CONTENTS

Police Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Macdonald Introduction and first reading — 1501

Indian Reserve Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act (Bill 64). Mr. Gardom. Introduction and first reading — 1501

Motion Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance. Mr. Phillips — 1501

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1501

Mr. Phillips — 1502

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1502

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1502

Mr. Speaker — 1503

Mr. Phillips — 1503

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates On a point of order. Mr. McClelland — 1503

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1504

Mr. Bennett — 1504

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1504

Mr. Chabot — 1504

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1505

On vote 168. Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1505

Mr. Smith — 1508

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1513

Mr. Gibson — 1514

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1520

Mr., Fraser — 1520

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1522

Mr. McGeer — 1522

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1525

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 1525

Mr. Phillips — 1528

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1975

The House met at 10 a. m.

Prayers

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are some friends, Roy and Carol Timmins, from Vancouver. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House this morning a young agricultural couple from east Kelowna, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Bulloch, and Mrs. Bulloch's sister from Vancouver, who is a student in a Vancouver high school. This is one of the first family visits for them to the Legislature. They are most intrigued with the actions but, of course, very disappointed that we aren't debating agriculture. I would ask the House to welcome them very warmly.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order. I notice the public galleries are empty today. Yet as I walked by there was a sign saying: "Public galleries full." Is there some explanation for this?

MR. SPEAKER: It's rather a surprise. That's news to me. I'll certainly look into it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Not that I know of, but I'll certainly look into the problem.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll certainly look into it. I haven't been aware of that.

Introduction of bills.

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 46, Police Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

INDIAN RESERVE MINERAL
RESOURCES ACT REPEAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 64, Indian Reserve Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the adjournment of this House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would supply me with a statement on the matter and tell the House briefly what the statement is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly evident that two of the most reassured rights of parliament are being eroded and, in some instances, denied to the Members of this Legislature — namely, the right to examine Ministers' estimates for the purpose of establishing accountability and the right to be satisfied that expenditures are justified before passing an estimate.

The time allocation traditionally given to the opposition for these fundamental responsibilities of opposition Members in this assembly is being deliberately and systematically eroded by government backbenchers offering, probably under instruction, 30-minute speeches in praise of the government Minister under attack or scrutiny.

The official opposition is prepared at this time to move a motion for the. purpose of amending the standing orders forthwith in order that the traditional rights of parliament can be restored to this assembly and the limitation of debate of estimates eliminated.

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35, the adjournment of this House for the purpose of discussing this urgent matter of public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, I think the Hon. Member knows that I have to consider the urgency of debate at this time of the question that the Hon. Member has raised. I point out to him that this House adopted rules of order on a report from a committee which took a total of 135 hours as allocated for the discussion of estimates in Committee of the Whole House, and also 45 sittings.

Now if the Hon. Member were telling me that we had reached the 45th sitting or had reached the 134th hour, then I would be prepared to concede that the question of urgency would certainly have raised its head if the House wished to change the rules. But since neither of those eventualities has occurred — and I may point out that past experience has shown a total of 38 sittings have occurred in previous years in estimates, from my experience in the House — that urgency of debate, which is the only thing that the Speaker has to consider in ruling on the matter you've raised, does not appear to have happened at this moment.

That, therefore, gives the Hon. Member and the

[ Page 1502 ]

House the opportunity to make whatever arrangements they wish, including a notice of motion or debate on the question of any alteration in the rules of the House. But I cannot under the circumstances see that there is the urgency of debate that the Hon. Member suggests because, with the number of hours that are still left to debate, one would assume that the House will come to some sensible arrangement in regard to the allocation of the time by a matter of courtesy between the various parties.

I cannot, therefore, find that the Hon. Member's motion would be at this time in order — I should say acceptable — because of that rule that binds me on urgency to debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your very sincere comments on this matter. The matter is raised in urgency because of the happenings in this Legislature during the past week where the opposition is being.... As an instance, last evening two and one-half hours were allowed to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Housing, which is an expenditure of $90 million. We have had closure upon closure forced on us this week by the government, by decree, without consultation with the opposition, stating that we shall use one session to discuss the estimates of each Minister.

I think therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is definitely a matter of urgent public importance because it is in essence closure on closure. There was no discussion from the government benches with the opposition, and two and a half hours or four hours to discuss very important Ministers' estimates is in essence not what was discussed when the original motion was brought into this House. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of urgent public importance because it is not the opposition who are being closed out but the taxpayers of this province who are being closed out of having the opportunity to scrutinize the spending of the various Ministers' departments. It is the right of parliament, it is the right of the opposition to scrutinize these spendings, and we are not being given the opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Therefore it's very urgent.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for your contribution.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I recognize the concern of the Member, but I oppose that there is any emergency because I repeat this statement: we will accept any schedule given to us by the opposition within the time frame of the 135 hours. Any Minister they wish to call, any Minister they don't wish to call, any order they wish to present to us, any method that they want to use the 135 hours is freely theirs. That offer is made and we have not to this date heard from the opposition as to what Minister they wish to call, what Minister they wish to question. If they feel a sense of urgency, let them tell us which Minister they want and we will give them that Minister. That's all we ask.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to challenge your ruling on this.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry. You can't challenge the Speaker's ruling on a question which is upon him in the rules to determine. It is whether in my opinion it is a matter of urgency. Therefore, the House cannot, in the circumstances, substitute its opinion for that of Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Name any Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: You want us to vote closure on ourselves. That's what you want.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The same point of order raised by the Hon. Member and the Premier. We have made every effort in the past week to meet....

HON. MR. BARRETT: We are responding to your letter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but you haven't yet. You're simply stated in this House...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we just got it yesterday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...that the 135-hour rule simply must remain, regardless. It is a perfectly simple matter to alter that by a unanimous decision of the House. We can waive that rule. We can revert to the procedure for estimates which is appropriate for our traditions in B.C...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No way; you wasted a whole sitting that way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...and which will allow proper investigation of Ministerial estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What Minister do you want? Name the Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've made your speech, Mr. Premier. I'm in the process of making mine.

[ Page 1503 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've attempted very much to be reasonable in this whole matter. The Premier knows full well that the letter contained alternate recommendations to him. We've been assured by the government House Leader that they'll be taken seriously. Now we discover that the 135-hour rule simply has to remain, no matter what. That's the critical problem, and if the Premier will not face up to it, the rest of us are going to have to.

You cannot fit three quarts into a half-gallon jar; you cannot fit the estimates of all Ministers into that 135 hours total time. Therefore, we urge the Premier to recognize that last year when this thing was discussed, last year when every single opposition Member who spoke against this particular rule, you deliberately hand-tied the opposition in a way that they could not even carry out their functions as they did under the former Premier, bad though it might have been at that time. It's worse now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Members would not debate the merits of the issue because that is a matter that can be taken up on a motion. There's lots of time still to take the matter up on motion to set up the committee again and proceed on further investigation of the problem.

Secondly, the other reason why it isn't urgent to debate it at this moment, without anything before the House to debate, is because, as I understand from what statements have been made, negotiations of some kind axe being undertaken and the Hon. Member who's speaking has written a letter on this subject to the government. I suggest that the Hon. Member proceed with the negotiations or with a notice of motion, or do it in a formal and proper fashion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we would be happy to proceed with negotiations. The problem at the present time is that the government is proceeding with stalling, not negotiations.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Until, we get this matter settled, we're not going to get the whole question of estimates properly handled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The matter is now out of order and I would ask the Hon. Members to refrain from continued speaking.

Hon. Member, what is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: The point of order is this: the Premier just stood on the floor of this Legislature and complained about the amount of time that it took in his estimates....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you made the point, Mr. Premier. You made the point; hear me out. When I asked that Premier several times about the British Columbia Railway...two days after his estimates were done he made another loan to the British Columbia Railway for $20 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why we can't bring up a schedule because we just don't know what's going to come up...

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...or whether we're going to get the answers or not — that's why.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please return to order?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please return to order?

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

On vote 168: Minister's office, $103,728.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, the Premier just made an offer to the Members of the opposition that we could call for any Minister we wish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to make a request that the Housing Minister's estimates come up

[ Page 1504 ]

again this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter for the committee to consider.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering vote 168.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is not a matter to raise with the Chairman of the committee.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering vote 168.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Although I realize this is not the order now, I would like to make this comment: the Premier, yes, said that you would be able to bring forward your schedule on the order in which you wish to see them called, but that did not mean on the floor of this House. You have an opportunity to meet with the Whips together with the House leaders. The Hon. Liberal leader will be receiving his response on Monday.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier just said that we could name any Minister on a daily basis; not a schedule but on a daily basis.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: We've just told him the Minister for today...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: ...the Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Now that offer was made frivolously; it wasn't an offer....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members remain seated until the point of order has been made?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once the committee has embarked upon its business it is not the matter for the committee to consider the business. The business which is before the committee is vote 168. This is not a matter on which to raise points of order as to what the business should be. This is a matter to be settled by the House Leader, in consultation if necessary, if she wishes, with representatives of other parties. It is not the business of the committee. Therefore, I would ask that we proceed with the committee, vote 168.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier made his offer and we called for the Minister before the...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: ...orders of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: So that we may take the Premier's offer, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order number 44:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of the debate, or of the House during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline to propose the question to the House." — or to the committee.

The Chair elects to decline to put the motion to adjourn. We will proceed with vote 168.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can't really believe that you would suggest that that's an abuse of the rules because all we're trying to do is accommodate the kind of offer that was made by the Premier — by the House Leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: It's not an abuse of the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is business before the committee. It is not knowledge of the committee how this business arises.

[ Page 1505 ]

MR. CHABOT: The business hasn't commenced yet. No one's been recognized as far as votes are concerned, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The vote is before the committee. That is the business of the committee, and I would therefore ask for debate on vote 168.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your decision in that respect.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in Committee of the Whole House, considering vote number 168, there was a motion made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the Chairman do now leave the chair. The stated purpose was so that other arrangements could be made as to the order of business. The Chairman declined to put the motion, under standing order number 44 as an abuse of the rules.

MR. G.F. GIBSON North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, that was the wrong motion. I think the motion was that the committee rise and report....

MR. SPEAKER: Committee, yes. I think that's correct. That the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, I believe was the motion. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 16

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the time is very limited for discussing individual Ministers. While in the past by tradition the courtesy has been extended to the Chair to recognize the Minister for a brief opening statement, that tradition has been willfully violated in the past few days by some Ministers who read a prepared text which quite appropriately might have been given during the budget. I don't think the Ministers should be allowed the latitude to give a budget speech during this limited time of debate. I get a little nervous when I see a podium appearing in front of the Minister of Mines before he has answered a single question. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you would...Ministers of the Crown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member make his point of order? The Hon. Minister of Mines. There is no point of order.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman, there's no one more sorry that I am that my time has been cut down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then do something about it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I said that my time was cut down by the arguments....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: My time has been cut down by the argument that has been going on for the last half hour.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister be seated for a moment?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Only the government can have the floor — that's the problem. Diamond Leo....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

[ Page 1506 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Minister proceeds, I would draw attention of the Hon. Members to that standing order which requires that Members not interrupt the Hon. Member who has the floor. Would the Hon. Minister continue, please?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman and Hon. Members, I have always taken the attitude in years gone by that at the beginning of the estimates a Minister could make a statement so that many of the questions that will be asked may be already answered and they won't need to ask them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can presume some of the questions you are going to ask. One of the questions I'd like to clear up is the brainwashing that has been going on in the Province of British Columbia in regard to the percentages of taxes and revenue that the government have taken from the mining industry.

Mr. Chairman, I have before me a statement that says: "Capital is on Strike." These words are not mine, but those of Cominco's Gerald Hobbs. Mr. Hobbs' article appeared in the April issue of Business Week in "Business in B.C." I do wish to take issue with Mr. Hobbs' right to make this statement, but it surprises me somewhat that this seems to define a definite confrontation between private enterprise and the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You started it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Dale Martin, who prefaced the article, states:

"To many, it is inconceivable that he or anyone else should have to defend private enterprise at all. To my mind, this is a little confusing when we look back over history and see how many times governments have had to bail out private enterprise to keep the economy going. Mr. Hobbs states capital is created only when a society consumes less than it produces."

If this is correct, then the 1930s must have been bonanza years for capital. There was a surplus of almost every mentionable item of production. But people were going without these surplus products because they could not afford to buy them due to the fact that private enterprise had failed to provide them with employment.

Mr. Hobbs also states that society's prosperity depends on the efficiency with which its capital is used and not on who owns the capital. This is very true. It is due to the way in which capital has been used that governments have had to step in and set up guidelines aimed at the needs of society and future generations.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What question did you answer?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: An analogy to this is the energy crisis through which we are presently going. Private enterprise has had a free hand over the years in developing and distributing this non-replenishable petroleum resource. They have done everything possible to encourage people to use as much of the product as possible whether or not it was put to necessary use or wasted. Now, all of a sudden, we think we can see the end of the line. The government had to step in to set up guidelines for the future development and use of this resource.

Mr. Hobbs states:

"Today capital is not reporting for work in the traditional way. It is on strike. There may be no placards, pickets or raucous headlines, but it is plain that capital is not satisfied with its wages, conditions of work or job security."

Surely Mr. Hobbs is not complaining about the wages his own company made in 1974 when their profits increased to $84 million from $43 million in 1973.

MR. GIBSON: Give us some B.C. figures.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Hobbs states: "Left to itself, business can adapt to changing conditions and work to the benefit of all." If this sentence is correct, why is it that governments have to step in on cases such as Can-Cel, Ocean Falls, the CPR ferries, and why has the government received applications from many other industries, both in and out of the mining field, to subsidize them in order that they may keep operating? I have had several of them come to me asking for that very subsidization in order to keep operating.

Further along in the article, Mr. Hobbs states:

"Our best performing companies, strangely, are not considered as part of our national assets. Governments want to manage, coach, referee and play simultaneously."

This statement is rather meaningless since governments have already moved in where private enterprises failed to take into consideration the needs of the people, both present and future.

Quoting further from this article:

"With a history of stable government and a reasonable tax climate, Canada developed one of the most sophisticated, productive mining industries in the world."

Surely Mr. Hobbs does not feel that the three-year tax-free climate which encouraged the exploitation of much of our natural resources at a faster rate than was in the best interests of the people should have

[ Page 1507 ]

continued.

He also states: "What must concern us now is the use to which our mineral harvests are currently being put." I would like to ask Mr. Hobbs if the legislation written up at the present time in the Mines department does not consider this very important item. One of the sections of the Mineral Act requires that an application must be made for a production lease before a mine goes into production. The reason for this is to see that the guidelines laid down by the department on behalf of the people will be followed. These non-replenishable resources are very important to the country as a whole. To leave capital complete freedom as to how they are going to be exploited is something that may have prevailed in the past but must not continue into the future.

The next-most-important item of change to which the mining industry seems to object is the Mineral Royalties Act and the Mineral Land Tax Act. This is quite evident when Mr. Hobbs states, "Capital is still on strike while inflation and excessive taxation persists."

I've been a little perturbed about the continual pressure that the mining companies have put on in regard to what they call exorbitant taxes. They have had it as high as 104 per cent in their figuring. I'm sure that somebody will probably bring up that figure today, but I doubt whether they will after they hear what I've got to finish on.

"...under which they cannot operate." Look at the statement made by their own accountants, Price Waterhouse and Co., regarding the effect that the Mineral Royalties Act and Mineral Land Tax Act had on the profit picture during 1974. From a letter from Price Waterhouse to the mining association, dated March 12, 1975:

"In addition to the above, you asked us to estimate the effect of the recently introduced British Columbia Mineral Land Tax Act and British Columbia Mineral Royalties Act on the 1974 return on investment figures.

"Based on information received by participating companies, we would estimate...."

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, earlier today I called your attention to what I considered to be an abuse by Ministers in reading speeches during the limited time of estimates. May I call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to page 404 of May, Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition. It says: "A Member is not permitted to read his speech...."

Mr. Chairman, we have a very limited time for consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Mines. He's reading a speech, Mr. Chairman; he's not answering questions which have been put by Members. It's very clear that there is a government device at work to limit the amount of time that Members can ask questions — not just by passing rules unilaterally, but by instructing Ministers to come into this House and use up the limited time with prepared speeches which they're reading.

Mr. Chairman, I insist that you instruct that Minister to stop reading speeches forthwith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, I would point out to the Hon. Member that it has been the tradition in this House that when a Minister's estimates come up and he's making his opening remarks he may refer to notes or may read something in order to make a point clear.

However, the point is well taken that an entire speech should not be read, and I would say to the Hon. Minister that while he may use his notes and refer to the notes he should try not to be tied entirely to them.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, would he at least tell us who the author of the speech is?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I am the author.

"Based on information received by participating companies, we would estimate that the introduction of the two Acts led to a reduction in return on investment of about two to two and one-half percentage points."

Surely this industry that has been so prosperous under previous legislation could not be strangled to death by two to two and a half percentage points.

Mr. Speaker, since I do not have a complete report for 1974, let us analyse the 1973 report put out by Price Waterhouse, the mining association's own appointed chartered accountants. They state in this report....

AN HON. MEMBER: Author! Author!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Here is the Price Waterhouse report.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Who wrote that line? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They state in this report, and it has found its way into the press, that the mines in British Columbia have contributed $128 million in taxes to the three levels of government...

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Exclamation point.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's $157 million, Leo.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...federal, provincial and municipal, of which $65 million goes to the province.

[ Page 1508 ]

What do they include in this $65 million?

MR. GIBSON: Question mark.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Corporate income tax, B.C. mining tax, B.C. corporation capital tax, social services tax, property tax, property and school taxes combined, gas and fuel oil tax, Crown grant payments, production royalties tax, workers' compensation assessments, et cetera.

MR. GARDOM: Pause for applause.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: To me the first three items are legitimate, but the balance was deducted in their cost accounting as part of the operational expenses. I am sure any one of us could come up with a similar shopping list of our own taxes if we so wished.

In this 1973 report they state that the mining companies paid $44.6 million to the municipalities. This includes property tax, school tax, property and school tax combined, business licences....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could inform me whether the time of this speech is being taken out of the allocation for budget time or the allocation for estimates time, because it's clearly a budget speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is not a point of order. However, I would ask the Hon. Minister to try to avoid discussing matters pertaining to legislation or policy, and rather discuss the administrative aspects of his department.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got some figures here. Under the highlights in this report they state that the net earnings for 1973 were $231 million. This is after all taxes have been paid. They cannot state what their taxable income was due to the fact that much of it would be deducted as expenses. Nevertheless, let us assume that the $128 million was all taxes. Then, by simple arithmetic, the taxable income would be the sum of the net income of $231 million, plus the total taxes of $128 million, a total taxable income of $359 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never figured it out by yourself.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This figures out to 18 per cent of taxable income to the province, 2 per cent of taxable income to the municipalities and 16 per cent of the taxable income to the federal government.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You don't even know what you're talking about!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...a total of 36 per cent for the three levels of government and leaving a net income of $31 million. It is easy for the mining companies to say they pay 46 per cent federal tax, 15 per cent mining tax and 10 per cent corporation tax and then add them all together. But on what figures are these percentages based? It is easy to total all these figures and make it look astronomical to the ordinary person. Why not tell the whole story? Maybe it is as Mr. Hobbs states that capital is on strike. I am sure it is not on account of the taxes and royalties but rather that capital is averse to the people of British Columbia having any say in the management of these non-replenishable resources.

If there are any questions, I would appreciate having them.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, we've just seen another attempt by a cabinet Minister to make a complete mockery out of the parliamentary process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote, please?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will. The Hon. Minister, when he rose in his place, said he had a few remarks to address to the members of this committee so that he would be able to anticipate in advance or answer in advance questions that we might have to put to him as Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. He gave not one little scrap of information to this committee that has not already been circulated to every Member of this House. If he wants to read a report from Price Waterhouse...this letter is in the hands of everybody who has been in this Legislative Assembly. What kind of gobbledegook is that, Mr. Minister? I'm a little surprised at the attitude taken by yourself.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Where are all the questions you were going to ask?

MR. SMITH: When we get to your estimates you can speak, Mr. Minister.

Let me say that it's making a mockery out of the debate of estimates. You put a Minister on the floor of the House for a few hours...

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

[ Page 1509 ]

MR. SMITH: ...before you ever have the opportunity to question him in detail.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Again I would request that the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote that we have before us — vote 168.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to the vote even though we know that the Minister will take a free ride. He'll sit here and listen to a few hours of debate, never really get down to the contentious points of his portfolio, then slip out and bring another Minister on at the next sitting of this House.

The first observation I have to make, Mr. Chairman, is this: what a difference a year makes! What a difference a year makes — or a little better than a year. Last May — and into early June, 1974 — we were debating Bill 31, the British Columbia Mineral Royalties Act. Despite all of the pleas of the industry, the prospectors, the geologists, the engineers, the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and the mining association of this province, the Minister, presumably on the recommendation of his henchman Hart Horn, turned a deaf ear to those earnest concerns of a great many of the people of the Province of British Columbia and ramrodded a bill through the House which has been responsible for the decimation of the mining business in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Name one mine that closed because of Bill 31.

MR. SMITH: We'll get to that, Mr. Minister.

MRS. JORDAN: Name 20 that didn't open.

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look at the record of what has happened in the mining industry in this province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. SMITH: It's a record you can't be proud of, Mr. Minister, if you are fulfilling the obligations of your portfolio. You know what the record is because it's been brought to your attention enough times. I'll repeat it for you today because you don't seem to understand what it means in terms of jobs, in terms of security for people in the Province of British Columbia.

What is the record? No new mines opening in this province since 1972 — none. No new jobs created, although there is potential for new mines in the Province of British Columbia. Other mines have either curtailed their operation or they've closed down entirely. Did you ever ask yourself why? Have you ever tried to explain to this committee why that has happened in the Province of British Columbia when the reverse is true in other parts of Canada, particularly the North West Territories and the Yukon? No. You've not even concerned yourself with it. You've used a lot of cheap phrases to try to gloss over the real problem that is involved in the mining industry today and say it's because of world prices of copper.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: What is it? What's the cost? Tell us.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it's government policy more than anything else that has been responsible for the decline in the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. It's directly attributable to the mining legislation that you put through this House in the past two years. There is no other reason, Mr. Minister — no other reason. The capital has dried up. Sure, it has dried up. You got up and said, "Capital is on strike," and read from a quotation. It's not on strike, Mr. Minister.

I'll tell you what's happened in the Province of British Columbia. Capital has packed up its bag and it's walking out. Why? Because of the vendetta of the present government in power combined with the legislation which you put in, which is punitive in its attempt to grab every dollar you can get right now, irrespective of what the future for the industry is down the road.

You want those dollars now at whatever cost — and the cost is tremendous in terms of jobs and in terms of vitality of a good industry which should be on a continuous basis and growing in the Province of British Columbia.

Let's take a look at what has happened. Mining exploration in this province is down over 50 per cent. Doesn't that cause you any concern? I certainly would if you were sitting on this side of the House, Mr. Minister; you'd be up screaming to high heaven about that — calling it ridiculous. And it is ridiculous because it was never necessary in the first place.

What are the facts? In 1972 the mining industry spent $38 million in exploration in this province. In 1974, $19.4 million. Doesn't that cause you any concern?

Claims staked: down over 80 per cent — from

[ Page 1510 ]

78,000 in 1972 to 16,600 in 1974.

Development expenditures on new mines have declined 98 per cent — from $70 million in 1972 to approximately $1 million in 1974. That's in a two-year period, Mr. Minister. Doesn't that cause you any concern as Minister? Are you prepared to sit there and accept that and say that it is all the problem of multinational corporations, of big business, of capital, of everybody else but your department and your administration of your department? Why don't you look at where the real problem lies and be large enough, big enough, to admit that you've made a few mistakes in the type of legislation that you've passed through this House?

It's time that you sat down with industry, with representatives of the prospectors, with people who have spent their lifetime in this sort of business, and find out what the real problem is. What do you do? You take these people in; you have a short meeting with them. You listen to them for 10 minutes and give them the back of your hand as soon as they get outside of the door.

The last time they met with you they had reason to believe they were making some progress. The day after they left you indicated to the press that, really, you didn't believe much of what they had to say to you. Is that any way to solve a problem?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Let's take a look at it. Maybe while we're in committee, even though we have only a few short hours this morning to discuss your estimates M. Minister, you'll get up and tell us, as members of this committee, why there's been such a decline in exploration and mining activity in the Province of British Columbia and what you intend to do, as Minister, to correct those problems. Give us your solutions. Don't keep looking for a scapegoat; give us solutions to what's going to get the industry back into a viable position in the Province of British Columbia.

It's estimated that in the last two years at least 5,000 people lost jobs as a result of either closures or cutbacks in the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. You have a record of what's happened.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: How many of them are out of work right now?

MR. SMITH: Those are a part of the 102-odd thousand people on unemployment right now. It's not a record that you can be proud of.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: How many miners can you name who are out of work?

MR. SMITH: How many people, other than people directly engaged in the mining, are out of work as a result of your policies? How many geologists? How many prospectors? How many engineers have had either to look for work somewhere else or go to some other part of Canada or the Yukon in order to maintain a livable income for themselves and their families? How many? They're part of that group; don't ever think that they are not.

Any time an industry which has been viable and vibrant in the Province of British Columbia is forced to close down completely or cut back, people lose jobs, and they must go somewhere else to seek employment or find some employment in some other type of work, if it's available. They are part of the 102,000 people that we should be finding jobs for in the province right at the moment.

Let's take a look at the sorry record we have before us today. In 1973 the closures of mines included Bradina, at Owen Lake near Houston; Canex, Salmo, British Columbia; King Resources Co. at Mt. Copeland near Revelstoke; Placett Oil Co. at Bull River near Cranbrook. Closed down; complete closures.

True, in the same year we had a few re-openings — that was 1973, Mr. Minister. But we still had a net loss of jobs in the mining industry that year.

In the same year, exploration and development: down, down, down. Doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't that tell you something about the activity we can expect as a result of exploration and development when the graph is going down instead of up? It should.

In 1974 the closures included Anaconda Canada at Britannia; Jordan River Mines at Jordan River; Giant Mascot at Hope, British Columbia. And we had cutbacks at Granduc and the Similkameen Mining Co. Another net loss of jobs as a result of mining closures or cutbacks. That should have told you something.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old story.

MR. SMITH: In 1974 and 1975, this year, Consolidated Churchill Copper out of Fort Nelson closed down completely. They have had to do that in the last month, laying off 108 people who were directly employed by them, and a number of other people who were employed in hauling concentrate from the mine to Fort Nelson. That's probably a total of 150 people in a small but growing community, or one which was growing, as a direct result of the closure of Consolidated Churchill.

Reeves Macdonald mines at Remac, B.C., closed down. We've had other cutbacks this year in Gibraltar, Lornex, and Western Mines.

Reopenings in 1975 — none. Have you ever stopped to calculate not only the loss of jobs but the loss of income to people collectively in the Province

[ Page 1511 ]

of British Columbia as the result of the spin-off from the mining industry into other endeavours? Certainly if you have these people in your department who can calculate when the price of copper has gone up or down and how much that is going to amount to in terms of dollars into the Treasury, they should be capable of calculating the direct loss to the people who would be employed in the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia if it were not for policies such as you have introduced.

It is a sorry record, a sorry record, Mr. Minister. All you have to do is take a look at the graphs that have been prepared for you. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to read them.

Claim-staking in British Columbia between 1968 and 1974 peaked in 1969, went down in 1970 and 1971, hit another high in 1972 and, since then, has shown a drastic reduction. Take a look at the graph. You must have a copy of it. It is almost straight downhill. As a matter of fact, if it was a toboggan slide, you would never stop, Mr. Minister. You would probably go right through to the centre of the earth when you did hit bottom; it's that steep.

Exploration and development spending in the same period, between 1968 and 1974, hit a high in 1971 of $300 million. In 1974 it was back down to less than $50 million. Doesn't that tell you anything about the legislation that these people have to live with? It should. If it is not a cause of concern to you, Mr. Minister, then you don't understand the responsibility of the job you have; and the best thing you could do for the people of British Columbia would be to seek retirement. You have had a long, distinguished career in the political field and perhaps that is the best solution in terms of the good for the greatest number of people in British Columbia.

Either you do not understand what is happening in the mining industry or you seek to ignore it and overlook it — one or the other. It can't be both. It would be a little surprising to me, with the background you have, if you didn't understand that when the mines close down, when exploration goes from $300 million down to less than $50 million in a period of two short years, there is something drastically wrong. There certainly is in the mining industry in British Columbia today.

A number of people have come up with suggestions, including the British Columbia-Yukon Chamber of Mines, regarding the solution to the problem. They have made some suggestions. You have them before you. They have outlined the problem They have suggested that in their minds the solution to the problem is first of all for the government to state clearly and explicitly their policy for mining in the Province of British Columbia.

It is time for government to assure mining that there is a place for them and their initiative in the province, that there is a place for them to invest not only their dollars but their talents for the benefit of all British Columbians. But as long as the legislation which is presently in force stays on the books in this province, you will never, never, never restore any confidence to the mining industry and those people they employ in the Province of British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is that far, far too much is left to Ministerial discretion. You can issue a production permit or you can withhold it. You can withdraw it after it has been issued on your own say-so. You don't have to call together a commission. You don't even have to justify why you are doing it, except to yourself.

What kind of security of tenure is that? On one hand you encourage people — or at least we would hope you would encourage people — to come in and invest money in the Province of British Columbia in a highly speculative type of business. Mining is no sure cinch for anyone. On the other hand you say: "Well, you may or you may not get a production permit. Circumstances may require me to withdraw it." What kind of tenure is that?

Suppose you were in the process of developing a mine and you went into the office of a bank or a credit union and told them that you have the ore. You know that; your tests show it is there. You've done the survey work that was required, drilled all the holes. You know it is a good body of ore. It's a substantial body of ore. "I need, Mr. Chairman of the bank, Mr. Bank Manager, $50 million, or $10 million, or $5 million, to combine with the capital that I am able to raise through the sale of shares in my company to develop this site." Guess what the answer would be today. "I'm sorry; as long as the existing legislation is this province hangs over your head and you cannot predict what will happen with respect to Ministerial discretion, we have no money for you."

You wonder why capital has gone on strike. It hasn't gone on strike; it's left the Province of British Columbia.

You referred to the return to mining companies. Who are mining companies? Are they not a collection of people who have bought shares in all types of different mines in the Province of British Columbia? Hopefully those people will receive a dividend from the shares they have bought, and hopefully they will increase in value. Is that not one of the things that we would like to see happen in the Province of British Columbia?

If that is not true, Mr. Minister, why has the government purchased shares in corporations in the Province of British Columbia with the pension funds of your own employees? Is it not to create an equity portfolio for the employees of the Province of British Columbia ? Is that not part of the situation in the province? I would say that it was. At least this is the excuse that is being used.

No, it's a sorry record, a very sorry record, Mr.

[ Page 1512 ]

Minister, and I think you have to answer not only to the Members of this committee but to the people of the Province of British Columbia respecting that record.

I suggest to you that the outline given to you by the British Columbia-Yukon Chamber of Mines respecting solutions to the problems is really not a solution at all, not the long-term solution, because they are suggesting that somehow or somewhere the government should be able to, on its own, come up with policies which would protect both the people of British Columbia, who have an equity in a non-replenishable and a non-renewable resource, a substantial equity, and the companies who would wish to develop that resource on their behalf.

I think, Mr. Minister, that it goes much, much further than that. It is time, for the Province of British Columbia and the people who live here, for your department to consider very seriously a royal commission on the mining industry in this province. It would seem to me that you have to take the solutions out of the political arena and create a commission, completely non-political, of experienced people who would be prepared to be arbitrators in this whole matter, be prepared to listen not only to the position of government and the position of mining companies but also to the little people who are affected by this particular type of legislation.

It is also time that the provincial government, not only in this province but in other parts of Canada, and the federal government quit bouncing the ball back and forth from one side of the net to the other and determine for the good of all Canadians a resource development and taxation policy that will provide for adequate revenue to the people who own the resource — which is Canadians collectively — and still allow enough latitude for development of those resources by the capital that is flowing out in ever-increasing quantities from the Province of British Columbia.

It is not good enough any more for you to stand in your place or, when the House is not in session, blame the mining companies for everything under the sun. Tell them that they're not paying enough taxes, that they're not creating any employment in the Province of British Columbia, that all the companies are foreign-owned, that they're ravaging the land and the sea and the air and the water. These are the types of things that have been said repeatedly — perhaps not by yourself, Mr. Minister, but by people within government circles in this province. Certainly if you have any influence over those people, you should take them aside and say: "Look what you're doing in terms of destroying a very viable industry in the province."

I suggest to you that it's time the mining companies did more than try to defend themselves and the industry. On one hand you have government, who seem to be involved in a vendetta against investment in this province; on the other hand you have the organizations representing mining industry, including the Mining Association of Canada, the provincial mining association, the chamber of mines, the prospectors' association, members of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and officers and officials of mining companies, trying to say what government has said is not correct.

There's accusation and counter-accusation to the extent that there's a lawsuit at the present time before the courts in the Province of British Columbia brought against the provincial government, as you well know, by the mining companies operating in this province. While I don't intend you to reflect on it, it's a fact of life; it's there as a result of the legislation that we presently have on our books.

There's been little real regard for what both provincial and federal governments are doing to industry in the province — and we'll deal mainly with mining industry at the moment — by trying to find a way of grabbing ever-greater amounts of tax, one not paying any regard to the other. This is why you have reports before you that the industry, if taxes to the ultimate limit by both federal and provincial standards, would result in mining companies paying out 105 per cent of their gross in taxes.

For you to suggest that the only taxes you're concerned with are the ones that the mining industry pays directly to the Province of British Columbia in terms of royalties and income tax is a ludicrous statement. Ludicrous!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They added them all together.

MR. SMITH: You did and then suggested that they shouldn't really show those other expenses that they have. Are they not taxes? Are they not paying them? And does the provincial government not get a share of them, either directly or directly? It's a sorry day, Mr. Minister, when you understand no more about economics than to suggest that only the direct taxation of the provincial government is the only concern you have...

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't!

MR. SMITH: ...in the operation of a business. That was the inference I got from your remarks. If that's not a correct inference, then I think you have a duty to this committee to get up on the floor of the House when your time comes and tell us about it. Get up and tell us about it.

What I am suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, is this: we need a royal commission into the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia.

I'd like to close by quoting from a commission

[ Page 1513 ]

that operated in the United States in 1970, a commission appointed to study the mining industry in the United States which reached a conclusion in 1970 that I believe deserves consideration in Canada.

"Our standards of living, our national defence and our survival as a leading nation are heavily dependent upon the availability of fuel and non-fuel minerals. Consequently, the commission favours an over-riding national policy that invites, encourages and supports, not merely permits" — I'll reiterate that: "encourages and supports, not merely permits" — "the discovery and development of domestic resources."

If you're really concerned about the industry, then get on with the appointment of a royal commission, completely separate and apart from the political arena. Then at least you will be remembered as a mining Minister who did something to try to solve a very critical problem in this province.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say to the Hon. Member that there was a time I asked for a royal commission when I was on that side of the House. Because the government of the day wouldn't change its policies, I asked for a royal commission. But today, with the policies that we've got.... He didn't define any policy that is set out today that is wrong.

We had three companies in the office just yesterday that proposed to spend millions in exploration this year.

MR. SMITH: How many million?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No mine closed which wasn't at the bottom of its reserve. We have had 475 mines close in the last 100 years.

MR. SMITH: What about Churchill Copper?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Churchill mines closed because the price of copper was down.

When you talk about closing of mines...you just get the list. In the United States there is a whole list of them closing up. Even Anaconda closed one in Butte and they are closing another one in Butte. They closed Britannia because they were out of ore. In Canada we've closed some. The Philippines, Australia, New Guinea, Cyprus, Chile, Peru and Zambia are all cutting back. Don't tell me that Granduc and these places have cut back because of us; they've cut back because of the price of copper and because the Japanese asked for a cutback in the purchasing of ore. So don't talk about that.

When you talk about claims, I don't think that the staking of claims is any criterion as to the progress of the mining industry. Don't forget that in 1971 the mining industry was told by its own accountants that there would be a downtrend in 1973. And there was.

Mineral claims staked in 1969 were 84,000, but that same year there were 47,000 forfeited; 1970 there were 69,000 staked and 67,000 forfeited; 1971 57,000 were staked and 65,000 forfeited; 1972 78,000 were staked and 63,000 forfeited; 1973 35,000 staked and 78,000 forfeited; 1974 35,000 were forfeited in six months.

There was an awful lot of frivolous staking going on. They staked it and they did work that covered maybe seven or eight years ahead; the claim was frozen from then on. Then just because we put a $10 rental on it, they dropped a lot of claims this year. That's one of the reasons they are more careful and more particular in their staking. But I don't think the staking of claims has anything to do with the mining situation in the Province of British Columbia.

Last year with the prospectors' assistance Act we had 200 applications of which 70 of them were successful. So don't think that prospecting has stopped.

Cutbacks: cutbacks all the way through. Closures: none of the closures you brought up were closed on account of any of those bills.

At the end you were talking about a royal commission they had in the United States. They recommended the very thing that we are recommending in Canada. Don't forget, the Canadian government is very interested in setting up a mining policy for all of Canada where the people will have some say in the exploitation and the depletion of the resource. This is one of the reasons why we do it.

With all due regard to the chamber of mines, when they were sitting in my office I asked them for detailed figures as to how they would solve their problem. When I read their brief, there was no real suggestion there that could alter anything. It may be, as Mr. Hobbs states, that the capital is just determined to try and break the back of the legislation. This is what it may be. I don't think that is a proper attitude for the mining industry to take.

When you talk about taxes, in my opening remarks I included all the taxes, even the employees' Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance. I added them all together, and altogether the industry only paid 18 per cent to the provincial government, 16 per cent to the federal government and 2 per cent to the municipalities. That's including everything that they are paying to the workers as well. So, don't tell me that I didn't state that quite categorically.

I said that while a lot of these things are deducted as expenses, let's take them as taxes and project it and see what kind of percentages the companies pay. That is exactly what I said at the start.

The production lease is one thing they are worried about. When you stated that the Minister has got discretion, that when they go to the bank they can't

[ Page 1514 ]

get money, they go to the bank with the production lease. The production lease is already signed when they go to the bank. There is no discretion or indiscretion there on the part of the Minister that prevents them from getting the money; they've got the production lease. Last year I said that if they fulfilled the requirements, they would be able to get a production lease. It wasn't me; it was Shell.

I think that what hurts them most is the fact that the mining industry says that it should have the sole decision as to how this non-replenishable resource is going to be depleted in the Province of British Columbia. This is what they want. They want us to do away with the production leases altogether. I say that this just cannot happen.

MR. GIBSON: As we continue under the new closure rules of the new dictatorial party, debating today the estimates of the Minister of Mines, we have had one opposition speaker; we're having another one now and then, presumably, a third one and then a government speaker. I'm afraid that will be it for this department and a Minister who, perhaps of all the Ministers of that government, should be the most unpopular Minister in this province. I don't mean personally; he's one of the most charming people I know. I mean in his official duties he should be the most unpopular. I have a lot of thought after the performance last night as to whether it should be the Minister of Mines or the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I came to the conclusion that the Minister of Housing is merely passively incompetent; the Minister of Mines is actively incompetent. He has actively caused the problems that are confronting British Columbians in that industry.

I notice as I left the buildings last night, looking at the lovely lights, that there's one dome not lit up. It's the dome above the Minister's office. I think his party is trying to tell him something.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're sinking a shaft down there right now.

MR. GIBSON: Is there a shaft of light coming down from the sky there, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Chairman, the estimates we are debating in the Department of Mines this year are double those of last year. Let us ask ourselves: is it because the activity in the mining industry is double what it was last year? No, that is not the reason.

What is the shape of the industry? The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) went through some of the statistics which have been put together by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, an excellent organization, I might say, whose grant, I hope, this year is not going to be reduced. I hope and trust that the grant of this chamber of mines that has the intestinal fortitude to criticize the Minister is not going to be reduced on that account — there are rumours around.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What would you do?

MR. GIBSON: I'd give them more money, Mr. Minister, to carry out the good work they're doing as some kind of a counterforce as to what must be the most ill-informed administration of mines this province has ever seen.

Claim-staking down 80 per cent: that figure has been cited. The Minister told us that wasn't important — claim-staking not important in the mining industry. Just like planting seeds isn't important in the agricultural industry — the same thing. If you don't have some claims, you're not going to have any mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But if you plant all your seeds on stone, you are not going to grow anything.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister knows that perfectly well, or he should but maybe doesn't. That's possible, Mr. Chairman. It may be possible that he understands that little about the mining industry. The fact that development expenditures are down by 98 per cent...Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I've ever heard another statistic in this province where something was down by 98 per cent. Development expenditures are the ones that take the mine from the process of being a prospect to the place where it's providing jobs. There have been no jobs created in that mining industry.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): The jobs are on Howe Street.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member for ice cream stands over here says: "Jobs are on Howe Street." There are people who work on Howe Street — that's right, Mr. Member. You can make an honest living on Howe Street, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: An honest one?

MR. GIBSON: You can make as honest a living on Howe Street as you can in this chamber, and maybe more productive in the case of some Members.

Development expenditure dropped 98 per cent; people moving out of this province. The Hon. Member for Peace River again said that we need a royal commission. We don't need a royal commission, Mr. Chairman, we need a new Minister.

What is the state of the industry? Here is a picture of some drilling equipment being towed out of the Stikine River show. It shows a tug towing a barge with the equipment aboard, and the cut line is: "They got torpedoed by Bill 31." That's part of the state of

[ Page 1515 ]

the industry.

Bralome gold mines put off.... If you talk to the NDP they say that the whole problem of the mining industry in British Columbia is copper prices. How about Bralome gold mines? That's a gold mine.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They spent $2 million.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: They spent $2 million renovating that mine; then they decided not to go ahead and open it because of the mineral land tax. That's the state of the industry in this province.

The Minister says: "Mining problems in B.C. are on the way out." Here's a quote: "As long as none of us panic, I'm sure that all the problems will soon disappear."

MR. PHILLIPS: He couldn't even manage a vacant apartment building, much less a mine.

MR. GIBSON: That Minister ought to do a little bit of panicking.

The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was yelling about Lornex, Mr. Chairman. Here's a clipping about Lornex — February 22. "Lornex Mining Corp. announced Friday it will lay off 100 workers at its copper mine in the Highland Valley." How about that, Mr. Minister of Public Works? Are you proud of that? It's part of your work, part of the work of your government.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister says claims don't matter. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) says the Province of Ontario is doing a lousy job in housing. How about mining? There were 22,000 claims recorded in 1974, an increase of nearly 4,000 over the 1973 total. Claim-staking is up everywhere in Canada. It's up in the Yukon and the North West Territories; it's up in Washington and Montana and Idaho. They have the same copper prices as we have in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're even going down to Reno. They have more chance down there on the tables than they have in mining.

MR. GIBSON: What happened to Granduc? I'm going to get into the Granduc situation a bit more later. I wish the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) were here, He knows the story about Granduc. He knows the 400 constituents he has that are out of work.

Here's a headline: "Despair, Frustration Haunt Mining Men." December 4, 1974.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that from Spokane?

MR. GIBSON: "A group of experienced, highly regarded mining engineers and geologists which gathered recently for a discussion of the B.C. mining outlook with a couple of Province reporters talked of despair, frustration and uncertainty." That's no exaggeration, Mr. Chairman. It's the feeling in the industry. How else would you feel when all your life you've been involved in trying to do something to wrest the wealth of this province out of the ground for the benefit of British Columbians, and for the benefit of yourself a little bit too, when as a prospector you have some claims you've been sitting on, maybe, in the Highland Valley for 20 years and keeping in good standing, doing your work, tramping over that ground in the summer and the winter, and a time comes along in the Province of British Columbia and in the history of the world when that deposit could be developed, and a government comes out of the blue that makes it impossible, and steals the jobs from thousands of British Columbians?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We'll get onto Valley Copper in a minute. For example, at 50,000 tons a day, 2,000 men would be involved in the construction,800 or 900 men involved in running it. With 100,000 unemployed in British Columbia, we could use that kind of work, and that Valley Copper mine would be going into production right now — and you know it, Mr. Minister — if it weren't for your policies.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What about the Turner budget? Are you attacking that too?

MR. GIBSON: This isn't a Turner budget, Mr. Attorney-General. This is Minister of Mines — vintage Minister of Mines.

There's another headline here: "B.C. Mineral Output Declines." B.C. mineral output actually declined in the year of our Lord 1974, Mr. Attorney-General. How do you explain that one?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Is that the Turner budget?

MR. GIBSON: No, sir, that's not the Turner budget. The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, is the address.

[ Page 1516 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's let the Hon. Member make his speech without too much interruption.

MR. GIBSON: But the Minister can take some comfort. He has succeeded in doing a part of what he wanted to do, and that is to tremendously reduce the profits of firms in the mining industry.

Clipping of April 17 this year: "Gibraltar Net Takes Plunge." Net profits of $44,000 for the three months ended March 31 compared with $10.7 million for the same period in 1974.

A quote here from the report: "The full effect of royalty and tax legislation introduced in 1974 has resulted in a disproportionately high tax rate, exceeding 90 per cent of pre-tax earnings." For fair taxation, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, 90 per cent seems a trifle high.

MR. CUMMINGS: You're getting as bad as a lawyer — do you know that?

MR. GIBSON: And here are all the other company reports: "Brenda Earnings Die." "Placer Profits Decline." "Firm Lost $13 Million on Granduc."

The Hon. Minister was good enough to tell the House that the profits of Cominco were away up. He's very concerned about Cominco because he used to work there and he's a little bit of an expert on the company. If he studied the company he'd know that only around $6 million of those profits came out of British Columbia mines.

MR. FRASER: All he did was count the nuts and bolts.

MR. GIBSON: What he has done is push that Canadian company into putting a lot of their capital and development outside of this province instead of staying and providing jobs for British Columbians where it should be.

You know, there are a lot of NDP fallacies that lie behind all this, Mr. Chairman. The first one is they believe that a royalty will increase returns to the public Treasury.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They really believe that, Mr. Member. All they care about is dollars in the public Treasury so they can spend it on their boondoggles, they don't care about jobs for British Columbians. They got about $27 million, according to the report of the Mining Association of B.C. which the Minister cites with such praise. They got about $27 million in 1974 out of the combined mineral land tax and mineral royalty.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That is more than overburdened by the jobs lost by British Columbians, that $27 million. If there were 2,000 jobs lost, you could say that about balanced off, but there's more than that. There's been about 5,000 jobs lost. You didn't even break even, and you put people out of work. You are not even making a profit on your activities of putting people out of work.

MR. CUMMINGS: Are you going to blame us for world depression, too?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're depressing, Roy.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain asks if we are going to blame him for world depression. No, I'll just blame you for B.C. depression. Your extent of incompetence hasn't reached the world level yet, and I trust it never will.

The NDP fallacy is that their programmes help conservation in the mineral resources of this province. I'll tell you what it does. Their programmes insist on high-grading. When you impose a royalty, that means that the firm high-grades. They are forced into high-grading. They are forced into bad mining practices. They are forced into working that deposit out more quickly and taking out the high grade, because they can no longer afford to take out the marginal ore on the wall of the pit.

Not only that in terms of bad conservation practices — what does the Minister know about what's going on in the field of undersea mining these days? What does he know about that? Does he know that Inco is saying that they can expect nodules to be mined in the 1980s, undersea nodules, for nickel and copper?

Does he know that the secretary-general of the United Nations had a statement made on July 15, 1974, to the United Nations conference on trade and development? Listen to this: "It is quite clear that the new supplies that will come from the exploitation of seabed resources will have to be taken into account in working out a comprehensive commodity strategy." Then later on.

"For example, the UNCTAD-secretariat-based study relating to three of the minerals concerned, cobalt, manganese and copper, indicate that a very modest volume of seabed output in 1980, the export earnings of the developing countries in that year would be lower than in the absence of seabed mining by $360 million."

[ Page 1517 ]

That applies to British Columbia also, Mr. Minister. So if you continue to keep our industry in the area where development is not proceeding, where expertise is leaving this province, you are the greatest conservationist of all, because you are going to make sure that that metal stays in the ground forever, or at least for the next couple of generations — which, as far as this government is concerned is forever.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It does no good to the people of British Columbia who need jobs today, Mr. Member.

MR. CUMMINGS: We'll have the government for a couple of generations.

MR. GIBSON: Then the next NDP fallacy is that a royalty is just a cost of supply; you have to pay for it just like any other supply, just like the analogy the Minister used once, I think, about having popcorn for your popcorn stand. Maybe he understands popcorn, but he sure doesn't understand mining. The right analogy to use is the farmer that puts the seed in the field to raise the corn. You don't charge him a royalty on that work he did to bring that corn to fruition. You charge him a tax on his profits.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You charge him a tax on his profits.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's one of the Members, Mr. Chairman, that's going down the tube because of this legislation, so well he should be concerned about it.

Minerals, Mr. Chairman, were created by God and discovered by man. If you do not give the discoverer some credit and some right to a return on the effort of that discovery, then you will have no more discoveries. It is not going to do you any good, as Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, to know that statistically there is a lot of copper in B.C., if you don't know within the nearest 100 miles where it is. You have to have that.

The NDP has another fallacy that what's going on now couldn't be this cherubic Minister. It has to be the price of copper. That's what it is, Mr. Chairman, according to the NDP: just the price of copper.

That's completely wrong. The price of copper doesn't discourage exploration. That's the problem: the lack of exploration. Exploration is going on all around this country, except British Columbia. And in the best year of copper prices in history, the first half of 1974 when you were putting your iniquitous legislation through this House, exploration was at a low in British Columbia and at a high everywhere else. It's not the price, Mr. Minister; it's you.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You!

MR. GIBSON: You said it was the price of copper, If it was the price of copper, then what is wrong with the mining in this province of gold, silver and zinc? They are at high prices. It is not the price? it's the Minister. It's the government.

Who does all of this hurt, Mr. Chairman? It doesn't hurt the government and the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. They've got their jobs. They've got 28 per cent more staff. They've got double their budget. They've got a salary contingency of 1.3 million; they're in good shape. It doesn't hurt the big companies as much as the little companies. The big companies can transfer their exploration staff somewhere else. They are the ones who employ the men, Mr. Minister, and that's what I am concerned about.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm saying it doesn't hurt the companies; it hurts the employees. Don't you understand that? The companies just move out

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Then why don't the companies go to work?

MR. GIBSON: What happens with their men?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It hurts the prospectors with claims. It hurts the small companies with claims. It hurts the small shareholders. It hurts the working miners. It hurts the mining towns. It hurts the exploration people. It hurts the geologists and technicians and motel operators and rental operators, and all these people who lend services to the industry.

HON. MR. LEA: Then speak to the mining companies.

MR. GIBSON: It even hurts the financial industries on Howe Street that the Hon. Second Member for Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) so despises.

MR. CUMMINGS: The sky is falling in on you.

MR. GIBSON: Just a couple of case examples for you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, just in case the overall picture hasn't sunk in. Look at the Afton copper property just outside of Kamloops. Where's the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)? I hope he takes part in this debate.

[ Page 1518 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He's hiding.

MR. GIBSON: You know, the operators of that property, or the would-be operators, desperately want to develop it. You just have to read their statements. They don't dare to develop it because of this government. That would produce 800 jobs in construction right now in the town of Kamloops. That would produce 300 continual operating jobs, but there's no guarantee that a company investing in British Columbia can get their money out. Members of that government understand it. The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), when he builds a condominium, he understands that he can get his money out before he has to pay any taxes on it. No sirree, there's not that privilege for anyone bold enough, or stupid enough, to create jobs in the mining industry in British Columbia.

How about Bralorne? It's a mine that should be reopened...

AN HON. MEMBER: How old is it?

MR. GIBSON: ...a mine into which a couple of million dollars has been put to bring it back to a stage where it can be reopened, and now they can't reopen it because of the Mineral Land Tax Act and what it would do to the costs of that mine. You know it, Mr. Minister. Don't shake your head.

Look at Valley Copper. A 50,000-ton-a-day operation, it should be. A couple of thousand men are needed to build it,800 to operate it — needed jobs in the Highland Valley, jobs that aren't going to come about. I have a quotation here from the president of that company from a day or two ago. The president of that company, Mr. Rothman, April 17 clipping. He said: "No serious planning can be done for the deposit until the taxation and royalty situation changes." That's what he said, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And then you say the same thing and the whole thing is turned off.

MR. GIBSON: Look at Granduc....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're part of the problem.

MR. GIBSON: You're the problem, Mr. Attorney-General, you and your government.

Look at Granduc and the town of Stewart. I have sympathy for that Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) whose throat has been cut by you and your policies, Mr. Minister. There's political blood on the floor up in the town of Stewart, I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. GIBSON: The mayor of Stewart, who was, I'm told, a former good New Democrat.

HON. MR. LEA: The Liberals don't understand.

MR. GIBSON:

" 'The people,' says McLeod, 'are losing confidence not in themselves, but in the provincial government. If it wasn't for the mineral royalties legislation we could have a boom.' Government reaction to the efforts of McLeod by telephone and letter to convince Premier Barrett and his Minister of Mines of Stewart's desperate need have been unpromising. 'Stubborn and entirely negative' are the terms McLeod uses. 'The Barrett government has taken the phone off the hook as far as Stewart is concerned,' says Gary Hubbard, the town's first and only pharmacist."

What's the situation with Granduc Mines? Well, the first part of the situation is that they're running at a loss — a considerable loss — so they had to lay off about 400 men. Then they lost about half their reserves below the 2,600 foot haulage level because the cost structure has risen to the point that they aren't economic anymore. It's a nice example of the Mineral Land Tax Act turning ore into waste rock.

Now this company has $145 million in that property, more or less. They have provided jobs in a remote part of B.C. for several years. Mr. Minister, under your legislation they will never get that money out — never. There is no theoretical chance they'll get that money out because their break-even point is above the point where your super royalty cuts in.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There's no super-royalty on that now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says there's no super-royalty. You mean to tell me, Mr. Minister, that when you get over — what is it, about 76 or 77 cents now — you mean you don't have to give 50 per cent of the net to the government? Of course you do.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It's not even 76 cents; I think it's higher than that now.

MR. GIBSON: No sir, it's not, Mr. Minister. It's 64-point-something, cents times 1.2 where your super-royalty cuts in, unless it's a new mine, in which case it's 135 per cent. You ought to know your own legislation and regulations for goodness' sake.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Less smelter returns — you've got to subtract.

[ Page 1519 ]

MR. GIBSON: Oh sure, that's after the computation is done.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, it's a higher price than 76 cents.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about net smelter returns, for goodness' sake, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why didn't you say so then?

MR. GIBSON: I did say so.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, you didn't say that.

MR. GIBSON: I just said it now. So for every dollar they earn over that price level, they pay 99.5 cents in taxes. You know that, Mr. Minister. You know that once the super-royalty cuts in, that's what happens — for every dollar, 99.5 cents in taxes. So there's no theoretical possibility. That's the fair deal you're giving to people who would create jobs in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not correct.

MR. GIBSON: That hurts all British Columbians.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You're hurting B.C. by that false information.

MR. GIBSON: You stand up any day and give your own talk, Mr. Minister of Public Works....

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: I just have a few more minutes, so I have to pass on to some other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the empty building.

MR. GIBSON: I want to say very briefly, because I know the Minister will want to correct this, that he has misled this House on two occasions about royalties. He has misled this House on the so-called "royalty" paid by Granduc Mines, which in fact is a 22.5 per cent royalty on profits, not on gross value as he said. He misled this House when he implied that in the Yukon and the North West Territories the royalty payable was on gross value, when again it is not. It is substantially on net profits. I would like the Minister to acknowledge that when he stands up.

I have a copy of the Canada mining regulations here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is suggesting that the Hon. Member was deliberately misleading the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister was not deliberately misleading the House, because he doesn't know enough about mining to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Acknowledge that you made a mistake.

MR. GIBSON: He inadvertently misled the House, and I would like him to clear that up.

Does the Minister appreciate that the $10 claim he put in on rental is causing people in this province to lose their claim?

MR. CUMMINGS: How many mines in the Yukon are making a profit?

MR. GIBSON: Claims by free miners holding free miners' certificates have been cancelled. Some were cancelled last fall. One of the gentlemen concerned received a form letter from the Minister's department in February saying: "Don't forget to pay this fee or your claim will be cancelled." It had been cancelled six months before. This man had gradually built up these claims over a number of years and was going to quit his present job and go up to work them, and now he has lost them.

MR. CUMMINGS: How many mines in the Yukon are making a profit? Tell us.

MR. GIBSON: Does the Minister know the difficulties that the modified grid system is causing some of the older prospectors in this province? What does he plan to do about it?

The Minister will stay Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources for the next year and it will be a disaster. Exploration will stay down because basically he won't change the rules, and he calls the chamber of mines and the BCMA a bunch of nit-pickers when they come into his office. I have the clipping right here. "Nit-picking, says Nimsick."

High-grading will continue because royalties force it. Private development will stay at a standstill. The government will attempt to more closely regulate mining practices. The government will announce joint ventures with private companies. They will go into the exploration business themselves. We see padding in this set of estimates which is enough to fund a small exploration programme. That's their game for sure, Mr. Chairman.

I want to tell them that government will be just as wasteful in the exploration field and more wasteful than they are in the kinds of fields about which they are at least supposed to know something. They will

[ Page 1520 ]

all say that it is because private enterprise has failed, when in fact they have hit private enterprise over the head so hard that it has no chance in mining in this province any more for the good of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A 5 per cent royalty, that's all.

MR. GIBSON: And a super-royalty, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't apply anywhere now.

MR. GIBSON: What do you mean, it's not applying? Granduc is paying super-royalties on its gold values and it is losing money. That shows how much you know about mines.

There is some good news, Mr. Chairman — not for you, but for the province. These policies are going to defeat the FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1975Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), the Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), the Hon. Member for Fort George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), the Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley)....

MR. FRASER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: I am sorry to have to include your riding in there, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are we!

MR. GIBSON: That's what's happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes the majority — right on mining alone.

MR. GIBSON: But for that good news the price is too high. The price being asked is the destruction of the vitality of an industry in British Columbia which is our No. 2 industry — an industry which provides regional development and jobs for people all over this province, which has been building up over generations, particularly the last generation, the finest group of miners anywhere in the world; and it is now being dismantled. That Minister should resign right now, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I would just like to answer the questions as they come along, if I can.

When you were speaking of comparing Ontario with British Columbia, you said that they had staked 22,000. Last year we staked 16,000 and, population-wise, we are a far smaller province in mining.

But in regard to Cominco, you stated that only a certain percentage of the profits are produced in British Columbia. But it was the incentive, the initiative of the products from British Columbia that built Cominco all over the world. They used the profits from their mines here in order to build all over the world. That is all I've got to say about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: High-grading ore?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What do you mean? I'm just telling a fact. It was the Sullivan Mine. They are a company in this province and that's the basis of all their activities.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The copper cutback in different places? Sure, the Japanese have made them cut back in the mines.

But you're talking about high-grading. High-grading is not going on right now. When there's a pocket of minerals, they're an average all the way through.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Don't tell me that there hasn't been high-grading in years gone by and that it is just since the royalties came in.

The canceling of claims. It was in the Act that they had to pay their rental if they cancelled the claim.

The grid system was one question that was taken up with the chamber of mines and the mining companies throughout this province and the prospectors. It was discussed for a long time before the modified grid system was brought into use.

I think that's about all the questions. You haven't answered me anything in regard to the percentage of the profits that are paid by the companies in this province. I think that you're just beating the wind or putting up straw men and knocking them down when you're talking about the mining industry. It's mostly hearsay evidence that you're trying to give. You haven't got the facts.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about the mining industry, or what's left of it, in the Province of British Columbia. We talk a lot about copper mining but I'd like to hear the Minister say what he thinks about the gold-mining industry. With the price at an all-time high, I wonder

[ Page 1521 ]

why we haven't got gold mining going. It's my information, Mr. Minister, that they aren't going into gold production because of the Mineral Royalties Act, Bill 3 1.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I beg your pardon.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Oh, up in Wells-Barkerville, where gold was originally discovered in this province in 1858, there's still lots of it there. They won't go into production — I'm not going to name companies; you know who they are — because of the Mineral Royalties Act. We have people up there unemployed.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, no. You're way out, you're way out. Not Wingdam. No, not Wingdam — Wells. They won't go ahead to put these mines in production at the highest price gold has ever been. Of course, we have the copper mines that are cutting back. The ones that are producing are cutting back and we have ore bodies that are not being developed, as the prior speaker mentioned. Valley Copper is one good example but there are a lot more than that.

In debate a week or so ago, the Minister of Mines handed me a pamphlet. It tells all the wonderful things in here that he's done. But, Mr. Minister, you spoiled this by putting your great big mazonk right near the front. That would turn anybody off; they wouldn't read any further.

There are a lot of interesting things in here, again, as far as the Cariboo is concerned. I don't even like to see the Cariboo mentioned in your literature that goes out from your office but here it is right in here. It says: "The first big wave of immigration into the province came in response to the cry of gold heard throughout the Cariboo in the late 1850s, " which I just referred to. Take that out of your next edition; I don't want Cariboo affiliated with your literature.

The other thing — I don't think it's been mentioned here — is this mineral tax that this government has put on. We have this government putting a mineral tax on lands of mineral claims and we have another government department trying to encourage....

I'd just like to read from a letter that was sent to a gentleman by the name of Mr. Hart Horn from a well-established cattle rancher in the Cariboo to show the conflict that your department causes with other departments of government. I'll just read from excerpts, Mr. Chairman. I can't read it all; it's a long letter. It starts off by saying:

"On reading this letter, please bear in mind that I am fully aware" — as I say, it was written to Hart Horn — "that you are not responsible for the legislation creating a tax on mineral rights on agricultural land. I am writing to you only because your name appeared on the bottom of my notification of this tax. I am sincerely hoping that you will see to it that my letter reaches the desk of those who are responsible.

"It appears to me the legislation in question totally ignores the essential difference between mineral rights granted on producing agricultural land and mineral rights held for mining or speculative purposes on other types of land. With the extensive land classification programmes in B.C., which must be nearing completion by now, there should be little difficulty in differentiating between the two. It is part of our history that mineral rights were originally granted on agricultural land as an incentive to early settlers when there was a tremendous need to encourage people to actually take Lip land, start farming and start producing food for the many thousands of people, mainly miners and prospectors, in the interior of B.C.

"Having mineral rights on his land gave the early farming rancher a very necessary protection against indiscriminate prospecting, which could easily put his land right out of production. There were very few activities which were less compatible with any form of agriculture than prospecting.

"It is sad to say, and without going into any details which even someone with no appreciation for agriculture can imagine, the same is true today, which some ranchers have already found out.

"It is because of the very aspect of protection which mineral rights offer that agricultural land, which included time, was considered more valuable by an bona fide farmer or rancher. The increased value has been reflected in every sale and purchase of land. It is this same aspect of protection which makes farmers and ranchers must reluctant to give them away on land for which they pay a premium price because of it. It is obvious to think that somewhere some B.C. farmer or rancher is growing a crop or raising beef on a hidden gold mine of untold wealth."

He goes on to say:

"I feel the situation is very similar to legislation which would impose a tax on the front door of all houses. The only alternative to paying this tax would be to remove the front door and leave the house wide open for all who wish to enter. The majority who enter might

[ Page 1522 ]

well do no damage whatever, but there would always be that fringe minority who would ignore both law and convention and would successfully make life in that house unlivable. "I cannot help but find the Mineral Land Tax Act, as it applies to the agricultural land of farmers and ranchers, to be very extraordinary legislation to come from a government which has tried to present itself as the friend and protector of the farmer, and has been most anxious to preserve what little agricultural land this province has. This legislation would seem to serve the very opposite purpose."

Do you see the conflict that you caused by your crazy laws, even with your colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), who has tried to do something for the farmer? Whatever he's done, your department has torn down with this ridiculous legislation.

I just want to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, about the copper smelter, and that is referred to in this little item here, the Minister's brochure. But I want to repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that there will never be a copper smelter built in this province while the NDP are the government of British Columbia unless the government builds it — and the last thing the people of British Columbia want them to do is for the government to build a smelter. So I don't think we need to have any doubts about where a smelter will be. There won't be one here with the legislation of this government hammering the industry over the head. They certainly aren't going to invest another nickel in mining ore, and certainly not in the building of a copper smelter, until the atmosphere is changed completely in this province.

The task force is still in being, I guess, but I would be anxious to see what they recommend, and obviously they will recommend that the government build the smelter. As far as the government building a smelter is concerned, the people of British Columbia feel this government has already gone into far too many activities and they see that they can't manage what they are already in. To have them go into anything like a copper smelter is absolutely, ridiculous.

There is a lot of mining — and I refer to gold mining — that could be taking place in this province, Mr. Chairman, if it weren't for the legislation that you have on the books. There is no doubt in the minds of a lot of people in British Columbia that they will not go ahead with any further activity in this until this legislation is wiped from the statutes of this province.

I believe the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned something about exploration. Well, there are 5,000 people out of work because of no exploration in this province, at the last count, and there are going to be a lot more. This government should hang their head in shame for that reason. Why can't they? We know why they are not exploring. You have another reason. They are exploring everywhere else in the western world. The activity is all up, except in British Columbia, and you people can certainly take the credit for bringing that to a dead halt.

I would like to hear from the Minister, just in closing — maybe he said it before, but when is the task force on the copper smelter going to report, in the opinion of the Minister? I would like to hear that from him.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Two points. One was the Mineral Land Tax Act. That would affect the Cariboo. There are a few farms that do have mineral rights and it is a privilege that many people today buying land and many people for years now have never had. It dates away back.

In order to keep that privilege, all they've got to pay is 25 cents an acre. I mean, they've got to pay a lot more than that for surface rights, but for mineral rights.... And if they don't want to hold it, we'll evaluate it for them as to whether they've got any evaluation of minerals. Then they can drop it and let it revert back to the Crown, and they don't have to pay the 25 cents.

But if we were to exempt those people, we'd have to exempt somebody else, and the first thing you know you'd have to exempt the CPR and the big railroad companies as well. I think that that is that answered.

The other question was a copper task force. When I appointed the copper task force, I gave them a job to do. I'm waiting now from day to day and I hope that in the not-too-distant future they will bring their report to me. But I haven't involved myself in the copper task force; that's the job I gave them to do and that's the job I intend them to do. But when it comes out, we'll know. As I say, I feel that it's not going to be too long.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we're discussing the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. We've heard quite a great deal this morning about the rather grim situation the mining industry is in in British Columbia. I'd like to divert the Minister's attention for a few moments, if I may, to petroleum resources. Mr. Chairman, in the long term we're in an even grimmer position with respect to our petroleum resources, and I'd like to ask the Minister a question or two about what he proposes to do about our future in this industry.

I might preface my questions, Mr. Chairman, with a remark or two about the current status of our petroleum exploration in northern British Columbia.

I think there's someone in the corridor out for the Minister's scalp, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) Well, if

[ Page 1523 ]

the guests in the corridors don't get the Minister, I'm sure that the public will scalp him at the next election.

Mr. Chairman, I was privileged to attend the conference of First Ministers in Ottawa where the situation regarding the petroleum resources of Canada was discussed. British Columbia, in common with the other producing provinces, has lost a year of exploration as a result of policies implemented by the federal and provincial governments, in which each government selected industry as the whipping boy. We've done the northern part of our province great harm as a result of this, because the exploration companies, which are mostly Canadian, have moved to the United States. They've just picked up their rigs and left.

It's true that the clients for these Canadian exploration companies are the multinationals. But they've gone to serve the multinationals in other countries, because our own Canadian government has driven these Canadian companies to foreign territory. The analogy, of course, Mr. Chairman, is with our mining industry where there was recently a public offering in British Columbia for one of our Canadian mining corporations, and the public of British Columbia were invited to raise money to develop a copper property in Mexico — to provide jobs for Mexicans and to sell copper concentrate to our customer, Japan.

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

This is the policy of the provincial government: to make it more attractive for Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian investors to provide jobs in foreign countries like South Africa, Mexico, the United States, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand to develop minerals in those countries to sell to our traditional customers.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Are you off petroleum now and on minerals?

MR. McGEER: There's an analogy which I'm trying to point out, Mr. Chairman. It's already been canvassed that this has taken place in the mining industry. We can thank you for that, Mr. Minister. We can thank your staff for destroying Canadian jobs and encouraging Canadian investors to seek their future elsewhere. It's also happened in the petroleum industry, where most of the North American exploration companies are Canadian-owned, have done the majority of their work in the past in Canada and are now in the process of dismantling this exploration in favour of the United States.

This was made quite clear at the energy conference, but not by our Premier. Our Premier only indulged in an attack on the multinationals and completely neglected the role he and his Ministers had played in driving vital industry out of our province.

What was pointed out by every responsible province, not including British Columbia, was that our energy supplies are limited in the petroleum and natural gas field. We are going to run out soon, and there is no prospect at all of Canada discovering replacement oil and replacement natural gas at anywhere near thy current cost of discovery and production.

We may be selling $2 per mcf natural gas to the United States before too long. We're currently selling $1 per mcf natural gas. We will never ever be able to get that gas that cheaply in the future.

I'm proud of one thing, and that is the Premier in his brief did mention a policy of the provincial Liberal Party to seek as soon as possible the termination of these natural gas contracts because, however profitable it may seem to be financially and politically to derive revenue from sales of natural gas to the United States, it will seem, a few years from now, as though we had given it away.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Chairman, right away the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) simply does not understand that whatever price you get today when these supplies run out is going to seem like a fire sale giveaway. That's why that Minister must be defeated, must be taken out of responsible office, because he does not understand, any more than the Minister of Mines understands, or any more than the Premier understands.

The consuming provinces of Canada, which include among them the less prosperous ones, like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, are willing to concede the need for price increases for oil and natural gas in Canada. They had the transfer of payments taking place from the less wealthy provinces to the more endowed, but only with the understanding that the revenues be ploughed back into the development of new sources of energy in these same fields, or alternative sources of energy.

The Premier was very wise not once to mention when he was in Ottawa that he wished to use the previous revenue to supply the cities and municipalities of this province for services which should be supplied through other sources of revenue. Not once did he mention that the policies of his government have driven Canadian exploration companies out of our province and out of our country. Not once did he mention the decrease in exploration for new energy resources in our country at a time when they were never more desperately needed.

The Premier claimed a victory in Ottawa but I tell

[ Page 1524 ]

you it was a Pyrrhic victory, if he thinks it's going to serve the long-term needs of this province when they're turning their backs on our prime responsibility, which is to discover new sources of energy and alternative sources of energy.

It was even a Pyrrhic victory politically, because if we think we can sell off a depleting resource to the Americans, cream off the profit and not plough that profit back into future exploration in this province, we're wrong, and we're going to be trumped by the federal government.

The federal government, Mr. Chairman — and I would support them in this — will not stand for energy profits on the sale of a depleting resource being used for purposes that have no long-term benefit in the energy field for this province or for the Canadian people. We are flying in the face of what must be the No. 1 national priority, which is making Canada as a nation self-sufficient in energy resources and insulated from the international cartel that now controls energy prices.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier attacked the multinationals in a brief that was filled with half-truths. It was not the multinationals that turned the world into turmoil by unilaterally increasing prices; it was governments. If the world is turned into economic chaos because of the disruptions that are caused, don't blame the multinational companies; blame governments, Mr. Chairman. Governments are responsible for inflation. Governments are responsible for requiring these transfer payments to the oil-producing countries that cannot be met without producing unemployment and the kind of adjustments that are impossible to make in the short term.

If we are to avoid the consequences of this, it must be governments and government action — not the action of private corporations — to bring readjustment. But every move that has been made by government — including the government here in B.C. — is working in the reverse direction. It was the socialist Premier of Saskatchewan (Hon. Mr. Blakeney) who pointed out to the other Premiers and to the people of Canada that the reason there was no exploration going on was not because of lack of funds in the hands of those who had traditionally undertaken this exploration; it was because of governments, Mr. Chairman — governments that would not spell out for the people who actually do the work what the long-term ground rules were going to be.

It's uncertainty, occasioned by irresponsibility of those who are in power. I have no hesitation in charging total irresponsibility on the part of that Minister of Mines and on the part of the Premier of the Province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Don't forget the Attorney-General.

MR. McGEER: I won't forget the Attorney-General. How could one, Mr. Chairman. And I don't absolve the federal government either, though I must say that at that federal-provincial conference, when the arguments were powerfully being made by the provinces who are suffering the brunt of irresponsibility from other governments, the federal officials began to take notice. They said: "Why should there be a price increase?" — the governments of Ontario and Nova Scotia. You said you needed that price increase to explore for oil and new natural gas. The producing provinces have creamed $1.5 billion in one year, the federal government $600 million. What has that brought us? It's brought us less exploration than before.

So these tremendous transfer payments that are being made to governments, including our own here in B.C. are not producing more for the future, but producing less. Here we have revenues from petroleum resources in B.C. estimated in our books to go up from $78 million to $230 million. What are the people of British Columbia getting for their future — more, Mr. Chairman? No, they're getting less. It has cost jobs in the northern part of B.C. It has cost Canadian companies the right to work and earn a living in their own country. It has cost our children resources that they are desperately going to need, and the Premier is boasting about it, and the Minister of Mines is boasting about it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name one Canadian company.

MR. McGEER: I can name you a dozen. I'll give you a list, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm not going to do it now, because our time — because of the unilateral rules that your group has presented — is so limited.

I could tell you if there were unlimited debate, as there used to be under the government that you said was so bad, Social Credit. We'd have time to do this kind of thing, we'd have time to hold all of you to account for irresponsible spending that has caused an increase in our budget of nearly 50 per cent in a single year. But when it comes to jobs, when it comes to work, when it comes to productivity, when it comes to building our future, we've got less than we ever had before.

I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do to save petroleum exploration, what he proposes to do to build a future supply, whether or not he's willing to accept as a principle, even for himself if not for the rest of the Treasury benches, that what we said a year go should be done with all the extra revenue that he derives from natural gas sales to the United States. That's to plough it back in where it's needed, exploring the north. Spend all of it up there.

[ Page 1525 ]

the natural gas supplies for the future.

Get into petrochemical industries to make better use of what we have now. Propane as heat, Mr. Chairman, is worth very little. Converted into tetrafluoroethylene, which makes Teflon, it's worth $15 a pound.

I used to work at one time in the chemical industry, and all of the big plants that were being built were built close to natural gas supplies. Hexamethylene-diamine plants for nylon, methionine plants for feed of domestic animals, polyethylene plants for plastics — these things are all built close to natural gas supplies because you can increase the value of natural gas a hundred and a thousand fold by doing these things with it. Du Pont, the company I worked for, started out in Bell, West Virginia, making these things from coal, but it's uneconomic. You can't compete with people who can make these same things from natural gas.

So what are we doing with ours? We're selling it across the border to light stoves, and we're taking the money and using it to satisfy promises to mayors of British Columbia. It's shallow and it's short-sighted, but I must say it's consistent with the things that that party used to say in opposition. You only had to listen carefully to realize that in taking out vengeance on the natural resource industries of this province they would destroy our future. The public didn't listen. I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, the media even listened — the ones that were there then — because they certainly didn't get that message across to the public. The public has had to learn this not from promises that were made, but from hard experience. The policies have to change, Mr. Chairman. Not only must they change — and I hope people listen to this — but devices must be found politically so that they never again recur.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Fascism, eh?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the people who are destroying our existing industries and compromising our future industries are not governing on the behalf of the majority of the people of British Columbia. You're here governing for less than 40 per cent of the population. You're not seeing your responsibility to all the people of this province, or to future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose my questions have been lengthy, but I think the Minister deserves to give this House an explanation of how he intends to bring drilling rigs back to British Columbia, how much money he intends to spend in the north on seeing that our future supplies are satisfied, and what he intends to do as a Minister to try and end this suicidal nonsense of selling off a limited supply of something that will be preciously valuable in the future because it cannot be replaced at anywhere near the same cost.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll answer a few of those questions because the time is getting shorter. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member. On the one hand you say that we don't get enough for our natural gas, we shouldn't ship it out, that it's a non-replenishable resource.

On the other hand you are criticizing the Minister for trying to manage all the non-replenishable resources on behalf of the people. You can't have it both ways.

You didn't say anything when we were getting 25 cents per thousand cubic feet for gas.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Or 17 cents.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Or 17 cents. You said nothing. If it was either the Liberals or the Social Credit over here, we still would be selling our natural gas for 17 cents; but we are getting more. You say we are not getting enough and we should stop selling it altogether.

MR. McGEER: You've driven the exploration companies out of the north.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Listen, we never drove them out of the north. They are making more money than they ever did in exploration work and hunting for oil and gas. This is what is driving them out: capital is on strike. One of your top men says that he says here: "Capital is not reporting for work in the traditional way. It is on strike. There may be no placards, pickets or raucous headlines, but it is plain that capital is not satisfied with its wages."

Capital is on strike. Do you mean to tell me that we should give away our resources so that capital can go back to work? I don't believe you agree with that.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: We should be exploring.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We shouldn't give away our resources.

Down at the end of the line the multinational companies want the whole thing. If they can get the whole thing, they will give the intermediate guys the right to work and to explore for natural gas and oil. This is exactly what is happening today. The big companies are on strike and they are forcing these rigs and that not to work; they won't give them the jobs. Maybe eventually we'll just have to do the work ourselves if they want to continue to be on strike. That's what might happen.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I am not

[ Page 1526 ]

filibustering; I will be very brief. But I think we have to get certain basic facts on royalties straight.

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Loudmouth, you held us up last night. You might just sit back and be quiet now.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of empty office space — that's what you are.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now on royalties, for years...

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: ...the government, you will remember....

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to the standing order which requires that Members not interrupt the person who has the floor. I would ask him to extend that courtesy to another Hon. Member.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. HARTLEY: For years this government and other governments throughout Canada have been collecting royalties on renewable resources. We have collected royalties from the ranchers up in the Cariboo and in the Nicola Valley for every blade of grass that their cows eat on the range. We collect the royalty because we sell that grass. That's what a royalty is; a royalty is selling a commodity. That crew over there want us to continue to be part of the giveaway gang. But we are not part of the giveaway gang. We are good business people and we are selling our resources for the highest price and the best price.

On grass we charge so much per head per month, related to the price of beef. When the price of beef goes up there is an escalation clause that the price of grass goes up too. If the price of beef falls off, the price of grass comes down. This is a schedule worked out by the cattlemen's association in conjunction with the range department of this province.

The same thing applies with the water. If a rancher is going to grow good alfalfa, good hay...he has a water-rights lease. He buys the water. This government sells the water to the ranchers.

As far as our forests are concerned — for years another renewable resource — we have demanded good management of our forests and we sell those forest resources by collecting royalties.

I would like to give a little analogy on Christmas trees and Bethlehem Copper. In 1967, a young man in Ashcroft, now on the staff of Bethlehem Copper, went to the forestry office in Ashcroft and asked for a permit to cut 1,000 Christmas trees. He went out and cut those trees, went back to the forestry office, and they said: "Yes, you will pay 10 cents per tree in royalties. We are going to clear off all the area where we asked you to cut those trees because Bethlehem Copper is going to expand in that area." So the young man cut 1,000 Christmas trees at 10 cents a tree. He paid $100 royalty.

Mr. Chairman and that giveaway gang, do you realize that in the 100 years of mining in this province, that young man paid more royalties than Bethlehem Copper had paid up to January 1, 1974? He paid more royalties than all the mines in the Province of British Columbia paid up until January 1, 1974. That is regardless of whether we had a Conservative government, a Liberal government or a combination of both called Social Credit. That was the giveaway gang. That was how they have prostituted the raw products of this province. It is a shocking disgrace, an absolute, shocking disgrace. These men are acting in a most unpatriotic fashion when they would ask that we continue to give our resources away.

If you'll check the actual royalty paid by the average mine this past winter up in Highland Valley — this includes Lornex and Bethlehem Copper — it worked out at 1.56 cents per pound of copper, a little better than 1.5 cents per pound of copper.

That's what we are selling copper at the present market price, and you people say: "No — repeal that bill." This is why I say, Mr. Chairman, those parties over there are not being patriotic to all of the people of the province. They are merely bowing to the lackeys that have always cracked the whip in mining, and that was the mining association and the great mining corporations.

As far as Bralorne, Bralorne closed down during Social Credit. They haven't enough ore proven up for two years yet, but when they have enough ore proven up and when they can get control of their townsite, they will start up again. But they can't start up until they have enough proven-up ore.

Now as far as copper cutbacks, I have here a study of copper cutbacks in the United States and copper

cutbacks throughout the world. Why are we having copper cutbacks? Because there is close to half a billion surplus pounds of copper in various international stockpiles — the greatest surplus they have ever had. A year ago there were 20,000 pounds; now there are 500,000, or 25 times as much copper this year as we had a year ago, and because of this international surplus the price of copper has dropped. A year ago it was better than $1.50, today it is down to about one-third of that price.

MR. GIBSON: How many pounds a year do you use, Bill?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: But where are these cutbacks, Mr. Chairman? In Canada there are 12 mines that have either closed or cut back. Some of them are in B.C., others are scattered throughout Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. But our total cutback in Canada is 75,000 metric tons per year.

Phelps-Dodge, in the United States, has cut back 97,000 pounds — almost one-third more than our total Canadian cutback. Kennicot Copper has cut back 110,000 or better than 150 per cent more than all of our Canadian cutbacks. In the United States there are 345,000 metric tons per year cut back; in Canada, 75,000.

In the Philippines, two mines closed — 6,000 metric tons a year cutback. Australia — 13,000 metric tons; New Guinea — 10,000 metric tons. In the CIPEX countries, which include Chile, Peru, Zambia and Zaire, there is a 240,000 metric ton cutback planned for this year, which is more than three times Canada's entire cutback, and this isn't due to Bill 31.

This is in no way due to Bill 31, and you people attempting to muddy the water are fouling your own nest. You are betraying the people of this province. You are prepared to sell out to the great mining corporations, as you did 20 years before that and 80 years before that, Mr. Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). It's a shocking display, the display that has been put on here this morning. You are letting down all the little people, and you are prepared to sell out to the mining corporations.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's always humorous to listen to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) stand up and tell us how little a concept he has of economics, and how little a concept he has of the mining industry, because here he was today comparing the mining of minerals to the cutting down of Christmas trees. He doesn't realize that to go out and cut down a Christmas tree, what do you need — a $4.50 saw? He has no idea of the amount of expertise and the millions of risk capital that must go into bringing a mine into production.

We have tried to explain to the government something of the economics of mining, but their mind is closed due to their hang-up on their ideology. It's like the Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman, comparing the operation of the mining industry to the operation of a popcorn stand. That's about as far as their depth and their insight into a very intricate industry is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I have said in this House before and I'll say again that venture capital, risk capital, is the most nervous money in the world. That risk capital and that venture capital is going to go where it is going to find a secure base and where it can generate additional capital. When the Minister of Mines says that capital is on strike, he's right on. But it is on strike only in British Columbia, because those millions of dollars that would be coming to British Columbia to open up the mines in British Columbia and provide the jobs that we need, not only for today's generation, but for future generations, are going elsewhere.

It is always very interesting to hear the Minister of Mines blame the inactivity in the mining industry in British Columbia on the world situation. Yet we have the mining industry capital and expertise leaving British Columbia to go to other countries — for instance, Mexico.

If the world situation is responsible for the decline in the mining industry in British Columbia, why is the mining industry not declining in places like Ontario, Quebec, the rest of the prairie provinces, the Yukon and the North West Territories? Am I to believe, Mr. Minister of Mines, that it is only the Province of British Columbia that is suffering from the world situation? No, Mr. Chairman. You can isolate....

I'm going to ask you some questions. You can go around the world and say that certain mines are closing because they've probably run out of ore, and give other.... I want the Minister to tell me truthfully why he feels that the mining industry is sick and dying in the Province of British Columbia. If the mining industry, Mr. Chairman, is dying elsewhere in the world, why is the expertise — the geologists, the engineers and the collection of the best expertise in the world — leaving British Columbia and going to other places? Why do I have letters and phone calls telling me that the people involved in the mining industry must go elsewhere, to other provinces and to other countries, where there is activity in the mining industry? I'd like you, Mr. Minister, to explain that.

We had built up in British Columbia the greatest group of technology in the mining industry of anywhere in the world. You know, Mr. Minister of Mines, mines in British Columbia are probably harder to find, harder to explore for, harder to develop and more difficult to ship the ore from than any other place in the world because of our mountainous terrain. Yet this expertise was built up here. Now I'm sad to say that it is leaving.

[ Page 1528 ]

I'd like the Minister to explain to me why there were no new mines opened in the Province of British Columbia in the past two years. In 1973 and 1974, the early part of 1974, there was the greatest demand for minerals in the world that there has ever been, and they commanded the highest prices. Yet during those two years there were no new mines brought on stream in the Province of British Columbia, strictly due to the uncertainty created by the policies of that Minister of Mines.

I would like the Minister to explain to me why exploration expenditures in British Columbia dropped from $38 million in 1972 to $27.7 million in 1973 and to an all-time low of $19.4 million in 1974. Does the Minister honestly believe that in 1973, when I said there were the highest prices and the greatest world demand for minerals, the amount of money spent on exploration dropped from $38 million in the previous year to $27.7 million that year? If that is the case, why have exploration expenditures in the Yukon in the same three-year period increased last year, 1974, to $11.9 million, up from $7.2 million in 1973 and from $4 million in 1972.

In other words, the amount of money being spent in the Yukon on exploration is going up while the amount of money being spent in British Columbia for exploration is on the decline. You tell me that that's due to the world situation? The Yukon is further away. You can add on an additional 500 miles to haul out the minerals. Yet the mining expertise and the mining industry are finding that because of the stable climate of the government there.... That's strictly the reason they're going on. That's why mining activity is increasing in the Yukon and decreasing in the Province of British Columbia.

I would like the Minister of Mines to tell me why claim-staking in British Columbia is the lowest in a decade. Why did it drop by 76 per cent in the first nine months of 1974, compared with the average in 1971-72?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. It's because the prospectors in this province have no faith in that Minister of Mines. There is no prospect for the future.

The number of claims staked has reduced in the same ratio as the amount of money being spent on exploration — from 36,973 claims in 1971, to 53,309 in 1972, to 24,627 in 1973, to an all-time low of 10,643 in 1974. I'd like to ask, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, why the number of claims held in good standing is down in British Columbia today by 50 per cent. Does the Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, admit that risk capital is leaving British Columbia, the same risk capital that would be going into the development of our mining industry? Does the Minister believe that he has created an atmosphere of certainty in the mining industry, or does he believe he has created an atmosphere of uncertainty? I'd like the Minister to tell us here in this Legislature, tell us honestly, if he believes his policies have created an atmosphere of certainty. No, his policies have created an atmosphere of fear.

Does the Minister of Mines believe that he can change the rules in the middle of the game and not alarm the players? Does he honestly believe this? Does the Minister of Mines intend to replace that risk capital that is leaving British Columbia with public money? Is he going to take the $2 billion that will be necessary to open the 15 mining properties in British Columbia? Is he going to provide public funds to open up those mines? Is he going to provide those funds out of the taxpayer's pocket?

Mr. Chairman, if you know anything about business, you know that an act of investment is an act of faith, and you must have trust in the government before you invest those risk dollars. That trust is gone from the Province of British Columbia due to the policies of that Minister.

Will that Minister invest, out of the public Treasury, the $2 billion necessary to open these 15 known mineral deposits?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Let me answer you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will he invest the $2 billion necessary to create the additional 6,000 jobs directly, Mr. Chairman? Will he invest out of the public Treasury, and is it available to create those additional 40,000 jobs that would be created indirectly if those mineral deposits were brought into production? Or are our future generations going to go jobless?

Cannot the Minister have the brains and the intelligence to see the same facts that the government of Manitoba saw before bringing in this punitive legislation? What did they do? They withdrew it for study because they didn't want to kill the mining industry in Manitoba.

MR. BENNETT: They invited public discussion.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, due to a funeral in the family of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) we will be moving not to the Minister of Labour's estimates on Monday, but instead to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer.)

[ Page 1529 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Before adjourning, I just wanted to say that some of you may not have heard that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was rather seriously injured in a fall last night. I've taken it upon myself to send a message of condolence to him and urge his earliest recovery on behalf of the House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, before we adjourn, Mr. Speaker.

I understand from the House Leader's statement that the Minister of Labour's estimates will not come up and we will move to some other Minister, that the document which came to "Garde Gardom, MLA, Liberal Whip, Parliament Buildings," which states, "Please advise before 1 p.m. today which Minister's estimates you wish to discuss Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week," is no longer operative. We find this a very curious document in light of the Premier's statements earlier about wishing to discuss this with the opposition. I presume this is no longer a valid document.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think that the letter from the Whip was in response to what the Premier suggested. If the opposition wished to inform us of another order, they had the right to do so and we asked for it.... The note was quite explicit from the Whip. It said, "Would you please inform us by 1 p.m.," because naturally we have to inform our Ministers of what the order is so their Deputies and the Ministers are available.

No answer has specifically come to us and that is why we are proceeding with our schedule, except for the change which I've explained.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order, may I ask the House Leader what steps the government wishes to take with respect to reorganizing House business? Dictates of this nature are quite inadequate. We're quite willing to negotiate. We've sent lengthy correspondence to the government suggesting ways of reconciling the very, very difficult problem we all face now. The proposal for a committee system is in detail; the proposal for a change from the 135-hour rule to a 190-hour rule is in detail. We would like to have the government quit changing its mind every time we come up with a proposal and give some indication of when we're going to be meeting, and try to get us out of our present impasse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've allowed some latitude because I know all of you want to try to solve this problem, but would you kindly take the matter up among the Whips rather than in the House? It's hardly the place to negotiate these matters.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.