CONTENTS

Oral questions

CNR takeover of BCR. Mr. Bennett — 3833

Fire services in Victoria. Mr. Wallace — 3833

Policy on local film industry. Mr. Gibson — 3833

Rock-scaling on Jackass Mountain. Hon. Mr. Lea — 3834

Hydro price increase. Mr. Smith — 3834

Railroad concession at Fort Steele. Mr. Chabot — 3834

Replacement for Dr. Cass-Beggs. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3834

Federal critique of refinery study. Mr. McClelland — 3835

Delay in answer to Bremer question. Mr. Gardom — 3835

Indian railway blockade. Mr. Wallace — 3835

Mayne Island ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 3836

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act, 197S (Bill 127).

Second reading. Mr. Curtis — 3836

Division on second reading — 3851

Coal Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 94).

Committee stage.

On section 3. Mr. Richter — 3851

On section 4. Mr. Richter — 3852

Report and third reading — 3853

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 107).

Committee stage.

On section 1. Mr. Smith — 3853

On section 7. Mr. Smith — 3853

Division on section 7 — 3860

Report stage — 3860

Division on third reading — 3860

Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 125).

Committee stage.

On section 2. Mr. Gibson — 3861

Division on section 2 — 3862

Report and third reading — 3863

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 142).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3863

Appendix — 3864

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to know today that we have some special visitors, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Gillingham from Calgary, the parents of Bob Gillingham of the CBC, accompanied by his wife Barbara. The Gillinghams junior are residents of the Municipality of Saanich, and the visitors are in the Members' gallery.

Oral questions.

CNR TAKEOVER OF BCR

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister Without Portfolio. Has the Minister participated in any discussions as a director of the B.C. Railway with the CNR with a view to taking over the operations of the B.C. Railway?

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): The answer is that there have been no discussions taking place between the two railways to my knowledge.

MR. BENNETT: Well, just supplementary. That was in regard to taking it over. Have you participated in any discussions that would allow the CNR to provide the new management for the B.C. Railway?

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: To our knowledge there have been no discussions. I think that that is really speculation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the acting Attorney-General...

AN HON. MEMBER: Whoever that is.

MR. SPEAKER: Is he in the House?

MR. WALLACE: ...or who is the acting Attorney-General?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps I could ask the Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The Member's cat-calling across the floor. If there's not a Member here, somebody could indicate they'll accept the question as notice. What are you trying to achieve by cat-calling? I'll take the question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member state his question, please?

FIRE SERVICES IN VICTORIA

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It really relates to the fact that coming hard on the heels of the report on firefighting services in the province, we had a hotel fire in Victoria on Saturday and three people died, clearly because there were no fire doors in the hallways, and for various other reasons. A very serious situation apparently exists in about 1,000 such hotel rooms in the downtown core in Victoria.

I just wonder if the Minister can find out what measures have been taken by the provincial government to assist the municipalities in enforcing fire prevention regulations that are not presently being met in Victoria. Has any application been made to Treasury Board for funds? Since the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) during his estimates admitted that the funding was totally inadequate for the fire marshal's department, could I enquire if any application has been made to the Treasury Board for immediate allocation of funds to start on the immediate upgrading of fire prevention and fire-fighting services?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll have a full and complete answer for the Member at 2 o'clock tomorrow.

POLICY ON LOCAL FILM INDUSTRY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Hon. Provincial Secretary. In view of proposed legislation by the Province of Ontario which would put in domestic content rules and a tax rebate system to producers for the film industry, and in view of fear among local film-makers that this could work against the B.C. film industry, a two-part question: will the Provincial Secretary undertake discussion with Ontario to protect the interests of our local industry, and is any such policy — that is, a policy of domestic content being considered for British Columbia theatres?

HON. MR. HALL: I thank the Member for the notice he gave me of asking the question, even though it was short — but the Province only came out this morning. (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you trying to hide it?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I'm not trying to hide it.

[ Page 3834 ]

There she goes again — it's unreal, isn't it? Just unreal. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Member's question: there are continuing discussions going on at a number of official levels in a number of departments with film-makers in British Columbia. That is now coming to a head in that Mr. Linnell — whom, I think, has been in touch with the Province, if not with the Member — is being received and met by a cabinet committee on films generally. That will take place as soon as the session is over. As far as the development of policy — that will have to await the fullness of time and the meeting.

As regards Ontario, I confess that the Ontario legislation does bother me in the sense that it may have an impact on our industry in that our industry will become "foreign." That's clearly down here in the form of suggestion. My department, as well as that of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), is looking into the implications of that. If that will eventually mean a meeting with Ontario, so be it — we are prepared to meet with Ontario anytime.

ROCK-SCALING ON JACKASS MOUNTAIN

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the other day the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) wanted to know about the tourist traffic, which is increasing, and whether the department intends to carry out any further rock-scaling on the Jackass Mountain section of Fraser Canyon Highway this summer — I knew the former government named a lot of things after themselves. (Laughter.) The short answer is no. There has been no rock-scaling at Jackass Mountain in the first place, nor is there any intention to do any at the present time. You're probably referring to the recent scaling at Hell's Gate where the closures have now been taken off. The work of hauling away excess material is continuing, using flagmen to control traffic, but that should be finished in about two weeks. The department will be monitoring the rock to determine whether any significant movement is taking place and whether the safety of the travelling public is in jeopardy. There will be further closures if necessary, but we don't anticipate that we'll need to.

HYDRO PRICE INCREASE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Mr. Minister, on the weekend, on Saturday, the chairman of B.C. Hydro — I presume that you're still a director of B.C. Hydro — indicated that there would be an increase in both domestic and industrial rates for those who use the services of B.C. Hydro. The following day he retracted the statement and said that there would be no increases involved. As I recall, last week you indicated that no increases would be forthcoming for the users of B.C. Hydro. I ask you now to clarify for the public of British Columbia whose statements are correct and if, in fact, there are no increases contemplated for those people who use the services of B.C. Hydro.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement of notice with respect to the large-bulk industrial consumers. They have received such notices probably 10 months ago. So those increases that have already been announced are all that are contemplated that I'm aware of.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Then can you unequivocally say there will be no increase in the price of electricity for domestic consumers in the foreseeable future?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Will the sun shine? That has not been actively contemplated.

RAILROAD CONCESSION AT FORT STEELE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Travel Industry: can the Minister advise why the concessionaire or qualified steam engineer who has operated the railroad concession at Fort Steele for the last six years has been replaced by a Victoria resident, after having been advised last year that this concession would be put up for tender this year?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll answer that question in a moment, Mr. Member. I will look into it right away and get an answer for you. If there is any further information the Member can give me, I would appreciate it.

REPLACEMENT FOR DR. CASS-BEGGS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister please indicate to the House whether there have been any developments in the last month with respect to finding a replacement for Dr. Cass-Beggs as head of B.C. Hydro?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the fullness of time will clarify that question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. Could I ask whether any meetings of the committee that was mentioned have taken place during the last month?

[ Page 3835 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am not sure what committee the Member means, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The one to which the Minister referred me, Mr. Speaker, the committee looking into finding a new chairman for B.C. Hydro.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. I am not aware of any in the last month.

FEDERAL CRITIQUE OF REFINERY STUDY

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): To the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. Has the federal government, through Environment Canada, been asked to do a critique or a study of the environmental studies which this government has commissioned for the proposed refinery in British Columbia?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I have no knowledge of that at all.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the Mines Minister attempt to find out? It is my understanding that Mme. Sauvé, the Minister of Environment for Canada, has agreed to release the critique the federal government did of the provincial studies if the provincial government will agree. Would the Mines Minister agree that those studies should be released to the public of B.C.?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can't agree to something I don't know anything about.

DELAY IN ANSWER TO BREMER QUESTION

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, who has broken another record because there has been a question on the order paper since June 11 of 1974 — 377 days now. I would ask the Hon. Minister when she is prepared to answer the questions dealing with Mr. John Bremer and why she has seen fit to delay for 377 days.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to break my record.

MR. GARDOM: Does the Hon. Minister find it an awkward question to answer or is there something sinister and something underground about which she does not wish the public to know?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, it is not at all awkward. It is just too repetitious. I have already explained a number of times to the Hon. Member why it has not been answered.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows only too well that it is forbidden under question period to discuss (a) a matter on the order paper and (b) a matter that is before the courts. I presume this matter is still before the courts. If that is true and I am correct in saying that, then the Hon. Member would be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely spurious suggestion on your part and also on the part of the lady Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you suggesting that...?

MR. GARDOM: It has nothing to do with the court trial. It's just a question. It has absolutely nothing to do with the court trial, Mr. Speaker, and you know that full well and so does that Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! If the Hon. Member would take the trouble sometime to explain to me why it is a spurious suggestion, I would be most appreciative.

MR. GARDOM: I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then make an essay on it, send it to my office and I will be glad to study it in a time other than in question period.

MR. GARDOM: I'll tell you why it is spurious, Mr. Speaker. It is because the action is a libel suit against the Premier. It is nothing to do with the expenditure of public funds. This lady Minister has been hiding behind that rule constantly and is just trying to stifle....

MR. SPEAKER: Rather than take up question period with this argument, I would ask for the next Member who wishes to speak.

INDIAN RAILWAY BLOCKADE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources a question with regard to the continuing blockade of the B.C. Railway by members of the Steward-Trembleur Indian band and the resulting loss of jobs in the forest industry. Has the Minister made any recent appeal to the Indians to lift the blockade in light of the fact that meetings are to be held this week?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There has been no direct

appeal from me, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Fort George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), of course, has carried out discussions with representatives of those bands. We have held other meetings in the last week with the Chilcotin and Cariboo people. Further meetings with the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) will take place this week.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask whoever is carrying out the discussions if there is any intent that a request will be made to lift the blockade as a measure of good faith on both sides — in fact, as a condition that would guarantee a greater chance of successful discussions if this kind of preliminary and compromising arrangement could be reached prior to the meeting? Or is the meeting likely to be perhaps acrimonious simply because this is being used as a club over the head of the government?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Member, we are meeting at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I think it would be more appropriate to make a comment on this tomorrow afternoon.

MAYNE ISLAND FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on June 19 the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications, in answer to a question from me with regard to Village Bay ferry terminal on Mayne Island, took the question as notice. I wonder if he has had an opportunity to check into this. Just to refresh his memory, one of his executive assistants indicated in a short memo to me that this project is now being re-examined. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister on this point.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes, I looked into it. The amount of work that has been done there is a complete part of work. The other proposal is not going to go ahead this year.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister just indicate what is the other part that is not being proceeded with in this fiscal year, I gather?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I guess I'd have to show you. I'll show you the map, if you like.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3837 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 127.

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS, AND
WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands adjourned the debate. Is that correct?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, indeed, on Thursday I did in fact adjourn the debate. I wonder if it could be indicated if the Minister is returning.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, he is returning.

MR. CURTIS: The government benches seem to be so grumpy today, Mr. Speaker. I'll proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, since it's second reading.... It's not as in committee.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I wanted to briefly recap a couple of points I made on Thursday.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order ... the point of order is simply this. The House has been in session less than 30 minutes. Now the Minister was here for question period but suddenly he disappears when he knows that a bill that is being called will be called and on the floor of the House before he returns.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. SMITH: We're glad to see you back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member is not in order in making such a point. The Member knows that if the Minister is here upon conclusion of this debate in second reading, he can wind up the debate. But if he isn't the question is taken without his presence. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I had a few minutes on Thursday afternoon speaking in second reading on this bill and I would like to carry on for just a few minutes now. I know other Members will want to speak at length, but my remarks are going to be very brief.

I can't help feeling, having listened to the Minister on Thursday, having read the Hansard transcript, the

Blues as they are called, Mr. Speaker, and press reports, that perhaps the Minister's introduction of this bill reflects a new low for this session is not for this parliament in self-righteousness. It was a regrettable speech, a rather shabby performance, I thought, in introducing a major piece of legislation. In fact, one of its grave shortcomings was that when you remove all the chaff, all the diversion, all the other aspects from his remarks which went on for some 20 minutes, we find that in fact at no time did he really direct himself to the main intent of the legislation. Instead, we were once again treated to a rather tedious recital of the ills and shortcomings, the real ills and the imagined ills, of the former government — and the position, as one columnist observed, to the effect that, well, if there was bad legislation introduced by a former government in this province, then perhaps that will excuse this to some extent.

As I mentioned on Thursday in adjourning the debate we will not accept the Minister's very shallow argument to the effect that if we dare say one word against this particular bill we are opposed to the operation of the Princess Marguerite by the provincial government or one of its agencies. That is pathetic nonsense, absolutely pathetic nonsense.

Throughout this discussion I don't think any of us in this House, and I certainly hope the public, will lose sight of the fact that there is one section, section 2(3), which would permit the government to do what it wishes with regard to the Princess Marguerite. Further, I think there is a question which could be answered at some time as to whether any section of this bill is necessary to operate that vessel under government ownership and control. I refer to the Railway Act. So let us not have the diversionary tactic once again to the effect that it is the Princess Marguerite which is at stake here for anyone who speaks against this particular amendment.

I stand by the compliments which I paid to the Minister on the day of the Marguerite's inaugural run to Seattle just a few weeks ago because of what was accomplished by his department and by others engaged by the government in a relatively short space of time. However, Mr. Speaker, if there is ever again an inclination on my part to even consider expressing a complimentary comment to that Minister, then regrettably I shall have to remain silent, because I will not want to have it turned around and used against me in introduction of second reading. That's his problem, his hang-up, not mine. But it certainly shows that silence is perhaps the better course of action when dealing with that Minister.

Incidentally, I think we have to ask again, Mr. Speaker, why this Minister found it impossible to introduce a bill establishing the Princess Marguerite as a government operation, as early as the first half of April.

By his own words last Thursday, the Minister proudly told us of the fact that acceptance of the government's offer to purchase the CPR lands and the vessel, the Princess Marguerite, were accepted by Marathon Realty, I believe, on April 7 and the CPR on April 8. Certainly within that time frame of the very early part of April. But curiously, many more weeks had to pass before we saw this bill. Could it be possible, Mr. Speaker, that someone considered that this would be an excellent diversionary tactic, at least for Members in the greater Victoria area? Could it be that in order to introduce the very arrogant powers that this bill would permit, that it was felt that if we were all terribly excited about the Princess Marguerite, then we might be silenced on that particular point?

Well, I think I have to remind you and the Minister, Mr. Speaker, and other Members of this House, because on page 726-1 of the Hansard draft from last Thursday, the Minister once again said: "Are you going to vote against the Marguerite? Let's hear it. Stand up against it. Stand up against it," he repeated, That was the defence, the very weak defence of his broad amending Act.

There is further cynicism, I think, relative to the late arrival of this bill, one of the last major pieces of legislation to come into this session for debate, many weeks late. The bill is unacceptable in its present form, not just to the opposition, but also, I suspect, and I would hope, to those more moderate Members of the NDP backbench, who surely will have identified it as a ministerial power play, not to be condoned under any government at any time in the Province of British Columbia. It is excessive in concept and execution, and it represents an affront, I think, to the parliamentary process which the Premier, who this very day is in London and perhaps attending the Mother of Parliaments, the concept which this.... Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

It is, I think, an affront to that very parliamentary process, which the Premier so often speaks of and defends in this chamber. I wonder how the Members of the British House of Commons would feel it the Premier had taken along a copy of Bill 127. One suspects that they would have looked at it with unbelieving eyes.

Well, I cannot shake the impression that the Minister as shown by a number of his previous actions, considers this Legislature to be just a shade better than a nuisance. A nuisance to him. Certainly, as one reviews this Act, there are many indications that he has no real commitment to the legislative process as embodied in the statutes of British Columbia. Now if this is not the case — giving him the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker — if this is not the case, then where are the many safeguards to ensure legislative review of the corporations which would be established under section 1, subsection 1?

[ Page 3838 ]

Scattered throughout the bill are references such as: "the Minister may," "the Minister shall," "the Minister shall determine," " the Minister may apply" — the Minister, the Minister...we see it repeatedly throughout the document. No wonder this has again been referred to as the Bob Williams Incorporated Bill. I think perhaps it should be renamed, Mr. Speaker. It should be called Bob Williams Power Play Unlimited.

I realize that more detailed study will be permitted in committee stage, but I want to identify just one area of very serious concern. That, Mr. Speaker, is this Minister's track record of little or no truly effective consultation and communication with local government. It could well relate to his experiences when he was previously employed by a municipality in the Province of British Columbia, but we see nothing in this chamber, or in his actions, to suggest that he is willing to, or capable of, cooperating with the municipalities in this province. Most particularly, the City of Vancouver and the City of Victoria. It is a casual disregard for the rights and responsibilities of locally elected officials, and I don't defend the officials, but I do defend the system, the system of local government.

We see a number of danger signs emanating from this Minister's office and his department — danger signals which, I think, should be flashing a bright red in all parts of the province, in all municipalities. Because if it can happen in Victoria for the Inner Harbour, for the Reid Centre, for the former CPR property, if it can happen in the City of Vancouver, if it can happen in other communities, it can happen in any and all communities throughout the province.

Now in the specific case of Victoria, if city council and its key staff are blocked out or cut off from meaningful participation with the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and possibly other provincial departments, then they're going to be operating with one arm tied behind their back. They're not going to have the full story as they carry out the planning function for, and on behalf of the citizens of the City of Victoria, and that will work not only to the disadvantage of the City of Victoria but also ultimately to the disadvantage of every community in British Columbia.

In his opening comments last week the Minister had this to say — this was his first paragraph:

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a modest bill. It is a bill designed to provide for the establishment of British Columbia Steamships, a bill designed to provide for and enable us to rehabilitate the CPR lands in the Inner Harbour here in Victoria, and to develop the rehabilitate the Reid Centre land here in the Inner Harbour in Victoria. It is a bill designed to enable the development of a great recreation and commercial ski facility and alpine village at Blackcomb at Whistler in the Squamish Valley, and it is a bill essentially designed to bring the Lands Branch of British Columbia into the 20th century.

In the opening paragraph not one single, solitary reference to: it is a bill designed to enable us to cooperate with and work in partnership and in consultation with councils such as in the City of Victoria, the City of Vancouver, North Vancouver city, or wherever it may be. Not one mention. It is simply a bill which represents yet another power play on the part of this particular Minister of the Crown.

Now I think that we have here a position being taken that nowhere does there appear to be a willingness to work with other government levels, particularly the city council. What it strongly implies on every page is: Bob knows best; let Bob do it; Bob wants to do it; Bob knows best. That fact, coupled with unnecessarily strong power in the hands of one Minister, with the short-circuiting of normal control by the Legislature in some areas, and even the short-circuiting of his cabinet colleagues in other areas, presents us with what I believe to be a very dangerous and disturbing combination in my layman's view. I would remind Mr. Speaker that I am not a lawyer, but in my layman's view, it is bad law. As I said earlier, it should concern not only Members of the opposition, and not only thoughtful and objective representatives of the various media in British Columbia who have commented, and the comments have not been restricted to the editorial pages at all, but commented on by columnists. This should concern the opposition, the people of this province, and again, the more thoughtful and truly committed Members of the government side of this House — those who have some feeling for democracy, those who do not want to see a great deal of power vested in the control of one power-hungry Minister. It must be opposed.

But even more important, Mr. Speaker, it is legislation which should be rescinded and which, I say, will be rescinded, will be tossed out when this government is also tossed out, as it deserves to be.

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody is on his feet. We either put the vote, or we offer the opportunity to the Minister to close the debate. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The real cause for concern about this bill is very simple, regardless of the well-intended objects that the Minister has outlined. It is a question of giving the Minister power to incorporate companies and borrow certain moneys without reference to the

[ Page 3839 ]

Legislature. It's just really that simple.

Again, it is the matter of the use of public funds by this government without the opportunity of the opposition or the public to be given full and open access to what this Minister might or might not be doing under the terms of this legislation. That really is the central issue in this bill. As has been pointed out, nobody, I don't think, opposes the goal of the Minister in re-establishing the ferry service between Victoria and Seattle. I'm sure that we want good development of the Inner Harbour. There is a great deal of thought and effort already gone into removing some of the blight in the Inner Harbour. There is no doubt that we need more recreational facilities in the province, and if an alpine village and a ski resort can be developed, this is for everybody's benefit. That is no the point.

The essential crux of this debate must resolve around the fact that in this bill power is given to incorporate companies — we've heard of three that the Minister intends, and there may be others.

The degree to which money can be borrowed without approval from anybody — $250,000 — and the terms under which auditing and reporting is to be done are somewhat unusual, I would suggest. We have a phrase in there "reporting on the financial condition of the corporation." I would have thought that after the very long and detailed debate we had on the B.C. Railroad, and the repeated emphasis made on a full audit "according to generally accepted principles of accounting" that, for example, we should have exactly that assurance in this bill.

If the government is to incorporate companies and use public funds, then surely the precise financial requirements which this government should be meeting should be spelled out in the bill in the same terms that the Minister of Finance and various other Ministers used when debating the B.C.R. bill. That debate relied a great deal on the fact that one particular firm of auditors had made statements about financial accounting within certain accepted procedures, when in point of fact they had not been done within these procedures.

So this perhaps could be better debated in committee, but the very basic difference of opinion that I have with the government on this bill is in the area of accountability and the amount of scope which is given to the Minister in the incorporation of companies and in the borrowing of funds, and in fact in the spending of public money.

Another point which we might relate back to the B.C. Railroad debate is also the fact that this bill allows Members of the Legislative Assembly to serve on boards of directors, albeit without financial recompense. But I thought we had already decided that one of the big problems of the B.C. Railway was the potential for political interference, and that one way in which the B.C. Railway could be above and beyond public suspicion as to political pressures and interference would be to divorce it completely from elected Members of this Legislature.

Yet here we have in this bill the power to set up boards of directors and to have Members of this assembly serve on these boards. Again, perhaps it is better debated in committee. But I think these kinds of facts relate to my concern, at least, as to the very substantial scope that's given to the Minister in the bill.

The other point has been raised already, and I would have to agree with it, that it seems to me remarkable that one of the justifications the Minister brought forward in introducing second reading was comparing this bill to similar bills introduced by the former administration. I think that the real challenge to human beings in life should be to set their goals a little higher than the goals of the people they are replacing, and that just doesn't apply to politics. I think that if we consider ourselves professional politicians, we should be really setting our sights a little higher. Certainly I think that the voters of British Columbia who have put this government in power did so very much in the conviction that this government would be better and that some of the bad principles of legislation, which were quite characteristic of the former administration, would not be followed by this government.

In that regard I believe you were elected, Mr. Minister, to do better. I think you really should be listening to the Avis car company and pick up their slogan — you must try harder, not just do the same things and try and do them with a bit of flair and with a bit of gobbledygook which tries to divert the public's attention from what this bill is really doing by throwing up some kind of smokescreen in the form of a castigation of the former government's legislation.

The other point about this, and it comes up repeatedly in debating legislation brought forward by this government, is that even if this Minister were to handle in a responsible manner the power that he has in this bill, this in no way gives me any comfort in looking further down the road in the next 20 or 30 or whatever number of years, in relation to future governments. We have no way of feeling confident that even if this Minister handles the responsibility well, and does not exceed power or distort power, that some future Minister with this legislation might use it in ways which are irresponsible or less than ethical.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that would worry me if it was us. (Laughter.) I would worry, no matter what government was in power, to be quite honest about it, even if it was us, because without appearing to be

[ Page 3840 ]

paranoid about power, — government is power and governments have to be given authority.

The question is that there have to be certain guidelines and restrictions. But to take one part of this bill which talks about powers to undertake planning of Crown lands or shipping services or motor vessels which, as in the opinion of the Minister, "will yield to the province optimum economic and social benefits." That's a very noble sentence, I'm sure. It's the kind of outline of an objective which really would be difficult ever to exceed because it's quite clear from the statement there that if, in the opinion of the Minister, incorporating this company or setting up that company or doing this or doing that will yield optimum benefits to the province, then that's the way it's going to be. This is why, I think, we have every right on this side of the House to be a little bit concerned about the particular way in which the bill is written giving this kind of extensive authority and judgment and discretion to the Minister.

I know he's deeply engrossed in his work, but we've already made the same comments about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) who, in the eyes of the mining industry, has been given tremendous discretion. We have examples in some of the other legislation, and here we have in this legislation the power "to engage in any other business necessary or incidental," et cetera, et cetera. The language is just so wide and all-encompassing, section after section.

I'm sure the Minister meant to be sarcastic when he described this bill as one of the modest tools to bring the running of his department into the 20th century. I agree that everything needs to be upgraded and made more appropriate as times change, but the whole range of authority and power to act in various ways with Crown lands and other assets really has to bring the opposition up with a jolt and make us ask why it's done this way. I would like the Minister to answer this in winding up the debate: if different projects will require incorporation of different companies, would it not at least be a little reassuring to the public and the opposition that a separate piece of legislation be used to set up each separate Crown corporation, regardless of the degree to which the Minister feels the financing of each separate one should then be open to full scrutiny in the Legislature?

It seems to me that this certainly is written in such a way as to give very considerable centralized power and a great degree of capacity for the Minister and the cabinet to carry out, in secret, decisions regarding the use of public funds to set up or to acquire existing corporations. As one of the former speakers mentioned, if you go through this bill section after section, the phrase appears all the time: "the Minister shall determine the authorized capital"; "the Minister may apply to restrict the objects of businesses in the memorandum of association...."; "the Minister may determine any matter required to complete an application....", et cetera, et cetera, right through the bill.

One can only conclude that this Minister is the best, most capable, most gifted, most confident Minister since sliced bread if you read the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he pretty good?

MR. WALLACE: Sliced bread changed the whole future for our eating habits.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I thought he was a waffle, not a piece of bread.

MR. WALLACE: I have to just say again that nobody can oppose the motives of providing the kind of facilities and services which the Minister outlined in introducing second reading. What we have to say is that these goals and objectives could quite readily be achieved in a much more traditional and democratic fashion whereby this Legislature and the public would have complete access to the financing and the actions and the decisions of such companies, but this certainly doesn't apply in the way in which the bill is written.

I think it's a measure of our almost cavalier attitude to inflation when it seems reasonable that $250,000 can be borrowed without anybody's approval at all. I suppose the attitude is: "Well, what's $250,000? You can't get into too much harm borrowing that without approval from anybody." Then we find that as far as the total borrowing powers of $10 million are concerned in the bill, it is with the approval of the cabinet or Legislative Assembly. This again, I think, means that the cabinet is looking at $10 million as perhaps not an unreasonable amount of money that they can sit around the cabinet table and just decide on setting up Crown corporations dealing with that dimension of money — $10 million.

So it keeps coming back to the fact that I feel, and am sure many people in the province feel, that in the light of this government's handling of public trust in many other areas, the kind of commitment, for example, that the much-vaunted automobile insurance would be cheaper, it would break even, would be non-profit, and would not be subsidized by general revenues...

MR. GARDOM: It was supposed to make money, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: One of the Members corrects me, quite rightly, that it was supposed to make money. Not only has it not made money.... Anyway, the principle we are discussing is that in light of the past

[ Page 3841 ]

examples which this government has set, I don't think anybody can be anything but a little apprehensive when they read that here we have sums of money, such as $250,000, which can be borrowed without anybody's approval.

Presumably the Minister approved, but I gather from the way it is written, a company could borrow a quarter of a million and not even have ministerial approval. The $10 million borrowing capacity is approved either by the cabinet or the Legislative Assembly. If the record of ICBC is anything to go by, the public of this province realize that the word of a Minister may not mean very much.

I can remember sitting in this House and listening in the clearest, loudest, typical unmistakable delivery of the Minister of Transport and Communications. It is all recorded in Hansard. There would be no subsidy to ICBC. It would be self-sustaining. We know that this has not been the case.

Here we have another bill where we have very substantial sums of public money involved. There is no assurance whatever that the Legislature will have access to what these different companies are doing financially or any other way. Granted, there is an outline — in pretty loose language though — that there will be an annual report and that there will be a statement about the financial condition of the company. As I say, that seems less definite to me and less mandatory than I would like to see in this kind of bill.

I noticed the Minister listening carefully to that comment. I made a moment ago. It may well be that he realizes after the B.C. Railroad debate that he should amend this bill to include the language which nails the responsibility right down in the clearest of terms, that this House shall have a full, audited report of each and every corporation under this bill prepared under the generally-accepted accounting practices that apply to corporations.

I would feel a lot happier if the Minister would consider that kind of amendment. I've tried to help him out by placing that kind of amendment on the order paper.

The other part of this bill related to that same kind of thinking is that I notice this Minister has the power to decide what provisions of the Companies Act may or may not apply to any of these corporations. This again seems to give a great deal of discretion. I don't know whether this again will be answered by the Minister saying: "Well, we have got this in lots of other Acts. There are certain Acts of government which needn't comply with all the provisions of the Companies Act."

But there again, we are not interested in what may have been done wrong in the past. We would like to think that this government, having seen some of the errors of the former administration, could avoid them and bring in legislation with a greater degree of accountability and responsibility as far as the handling of the taxpayers' money is concerned.

Unless this kind of authority and lack of assurance regarding financial accountability is brought into this bill by amendment, I have no hesitation whatever in voting against this bill. I think that on the other hand, it is a bill designed to bring about certain well-intended changes.

I would like to think, that since some of these amendments would only be strengthening our basic, traditional democratic procedures and the accountability that the people of the province would like any government to have, and since these amendments are not complicated, and since they would in some way ensure at least that every detail in the financing of each and every one of these corporations would come back to the Legislature for scrutiny, it would be better still if in the first instance, the Legislature were given some say and some power to supervise and scrutinize new corporations or amendments to this bill as time goes by.

As it sits at the present time, it leaves far too much discretion and power in the hands of the Minister himself. Yet the bill could be made so much better very easily with some of the amendments that I have suggested. If these are not forthcoming, I certainly have no hesitation in opposing the bill, even though I do want to see the inner harbour well-developed. I do want to see the ferry service to Seattle, and I do want to see a ski centre and an Alpine village developed in the Squamish Valley. But without these amendments, I have to vote against the bill without any hesitation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill, as nearly as I can understand it, is to give authority to the Minister all at once and in one bill to do things that might cause embarrassment or inconvenience or controversy to the government if they were forced to obtain legislative authority one by one.

The bill initially masqueraded under the aspect of being purely with reference to the Marguerite. There seems to be good support on all sides of the House for the Marguerite; but it turns out from the Minister's own remarks, and from a reading of the bill between the lines, that it stretches far beyond the Marguerite. If the Minister wants the authority to have a corporation to develop the public lands of Victoria, particularly around the harbour, Mr. Speaker, why does he not come to the House with an Act to provide for such a specific corporation and allow the House to consider those plans in the context of the realities of the day when the government is ready to move on the development of those lands?

If the Minister wants a bill to authorize a corporation to develop Crown lands in the vicinity of

[ Page 3842 ]

Whistler, why doesn't the Minister wait until the government has a development plan for Whistler spelled out saying what this corporation is to do, what the zoning is to be, where the sewer facilities are to go, what the long-range plans are for that magnificent area and then come to this House and ask for authority to establish exactly such a corporation rather than asking, as he has in this bill, for a blank cheque to write out new corporations, in effect.

I see in a study of the Hansard proofs of the debate from last Thursday that there were interjections from the government back benches that there were certain protections in this bill. Frequent reference was made to a $10 million aggregate limit. That is, indeed, a protection of sorts. But, Mr. Speaker, that can be amended with a one-sentence bill any year. That is, in my view, not a sufficient protection. There's not the protection of an independent board of governors. We have the explicit authorization in this bill that Members of this assembly may be directors of the board. Those Members of this assembly would presumably be Members of the political party of the government of the day. They would in no wise be independent directors. They would be directors of the same political stripe as whoever the government of the day might be.

So there aren't protections. So it is a bill which asks this House to give the government powers beyond which it is prepared to justify and account for in detail today. For that reason I oppose this bill.

I feel that there is one other matter touching this bill on which the Minister owes an explanation to this House. In his remarks on second reading last Thursday he gave a history of negotiations. He noted that those negotiations between the Lands department and the CPR commenced on February 26 of this year, a basic agreement reached March 14, an announcement of purchase April 1, and so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, when was this bill brought in? It wasn't brought in until early June. That's curious, isn't it? If we count backwards, they had all of May, they had all of April, they had all of March since the time they commenced the negotiations.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Oh, sinister!

MR. GIBSON: Lots of time to write a bill, I would have thought, especially a bill that was just about the Marguerite instead of a bill that proposed to give the government powers to do anything else they wanted in a Crown corporation way with any land in the province. It could have been, as the Hon. Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) suggests, a simple two-section bill. Of course, Mr. Member, this is a two-section bill too, but they're curious sections. They're pretty powerful sections.

So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there was contempt of this House in not bringing forward this legislation more quickly — not because the government simply didn't want to present its policy, but rather because the government was making expenditures on this acquisition out of general revenues, as nearly as I am able to determine, without legislative authority: illegal expenditures made in respect of this ship, apparently since reimbursed....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, if you'll stand up and explain how these expenditures were not illegal, that's exactly what I want to hear. I want to hear exactly under what authority the comptroller-general authorized the issuance of cheques in May with respect to the wages and certain supplies on this ship. If you can explain that one, you will have gone a long way towards redressing the stature of this government in this House. But I say to you that if you cannot, they stand on the record as illegal expenditures. It is a shame that a project of this kind has been sullied by that kind of unnecessary playing fast and loose with the public purse. And apparently you were able to get away with it because of the position and the majority of the government in this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that first of all the bill is wrong in principle because it takes unto the Minister powers that are completely unrequited for the narrow objectives he has described and, secondly, that it is, in my opinion, in contempt of this Legislature because it came in much later than it ought to have done in order to make legal the improper expenditures which were made well after the acquisition of this vessel and well during the length of time when a bill could have been drafted, brought before this House and passed, to have made everything right and proper.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take too much time in the House today for another what I call ASP speech — an awesome, sweeping powers speech — not that it would not have been appropriate, Mr. Speaker, but because this has become so much the modus operandi of this government. No longer is it the exception, but it's the rule and the very light style that they are practising within this province. It's indeed regrettable, but it's inescapably true and it's a fact of life in contemporary socialistic politics, as practised by the NDP, that they're following the Waffle Manifesto letter by letter, and this bill is another specific and very clear piece of evidence to support that statement.

Yet I must also note, Mr. Speaker, that when is being done by the government under this bill in itself is somewhat of a departure from the ASP approach that is so constantly taken by it, because the

[ Page 3843 ]

government has shown at least a little reluctance and a little humility insofar as delegating absolute power from the Legislature, except unto the cabinet. But by this bill it's vacated even that concept, and here they have short-cut the Legislature from its historic access to proper democratic accountability, and they've also so short-cut the cabinet. If there's any conventional wisdom to support that premise, I fail to see it.

One can well recall the great axiom of Lord Acton that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We have seen that exercised in the procedures that were undertaken by this Minister and by this government in the funding process, as has been enunciated by the former speaker. One must ask, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not this bill is an indication on the part of this government or on the part of this Minister of the weakness of this cabinet, or is it an illustration of the power path in the ego-potent design that this Minister has taken unto himself?

His speech was interesting. It was witty. As a matter of fact, it's the first time the Hon. Minister has been witty in the nine years he's been here, and that's a new, light style for him. He's attempting to have a new approach and a new appeal. We see that when the kittens are away, the mice will play. This little mouse was having.... I didn't say a big mouse, Mr. Minister, because that would be unparliamentary. This little mouse was having on Friday.... Perhaps it's an indication that he's building and strengthening his power base within the New Democratic Party, and perhaps indeed he's looking to move up to the front bench and occupy the seat of the individual who leads this province and is at present absent.

We find in the bill once again full, complete and unfettered power, without the processes of legislative check and balance, without the opportunity for legislative review or public scrutiny or any opportunity for free and open debate. One must indeed also look at how this particular process and tack that is taken by this Minister must reflect upon the capacities and the responsibilities of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). I don't think it would be unreasonable for anybody to suggest that Marguerite and Whistler and Victoria harbour might have something, remote though it may be in the concept of this Minister, to do with Recreation and Conservation. Or is the responsibility and the function of that Minister to be relegated to taking care of the birds and the bees in this province, and any of the heavy stuff is going to end up in the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resource's portfolio — or whether his administration has the competence and at least the historical direction to handle that?

Secondly, one must ask how the procedures under this bill must reflect upon the capacities and the responsibilities of another Minister, and that's the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). It's certainly very true that pretty well everything he's touched has turned into yesterday's spaghetti. Perhaps this is one other reason why this Minister wishes to emasculate the proper function of the Minister of Transport and Communications and take the Marguerite under his own wing.

The speaker for the Social Credit Party was referring to the Railway Act. Well, one doesn't even have to go to the Railway Act to find that there's a responsibility and a power for doing exactly what this Minister has done in dealing with the Marguerite.

You find that power under the incorporating statute way back in 1912 for the PGE, which is now the B.C. Rail. This is still part of the law of the province. I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to section 7 of this statute which is chapter 36 of the Statutes of British Columbia in 1912, dateline February 27. It says this: "The company is hereby authorized and empowered to own, lease, operate, manage and control steamships, steam ferries and other boats and vessels, and to operate, and use the same in conjunction with its business."

So there was a vehicle. You don't need to go down to Ottawa and start forming companies for which there has never ever yet been any adequate explanation given to this Legislature.

Also, under section 8 of the Act we find that the company is authorized and empowered to purchase, build, erect, equip, maintain, use and operate wharves, docks, slips, warehouses, elevators and storehouses, where there are appurtenances to carry on a general wharfing or elevator warehouse and store that has business in connection therewith..." — complete powers there. Didn't they read the bill? Didn't they find out what the law of this province already states? I would tend to think they did. But what has happened here, Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated and illustrated by other people who have already spoken in this debate, is that it's the desire of this Minister to have matters within his palm and within his control and matters that otherwise should have passed on to other portfolios and responsibilities of other Ministers.

As I say, without any question of a doubt this is an ego-potent design on the part of this Minister. I will not take the time of the House to reiterate, but I associate my remarks with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) concerning accountability. It's just wretched and dreadful to me that the Members in this House have to constantly raise this and constantly find the government is turning a deaf ear to their requests. But the public are hearing and fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this type of procedure is auguring very badly with the general public and they will be reflecting that in the next election in this province.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr.

[ Page 3844 ]

Speaker, I just have to think that it was a definite ploy on the part of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in bringing this bill in at such a late date in the dying days of the session, hoping that the Members of the opposition would be asleep and that everybody would be in a hurry to get home.

It's also very interesting to note that while the debate on this bill is going on, the Premier is in London watching the changing of the guard on one of his joyrides at the taxpayers' expense. And this isn't the first time we've seen this in this House. When the Minister's controversial legislation is up on the floor of the House, the Premier's away. I don't know whether the Premier wants to disassociate himself from this Minister — which I think he does. I think he warts to disassociate himself from this Minister entirely.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister when introducing this bill referred to it as a "modest bill." Now my definition of a modest bill would be one that was moderate and reasonable and not extreme. Certainly no one can take this bill as being moderate or being reasonable or not being extreme, because it is the entire opposite. The bill is not only extreme, Mr. Speaker, but it is introduced and going to be in the hands of a very powerful and extreme Minister, the most powerful Minister in all of the cabinet, indeed the most powerful Minister in British Columbia. This is the type of man who is going to be responsible for this legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says that the general public of British Columbia underestimates the intelligence of this man — they underestimate the intelligence of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that if he is so intelligent, why did he do things the way he has done them — first of all, going out and spending taxpayers' money illegally by buying the Princess Marguerite, by buying the land without legal authority from the government?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I say that if he is so intelligent and has such a high IQ, he should use it to try and estimate the intelligence of the voting public in British Columbia because, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed the most powerful man in British Columbia, make no mistake about it, The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is the most powerful man in British Columbia. But if he is so intelligent, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, why doesn't he use some of that high IQ of his to understand the voting public of British Columbia who have, if I must say so in these dying days of the session, a great deal of mistrust for that man and who have no love for that man and who have no love for the Premier either? As a matter of fact, they have no love for this government, period. Does this Minister think of himself as a supreme being? I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker. This Minister thinks of himself as a supreme being, and he will decree what is good and what is bad for the people of British Columbia. I think he thinks of himself as a benevolent dictator. I say to you that he is a dictator all right, but certainly not a benevolent dictator.

The basis of this bill is: in the opinion of the Minister. And I want you to pay strict attention to that — in the opinion of the Minister. He will decide what is good and what is right and what is wrong for the people of British Columbia. The basis of this bill is: in the opinion of the Minister. That is the whole basis of the bill — what he decides in his opinion.

Does this Minister feel that he is a 20th century Messiah? Does he really think that, that he is sent to bring us out of the dark ages? I don't know where he was sent from, Mr. Speaker, but I know he is going back there in a hurry. I do feel that this man feels he is a 20th century Messiah.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia are frightened this afternoon. They are frightened of this Minister. They are frightened of him and they are disturbed about his unilateral actions which he takes in this Legislature with no regard.

This man is so powerful that he didn't sign the ordinary Waffle manifesto; he drew up a manifesto of his own. He has his own manifesto. The Waffle manifesto wasn't strong enough, wasn't harsh enough.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was much too simple.

MR. PHILLIPS: It wasn't socialistic enough for this Minister, so he drew up his own manifesto, known as the "Williams and incorporated manifesto." This Act, Mr. Speaker, will allow this Minister to carry on the creed and the tenets of his own manifesto.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ten million, and we'll change the world.

MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know who is the socialist god that is ruling over us by decree? Who is he? Where did he come from? By what decree? His own decree that he rules over us without regard to the Legislature. Who has more power than the Minister? No elected body. But the people who elected him and the people whom he is supposed to serve have more power than that Minister, and, Mr. Speaker, they will speak.

Very shortly we will see this Minister walking on the water with the Premier coming along behind him shouting, "Me too, Bob! Me too!" because he is really the leader of that government, the most powerful man in British Columbia.

[ Page 3845 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ho, hum!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, fighting this man is like trying to break through a steel door with an itty-bitty hammer, because such is the power of that all-powerful socialist government. It's like hammering a steel door with an itty-bitty hammer, because that's about all the impression we make on that all-powerful, crushing majority that that socialist government rules with in British Columbia today.

The Minister says the bill is designed to establish B.C. Steamships and to rehabilitate the Inner Harbour and the Reid Centre, and for the ski mountain at Whistler. But the point is that the bill is designed to do anything in British Columbia, take over any land assembly that, in the opinion of Mr. Big.... And the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is Mr. Big in British Columbia because through his Environment and Land Use Secretariat he does control not only municipal governments, but also he controls the Recreation and Conservation department, the Land Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and he controls the Department of Mines. In this bill he says: "Oh, we will have the Department of Recreation and Conservation cooperate with us; we will have the Department of Lands cooperate with us; we will have the Department of Agriculture cooperate with us. Well, certainly they'll cooperate with him or he'll come down on them like a ton of bricks. They will cooperate because he is all-powerful in this government.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that his enterprises will work to show a profit, and he says that the opposition is against it because they don't want him to show a profit. Well, I'd like to know where the financial statements of Can-Cel are; where the financial statements from Ocean Falls are. This Minister, because of his power, can certainly make anything show a profit because he is not bound by the rules. This Minister makes up his own rules as he goes along, so certainly there will be a profit on any venture that he has anything to do with because he is not bound by the rules.

This Minister will build his own Camelot. But the people of British Columbia understand today what is going on, and this Minister will be frozen out because there will be winter in his Camelot, regardless of whether he likes it or not.

I would like to ask the Minister, in closing the debate, to advise us why the Princess Marguerite was not part of the regular ferry system. Why do we have to go off and set up another company? Why do we have legislation that will allow the Minister to set up these corporations.

Mr. Speaker, we haven't seen any financial statements. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we're not against the Princess Marguerite, but we are against the arrogance of this Big-Brother government, the arrogance of this Minister, and the arrogance of his colleagues. We're against the arbitrary powers of this government; we're against the contempt that this government has for the legislative process. I can't speak strongly enough against this bill, Mr. Minister, to create another bureaucracy in this province which will not be responsible to the Legislature.

This Minister, as one of the speakers said today, thinks of the Legislature as just a notch above being a thorn in his side. If he had his way, he would rule by decree and there would be no Legislature. That's about what is happening in British Columbia today, Mr. Speaker, because of the awesome powers that this government with every bill that passes through the Legislature, that government, with such a crushing majority.... Attacking them is like trying to beat your way through a steel door with an itty-bitty hammer. We're losing, Mr. Speaker, and the people of British Columbia are losing because of the awesome powers of that great — what he thinks of himself as — benevolent dictator. I'm strongly opposed to this bill; the people of British Columbia are strongly opposed to this bill, and they'll tell him at the next election.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a few remarks to you concerning this legislation which I oppose. The Minister in opening this debate indicated to the House that the purpose of this bill was to bring the Lands department, under his responsibility, into the 20th century. If you look very carefully at this legislation and compare it with the authority that is given to this Minister under the departmental legislation he presently has and the legislation which gives the authority of the Lands department to deal with the lands of the Crown, I think you will agree with me that this particular legislation is designed to enable this Minister to circumvent the Department of Lands and, indeed, to destroy all the powers that it currently has and enable this Minister, on his own advice, at his own judgment and in his own opinion, to deal with matters which are quite properly to be dealt with by the public service of this province through one or more corporations which that Minister may decide to incorporate.

This is subversion of his department; this is not bringing it into the 20th century. It is contemptuous of this Legislature; it is even contemptuous of the executive, of which this Minister is a member. Rather than being supportive of his department, as I say, it will lead to its destruction and downfall. If the Minister believes that in the exercise of the administration of Crown lands in this province he has an obligation to exercise authority greater than that which has been exercised by past Ministers, then, he already has that authority. He doesn't need to bring along legislation of this nature giving him the power

[ Page 3846 ]

to become a Crown capitalist. That's what he wants to be.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.

He can incorporate companies under the Companies Act of British Columbia; he can incorporate companies under the legislation of any other jurisdiction of Canada or a province and, I presume, also outside the territorial boundaries of this province and of Canada as well. How much power does this Minister want without defining to this Legislature exactly what use he wishes to make of that power?

I could draw a parallel, Mr. Speaker, to other legislation which we have had in this House, and which I have had occasion to oppose, brought in by other Ministers. But at least they were honest enough with the Legislature to be specific as to what their requirements might be and the limits to which they were prepared to go in achieving their objectives. Why didn't the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) simply come in with a piece of legislation saying that he had the authority to incorporate any company or number of companies that he might deem appropriate to regulate the financial affairs of the Province of British Columbia? Why bring in the savings and trust corporation Act? Why not just take unto himself, this Minister of Finance, the same kind of powers that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is attempting to achieve?

We've had the B.C. Petroleum Corp. established by legislation in this House — very specific legislation with very specific powers designed to do a very specific job. Why didn't the Minister who brought that legislation before the House simply ask this Legislature to give him the authority to incorporate any number of corporations that he might deem appropriate to deal with the energy requirements and the energy resources of this province?

Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer to those questions is clear. Those Ministers recognized the system under which we function in this province — the democratic system. They gave some credence to the concept of parliament and they were not prepared to act contemptuously of this Legislature, as this Minister so clearly is prepared to do. I thought it was significant, Mr. Speaker, that in opening the debate on second reading of Bill 127 the Minister talked of it as being a modest little bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have come to recognize that whenever this Minister attempts to suggest to the House that what he is asking of the House is something scarcely to be debated, we have to be very concerned.

I think of the legislation the Minister brought in last fall. We were to be told in advance that there was to be legislation which was going to resolve the price-chip problem in British Columbia. Just a little bill. So he brought in a little bill which certainly had one section dealing with that, but the rest of the bill was designed to create a monstrous bureaucracy, under the direct control of that Minister, to deal with the marketing of forest products in this province. That was the true purpose of the legislation. That Minister tried to smokescreen us.

When the Minister came along with this bill, it was forecast in advance that we were to receive legislation which was to regularize the illegal acts of this government in connection with the acquisition and operation of the Princess Marguerite. Surely, this bill mentions ships and ferries, but snuck into this bill is the right of this Minister to incorporate companies dealing with the planning, management and development of Crown land — all the Crown land of this province, which embodies about 85 per cent of the total land within our boundaries.

This Minister seems incapable of producing legislation, bringing it to the floor of this House, and making it stand on its own feet, justifying the legislation on the specific objectives that the Minister has. I can only assume it is because the Minister is not prepared to disclose to his colleagues in the cabinet, to his colleagues in the government caucus, to the Legislature and to the people of British Columbia precisely what his objectives are. He still wishes to take unto himself the power to carry out his objectives as and when fie determines it to be appropriate, with moneys made available to him out of the Treasury.

I thought it was unique of the Minister to read very selectively from the press clipping back in the year 1962 when he introduced this legislation. I thought it was really charming. Just before he did that, I had just had the experience of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall) criticizing me for using selective press clippings. The Minister was even more selective than I was.

I was so startled to think the distinguished journalists of this province could have ignored the importance of legislation which was brought in by Social Credit back in 1962 dealing with British Columbia Hydro as to have passed it off as lightly as the Minister suggested that I went back into the files of the library. Lo and behold, I found that the Minister had ignored some of the most beautifully written press statements dealing with that particular debate. I would like to take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of bringing these to the attention of the House. I wasn't in this House in 1962, and I found it interesting reading to refresh myself and to see just how casually the House dealt with the legislation referred to by the Hon. Minister.

The Hon. Minister was very critical of Mr. Paddy Sherman who is now the publisher of the Province, and who was then in the press gallery. Yet I find that in

[ Page 3847 ]

the Province of March 23, 1962, Mr. Sherman wrote this — this is the headline: "Wildest Uproar in Years as New Bills Attacked." It doesn't sound to me as if the Legislature was ignoring that legislation, as the Minister would suggest. The story goes on to say: "The legislature went into one of its wildest seasons of uproar in years Thursday as Premier Bennett put two new power bills into debate."

Then it goes on in a subsequent page — headline: "Legislature Records One of Its Wildest Sessions in Many Years." And no wonder. I read what the Liberal Members said of those debates. But I also read what the NDP Members said in those debates. I find that the leader of the opposition was Mr. Strachan, and this is what he said about the legislation which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources suggested was not criticized:

"Never in the records of this province do we find such sloppy, ill-considered, badly written legislation as this. This is not legislation, this is sickness. This is a mental sickness. Because the first legislation was wrong, this bill can only compound the felony." That is what Mr. Strachan said: it was mental sickness.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how it can be that the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications is not in this House taking his place in this particular debate when we are giving the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) these tremendous powers to deal with the future of his department and the future of all the Crown land.

When I think about the Minister of Transport and Communications and this legislation which deals with the Princess Marguerite, perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain how it is that he is controlling the Princess Marguerite and the future operation of that vessel, but who owns the vessel? It's registered in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, in the right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Transport and Communications. That's the department in which the vessel is held; they are the owners of the ship. But they're not going to operate it; it will be the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The guy with the sticky fingers.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The guy with the sticky fingers.

Let me go on and read what other distinguished Members of this House said during the course of the debates which the Minister suggested were passed off rather casually, so far as the press was concerned.

The Members of the government were recognized — to name Arthur Turner, NDP-CCF, Vancouver East. He represented the Vancouver East constituency — the one which is represented by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — a very distinguished Member of this House, one who enjoyed the respect of people on all sides of this House.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I wish that the distinguished Arthur Turner were here representing Vancouver East today, because this is what he said in 1962: "This sort of bill knocks down the arguments in favour of democracy. Only a government sick for power could introduce such a thing." Arthur Turner made this quote: " 'Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"' — then he continued — "This is mad legislation which cannot be justified." I think Arthur Turner would have said the same thing about Bill 127: it's madness which cannot be justified. The Minister, in opening this debate, made no attempt to justify this legislation.

Mr. Turner went on to say, however: "There is only one thing in its favour, it will serve to unite the people of B.C. who believe in political morality." Amen to that. I'm sure that Arthur Turner would say the same thing about Bill 127. And he closed with these words: "If the government needs any more ideas any more ideas along the lines of this bill, the Premier should interview Fidel Castro." I'm sure that Arthur Turner would have felt the same about Bill 127 and this Minister.

Arthur Turner would never have stood for such legislation coming out of the NDP caucus to subvert the purposes of this Legislature. Arthur Turner would have said to the Minister as I say to him now: if you have some specific objective which can only be accomplished by the establishment of a Crown Corporation, then bring in the specific legislation and let us consider it, but I for one am not going to vote in favour of a bill which gives you carte blanche to incorporate as many companies as you wish and to raid the public Treasury in so doing.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to hold the Minister up very long in giving all his replies to the very legitimate questions that the opposition has raised with respect to this bill.

The Minister is a bit of a sleeper, you know. It was in the dying days of the former session that he slopped that little rider across about the P.N.E. that caused such a ruckus in the City of Vancouver, and those reverberations are still being felt with respect to a people's park at Jericho.

This is a Minister who luxuriates in power, probably more than any Minister we've ever seen in this House. He lays his plans very carefully. He waits until the dying hours of the session, then he brings in a modest little bill complete with an oily speech to

[ Page 3848 ]

lull everybody into a sense of security, wishing to get away for their summer vacation, and not really paying the kind of attention they should to legislation that will later come back to haunt the people and the government.

This is the kind of bill, Mr. Chairman, that makes a legislature irrelevant, because it permits a Minister of the Crown to set up a new company whenever he chooses; to have that new company not restricted as other companies are, but as this legislation states, free from the normal restrictions that go with normal companies. So he can set up any kind of a company, at any time, without reference to the Legislature, and not have that company subject to any of the normal restrictions of Crown corporations or of the Companies Act. He's got up to $10 million of the public's money to, play with in these capitalistic ventures and, as far as I can tell, there are no restrictions of any kind on what these companies are going to be permitted to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, why do we bother with the Legislature at all? Every Minister could bring in a modest little bill like this. We could pass the bill, and then we could all go home for three or four years. That isn't what governments I learned about were meant to do. And, Mr. Speaker, oppositions certainly weren't created to let this kind of thing pass by unnoticed.

I, like other Members, enjoyed hearing a little humour from the Minister at the time he introduced this bill. He only comes up with that light touch when he's trying to get away with something. He talked about the flowers, and he talked about the birds, and he talked about the bees, and he talked about the press. But, you know, when sifted through, it was pretty hard to get much substance out of that speech. One minute we were talking about Whistler Mountain. Do you recall that, when he introduced the speech? Then he shifted very quickly to the Princess Marguerite and what a marvelous job he'd done on that. Then he talked about the Inner Harbour and what a marvelous job he was going to do on that. Then we went back the Whistler again. Then we went to the birds and the bees and the press. All in all, it touched nearly every base. The backbenchers applauded. The backbenchers thought it was just a marvelous bill and a marvelous speech.

MR. FRASER: Made pulp out of their desks.

MR. McGEER: You know, to hear the account of what went on in the House during that 1964 debate of the B.C. Hydro Bill, I could hardly believe that I was there at the time. It didn't bear any relation at all to anything I could remember, though some of the people who were there then — and I include the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who's reading out loud again right now — but he was there and he should have remembered what went on during that debate. The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was there. He should have remembered what went on.

But if the Minister of Mines has woken up, I'd like to remind him of what he said, since he couldn't seem to recall enough to correct the Minister of Lands and Forests, who wasn't there during that debate, about all the things that happened.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, he was applauding the Minister of Lands and Forests, saying that this modest little bill really wasn't breaking any new precedent and it was quite all right because this B.C. Hydro Bill passed unnoticed. Do you know what the Minister of Mines had to say? He said the Premier should hang his head in shame because of the bill he brought in. That's what the Minister of Mines had to say about it. But you didn't have much to say to the Minister of Lands and Forests when he brought in something much more odious.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't speak on it.

MR. McGEER: Well, you were quoted in the papers.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not on this bill.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: No, no! We're talking about the bill.... You see, if I can recap the Minister of Lands and Forests' debate for you, Mr. Minister, he gave us this birds and the bees speech and then he talked about the press and this little B.C. Hydro Bill that was brought in practically unnoticed. Everybody pounded their desks and roared approval and said: "Carry on. You know, it's just what's been done before."

But we find it wasn't quite the way the Minister of Lands and Forests.... He doesn't tell it like it is, Mr. Speaker, and that's why we've got to be very careful — not just when the Minister introduces a bill, but when he gives an indication of what he intends to do with the powers granted under the bill. I can never remember when the Minister has told it like it is. And the manner in which he introduced this particular bill, I think, is proof enough, because we can go back and check on the things that were said in 1964. I was present during the debate and I have just a little bit of a memory about it. It certainly wasn't the same kind of evening that the Minister of Lands and Forests describes.

Mr. Speaker, the man who sometimes sits in the chair you're in now had something to say about that

[ Page 3849 ]

bill. Gordon Dowding, NDP Burnaby, called it a Henry VIII provision. It gives the cabinet the power to rewrite the law. He was an NDP Member in those days. Before he became Speaker, he was an NDP Member.

This little bill that the Minister thought was quite all right and the press never paid any attention to at all: the NDP Member for Burnaby called it a Henry VIII provision. Later on, the Liberal Member for Oak Bay began to object to some of the objects of the bill, but he wasn't supported by the opposition leader, Robert Strachan, who merely had to say "So what?" about it. So the opposition leader, apparently, didn't object.

The press, you know, got a bit of a scathing from the Minister of Lands and Forests. A very fine columnist, Mr. Arthur Mayse, was ridiculed in the House. I remember when he sat up in that corner, and I thought that he was a very fine columnist really. I must say I thought it beneath the dignity of a Minister of the Crown to go about ridiculing him. But I noticed that the paper he wrote for didn't pass it off as the birds and the bees. In fact, here's the headline on Wednesday, March 11: "Hydro Charter Bill Passes Despite NDP."

Mr. Speaker, the NDP of those days seemed to be against the powers of that bill. Who was against it? Well, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was for one. Alex Macdonald, the NDP Member for Vancouver East, objected to the bill. Yes, he's not here. The Minister of Lands and Forests waited till he left before he brought his bill in.

Here's another headline, Wednesday, March 11: "Hydro Act Passes, But Not Without Last-Gasp Attack." So, Mr. Speaker, the backbenchers have been led down the garden path again. Here the Minister brought in this bill. I presume he discussed it with caucus before he brought it onto the floor of the House. I presume that when he brought this bill into caucus he gave you much the same story that he gave to this House — namely that it really wasn't very much of anything at all and just a little bill, and really was the same kind of thing that was hardly noticed once previously in the House when the same kind of provisions were brought forward in the B.C. Hydro Act. So there was no reason really to expect any objections from either the House or from the press, because it was the same kind of thing that the former government had brought down with scarcely anybody taking any notice.

Well, you see, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that way when the B.C. Hydro bill was brought down. That bill was universally condemned for the dictatorial powers contained in it. The government was very nearly defeated on one section of the bill. As I recall, it was the closest the government came to being defeated in almost 20 years. They won one vote 16 to 15 on the very section of that bill dealing with the extra powers that the B.C. Hydro would have.

So the Minister comes and tells us that it's really nothing that he's introducing. It isn't just the B.C. Hydro bill reincarnated, Mr. Speaker, it's a blank-cheque bill where all the powers that were granted to the B.C. Hydro in 1964 are to be given to a series of unnamed corporations that have been created only in the mind of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, which will return to haunt the press, if they're not careful to draw attention to it, and to haunt the public of British Columbia, because these kinds of extraordinary and unspecified powers, unspecified in the sense that we do not know the corporations to which they will apply, are almost unprecedented in legislation introduced in the western world.

These kinds of powers, Mr. Speaker, are extraordinary in the extreme. They call for the widest kind of condemnation. It will be a matter of recurring shame, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to stand up and support this bill.

When that Minister begins to run amuck with all the corporations that he intends to create and which he hasn't told you about or us about, your support of this — bill, should you choose to support it, will come back to haunt you.

I'll say this, Mr. Speaker: in checking through the accounts of the B.C. Hydro bill in 1962 and 1964, I can say that the press vindicated itself then. There was adequate reporting of the debate. The dangers of this legislation were well canvassed by the press. I only hope that the Minister hasn't lulled them into a sense of security in the way he has lulled the backbenchers into a sense of security. I hope the press is taking ample notice and that years later people will be able to look back on this disgraceful piece of legislation and say: "Yes, the press did their job then, too."

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands Forests and Water Resources closes the debate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the more we hear the independent Member for Vancouver–Point Grey speaking in this House, the more one goes away convinced that all credibility is slipping away from that little spot out there in the western side of Vancouver. The kind of gross, extreme statements that have been made by that Member just now are the kind of thing that is going to destroy the whole process he is trying to create around his so-called new movement.

To suggest that exactly the same powers that are in the Hydro statutes are in this statute is gross mischievous nonsense on the part of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Let's just look at the borrowing power alone: $10

[ Page 3850 ]

million in borrowing power in aggregate limit with respect to this statute. The B.C. Hydro is $3 billion — 3,000 times. That's the kind of distance the Member is away: 3,000 times wrong. You just have to look at section 14 of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act, and it covers (a) to (y) in terms of powers — an alphabetical list of powers from (a) to (y). It almost made (z) but it was (a) to (y) — 25 major powers in that bill.

The one thing that is clear about this bill, Bill 127, is that the limitations on power in fact are spelled out there.

Last week the opposition Members were intent on telling the story that it was $10 million for every corporation. That was the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). That was the drum he started to beat. I use the term "drum" advisedly in terms of his riding, but the point was made. It is in the aggregate. So finally that gets stilled, and this kind of irrelevant nonsense that gets dumped by the opposition finally gets spiked, but they still peddle it, arguing that it is $10 million for each corporation. The bill is clear: it is $10 million in aggregate. All right, that one's spiked.

Now we have the drifting independent movement over there saying "any number of companies." But you just have to look at section 2 and it is abundantly clear. It says "a company." Have we got that clear? We nailed down the $10 million; we've nailed down now the question of a company under section 2.

Then you have to deal with respect to the operations of the steamship aspect, and it is there that we have the opportunity with respect to additional incorporations, because we are operating across an international boundary. We have to have a company registered in Washington state, and we have to have a company registered federally with respect to Ottawa, because again we are operating internationally between Victoria and Seattle on an international basis. There is the reason.

In addition, they start referring to 4A(c) and they only quote the first part of the sentence. They say: "to engage in any other business necessary..." but they don't read on where it says "...or incidental to the operation of a shipping or ferry service." That's what they don't read on in terms of. There is a newsstand on board. There is a dining room on board. In fact, my God, there is a bar on board. It is those kinds of operation that are referred to in that section. So once again it is a judicious piece of pick half a sentence, here, half a sentence there and tell some story around that without telling the full story.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) chose again to read the newspaper, but what he was reading was 1962, not 1964. The major B.C. Hydro bill that established the full powers for the Hydro Authority was in 1964; 1962 was the time of the takeover. Of course, there was a debate at the time of the takeover, but 1964 saw the major bill with respect to B.C. Hydro and the powers therein.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is exactly as indicated last Thursday in terms of seeing to it that the Princess Marguerite is a successful operation, in terms of seeing that the Reid Centre site is rehabilitated, and not like the major real estate developer wanted to do previously, to see that the CPR lands are redeveloped in a rational kind of way, and to see the Whistler basin is properly developed as well.

MR. McGEER: How many companies is that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are talking about three corporations, one of them federal.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You have made it abundantly clear that the opposition still doesn't want to listen.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We said that one had to be incorporated federally, that one has to be incorporated in Washington State, and the provincial corporation. There you are. It is as simple as one, two, three. But the opposition is bound to have difficulty with anything that goes past one. But it is as simply one, two, three.

The opportunities that we will have are considerable. The powers are limited.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let us look at the way the world is evolving in terms of what is happening in our major cities and elsewhere. How many corporations do we have in the private sector? Tens of thousands of corporations in the private sector make an imprint in places like the Inner Harbour, in places like greater Vancouver and in recreation areas like Squamish. Here we are talking about a Crown operation with limited borrowing powers and limited powers to try and move in a somewhat different direction to create a better environment for the people here in the Inner Harbour and to create a better environment in the Whistler basin, to provide recreation opportunities that weren't there before.

The opposition is acting as though something sinister was about to happen. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is a modest beginning in terms of righting a direction in our cities and recreation areas

[ Page 3851 ]

that long was asking to be righted.

I move second reading of the bill now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

Bill 127, Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're going to move now to committee stage. For the opposition I would like to give the order of the bills: 94, 107, 125, 136 and then possibly the second reading of 142, if we get down there.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: These are all for today. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to call committee on Bill 94.

COAL MINES REGULATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 94; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, in relation to the approval of a work system, in the past it has always been a custom that certain work plans have been submitted, and which have been more or less passed on by the chief inspector of mines. Now we're calling for a different system which is going to create more of a bottleneck it's going to create more of a problem for the mining industry in getting their particular plans approved because now rather than going to the inspector and chief inspector, it's got to go through a different chain of action, and this is not going to be helpful to the mining industry.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In answer to that I would, say I don't think there's any change in that respect because the chief inspector always got his information from the local mines inspector who is also a mines engineer, and this only puts it into law that they must submit a plan. If they are going to put a new tunnel in or a new addition, then they have to report it. But I don't see your argument that they only had to go to the chief engineer before. It always came through from the mines inspector.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): This section pretty importantly amends the existing section 7 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the most consequential amendment to me is subsection 4 which says that "the plan of the system shall provide for the maximum possible recovery of the coal resource in the location to be mined, having due regard to good engineering practice and the safety of the operation."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It wouldn't affect that.

MR. GIBSON: That sounds pretty good, Mr. Chairman, but what I want to know is, who is the judge of what is a maximum possible recovery? What defence, for example, would a mining operation have against an inspector who came along and said: "You've got to take, not just to the edge of the seam, but you've got to take a few yards of rock on the other side too." What are the rights of appeal? Whose judgment is being exercised here, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think they'd extend it into the rocks because the rocks would be waste and to get the maximum return out of the mine would be taking out the mineral or the coal under this situation. I'm sure that the mines engineer — the inspector who is a mining engineer — is the only liaison that we've got between the government and the mine, so therefore that is the reason that the mines inspector is the man who will be looking after the interests of the people of British Columbia in regard to the maximum recovery. The mines inspector's decision would be passed on to the higher levels if he felt the mine was not getting the maximum recovery.

[ Page 3852 ]

MR. GIBSON: I would hope too, Mr. Chairman, that the mine inspector wouldn't say that you have to take waste rock in and count that as part of your operation just because the mine inspector said so. But what right of appeal is there? Just let's assume you get a mining inspector who might be wrong from time to time on what would be the best way of operating a mine. Just assume that on occasion the judgment of the mining inspector as to what's economic or the maximum possible recovery might be in variance with the facts. What right of appeal would a company have under this section, or under any section 1n the regulations?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think the mining companies can well look after themselves in regard to appealing any decisions that they feel is not in their best interests.

MR. GIBSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The confidence of the Hon. Minister in the powers of the mining company is touching, but I'm asking what is the route of appeal?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: At the present time the mines inspector has the power even to shut down a mine and this has been operating for a long time, so very likely if they wanted to appeal, they would appeal to the chief inspector. That's who they'd appeal to.

MR. GIBSON: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman.

The maximum possible recovery — now that is an ambiguous kind of phrase. Would the Minister interpret that to mean the maximum sort of physically possible recovery if you went into every little nook and cranny? Or would he interpret that to be the maximum economically possible recovery in the light of the circumstances of the day?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, it would have to be in accordance with the production lease, the plans that were laid out in the production lease.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that seems sensible, Mr. Chairman, except that in subsection 2 it says that "this plan is additional to the requirements of filing under the Coal Act," and therefore this could be a different kind of a thing.

My question to the Minister was quite simple. Does "maximum possible" mean maximum physically possible or maximum economically possible?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think you can choose your words. I don't imagine that anybody would ask him if it's not economically possible to take the one that's physically possible if it doesn't make the mine a feasible operation by going to that extent. But as long as they see that the maximum recovery of the resource is taken so that they don't just take the good part and leave the marginal part which may be taken and still make the mine feasible.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to go on record as opposing it, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to me these powers are such that they can be used in a completely arbitrary way and a way which doesn't necessarily coincide with the best economics of the people of British Columbia.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): This morning, the Minister was asking us what we would recommend to help the mining industry. Here you have the Minister, who in this legislation has increased the amount of deposit for reclamation purposes, not only from $500 right up to $1,000, which we have doubled. Now this is not going to be that easy for mining companies to put up this type of money, in view of the fact that previously they used to be able to attain parity bonds which they could recover the interest on.

I understand now that these are cash deposits, and if a person can acquire a parity bond — because they're not too plentiful at the present time, the need for them seems to have been diminished — the requirements for the various financing goes to long-term bonds in New York, and to the petrodollar areas. It seems to me that this is an unnecessary increased burden for the mining industry to have to put this amount down.

Now, this is on a per-acre basis, I realize that. Probably the Minister, through this legislation, felt that he would reduce the amount of application for area on a per-acre basis, by increasing the amount of money. For what reason, I don't know because when you're taking an area, it takes a considerable amount of development of roadways. These, of course, have to be reclaimed when they're finished, and the fact that you could make the whole mining operation much more difficult by having to put up additional amounts of money where only the area is going to be used for road access to the deposits. It seems like a retrograde step as I see it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: These questions were discussed, I understand, with the mining industry. They didn't seem to have any objection with the increasing inflation that has been going on over the years. Don't forget that it was $500 maximum in 1968 when the previous government brought it in and

[ Page 3853 ]

it's only a bond. It's put up the same way as it always was. It's not a cash deposit.

It could be a cash deposit, but as long as it's a bond to show their good faith that they're going to reclaim that area, because if they don't reclaim it, then it will be the lot of the government to reclaim it and $500 in some instances wouldn't cover it, So the maximum now went up to $1,000 and I don't think there's any objection to this that I've heard.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 94, Coal Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 107, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 107; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. SMITH: I notice that section 1 has been amended to include oil shale as well as oil sand and other definitions as a petroleum product. I assume that this has come about as a result of an oil shale deposit in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Has the Minister information, or knowledge of any other oil shale deposits in the Province of British Columbia? If he does not have, then why did he feel it necessary to include oil shale at this particular time?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can't go along with you. I mean, at any time we may realize that we have oil shale or oil sand in other parts of the province, including the Queen Charlottes, and we wanted to bring it under the definition, the same as oil produced in so many other geological grounds.

MR. SMITH: Has the Minister had any indication from the company that was particularly involved in the exploration in that area as to what their plans were with respect to development of that particular oil shale deposit, or if in fact it could be economic regardless of the government's intervention with respect to declaring it a petroleum resource.

What is the potential for the development of oil shale on the Queen Charlotte Islands? Has the Minister any information on that?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't have information of what the real potential is.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, this is the most detrimental section that any government could conceive if they have any regard for the past 25 years of exploration in the Province of British Columbia and the next 25 years. With the introduction of this section they have almost guaranteed — they have guaranteed — the complete abandonment of any further drilling, programmes by the industry in the Province of British Columbia.

Now the Minister will probably get up and say: "That's fine; we're going to replace them with a Crown corporation, so we're going to make tremendous amounts of money for the benefit of the taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia." I have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if that's his reply, that's hogwash. The department and the people in the department have neither the expertise not the knowledge, nor even the funds through the provincial coffers that are necessary and will be necessary in the foreseeable future to develop the oil and natural gas potentials of northeastern British Columbia.

What you're saying in effect by this section, make no mistake about it, is that you're prepared to allow the industry to spend untold millions of dollars on exploration in any part of the province — but specifically it would probably apply to northeastern British Columbia because that's the only place where we have so far found any viable and commercial discoveries of gas or oil. You'll allow them to spend untold millions of dollars in exploration; and then at your discretion, Mr. Minister, you can withdraw any of the exploration permits they may have and turn them over to a Crown corporation, a company who — would be subservient to the government because they were financed by the government, a company that would do your bidding without any suggestion that they didn't think it was proper or without any suggestion that it might not be economic. They'd do it, Mr. Minister, at your request as long as you paid the bill.

You're asking the industry that has located in this province and has served us well for 25 years to do two things. You're asking them to go out and find all of the unknown pools of gas and oil so that you can move in with a Crown corporation and deny them

[ Page 3854 ]

even any return on the money they've invested. Then you'll turn around, through the B.C. Petroleum Corp., and sell the natural gas at a windfall profit to the United States, mainly, and return to them a pittance if you so desire in relation to their investment. That's what you're saying by this particular section in this bill.

I'm not sure in my mind, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister himself realizes the importance of this section. If he did, it wouldn't be here. I'd like to tell you this, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Probably, if you subscribe to a completely socialist state where the state owns everything. Yes, we'd have it here, because that's exactly what this is aimed at.

The industry, without any investment by taxpayers, except through the purchase of shares in individual companies — and that's not an investment from the provincial coffers — have invested over $1 billion in the Province of British Columbia on exploration and the development of the natural gas and petroleum resources. They invested that on the expectation that somewhere down the line there would be at least a nominal return on that investment.

At the present time, after 25 years of exploration and development and tremendous sales of natural gas and all the oil that we have been able to produce, they have received back in revenue less than 50 cents on every dollar that's been invested — less than 50 cents at this particular time. There is a hope that over the long haul many of the producing wells will be able, through the increase in price and perhaps a bit of an increase to the producers, to return to their companies not only the money they have invested but a slight profit.

Most of the expertise in this particular field came to us from the Province of Alberta and the United States, because the people who know the drilling field and who have expertise in a very sophisticated area of work came to us from other oil and gas fields. They came because British Columbia was as good a place as any to explore for natural gas and oil. We're losing those people now the same as we have lost expertise in the mining industry. The reason we have lost them is that they feel that there is no future in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, for you to bring in this type of an amendment to this Act before the Energy Commission of this province has completed their investigations of the whole problem of natural gas and the price that's being paid in the Province of British Columbia is a dereliction of your duties. It's an abuse of the Energy Commission, a direct slap in the face to the people who are presently out trying to solve a particular problem in order to encourage future development in the Province of British Columbia. For you to bring in this type of an amendment at this time is inexcusable — inexcusable, Mr. Minister. At least you should have had the courtesy to listen to the report and the recommendations of the Energy Commission and be guided to a certain extent at least by their recommendations and not by ideological hang-ups produced by Hart Horn for your consumption.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: That's right, you know where it came from. Do you want me to quote from the transcripts of the Energy Commission? Hart Horn laid it all out and said: "Yes, we can go in. Yes, the government will go in. Yes, the government will cancel reserves. Yes, the government will cancel drilling leases. Yes, the government can step in any time they desire, take over any time they desire, without any compensation in any part of the Province of British Columbia." It's here in the transcript before the Energy Commission. And you bring this type of trash in at a time when we're short of natural gas and oil in the Province of British Columbia, even before the Energy Commission has completed their hearings, and try to sell this bunch of poppycock to the people of the Province of British Columbia. It's inexcusable, Mr. Minister, for you to take such a course of action.

Not only that, but the real losers in this particular poker game you're playing are the people of the Province of British Columbia, the people who work in the industry — there are hundreds of them, most of them small contractors — the people who go out and man the drilling rigs, who man the seismic crews, who know how to adapt to working in the muskeg areas at severe temperatures. They are the people who lose immediately because it's their livelihood. But the people who lose ultimately are all taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia. Unless you find more gas and more oil, I don't give a tinker's damn what you charge for it; you'll have nothing to sell — nothing to sell either to the province or to the export market.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before you....

MR. SMITH: This is exactly what you're trying to do and will do with this particular....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds and gets himself worked up too much, I would ask the Hon. Member to use more temperate language.

MR. SMITH: What's the matter with a tinker's

[ Page 3855 ]

damn?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. SMITH: Are you not familiar with the expression, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Perhaps the interpretation that you put on it as Chairman is objectionable, not the term itself.

This is exactly what is happening in the province, Mr. Minister. It's unfortunate, because we're at a time not only in our own history in this province, but in the history of the whole nation and the whole North American continent when we need every resource that will produce energy we can call into play.

There is reason to believe that there is still a tremendous reserve of untapped potential in British Columbia with respect to oil and gas. But by this amendment are you telling us that you're prepared, as a Minister, to finance some corporation .... And believe me, the ones that you will get to come in are the fly-by-night operators who have no expertise but are prepared to drill as long as you have the money. Are you prepared to tell us that you will spend that type of money at taxpayers' expense? Do you know what you are talking about? You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. You're talking about the type of money that will make the Premier's dream of an oil refinery look like a fairy tale, a fantasy, in respect to cost.

You have neither the expertise nor the companies available to you to do the job. Really, Mr. Minister, all no needed to do, at least until the Energy Commission completed their investigation, was sit tight and assure the industry that you were not out to knock them out of the saddle, not out to knock them off. Allow the Energy Commission to come back and suggest to the Province of British Columbia, and the government, what should be done in respect to the price that is paid for new gas, an incentive, perhaps, for drilling or whatever, for old gas at wellhead — perhaps some incentive to tie in existing wells which are isolated in respect to our main distribution in the province. Find out why Amoco — one of the largest drilling contractors in the Province of British Columbia, which has spent a tremendous amount of money in the Beaver River country and Pointed Mountain — find it necessary now to say to the Province of British Columbia that they are through, they have spent a tremendous amount of money, but there is no way they will drill again.

Do you realize, Mr. Minister, that one of those wells drilled in the Pointed Mountain area, just one, cost over $10 million? One well. They ran into tremendous problems in drilling it. They found gas, then for some unknown reason, because of the geological formation and the fracture of the formation they were involved in, that well, along with a number of others, started producing water, and they had to cut back to the point where those wells today are practically obsolete. Yet when they were first discovered it was suggested that there was the potential to produce enough gas from that field to serve not only the Province of British Columbia, but our export market as well.

Yet nature played a cruel trick and the potential is not going to be realized; they are writing that off as experience, with a tremendous deficit at the same time. But you can be sure that under the present conditions they'll never come back to the Province of British Columbia to drill.

So what I have to say to you now is this: in order for the government of today because you are not going to be here that long to grasp a few extra dollars in revenue you have sacrificed an industry, completely set up a provision within this amendment which will guarantee that there is no more exploration in northeastern British Columbia, destroyed the potential for lord knows how many years to come because of a whim, a psychological hang-up on the part of your party. No facts behind it. No valid reason for doing it except that you are prepared to grasp every dollar that you can get right now and destroy the future of a viable industry that should have been here and producing money for the provincial coffers for the next 25 years.

It doesn't make sense, Mr. Minister. It won't make sense to the industry, to the government, or to the taxpayers of this province. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of this province are the ones who will wake up down the road a little way and find that they have been had, sold out by a Minister who doesn't know what he is doing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Hon. Member for North Peace River. I think his imagination runs away with him sometimes...

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at all.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...because if he knows the whole story about the Crown reserves and how they have been disposed of over the years, he would realize that this only gives a greater flexibility to the government to have other methods besides the disposition of Crown reserves through public auction. Don't forget that under public auction, the ones who can bid are the big companies who have plenty of money, don't forget that when you shed bitter tears about the cost of exploration....

Interjection.

[ Page 3856 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Wait a minute, now. I gave you a chance to speak and I never said a word.

The cost of exploration is tax-deductible by these companies. Companies in Alberta have not paid taxes on their profits because they were tax deductible for the exploration they had done in other parts of the province and in British Columbia. These companies like Shell and Amoco that come in and bid on these parcels that are put up for auction then take those parcels and farm them out to the people who you are talking about, who get out on the rigs and do the work in the field, who have the expertise. They farm them out to other, smaller companies that haven't got money to bid on them.

I have had companies in my office that complained about: why can't the government, if they had to farm out some of these properties, go directly to them without having to go through a large multi-national oil company? When they farm them out, these drilling companies get 50 per cent if they strike oil. If they don't strike oil, they have spent the money anyway. But nevertheless, this is to give a greater flexibility.

When you speak about what a wonderful job has been done in the last 25 years, I don't know that that is all correct. We are diminishing in our gas supplies, we are diminishing in our oil supplies, and they have had a field day over the years. They haven't found these great amounts of oil and gas that you are talking about.

For a long time, we thought we had enough gas to last forever. When West Coast Transmission made the first agreements with the United States, we thought we had enough gas in reserve to look after everything. Today we find that we are running short; it's the end of the tube — we can see the end of the road. It is not good that we should just do it one way.

If we can get companies to go out into a different area where the larger companies won't bid to drill and take their chance like they do when the big companies farm out to them, then we maybe would be able to find gas and oil in other areas as well.

To me, to listen to a person who comes from the North Peace, the area where we have most of the gas and oil exploration, talking the way you do about not wanting to have it a little more flexible, as I said at the start, I think that your imagination is running away with you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very dangerous section. I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation there. I could hardly believe my ears because he seemed to be suggesting that under the terms of this suggestion, he might be in the business of dealing off a public asset at less than the maximum realization he could obtain for the public under the public auction system.

I am a little bit surprised at that. It seems to me that if this Minister is truly going to husband and work with the resources of this province as best he can, he is going to get as much for the people of British Columbia out of them as he can. If he is going to dispose of our resources to a favoured few in some other way, then he had certainly better give us the details of what that way is going to be.

I want to just take a moment to answer in interjection that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) felt constrained to add into the debate. The Hon. Member from North Peace River had said that the government wasn't going to be around too long. The Hon. Minister of Highways said: "So why worry about legislation, then?"

The answer to you, Mr. Minister, and to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, because it is really his legislation we are looking at, is that in so long as your party holds the philosophy it does and in so long as it is a potential government, it will have the same detrimental effects on the people of this province in terms of the employment-creating aspects of our natural resource development. That is the sad thing. That is a responsibility that should weigh very heavily on the minds of your party.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to whittle them down to two members.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think we should speak a little bit about the context in which we debate this particular section. Currently, the Premier complains that the natural gas supplies of our province are alienated for the foreseeable future on export contracts.

In oil, the other element you drill for, we produce only around 40 per cent of our needs in British Columbia, and yet the Premier's talking about building a refinery and we have no guaranteed oil supplies, as anyone who's been following the questioning in this House knows.

Now, in those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister why he has to bring in an amendment which is going to make it far less attractive to explore in British Columbia. I would have thought one would want to encourage drilling in British Columbia just as much as possible, and one would want to give some incentive....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: What about telling us exactly why you think that?

MR. GIBSON: ...and the reason that this takes away a lot of the incentive is that you put down a good hole and you take a risk and you find something and zap! — everything around you is withdrawn and you have no chance to do anything with it, but it's going to go somewhere else. Where? How is this going to be decided, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

[ Page 3857 ]

Chairman — these public assets that were drawn from public disposition?

The Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself and two or three other Members of this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, last week had the opportunity of discussing some of these questions with the Crown Corporation, with the president of Soquip, it's called, which is the Quebec Government Crown Corporation which is in the business of exploring for oil and gas for the Crown in Quebec.

That corporation, to me, has a much more enlightened attitude on the way these things ought to proceed, Mr. Chairman. They start from the basic proposition that in the field of finding oil and gas you have to have a multiplicity of players. You can't just have one player because the finding of oil and gas is still an art and not a science, and you can't just have one great big computer with winking lights down in the basement of ICBC, or wherever the government's keeping its latest computer, with seismic charts and so on to tell you exactly where to drill.

Many of the best oil and gas finds on this continent have been the result of one other company coming along, or one group of investors coming along, after a dozen others have tried and failed in that particular area. With their particular job, they're just saying now "I've got a hunch that maybe if we just drill there and if we go to that depth instead of what they've done before, maybe we'll find something." You've got to have that multiplicity of players.

If you think, Mr. Minister, that by giving particular preference to a state-owned exploration company, if you think that you are thereby going to best serve the interests of the people of British Columbia, then I think you're wrong, and I say that that is basically what this section is directed to.

I say further, Mr. Chairman — and I notice with interest that the Minister didn't answer this charge — that putting in this kind of fundamental change in the tenure arrangements on oil and gas leases in this province at this time, is in fundamental contempt of the B.C. Energy Commission which is currently holding hearings to try and find out what is the best way of doing these things.

This is a fundamental change right under the nose of that commission while the hearings are going on right now, right when that bill was introduced. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Chairman, for the government to ask a commission — a good commission which has rendered great service to this province — to give them a job to find out what's the best way of looking after our oil and gas lands and what kind of incentives have to be given for drilling because that's their principle charge right now, it's wrong to give them that responsibility and then to prejudge that responsibility by putting in this kind of amendment which radically alters the tenure. It is very wrong and I oppose this section.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I've got but one answer — the Hon. Member put up a strawman and then he knocked him down...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...because he's talking about multiplicity of players and that's exactly what the amendment is doing. It's giving a greater multiplicity of players...

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to scare 'em all off.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...in the field of searching for oil and gas.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that respectfully, I believe the Minister to be in error. This section is going to scare most of the players off and I want to make that point.

MR. SMITH: I think this afternoon what we have witnessed is certainly a demonstration by the Minister that he really doesn't know what the business is all about.

He talks about all of these large multinational corporations which have done all the drilling in the Province of British Columbia.

He fails to recognize, or he's never even looked at his own records, which show that in many cases the right to drill has been awarded to a multiplicity of companies who have bid upon a specific lease. Not one company, Mr. Minister, but a joint effort on the part of anywhere up to 10 companies or one drilling lease.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? It's been going on for 20 years in the Province of British Columbia where companies collectively have spread their funds that were available to them and bid, and they bid in the name of one company quite often but had a collective interest in a specific lease, if they were fortunate enough to be awarded the right to drill.

The drilling itself, traditionally — not only in this province, but in the Province of Alberta — is done by a highly specialized crew who bid for the right to drill on a specific location, Mr. Minister. So it doesn't matter how large or how small the company may be. When it comes to the actual process of drilling a hole in the ground to see if they can find gas or oil, they put the job out to bid, and of the 20 companies, 30 companies, that have drilling rigs available in western Canada, one of them gets the opportunity to go in because they have bid for the job at the lowest price. They don't care which company they drill for, Mr.

[ Page 3858 ]

Minister. They go out and drill for any company that has the dollars to pay for their expertise. They'll drill to the depth that the geologists tell them to drill to, and that's it. If the geologist says we're going through the formation, down to 15,000 feet, that's exactly where they'll go, and if they hit gas or oil in the process, fair enough.

We're fortunate in British Columbia in that in some wells we have as many as three and four productive zones because they've drilled through the sedimentary formation to a depth that will produce from that many zones. But the companies that drill generally have no interest in the production of the well, other than the fact that their drilling rig was available and they were prepared to go out and drill that hole for whoever had the lease on that particular piece of ground. In most cases, Mr. Minister, the lease is not in the name of one company, or there's not just one company involved. If they're successful in finding gas or oil, the distribution of the revenue from that well may go into as many as 10 different companies. Look at your own records.

In northeastern British Columbia, over the years, drilling activity has taken place on behalf of almost every known petroleum company in North America. The list is as long as your arm, Mr. Minister, of companies which have participated actively in the programme in northeastern British Columbia. So don't try to sell this House on the idea that somebody somehow is being squeezed out of the industry in this province. As a matter of fact, some of the greatest producers and the best producers in our province belong to some of the smallest companies, in relative terms. They've been fortunate.

What I'm saying to you is that to encourage the future of that type of development, and to encourage not only the drilling and the exploration as we have known it in the past, but to accelerate that, the last thing that we need is this particular amendment that we're dealing with right now.

You know, I wish that the Minister himself would find the time to tour the area where we produce all of our gas and oil. Don't talk to the companies. Talk to the men who work in the oil patch. Ask them what it's all about. They have no axes to grind and they have no big investment, except that that's their livelihood, Mr. Minister, to work for substantial wages. They're paid well and they know it, and they take pride in that fact — for the services that they can render. Ask them what you're doing to the petroleum industry. They'll tell you in very concise terms, Mr. Minister, what's happening.

You're not going to solve any problem with this amendment. You're creating more problems than you're solving. You're doing it at a time when we should be actively exploring in the Province of British Columbia.

In the last drilling year, Mr. Minister, the activity in British Columbia as compared to the Alberta side of the Peace River country...

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): That's not true, Ed.

MR. SMITH: ...was less by 50 per cent. You want to see the figures? I've got them. You want to see the figures? I've got them in writing. Less than half the drilling activity took place in northeastern British Columbia than in its comparable area in Alberta — northwestern Alberta, as compared to northeastern British Columbia. Yet the potential is almost equivalent. As a matter of fact, it's better in British Columbia — from the records.

Why? I'll tell you why. It's because of the government's attitude in what you're suggesting right at the moment. You're making a mistake, Mr. Minister. It's regrettable. It's a costly mistake, and it's one that the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia will pay for in lost services, in lost revenue to the Crown and ultimately in the loss of people services and social services for the next 10 years. I regret it, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to answer that in one respect and that is that the Hon. Member is saying about as high as 30 companies bid on one lease.

MR. SMITH: Ten.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You had it at 30 at one time. That's wrong, because I sign every lease. I've been at the sales and I know how they do it and I know that it's farmed out. Once it's farmed out, once they strike oil or strike gas, from then on the companies themselves contract out their drilling. But the first move they make is usually farming it out, because that's the costly one. So it's to give this broader flexibility. I think it's going to give us more opportunities of locating gas and oil in northern British Columbia. I'm sure that the Hon. Member will be pleased with it afterwards when we do find out that this works for the benefit of the people.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I oppose this section, just as I've opposed all other legislation that that Minister has brought forward which helps to cripple important industries in British Columbia. He shouldn't, Mr. Chairman, be described as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources; he should be described as the Minister against Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I liked that. I thought it was

[ Page 3859 ]

significant.

Everything he has done since he took office has been damaging to some of British Columbia's most important industry. I don't know where petroleum resources rate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're not dealing with the Minister's vote; we're dealing with section 7. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section.

MR. McGEER: Section 7, Mr. Chairman, is to change section 90A, that the Minister may by order withdraw any Crown reserves of petroleum or natural gas from disposition.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): He's just got off the airplane.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the lightweight aggregate over there is just astonishing me. I don't know where the Minister of Public Works was earlier this afternoon when we were reviewing some of the legislation in this House with regard to what the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would plead with the Hon. Member not to allow himself to be distracted by remarks, but rather to keep his intelligent remarks to the section 7.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I was trying to stay right to the section, Mr. Chairman, and certainly if you will remind the Members on the opposite side to try and keep me to the point, I'll do my very best.

I thought it was a very fine speech and it certainly recalled the kinds of things that really went on in the House and not the sorts of things that the Minister of Lands and Forests was telling us about. If the Ministers of the Crown come in and give us a fairy tale about their legislation or the effects of the legislation, the backbenchers particularly could be lulled into a sense of security, vote in favour of legislation that ultimately would do a great deal of damage and only because they believed what the Minister said.

Now here we've got the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources telling us that this section is going to do a tremendous amount of good because it's for the people. And as soon as everybody knows it's for the people, it will do good.

That's the position he's taken with respect to mining exploration, Mr. Chairman. And mining exploration is down this year 99 per cent...

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, that 99 per cent!

MR. McGEER :...from last year, and last year was down from the year before that. We're getting into decimal points now. That's all that's left of what was once a thriving industry.

No. 2, there's only been one bit of good news that I've seen with respect to the natural gas industry in British Columbia, and that was an announcement that the Americans were thinking of building a liquefied natural gas plant on the Oregon coast, which would make it unnecessary for them to purchase B.C. gas. That means that the gas we've got may last long enough for some decent policies to be brought in in British Columbia which will result in future exploration. As long as that Minister and his government are in power there will be no new gas discovered in this province. We had a record natural gas revenues this year, and in the face of those record revenues we've never done less exploration for new gas in years and years than was done last winter. There's only one bright socialist Premier in Canada — this is the Premier of Saskatchewan. Even he admitted that the reason why exploration was falling off all across Canada in the petroleum industry was because the industry couldn't understand government rules and regulations; they're not spelled out. At least if the rules are definite, an industry knows where it stands. But they don't know that today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member....

MR. McGEER: This is why most of the exploration companies....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am waiting patiently for the Hon. Member to speak to this section; so far you have not done so. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to this section.

MR. McGEER: Well, may I read exactly what the section is and then you'll understand that I'm right on the point. Section 7 says:

"The Minister may, by order, withdraw any Crown reserves of petroleum or natural gas from disposition under section 90.

"Crown reserves withdrawn pursuant to subsection (1) may be developed, managed, disposed of, or otherwise dealt with, by the Minister in accordance with the terms and conditions and for the price or prices approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

The point about this, Mr. Chairman.... Put yourself in the position of anybody concerned with the natural gas industry — he's got to try and read this section and understand where he stands in the future. You've got no rules to go by at all. What this

[ Page 3860 ]

section 7 says is that the Minister may make up the rules as he goes along, and he may change the rules at any time he wishes. That's what section 7 really says.

If you're in an industry where you can go and drill in Texas, or in the North Sea, or in Kuwait, or in Venezuela where the rules are laid down, why on earth would you drill in British Columbia when you've got this kind of thing to deal with? Isn't it understandable, Mr. Chairman, why the drilling rigs have left British Columbia? How many holes were drilled last winter during the drilling season? Can the Minister tell us that? No, he can't. Could you tell us how many were drilled the year before?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You ask that question tomorrow and I'll tell you.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but these are the sorts of things that you should carry around in your head. It's important to a Minister of Petroleum Resources to know what the activity is in British Columbia. It's important that the Minister should read the legislation before he brings it in — and if possible, to understand it — because people who are trying to do business in this industry of British Columbia have got to read it and understand it. If they can't, they leave.

Mr. Chairman, that's what's been happening; that's what we're trying to tell the Minister. It's the industry that's catching the planes out of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, that's what hurts and that's why I am here speaking against this section, because it's the people in industry who are taking their planes and leaving the province for good. We've got a sick industry on our hands; everything that that Minister deals with has Nimsickness. It's sections like section 7 that are the root cause of the problem.

Most Ministers would read the legislation, attempt to understand it and attempt to interpret it in view of the facts that they had at their disposal, in their heads, as to what was going on in the industry. It shouldn't come as a surprise to the Minister that mining exploration is down 99 per cent. He should be monitoring that carefully; he should be asking his staff for those kinds of figures when he goes to work in the morning. When activity starts to slump, he should be concerned. He should be thinking about the kinds of legislation required to restore it.

Yet the Minister hasn't bothered with the facts. He's got the dogma, so he keeps bringing in legislation which defies realism, which defies the competitive nature of international industry. As a result, he leaves British Columbia bereft. We're running on past steam, Mr. Minister, and what you're doing is letting the steam out of the boilers as fast as you possibly can. You'll go down in history as the worst Minister of Mines in the Province of British Columbia because of sections like section 7. I oppose it.

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 15

Mr. Smith requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 107, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1975, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 16

[ Page 3861 ]

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

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : Committee on Bill 125, Mr. Speaker.

MINES REGULATION AMENDMENT
ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 125; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, here we have another problem of arbitrary authority in the department rather similar to the one we discussed earlier on this afternoon, except it's more serious in this particular Act. Mr. Chairman, because this one covers the case of minerals like copper which are likely to taper out more in terms of their grade than is a mineral like coal.

Now I want to ask the Minister what would happen under subsection 5 here — 5 and 6: "The plan of the system shall provide for the maximum possible recovery of the mineral resource in the location to be mined, having due regard for good engineering practice and the safety of the operation."

Once again, I want to know the meaning of this phrase "maximum possible" and, in particular, I want to know what happens if the plan that is submitted earlier on...suppose it was submitted at a time when copper prices were quite high. Let's say it was a copper mine and it was submitted when copper prices were quite high. Let's say that the people developing this mine had made an optimistic assessment and said: "We're going to be working with 80-cent copper, and that's what makes this mine economic." That was the mining system they filed and that was approved. Then let's say, later on, Mr. Chairman, that the price of copper dropped to 60 cents or even 50 cents.

Now what I want to know is: what provision is there to guarantee that the approval of the chief inspector would be forthcoming for a change in the mining system because of the new economic circumstances? Of course, Mr. Chairman, the new economic circumstances mean that you can't afford to mine to as low a grade as you could before with the higher price on which the development of that mine had been predicated. So this seems to me a very dangerous provision and one that gives far too many powers to the chief inspector, again without any right of appeal as far as I can see, and I'd like to hear from the Minister why he thinks these powers are required.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, we're always trying to improve the safety conditions in the mine, Mr. Chairman, and that's one of the purposes of this, when it says: "...good engineering practice and the safety of the operation." If the operation wasn't safe, maybe they might not be able to take out as much of the ore. This may be possible. But the way you talk, you'd think that the ore ran from very rich to very poor, and all ore bodies don't run this way.

MR. GIBSON: Some do.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Many ore bodies are quite the same all the way through, so I don't think that this section.... This section would be to see the maximum possible for good engineering practice and safety conditions.

MR. GIBSON: Naturally, nobody objects and everybody is in favour of good safety conditions, and I think that's reasonably well provided for in much of the legislation that the Minister is already administering. What is new here is the power of the chief inspector — who presumably would act under the direction of the Minister or the Deputy Minister or any official senior to him — to approve or refuse to approve a mining system, which may have nothing to do with economics. And if economic conditions change, further approval may have nothing to do with economics. The approval might be completely, arbitrarily withheld, or could be made conditional....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think you're raising up a straw man. That's what you're doing.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says he thinks I'm raising a straw man. I don't think I am. I say, Mr. Chairman, that any time powers are given to a government department, the chances are very good that those powers are going to be used.

Mr. Minister, if you don't think these powers are necessary or don't think they are going to be used, I wish you would pull them out of this Act, because this Act is completely unacceptable with these very broad powers in it. They go way beyond anything you require for safety. They give no definition of what is "maximum possible."

I come back to the point I was making earlier on. Is "maximum possible" that which is maximum possible physically or that which is maximum possible in an economic sense? Is your inspector going to go up to any one of the large open-pit mines in the interior and say: "Look, you fellows take all

[ Page 3862 ]

that stuff out down to 0. 1 per cent "? Is that going to be his line? Or is he going to say 0.2 per cent Or 0.3 per cent, or how is he going to make up his mind? Do you think, Mr. Minister, that it is proper to give those kinds of powers, particularly those kinds of powers without any specified appeal and without any provision for public information and public review to make sure that these powers aren't being abused? I say it is wrong.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, in reference particularly to section 2(5), I think this is the real crux of our problem here in regard to what is being asked. So many of our mines have a variation of grade. If you set out one particular plan and you find that your economic ore level is — let's take a hypothetical one — 0.25, with the high return of copper it is quite possible to blend that grade of ore along with your higher grades of ore and in this way recover that resource.

If your market is of a nature that eliminates this particular grade or even a grade higher by way of a lower price, then you are not going to be able to blend and you are not going to be able to average out your ore so that you have an economic and viable mine. So what you are going to do is to leave a lot of ore in the ground that won't be recovered. That is not a saving of a resource; that is a waste of a resource for the simple reason that when your grade is taken out of an economic level, you are not going to go back for the uneconomic. That's going to be one of your problems. You cannot vary your plan on your ore body without having to go back. It is judged on the basis of an individual saying whether it is a maximum recovery or less than a maximum recovery.

You can put a mine out of business with this sort of indetermination. I just can't see this being of any particular help as far as mining is concerned. I think there can be more flexibility in your planning operation. Certainly, while I have confidence in the chief inspector of mines, I wonder if one individual should have the authority to say what is the maximum recovery or what is not the maximum recovery.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, there is one other point here which the Minister might explain — again about these words "maximum possible." I hope he is convinced by now that the fact that he charges an off-the-top royalty reduces the amount that is "maximum possible." Does he appreciate that there is that internal contradiction in the logic of his department? That which would be the maximum economically possible without that royalty is not economically possible with the royalty. So we come again to this question. It is a very simple question, Mr. Chairman. Does the Minister mean maximum economically possible or does he mean maximum physically possible?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If the maximum economically possible couldn't be done physically, then how are you going to get that out? It's got to be the maximum economically possible in that regard. The Hon. Member made a good argument for my case because he said that if part of the ore in one area is rich and another one is not so good, you can blend that ore and take it all out. This is the object. He made the best argument of all that the amendment should be put through. I just don't understand your argument, raising up strawmen and then knocking them down all the time. It just doesn't make sense.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that the Hon. Minister understood the argument of the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter). If I understood the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen, he is speaking against the amendment. It seemed to me that his argument made sense in those terms.

Mr. Chairman, what this is is just another threat against anyone who would start some mining in British Columbia. It is just another uncertainty. Therefore it makes it less likely that we are going to get exploration, development and production in this province.

This section has no definition of what "maximum possible" means, and it has no appeal, and those are fundamental defects which will cause me to vote against this section.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 15

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 3863 ]

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 125, Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A division took place on this bill, and the committee asked that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 142.

Interjections.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I think we are concerned to get some of our second readings off the paper, and if you would agree to starting 142 then we can adjourn.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): In moving second reading of this bill it is apparent there is no one concerted principle throughout the bill, and it is traditional in this House that we debate this in committee stage. I therefore move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 142, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files answers to questions. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House, Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

[ Page 3864 ]

APPENDIX

26 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following question:

What percentage of school operating costs was paid by the Provincial Government in each school district in the Province for the calendar year 1974?

The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly replied as follows:

53 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

With regard to the employment of the teachers and faculty at the four universities in this Province —

1. How many university professors, lecturers, or teachers are employed at the four universities?

2. Of these, how many are teachers only, how many are in research, and how many are doing both?

3. Of those who teach, how many hours per week are spent in teaching?

4. What is the range of salaries in each university?

[ Page 3865 ]

The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly replied as follows, for the 1974/75 academic year:

"1. and 2. See table:

"3. See table:

"4. Salary floors by academic rank (annual):

124 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

With regard to the appointment of Dr. George Pedersen, Dean of Education at the University of Victoria, to advise on educational research and development —

1. What is Dr. Pedersen's specific role?

2. Does Dr. Pedersen have written terms of reference?

3. What is the length of his anticipated term of office?

4. Does Dr. Pedersen have a written contract with the Department guaranteeing a certain amount of financial remuneration?

5. What is that minimal financial sum guaranteed?

6. What are the names of the other consultants in education serving along with Dr. Pedersen?

7. What financial remuneration have they been guaranteed?

The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly replied as follows:

"1. To examine research and development agencies nationally and internationally, to test feasibility of various models of organization to the Department of Education, to assist in whatever further educational research and development capability is required in the Province.

"2. Yes.

"3. Six months.

"4. No.

"5. Anticipated total cost $25,000 for study.

"6. Dr. A. Bavelas, Dr. C. Hodgkinson, Dr. A. Kratzmann.

"7. See number 5."