financial effect upon the government revenues, which is different and more pervasive perhaps than just the amount of money that gets into the provincial Treasury as a result of the tax. That's the whole issue here.

We know that the companies are making profit. I'm not unhappy. It shows that they are able to pay the high wages. It shows that we are able to tax them in a pretty hefty fashion. It shows that British Columbians can benefit from those profits. But to suggest somehow that, "They make profits; therefore a royalty is a good tax," is to confuse the two different types of approaches of raising revenue for the provincial Treasury.

I don't wish to go into this at length because we are obviously going to have to go into it again when the bill is under discussion, but the reference to profit taxes by the Premier only indicate, in my view, that royalty is not the avenue to use in terms of taxing the mining companies. It is a profits tax. We've gone into that time after time.

Mr. Speaker, the references made in terms of an industry damaged was essentially to the mining exploration and development industry. I've said before and I'll say again that my personal belief is that companies such as Kaiser, Cominco and the rest are big enough to take care of themselves. Generally speaking, although they may have their profits and their operations affected, they will survive. It's the smaller people who are going to get it in the neck as a result of reducing activity in exploration and development.

The Premier made much of the fact that there was a statement made by the association, I believe it was — no, it was the association, not the chamber — that there had been a reduction in exploration and development even before Bill 31 came in. That's perfectly true. The graphs that were put up yesterday

[ Page 3843 ]

by my friend for Vancouver–Point Grey started well before the new NDP government or, indeed, before the introduction of Bill 31.

We know full well that that is the case. But to say that because there has been a reduction before that is the whole cause of the reduction at the present time is to ignore the present situation and the information from the industry, which is being put forward in a well-meaning fashion by people who obviously have their own private concerns but many of whom are more dispassionate in that they work for the university or they work outside of the direct industry and their income is not dependent upon the operations of any particular company.

There is a lot of information to suggest that Bill 31 has substantially reduced mining exploration, staking of claims and development over and above what would have happened had this type of legislation not been introduced.

I do feel that in the debate we are tending to miss the point by going on at length on some of the tangential issues which really are not relevant as to whether or not this bill should be hoisted for six months.

It's fine to talk about pensioners, great to talk about chronic care being held up, but we all know that that really isn't the case. What we have to do is maximize the provincial return from these companies and the industry and keep it healthy. It is the side effect of royalties, as opposed to profit taxes, which we have disputed. to suggest otherwise really shows that the Premier and many Members of the government side have missed the point on this.

Taxation of any sort is generally fairly complex. It is an extremely difficult subject. We've all had some experience as politicians in dealing with this. The fact of the matter is, to try and oversimplify it and refuse to acknowledge the problems that exist, I think, is quite the wrong way to go about it. It's not a subject for the type of emotional speeches that the Premier gave. I appreciated it. We all enjoyed it. But it is irrelevant to the bill and it is irrelevant to the amendment.

The amendment is why we should be having a six-month hoist. I think that the first reason is to prevent that type of federal-provincial conflict which the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) talked about. There is no need to use this industry simply as a bargaining counter or a football in a game of football. There is no need for the industry to be used in the game in that way. It's more important in terms of jobs, it's more important in terms of its return to the provincial Treasury, than has been suggested by the Premier — and certainly more important, I feel, than a strictly federal-provincial game would indicate.

I would like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to one other thing that worries me most of all with this particular piece of legislation and why again I think we need a six-month hoist for further study. "It has been said" — and I'm quoting an article by Bob Shaw of The Province business section, April 8, 1974. He in turn referring to discussions and material presented to him by Dr. John Evans, professor and head of the UBC department of mining engineering.

Because we are always having the motives of people who even consider and examine Bill 31 attacked by the government, I would just like to say that he has stressed several times that he speaks because he knows the mining industry, but: "I hold no allegiances to mining companies nor to the mine work forces, nor have I any political affiliation. I stress that."

There is no way that the distinction between royalty and profit taxes and the advisability or otherwise of bringing in royalties at this time can be properly discussed unless we get away from the broad brush-stroke, the political approach, the claims that Bill 31 embodies all that is good, including chronic care, pensions and everything else. That is not the way we are going to be able to examine and decide as to what this particular piece of legislation will do.

Back to Bob Shaw's article. He talks about the price of ore and copper and the effects that the price has on the mineable reserves. As the price goes down, the amount of ore that you can mine obviously goes down as well because the cost of extraction is the major factor in where the cut-off point comes.

He gives details on the effect of a royalty reducing the amount of ore, mineable ore, and turning it into waste rock. He has a diagram, which has been presented in the House before, I believe, which shows the mine in terms of a centre core of high-grade ore from which other ores surrounding it goes out in decreasing value to the point where you simply have rock or ore of such low quality that it's not mineable under the present economic circumstances, in particular, price and tax.

He points out that what we have with the royalty is substantial reduction in the amount of ore that will be taken out of the ground with any one particular mine. The centre core will be taken out, the highest grades will be taken out and the remainder will be left.

Because really and truly up to now, no one, from his side at least, has answered this question at all satisfactorily, I would urge the Minister to consider that. I personally believe that it's the wrong thing to do, as a conservationist, to try and simply take the best quality ores and leave the remainder in the ground. It's wrong because you're wasting your resources. It's wrong because it may lead to the opening up of more smaller mines simply for high-grading purposes and not a steady programme of exploitation of these mines over a long period. The tendency will be to wait, as has happened so often in

[ Page 3844 ]

the case of gold, for price changes, then run in there as fast as you can to take advantage of it — take simply the highest grade ore that's available at the point…

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, but it will give you the chance to study it, Mr. Minister, because you haven't studied it up to now, according to what you have said. I've listened to you. I've tried hard to read the statements that you've made. My friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has done this with even more care and attention than I have and we are still very puzzled by your failure to deal with this specific question, therefore we think that six months might just be enough time for you to have a small break, to get away from this subject, back to it and analyse it in some detail. If you do, I think you'll come to the same type of conclusion as Professor John Evans came to. You are reducing the mineable ore. The result is, from the conservation point of view, a substantial loss of revenue, a substantial loss of ore and far more destruction on the environmental side than what might otherwise be the case.

You're going to create, idly in this area, a bit of a boom or bust. You're going to encourage the opening of existing and known mines — you've already done a tremendous amount of damage to exploration — but you'll probably encourage high-grading of existing properties for a relatively short period of time. There will be far more rock containing copper simply abandoned because it is no longer a marketable product because it no longer has enough copper in it to justify the payment of the royalty as well as all the other costs.

You're going to create a situation where the conservation aspect, which should be to exploit as fully and as properly every ore body that you have in accordance with time frames which you think are realistic, you're going to change that so that you are exploiting far less and you're going to essentially be high-grading.

This problem I raise at this time because you haven't answered it in any of your replies to questions. You have not answered it in your public speeches. You have, indeed, followed the same type of pattern as the Premier and ignored one of the most fundamental problems dealing with the difference between royalty and profit taxes.

As the Minister has failed to deal with this problem, as the speech of the Premier has totally avoided or ignored the question as to the effect of royalties as opposed to profit taxes, this is why we support the concept of a six-month hoist.

The bill itself is going to have a lot of side effects in addition to the one that you have in mind, which is raising revenue. We think there are other and better ways of raising the same amount of revenue from the same industry without these adverse side effects. Therefore, we most strongly urge you to consider this amendment for a six-month hoist. You can always put in a bill with retroactive provisions — you've done that so often before, we'll no longer be complaining about that — and you can have it in place for the same length of time. But for you to go ahead with a bill which is essentially bad in principle, we think would be a serious mistake at this time.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, just a few short remarks to point out the reasons I feel that it shouldn't be hoisted for six months or, indeed, at all. In so doing, I'd like to delve a little bit into what's been said by other people in supporting the amendment.

The one thing that I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, is when we wanted to save the community of Prince Rupert and the northwestern part of the province by going in and saving Col-Cel, by purchasing it and putting it into public ownership, the arguments from the other side were: you don't have to own industry in order to control it, in order to make money; you can do it by legislation by way of taxes.

Then when we turn around and start to go by the way of legislation and taxes in order to raise money for the people of British Columbia, they say that you can't do that because if you do that then the mining companies or other industries will go broke and everyone will lose their jobs.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me that no matter which way we go to try and get money from the private sector, it's going to be opposed by the opposition, because that's the way their philosophy seems to work.

Now, they keep trying to confuse, at least it seems to me, the difference between profits and money. They seem to want to infer that profits are not money. When the Premier pointed out, when he was speaking, that they're making a great deal of profit so they can afford to pay royalties, they tried to point out that profits aren't necessarily money — that because they're making a lot of profit, it doesn't mean they can necessarily afford to pay taxes or royalties. I just find a lot of trouble trying to come to rationalization on that kind of theory.

I'd like to bring up one specific item of why I think it's imperative to put this bill through right away. There's only one mine in my constituency, that's the mine at Tasu on the Queen Charlotte Islands. About three weeks ago I was going to go there and meet the Lieutenant-Governor for a tour. I knew that in this mining community Bill 31 would probably be brought up while I was visiting, so I did some research on the Tasu Mine, just so I would be prepared to answer specific questions to my

[ Page 3845 ]

constituents while I was there. Unfortunately, I didn't get in because of bad weather, but I did have the research ready.

Now, the former Minister of Mines, the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), said that there's no need to change anything, that mining companies and the industries were, under the old structure, paying their fair share.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And they were happy.

HON. MR. LEA: And they were happy. I'm sure they were happy and I'd like to just share with you some of the reasons why I think they were very, very happy.

Under the present structure, that's pre Bill 31, or pre mining legislation by this government, the Tasu Mine, by a special contractual arrangement with the previous administration, were paying $1 a ton on concentrate. However, it was deemed that only 50 per cent of that concentrate was iron ore, so they would only pay 50 cents a ton, although mining people tell us it was something closer to 65 per cent iron ore, but they pay $1 a ton.

Now, when he was speaking, it was pointed out by the Premier, by the mining industry, that they wouldn't close their present operations down. The opposition says, "Yes, but they won't do any further exploration, so in time everything's going to close down."

Now the kind of incentives that these people, the opposition, talk about…. You see, it is already down to 50 cents a ton on this concentrate from Tasu. Now it goes down to 25 cents a ton if they do exploration work — that's an incentive. I think everybody on the opposition side agrees that's an incentive, right? The only thing is, under their contractual arrangement, and it must be nice, they don't necessarily have to do any exploration work. All they have to do is just have a geologist on the staff, and not necessarily at the site where the mine is operating. He could be down on Howe Street selling penny stock in his spare time. They don't have to do anything, but they get another 50 per cent off that 50 cents, so they end up paying 25 cents a ton.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I have to have this money so I can patch those potholes, Mr. Member. I am sure you're going to go back to your riding and say: "I support Bill 31 because I want the potholes patched in my riding."

Now Tasu made $14,012,999 profit in the year 1973. On that they paid $146,799, that's under the previous administration's contract with them, a percentage of 1 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not their total tax.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, it's their total taxes for the goods they have taken from the people of British Columbia. We're selling that to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Income tax.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, everybody pays income tax. I'm sure that if the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) owned something and was going to sell it, he'd want to sell it for some money. That makes sense. Now you own, along with the rest of us in British Columbia, the ore in the ground. Doesn't it make sense, Mr. Speaker, that we sell that for some money? One per cent doesn't seem an awful lot. So we're really going to put it up by this new legislation.

In 1974, under this new legislation, if that mine were to make the same amount of money — and probably they won't, probably they'll make a little more — if they were to make that same amount of money, they'd pay $276,162 — 2 per cent. A good reason why we should not support this amendment.

In the year 1965 it was exactly the same in terms of dollars from that mine. They would pay $612,985 on close to $15 million — 5 per cent. Five per cent! Now they are still left with quite a bit of money as profit. Profit is money. Also they have that old thing where they get a little off for exploration and they don't have to do any.

Now I believe that these are very good reasons why we should not support the amendment, because I believe that every time, every day, every month that goes by we're losing money that really should be going to the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: Now he talked about the prospectors. They try to leave the aura in the House that the prospector is a little old guy with a beard and a loaded up Socred (Laughter) heading up into the hills. Not necessarily. Usually the prospectors are very, very sophisticated, technology-oriented, with aircraft and all of the new things that go with mining companies. I come from a mining area. I've lived in mining areas all my life and I've only seen in my whole life two prospectors who ever made any money. Only two.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's tough.

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, it's tough. When you get through with those mining companies they're darned tough, I'll tell you that. So let's not cry for the little prospector. The little prospector's been getting it in the ear from the mining companies for as long as I

[ Page 3846 ]

can remember and before that. This Minister brought in aid to the little prospector, something that that old administration never did do.

I'd like to wind up on the real reason why this amendment's been put forward. I like to consider myself, Mr. Speaker, a pragmatist when it comes to politics. I believe that those people who paid for my campaign can expect something back from me. That's really where it is. And do you know who paid for my campaign and those of the other Members on this side of the House? Workers coming in giving $10, the little people walking by the office and coming in and giving $10, $20, $5, $1, and you know….

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right, for my next campaign. A little man from the Province of British Columbia — a $2 contribution. Thank you. Those are the kind of contributions we on this side of the House get to run our campaigns from working people in this province. We owe them something and are paying them now with Bill 31. I'm going to tell you that if the big companies paid for the campaigns of this party, then it would be incumbent on us to pay them back. How would we pay them back? We'd pay them back by being over there supporting that amendment. That's how you pay them back. We owe the people of this province something and we're going to pay them back by bringing in Bill 31. You owe the people who paid for your campaign something, you support the amendment. And that's really where it's at.

MR. FRASER: I just have a few words to say on the motion to hoist this for six months. It should be hoisted forever, so I certainly make it clear that I am in favour of the hoist. That last performance is rather difficult to follow, but I wish he'd go fix some potholes instead of making holes around here.

HON. MR. LEA: Support Bill 31 then.

MR. FRASER: No way!

I don't want to get off the main subject here. I want to talk about the Minister who is in charge of Bill 31 for a minute. I've always had the highest respect for him as an individual. He's a veteran of this House and I appreciate that fact. You know, he is just delighted with this Bill 31. He's been sitting here grinning like a Cheshire cat for two weeks. I want to say it's the summit of this Minister's career and from now on it's all going to be downhill for this Minister once Bill 31 becomes law.

The Minister in his remarks when he introduced the bill, as I recall, was talking about employment and that the mining industry doesn't engender any employment. Of course directly it does — about 15,000 — but I don't think the government people over there understand the indirect effects that mining has on the economy of British Columbia. Directly and indirectly we're probably talking about 100,000 people here.

I would just like to give you an example of why this bill should be hoisted forever, not just six months, Mr. Chairman. My riding of Cariboo has been famous for mining for the last 100 years or so. As a matter of fact if it wasn't for the gold rush in the 1860s these fellows here wouldn't be sitting in their plush offices as they are today in Victoria. So don't believe that we aren't interested in mining. We have some copper mining — which I'll get to in a minute — but I'm going to talk about the effect it has on small, innocent people.

There is a man who packs for a living. You don't know what that's all about, but he ran horses and he packed in for mining companies, exploration companies, and he had a contract to pack out…with 30 head of horses. When Bill 31 came in he lost all that and now he's probably going to apply to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) for something to eat. So it has side effects all the way. Other Members have said so, and I don't know how we get through to these people to convince them that this is not right.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that certainly with the higher price of metals the people of the province should get more revenue. Copper has gone from 35 or 40 cents a pound. I don't know how high it got, probably to $1.20, and I think the mining people and everybody in the province agrees that we certainly should have more with inflation prices on metals. What we're really saying as to why this should be hoisted is that it should be on a taxation basis and not on royalties. There's a great difference and it's a most unfair way to assess the public levy by a royalty route rather than a taxation route.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I realize the Liberals here are in a tough position on this amendment, as well as overall, because one of the reasons that we have a federal election is on the Liberals' mining legislation in Ottawa. I don't see how they can get up here and make speeches against Bill 31 when the record of their party is quite clear that if parliament hadn't gone down the levies they would have put through the tax rate would have been about 102 per cent. So I think the Liberal Party is just a lot of doubletalk as far as opposition to this is concerned, in view of their federal record.

I am amazed that certain MLAs here haven't got into the debate to try and hoist this bill for six months, which is what we're talking about, because it certainly affects their riding, and I refer to the Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet riding (Hon. Mr. Hartley). There's a big sign up in his riding, a big four-by-eight that was put up….

[ Page 3847 ]

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, no! I didn't say we put it up! There's a big sign up on the hill into Ashcroft. You know what it says, Mr. Chairman? "The future ghost town of British Columbia." That's what it says, and I didn't put it up.

HON. MR. LEA: Who's going to get the votes in there when you're a ghost town?

MR. FRASER: Well, it's a sure thing that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) isn't. He's had the biscuit in Ashcroft, Merritt, Lillooet — all those places — over Bill 31. Why isn't he up here standing on his hind legs and saying something about it? He's scared to say anything about it here.

HON. MR. LEA: They want to see you in Clinton.

MR. FRASER: Oh, they do, eh? Well, I was there a lot only about two weeks ago, Mr. Premier. I'll worry about Clinton. Never mind.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, he spent two weeks there one night! (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: Yes. Getting back to the silent people here who represent people, you're talking about how you represent people. Great representation, I'll tell you.

What about that Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)? Where is he? The silent Member for Kamloops. Here he is. I thought he was gone.

The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). Come on, tell us what they think about it in Atlin, Frank! Come on! We want to hear from you on Bill 31. Don't take any notes from him, either. Use your own speech.

Now the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly). I'd like to hear from him. They are a little upset up there too. I understand they've got a petition up there with 4,000 names on it and he only got 2,000 votes in the last election. The petition says they want him to resign. Well, Bill 31 is one of the reasons they want him to resign.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, you don't mean that.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to say something else. I wish that Minister would come in here and pay attention.

That Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) should go home and look after those tired roosters he's got up there.

I would like to refer to a union which came out in favour of Bill 31. I think it's called the Steelworkers Union. I want to tell you what happened there.

We have Gibraltar Mines in my riding in the Cariboo out at Williams Lake. We're proud of Gibraltar Mines and what it's done there, the employment it has provided and the mixed economy it has provided. But the Steelworkers Union represents that mine; and I got a petition from all the workers at Gibraltar Mines to stop Bill 31. I'm amazed to find out and read in the newspapers that the Steelworkers Union are in favour of Bill 31. What a bunch of double-talk!

Do you know that that was one man of the Steelworkers Union that made that press release? It wasn't the working men, the members of the union itself that do the work, because at the same time they sent me a petition that they wanted Bill 31 stopped. So you know, you get so much confusion over facts.

As I said, we have Gibraltar Mines in the Cariboo out at Williams Lake and we're proud of it, what it has done for the community at Williams Lake; it's given it a mixed economy. It is a large beef-raising country, large lumbering; and now with mining they have an excellent mix, and everybody is proud of Gibraltar Mines.

A lot of the citizens of our province don't consider that profit is a swear word like these stupid socialists think it is. That word profit is a swear word in their vocabulary, and I can't understand it.

MR. LEWIS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. FRASER: You're not the Chairman yet. I don't have to take orders from you.

The Gibraltar people, the ones that I know, and the Gibraltar Mines are good corporate citizens in the Cariboo riding and everybody is proud of them. We're also happy they're making money. What's wrong with that?

Another thing I'd like to point out in this debate, whether it has or not…. The Minister will tell me; at least he sits in here once in a while. It is the fact that the Premier of this province should stop this construction of the British Columbia Railroad right today. They are going up to Dees Lake and that. With Bill 31 there's no exploration, there'll be no metals for that railroad to haul out of there. You're wasting public funds by that extension now, in view of Bill 31. It should be halted right now.

The Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) during his debate said there was no timber along the line and that the prior administration were dummies for ever making the extension up there. There are minerals there but nobody is going in there to get them out. So what's that railroad going to haul out of there — a bunch of hot air from the socialists? It won't make much money at that. So stop the construction of that line right now, because exploration has stopped there.

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) knows all about it. I'd like to hear what he's got to say about it.

[ Page 3848 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Why doesn't he speak up?

MR. FRASER: Why doesn't he get up here and say something about it?

Another thing I'd like to refer to, Mr. Speaker, is this: this Premier, when he was doing the doodle-dance here about an hour ago and running around with a paper hat on his head, said: "You know, Bill 31 is a great thing and we need it to get chronic care in this province." What a bunch of bunk! Bunk, Mr. Premier — bunk!

You've got the money right now to go ahead with the chronic-care programme. You don't have to go and fleece all the ordinary citizens and the corporate citizens with your crazy Bill 31, I'll tell you. Don't peddle that stuff around this province. You've got all kinds of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about his surplus?

MR. FRASER: Yes, what about it? Go and dig in there. And while I'm on the subject of money, I want to know from the Minister of Mines what he did with that $100 million he lost. He lost $100 million in estimation of this Bill 31. I want to know…. Did he furnish his office with it? What did he do? He said it would take in $20 million and the industry said it would take in $125 million; so you've got it somewhere. Now come on; put your cards on the table here. Tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your blood pressure.

MR. FRASER: Oh, my blood pressure's fine. There won't be any by-election in Cariboo, I assure you of that. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: We wouldn't run against you.

MR. FRASER: Thanks a lot. Would you get that on the record there?

To go back to all the welter of accusations, Mr. Speaker, I want to read from a professional engineer from Merritt. Mr. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), do you know where Merritt is? Yes, well I'm going to read what he has to say, because I agree with what he says.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I can't help that.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Peter McNelly?

MR. FRASER: Yes, what about him?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Premier, sit down; I've got the floor.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Stop that chirp-chirp from over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd just like to remind the Members that it's the Member for Cariboo who's speaking.

MR. FRASER: Anyway, back to the hoisting of this for six months. It should be hoisted forever, Mr. Speaker — not six months but forever. I want to go back to that. I got on the subject of the Minister of Mines, that this was the summit of his career. I think that he should be hoisted as well, along with Bill 31, and set out to pasture. If this is the best kind of legislation he can bring in, he doesn't deserve to be around here any more.

MR. CHABOT: He couldn't even keep track of nuts and bolts for Cominco.

MR. FRASER: Right, he even lost those. He's lost $100 million here already that he can't account for.

"To add to the effect of this rip-off, Bill 44 — that's the bill we passed last year — also went so far as to deprive the staker and developer of a secure title to the mineral property upon which he might have spent thousands or even millions of dollars to prove the presence of an ore body.

"Having hamstrung the prospector and put the developer into a limbo of uncertainty designed to incapacitate the small operator, Bill 31 is introduced to finish off the big operators. Look at the destructive effect of this ill-considered and sloppily drawn bill and trace the disastrous result into our own lives.

"Bill 31, which imposes exorbitant royalties on mineral products without specifying the products to be affected, is ill-considered in its intent and badly drawn. By omitting a clear statement as to what metals it will apply, it fails even to specify the errors of its own jurisdiction. It leaves to Ministerial discretion the area of application as well as the mechanics of enforcement.

"Bill 31 also opens wide the door to corruption. Where the opportunity for corruption is offered, corruption occurs. It imposes royalties on the basis of the market

[ Page 3849 ]

price of a metal regardless of whether or not the production is profitable. These exorbitant royalties then become an operating charge and raise drastically the cost of metal production.

"The bill will make it uneconomic to mine billions of tons of what is now low-grade ore and turn that valuable ore into waste."

I would like to say here, Mr. Speaker — this is quite an important part of the bill, and I don't think a lot of the public understands — that all the copper mines that are in British Columbia today have been developed on low-grade copper. I want to congratulate the industry for being as successful as they are, because in the world of metals it's a low-grade copper, and they've done an excellent job in finding a way to mine this and make a profit and provide a living for many thousands of citizens.

"As a result, this will prevent many potential mining operations from coming into production." That's for sure. We are already seeing the results of that. The exploration has dropped off and we're certainly not going to see another mine developed in the Province of British Columbia as long as Bill 31 in its present form is the law of the land, which unfortunately I think it might be.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Yes, sure I'll bet. But don't you bet me with the $100 million you took. You know, that's not yours to bet with in the first place, Mr. Minister.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. FRASER:

"By causing cutbacks in operation, companies will close down prematurely and, cause many viable prospects to lie idle. It will contribute directly to unemployment. Turning much valuable ore into waste, it will curtail the production of vital metals and thus cause artificial shortages. Bill 31 will therefore contribute directly to inflation. The present concept of royalties should be abandoned and Bill 31 withdrawn."

We're saying it should be hoisted for now. On this hoist business on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that it certainly fits into the timing 'of everything. As I said earlier, the federal Liberals want a nice mining industry at the federal level. They got in trouble, their budget failed and we're now deciding that as Canadians in a federal election.

For that reason and that reason alone, with the provincial-federal conflict obviously here, this bill should be withdrawn. We can have the federal election, get a new government — that won't be Liberal, by the way, Mr. Speaker — and see what the new government does about all this conflict of jurisdiction, with the effect being that it hurts all the citizens of this great province and, indirectly, the whole of Canada.

I have one more small thing I want to get on the record here in support of the hoist and in support of what I said about the British Columbia Railway — the construction of that line extension to be stopped. This letter says the following:

"The tax map gives the names and locations of two producing mines, two proven ore bodies and 10 potential ore bodies in the northwest part of British Columbia along with road and railroad locations. Granduc's freight is handled by water transportation through Stewart, but freights for the other 13 properties could tie in with the British Columbia and Canadian National Railways. "Outgoing asbestos from Cassiar is approximately 140,000 tons per year. The proven ore bodies of Stikine Copper and Liard Copper could produce over 600,000 tons of concentrate per year. "Ingoing freight would be considerable. The times would depend to a great extent on the source of power generated for the operations. If it were for coal or oil generators there would be a large freight moving to the properties. "The Stikine and Liard Copper properties have sufficient reserves to warrant production at a total rate of 80,000 tons per day for at least 20 years. They would directly employ at least 1,700 people and require a new town site of 5,000 people. "At "At present and as a direct result of the threat of Bill 31, no further work is planned for Stikine Copper. Liard will carry out only a token programme for the same reason. A large drilling programme planned for the Sustut property has been drastically curtailed. Seven of the other ore bodies will have no development this year."

All because of Bill 31, MT. Speaker.

"The time lag from the decision to place a mining property in production until actual production takes place is usually four to five years. With the exception of the asbestos from Cassiar, it is obvious that no mineral revenue will come to the British Columbia Railway for many years."

Again, I remind the Premier that I want him today to issue an order to stop the construction of this line. It apparently is going to be built and isn't going to have anything to haul. It's basically a resource railroad but nobody is going to get the resources out so. Why go on with the construction of the railroad into that part of the country?

I would just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I

[ Page 3850 ]

would like to see this Minister hoisted for six months or longer and this bill hoisted forever. I'll conclude my remarks on that. It's a bad piece of legislation.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm really very, very much surprised at the attitude of the opposition Members who have spoken this morning and on previous occasions on Bill 31. I'm really, really surprised. After all, as the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) mentioned, we have had mining for over 100 years in this province in Lillooet and in the Cariboo. A glorious history, a history we can be very well proud of.

They stand up and say they want no royalties but a profit tax, when over the years the Social Credit government, the Liberal government and the Conservative government have given tax concessions, tax-free periods and accelerated depreciation so that those giant corporations are giant corporations because they have failed to act as good corporate citizens in this province and in this nation. They have given away their resources.

My friend in the Cariboo, yes, he has mines, and there are mines in Yale- Lillooet. But he also has ranches. His ranchers should know this, and I hope the press will see that they do know this. The ranchers have bought the commodities they must have to stay in business. For a rancher to go into business, he has to have water to water his meadows to make hay. He has to have range leases so that his cattle can go into the hills and eat the grass. To have the water he has a water rights lease that he pays an annual rent or an annual royalty. He pays for those water rights.

MR. WALLACE: What has this to do with the amendment?

MR. FRASER: Garbage, that's what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: You are going to relate this to the bill, aren't you?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You'll say it is garbage but the ranchers in your districts don't say it's garbage. The ranchers say, "We pay royalties for the grass and for the water." This is the way the ranchers in your riding pay for the royalties on their grass, Mr. Member for Cariboo. They pay so much per head of cattle and so much per month. As the price of beef goes up, the range fees escalate.

This is precisely what we are saying to the mining companies. If it's fair for the little ranchers to pay royalties on their grass and their water, to pay 5 per cent sales tax on the various needs of their home and their family, and, if they have a good year, to pay a profit, it is fair for the great corporations that these people have protected for all too long.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you're on the record.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You bet I'm on the record.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I can tell you this. A month ago, on April 24 when I was in Ashcroft, representatives of Lornex mining, Bethlehem Copper, the mining industry and many of the miners packed that hall. It was the biggest meeting I've had. I explained it at greater length than I've done here. When I was through there was not a single question. The paper so records it.

Those people across there, Mr. Speaker, could see that Bill 31 was a dead issue in Ashcroft.

MR. FRASER: You're a dead issue, you hit the head there.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Social Credit ran an ad in the local paper saying that the Hon. Frank Richter is coming up to Ashcroft to spiel on Bill 31. So he spiels.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: In my usual disguise as Member for Yale-Lillooet. When that meeting was over, there was not a single question asked on Bill 31.

The new Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) went up there. What did he do? Sure, he was in there beating the drum for the great mining corporations but not for the little people. I'm prepared to stand on a platform in Ashcroft, in Merritt, up in Bralorne, Lillooet, Princeton or any platform in this province and defend the rights of the little people to sell the resources of this province.

MR. FRASER: I'll join you on the same platform.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I challenge you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You people have been charging the little people. You tripled the royalties on the water rights three years ago to the ranchers. You raised them from 300 per cent to 1,000 per cent and you're still arguing that the mine companies should go Scot free.

Mr. Member for Cariboo, when your rancher constituents know how you've let them down, you won't be quite as welcome as you have been in the

[ Page 3851 ]

past. You've let them down. You have certainly let down the ranchers in your riding and throughout British Columbia. Remember, your government was here for 20 years and brought in and increased the 5 per cent sales tax so when a working man has to buy the necessary commodities to maintain life for himself, his wife and family he paid through the nose.

All we are doing is saying that fair is fair. If the ranchers pay for the grass, if the working man pays the tax to keep his home together, then the mining corporations, for the first time, will start to buy the necessary commodities — the copper, lead, zinc and nickel — from us, the representatives of the people.

I am prepared to meet those parties across there on this issue in an election anytime.

MR. FRASER: Good, good, good.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): My constituency is one of the ones affected by this bill to some extent. I agree that this is a very serious problem. That is why I stand in opposition to this amendment. The quicker we get this bill implemented so that the mining companies can be proved to be wrong, the better.

MR. McCLELLAND: It is unfortunate that this government can't see past the end of its nose in reference to the mining industry in British Columbia.

I would suggest that this bill, rather being called Bill 31, should be called the "Yukon Development Act" because that is exactly what it is going to do — develop the mining industry in the Yukon. That is where they are all going to go once they leave British Columbia.

There will be a total loss of exploration money, a loss which we are beginning to see in British Columbia right now. It's starting; the exodus is beginning. It won't stop unless this government does hoist this bill for six months and have another look at it.

It's nonsense to say that the mining industry of the province has contributed nothing to the economy of British Columbia. I don't understand how the Minister and the Premier could say that when B.C. gets more for its resources than any other jurisdiction in Canada. That's on the record as well. The mining industry in this province has contributed millions of dollars in direct taxes to government, and has helped to build the great wealth of this province in the salaries of thousands and thousands of employees in secondary industries and support services.

While I don't profess to be any kind of an expert on mining, I do have a lot of concern about those secondary industries because they get hurt, even in my community where there are no mines. If you ruin those secondary industries and those support services, then my constituents begin to feel the pinch as well. That's why I'm so concerned about Bill 31 and why I believe it should be hoisted.

You hear so many strange things coming from this government — like "Leave the ore in the ground. It'll stay there forever as far as we're concerned."

That doesn't make any kind of economic or social sense, in my opinion. If you leave it in the ground it is just so much rock; it doesn't mean anything to anybody. It has no value to the people of British Columbia or anybody else. It won't provide a plugged nickel for chronic care or hospital beds or classrooms, or any other kind of social service, as long as it is in the ground. It doesn't start to pay any benefit until somebody begins to utilize the ore.

This bill will ensure that the good companies in the mining industry in British Columbia go elsewhere. The ones which are left will be nothing more than high-graders who will come in and take the cream in those kind of high-grade operations that can still be profitable under these kinds of royalties. Then they'll pull out, never to return. You never will get that low-grade ore out of the ground.

The Minister seems worried that shareholders and employees and others would have the cheek to write to their MLAs. What cheek that they should write to their MLAs because they're concerned about Bill 31! Why don't you want the people to take part, Mr. Minister, in the political process? They're worried; that's why they're writing letters to their MLAs. They're worried about this Minister and they're worried about the future of this province as well.

There isn't any question — no question whatsoever — in the minds of any Member of this House, I'm sure, that the resources and the Minerals belong to the people. No question. The people deserve to share in the profits created by the exploration of all of our resources, but that's no reason to sink an industry through your eagerness to confiscate through the back door. That's about what this bill amounts to.

The resource industries of this province can't function any longer in the kind of atmosphere of uncertainty in which this government is forcing them to function, The question I think the people of British Columbia are asking is: what is the grand design in this kind of resource legislation? Do you, as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as recommended to an NDP convention in 1971, intend to continue to deliberately foster this uncertainty in the marketplace, to frighten away investors? Is that the design — to lower the values, to depress the stock? I'd suggest that is what is happening in British Columbia today. That's the way the resource industries will be nationalized by this government, as was one of the major planks in that position paper given to your 1971 convention.

I spoke for a moment about the kind of problems that are going to be created among the people who supply equipment, among the people who supply service and supply certain kinds of support for the

[ Page 3852 ]

mining industry. There are lots of them in every kind of constituency in the province, regardless of whether or not that constituency has an operating mine.

We have a documented list of a number of companies which are being hurt. I won't go through them all, but there are people like Northern Mountain Helicopters. They say:

"Our company has lost more than $60,000 in contracts to date because of this government's policy."

Canadian Industry Limited:

"As a company deeply involved in the mining business, we are severely disturbed. At a time when we should be having a mining boom, we are now having a mining recession."

Westminster Auto Leasing of New Westminster, a wholly-owned B.C. company employing a staff of 23 engaged in the leasing of cars and trucks in the province:

"Last year we had a fleet of over 50 trucks on rental to companies involved in the mining industry in B.C. This year, up until Bill 31, we had expected an increase in business of over 60 per cent."

Instead, as a result of Bill 31, a decrease of 60 per cent in that company's business.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, get rid of it then. You have that opportunity. If the Minister wants to stand up right now and say that he will pull Bill 31 for good, we'll be glad to sit down and not discuss it any longer because that's all we really want from that Minister. If you want to resign at the same time, that'll suit us just fine too.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why? Don't you think I'm a good Minister?

MR. McCLELLAND: No. I wish I could say you were, Mr. Minister, but I don't think you're a very good Minister.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's what I asked him to do, to withdraw the bill, but he refuses to do it.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is that right? If that is true, I would like the House to make the Minister feel very welcome and enjoyable on his 25th anniversary. I think that's magnificent.

Twenty-fifth anniversary of what?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's been here 25 years.

MR. McCLELLAND: Too long, Mr. Speaker.

Finning Tractor and Equipment: 300 of that company's 1,600 employees are employed as a direct result of service to the mining industry.

"In our opinion, if Bill 31 is implemented, it will not only curtail the growth of recent years but will also cause a diminishing requirement for our goods and services."

Crown Tire Service in Vancouver, the same kind of story.

Jones Tent & Awning: of all the companies that would seem to be unrelated but are hurt by this bill, here is a company that says it gains a great deal of its livelihood supplying equipment and bush clothing to the individual prospector and the larger national and international mining companies.

"The year 1973 saw a very drastic drop in our trade. There is no doubt in our minds that Bill 31, as it is presently constituted, will have the effect of eliminating much of our business." That was 1973, and now 1974.

Okanagan Helicopters Ltd., Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd., all of these companies are secondary industries and support services. The Association of Professional Engineers — all of them severely damaged because of the result of Bill 31 because the mining industry is directly responsible for the employment of, I believe, something like 16,000 people in this province who are working directly in mining, and another 30,000 to 35,000 to 40,000 who are employed as a result of the mining industry.

That's the reason so many ordinary British Columbians, who don't know anything about mining, are extremely concerned about Bill 31.

I wouldn't intend to try and talk about the technical details of Bill 31, but I am amazed, when you start to look down the long, long list of people who stand to lose from Bill 31. I'm amazed and concerned about their future, not just the people in the mining industry, but people in all walks of life in British Columbia.

If the Minister isn't concerned about the mining companies and the mining industry, stop for a moment and think about those 35,000 to 40,000 people who you are scuttling by this Bill 31.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I would like to say a few words on the amendment put forward by the opposition people, particularly as it relates to their concern for employment in the province.

Like the last speaker, the Member for Langley, I am certainly no expert in the area of mining. But my department does have a great deal to do with the manpower and provisions in the province, the employment opportunities in the province. I think it is worthwhile to have a look at what is happening in this important area.

[ Page 3853 ]

At the present time, the manpower development branch of the department is collaborating in employment studies with certain mines in the northern part of the province which are having a very difficult time retaining a stable work force. The rate of manpower turnover in some of the northern mines is as high as 400 per cent. Those mining companies are now in the process of undertaking very detailed and very costly studies to determine how they might develop a more secure work force. There are very costly surveys which involve such things as plant renovation, which involves such things as the expenditure of capital funds to make the mining communities more attractive places to live for the work force so that they might stay and provide more stable employment in the mining industry.

That hardly indicates an industry which is on the brink of disaster, as the opposition people would indicate. That hardly suggests that the mining company has any really basic fear about the long-term security of the work force in the mining industry. These things are going on now.

The Premier, when he spoke, outlined the ads that are daily in the major newspapers of this province applying for qualified people in the mining field. The manpower studies which they, themselves, are taking and the representations which they have made to my department for cooperation are certainly indications that the position put forward by the opposition that employment will dry up is a sham which is put forward to achieve some other goal. I suggest it is a political one.

There is a great deal of hysteria about the drying up of employment in mines. This is rather new-found, as far as I can determine, with respect to the opposition. My riding also is an historic mining area of the province. It is completely spotted with ghost towns that were abandoned by mining industries once in their view it became questionable in terms of profit to maintain that community. They abandoned these towns without respect to any relocation costs for workers, without respect for any assistance in finding new employment for the work force and assisting them with mobility costs and so on. The village of Sandon is now a ghost town. I think there are two people there. At one time, in the early part of this century, there were 10,000 people in the village of Sandon.

New Denver is a village in the south part of my riding which is a very marginal community. Mines open and close there without any respect to the social security of the community, without any advance warning, without any provision for relocation costs to the workers who lose their job without notice.

This government has done something about securing employment opportunities for the workers of this province. We have provided technological change clauses which require a lead-time notice due to closures of not only mines but other industries as well.

If the opposition, particularly the Social Credit opposition who governed this province for 20 years, were genuine in that concern for displaced workers, then surely they would have taken the step, which this government has done in just two short years, of introducing technological change provisions which bring some benefit and some security to the workers of the province.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the record is a pretty dismal one as far as the Social Credit people are concerned. The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is a man from the Interior, from the southeastern sector of the Province, a railroad worker who now espouses concern for the employment opportunities of people in the mines.

What about the history of Kaiser Resources? The largest single employment factor from the development of the Kaiser Resources' mine in the east Kootenays were the jobs that accrued to the railway workers in the haul of that coal. Over 300 jobs in the Province were related to hauling that coal from Elkford to Vancouver. The Social Credit government granted a charter to an American railway company to siphon off that complete coal haul and transport it south of the border to the detriment of the workers of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

HON. MR. KING: The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that I won my last election campaign on that issue. I certainly welcome that debate.

By golly, if their concern is to be accepted as genuine now for any effect on employment opportunities, it hardly squares with their action in allowing, 11 times, the granting of the charter to the Kootenay and Elk Railway to siphon off the coal and the minerals from this province to be handled through the USA.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

HON. MR. KING: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) says we should refer to the bill as the "Yukon Development Act." Under the previous administration it would have been referred to as the "USA Development Act" because they were prepared to not only allow the profits from the minerals of this province to be siphoned off across the border but they were prepared to have the jobs go the same route.

That little Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) stands up and shouts "Jobs." By golly, he wasn't there fighting when he was a Member of the cabinet for the job security of the people in his own

[ Page 3854 ]

area.

MR. CHABOT: I was in Revelstoke….

HON. MR. KING: He was in Revelstoke and he got chased out by an angry group of workers. He hasn't shown his face in that city again. I might add that my predecessor, who failed to take a position on that issue, hasn't shown his face in Revelstoke again either.

This is the record of the Social Credit people. It's an empty charade for them to stand up now and attempt to take a sincere posture of concern for the workers of this province when they never showed any concern in the past about doing anything positive in that regard.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, their emotional outbursts and their hysteria is all geared to their concern and their obligations to the mining companies, not for the workers of this province. Let the record show that they have been consistent in that one regard. They have been the spokesmen for the mining corporations of this Province and every other major corporation in this province. The people will get the message. I'm sure we will see the results in the next election campaign.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I like the pious posturing of the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Hon. Mr. King) who did not speak to the amendment before us at this time. All he wanted to talk about was the old political nonsense that he peddled in the Revelstoke-Slocan area during the last election — the political twisting of the facts as he carried out in the last election. You would almost think, in discussing the amendment here, he was fighting the last campaign, telling the same old story, the old twisted and distorted facts by the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan. He didn't tell the facts.

He suggested the majority of the jobs created by the Kaiser Resources industry were transportation jobs. He knows full well that is not true. He knows full well that the majority of those jobs are in the extracting of the coal in the Fernie area. They are not in transportation. He knows that full well.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): His job depends on transportation.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly his job depends on transportation.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, it's his bread and butter and bread and butter for many others.

He knows full well that the story he was telling about Kaiser and about the government's position regarding the transportation of coal was not the truth. He knew that full well.

HON. MR. KING: You're contradicting your own Member. He said there are more jobs generated from outside the mining industry than from within.

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that there were more jobs generated within the mining industry than through the transportation jobs.

HON. MR. KING: Do your homework.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I wish every British Columbian had an opportunity to see the Premier's performance this morning. I wish they could really see the Premier in full flight, with his paper hat, the throwing of his paper behind his back, the phony tears dropping, his raising and lowering of his voice, and the waving of his arms. It would have been a great thing for the people to see the Premier as he really is.

He had the audacity to suggest that the reason for this legislation is to provide chronic care in British Columbia. Here is a government that has taken over a Crown corporation, Ocean Falls, which lost $850,000 of taxpayers' money. He claims he needs money through this legislation while the brokers selling the newsprint made millions of dollars. Had the government been as intelligent as they attempt to lead the people to believe they are, they would have made those millions of dollars for the people to provide chronic care. But no, some New York brokers made these millions of dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I point out, when you point out for order on a matter like that, you are entitled to speak, as the Hon. Member is speaking, on that point on alternative means of raising money.

Would the Hon. Member proceed without that interruption?

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that the reasons the Premier raised for the need of additional revenue from the mining industry are not valid, certainly not valid, when they're giving away tens of millions of dollars to a New York brokerage firm on the sale of newsprint from Ocean Falls, while the taxpayers are picking up the bill to the tune of $850,000 last year.

No, Mr. Speaker, there's a need for the hoisting of this legislation. There's a need for the hoisting of this cancerous-type legislation, this cancerous legislation that will virtually destroy not the existing mining enterprise in British Columbia, but destroy the future

[ Page 3855 ]

growth. It will reduce the potential for survival of existing mines as well.

It's been reported that the mine which the Minister of Mines knows so well — that bad old Cominco from Kimberley — has a life expectancy based on its ore reserves of 45 years. This legislation will kill that town 15 years quicker by the introduction of this legislation, by turning the low-grade Ore into waste rock. Yet the Minister is not concerned about those workers, who he was employed with for some 40 years, when their jobs are going to disappear.

Interjection: .

MR. CHABOT: That's right. He's got his job and he has his pension from Cominco as well, that terrible corporate citizen. He's enjoying a pension. He's enjoying a pension from Cominco after the years he's spent attempting to keep track of the nuts and bolts in the warehouse for Cominco.

He's enjoying the benefits, but he suggests now, probably because of his age, that some of his former friends — and I really mean that, former friends — and former co-workers…. He's not concerned about them. He's not concerned that they might have to move from Kimberley sooner than expected because of his actions and the actions of that government over there.

I say "former friends" because that Member has lost a lot of friends in that constituency: a lot of little prospectors in the east Kootenays; a lot of people who look to the ability or the opportunity of working in existing mines and in future mines as well. They see the disappearance of the job opportunities by the introduction of this cancerous legislation.

Cominco provided a good job, Mr. Speaker, for that Minister of Mines. He enjoyed their wage structure for 40-some-odd years. Now he's enjoying the pension benefits that accrued from the extraction of those ores from the earth.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Mines is not getting Mincome. He's getting $48,000 a year as a Minister of the Crown plus expenses, plus free plane trips around this country, plus his Cominco pension. Absolutely!

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, there aren't very many former miners, or present miners, who look forward to the kind of fringe benefits, the kind of working conditions that the Minister of Mines is experiencing at this time. He's a senior citizen with an income of substantially over $50,000 per year. No wonder he's not concerned. "I'm well off; why should I worry about anybody else — for my co-workers? That's why I can penalize and attempt to destroy any future job opportunities in the mining industry of British Columbia. "

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: He's virtually destroying the new growth of the mining industry in British Columbia. We see the facts and figures on the amount of exploration: how it's decreased since you brought down your cancerous legislation, Mr. Speaker.

We see that staking is reduced by 34.1 per cent in the Nanaimo mining division. We see that in the Cariboo mining division it has decreased by 67.5 per cent. We've seen that in Atlin it's reduced by 37.5 per cent. We see that Omineca fell down by 61.7 per cent. The average across the province is a reduction in staking activity of 58.7 per cent.

When we relate that to the number of claims staked from January 1 to April 30, 1974, we find that there are only 3,836 claims staked in that four-month period as compared to 8,405 in the previous year.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: There's nothing selective. I stipulated the mining divisions where there's been this tremendous decrease. Are you going to suggest that the Cariboo, the Atlin and Omineca mining divisions are not major and substantial ore-bearing properties? Are you going to suggest that there is no potential for development and staking of claims in those areas of the province?

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm appalled that that Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and that Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) sit there in silence while rural representatives and while their voters are going to be virtually destroyed by this legislation. How can they sit in silence? Talk about lack of conviction! Talk about a bunch of silent backbenchers like I've never seen before! They should be standing up here and fighting to have this bill hoisted, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Do you want the sound system turned up a little perhaps? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you can't hear me, turn it up, please. (Laughter.) Turn the sound system up. The Speaker can't hear me.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it is virtually despicable that those Members will not stand in their

[ Page 3856 ]

place and say what they are thinking.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think you have gone too far there. I don't think you can cast reflections in an unparliamentary way on any other Members' convictions.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'll withdraw the word despicable.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. CHABOT: I'm always quick to withdraw any time you feel that I've gone too far.

MR. SPEAKER: And I'm always slow to stop you. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to start an argument with you about how fast I am to withdraw and how slow you are to draw me to attention. I could speak for some considerable time on that point.

But I'm discussing the failure of the Member for Omineca and the Member for Atlin to stand in their place and speak on behalf of the people they represent. They have a responsibility because the future of their ridings is at stake with this legislation. How can they possibly sit by and remain so silent when the future growth and the future of jobs in their areas is at stake? I can't understand how they can sit so silent.

I couldn't do that, Mr. Speaker, and you know that full well. I stood in my place on numerous occasions when I was a backbencher. I was there a lot longer than you people have been and I'll be there in this House a lot longer than most of you backbenchers will be. I always stood in my place and fought for what was right for the people I represent. If I found it necessary to castigate the government, to vote against the government, I did so without hesitation on many occasions.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Name one? Redistribution, 1966. (Laughter.) If that Minister wants to be honest, he knows full well that I've never had any hesitation to stand up and speak for what was right for the people I represent, which has not been characteristic of the backbench of this government.

If it ever becomes necessary again to vote against redistribution, I'll have no hesitation in doing so, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) I'm not going to suggest for one moment, Mr. Speaker — I wish you'd stop smiling at me when I'm speaking (Laughter) — that there's not a need for a fair return from the mining industry. But there's no need to destroy the future of the mining industry in British Columbia, which this legislation is attempting to do and which this legislation will do.

I believe the Minister fails to understand that in requesting the hoisting of this legislation we are attempting to continue to enjoy the benefits of the mining industry in British Columbia. We are attempting to convince the Minister there is a need for the maintenance in British Columbia for the second most important industry that we have. He has frightened away investment capital; the mining industry is a capital-intensive industry. This legislation we are attempting to delay for merely a six-month period. If we are successful, and I hope we are, it will again open the doors to investment capital flowing into British Columbia which, in turn, will develop resources and provide work for the ever-growing population in this province.

The Minister fails to understand the need for growth, the need for our minerals — not only in British Columbia but in the world, and the kind of benefits we can derive from the development of these resources we have in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would only sit back and stop laughing and seriously consider what he is doing to the economy of British Columbia by the introduction of this legislation. My serious regret is the fact that the Minister doesn't understand the ramifications of his actions by the introduction of this legislation. Needless to say, there is no doubt in my mind that the Minister did not prepare this legislation. The Minister is carrying the legislation and it is indeed unfortunate that the Minister does not understand not only the implications but what he is doing to the working people of this province by this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a messenger for Hart Horn.

MR. CHABOT: There is no doubt about it, he's a messenger. I'm not going to suggest that he's a messenger for Hart Horn, even though I know that Hart Horn gives him odd jobs sometimes. (Laughter.) But he's a messenger for someone. He's a messenger for someone with a strange philosophy, Mr. Speaker — the philosophy of destruction. It's the philosophy that introduces this kind of cancerous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to hoist this legislation, and I urge the backbench as well to give this legislation six months, to give the Minister sufficient time to research and examine the ramifications of the introduction of this legislation, and I'm sure after six months that there would be amendments to the legislation. I ask the back bench to give support to this little request that the legislation be delayed for merely six months.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr.

[ Page 3857 ]

Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I ask leave of the House to file a petition concerning driver's certificate premiums in British Columbia.

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH:

"The petition of the undersigned humbly showeth:

"Whereas a large number of residents of British Columbia have signed a petition expressing emphatic objection to paying a driver's certificate premium to ICBC;

"Whereas these petitioners believe that the province is using forceful tactics to obtain additional premium dollars by advising residents that their driver's licence will be invalidated if the Premium is not paid;

"Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House agree to suspend the requirements of drivers of British Columbia to pay driver's certificate premiums to ICBC. "

Dated June 7, 1974, and signed by myself and three other petitioners, as well as around 8,000 other signatures.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Lorimer, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Levi, presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Protection of Children Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 154 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.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.