[ Page 2761 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates

On the amendment to vote 130.

Mr. Macdonald — 2761

Mr. Kerster — 2763

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2764

Mr. Gibson — 2768

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2768

Mr. King — 2769

Hon. Mr. Mair — 2771

Mrs. Dailly — 2772

Mr. Lea — 2773

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 2774

Mr. Skelly — 2774

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 2774

Mr. Barber — 2778

Mr. Cocke — 2781

Division on the amendment — 2782

On vote 130.

Mr. Cocke — 2782

Mr. Skelly — 2783

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to recognize my zodiac twin tonight — it's her birthday. I'd like the House to recognize Ms. Rosemary Brown on her 25th birthday

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I'll correct that: the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this evening we have Mr. and Mrs. Cliff Oswald, the president of the Social Credit Party in North Burnaby — Mr. Oswald and his wife, Alice — and Keith Liddiard, also a member of the North Burnaby constituency. We are very pleased to welcome them to the House.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES
AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now on the amendment to vote 130, the amendment offered by the first member for Vancouver Centre. It reads: "…that the salary of the minister in vote 130 be reduced by $1."

On the amendment.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak strictly to the amendment to reduce the minister's salary by the sum of $1. As a matter of fact, I helped draft that amendment, and I intend to be strictly in order.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Who else was with you at the time? (Laughter.)

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): How many people did you tell? (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: I have listened with interest to the analysis of the Jurgen Lau incident. The point I want to make in supporting the motion to reduce the minister's salary is, I suppose, a little different and perhaps broader but it flows out of the Lau incident, and that is the very legitimate concern that the people of British Columbia have that the mining interests and other special privileges are selling out the birthright of the people of British Columbia in their natural resources.

I have heard in this debate speakers get up from the other side and talk about our public officials disclosure Act. Now in this debate that public disclosure Act is serving the very function for which it was passed. Whether or not section 18 of the standing rules applies to people with interests in mining speculative stocks voting for the government on important mining legislation is a technical point that should be decided by Mr. Speaker. But it is very important in the eyes of the official opposition, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia should know the extent to which this Legislature is dominated by mining interests.

It was the purpose of the disclosure Act to tear the bandages from people's eyes so they could know when they looked at the legislative process what interests were at work, and they should also be able to know what campaign funds are at work when we see all royalties being lifted off some of our exportable mineral resources.

Mr. Chairman, if you think I'm not speaking to the amendment, I want to say to you that this is the reason I am supporting that amendment — and I want to make that very clear — a legitimate fear that we are being sold out so far as the public interest is concerned in the revenue from our natural resources in this province.

We have seen the Minister of Mines and Forests make, a little while ago, a simple mistake. He gave $1,000 to the son of his executive assistant to promote an advertising campaign for the mining industry.

MR. BARRETT: What's yours is mine!

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not too concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the $1,000 was granted without tender. I am not too concerned that the $1,000 was given to the son of an executive assistant for this particular purpose. What does concern me is that the Minister of Mines, whose first duty is to the whole public of the province of British Columbia, to the public interest, to the public revenue from that resource that belongs to all of the people, should add to the barrage of hate and propaganda that the mining industry has been conducting in this province in the last few years.

Wherever there has been a legitimate attempt of the people of the province to get some return from their natural resources that are controlled 80 per cent by international companies in the mineral field, wherever there has been any attempt by the people to

[ Page 2762 ]

get back even so much as a 5 per cent sales tax return on their mineral ores that are being exported to the markets of the world, we have seen a veritable barrage of propaganda from the mining interests. This minister steps up to abet that campaign, and it raises legitimate questions in our minds as to which side he is on.

MR. BARRETT: Welfare to the mining companies.

MR. MACDONALD: The examples are manifold — and this is under the minister's jurisdiction — as to whether or not he is sticking up for the people of the whole province or a particular interest. We note that in the case of the metallurgical coal that is being shipped by British Columbia to international markets, and particularly to Japan, the price of that coal at Roberts Bank has increased in the last short while from $20 a ton to $50 a ton. We have seen the profits of the companies that are international and not B.C. companies, like Kaiser Resources, increase from the year 1974, when net profits after taxes were $24 million, to $71.2 million in the year 1975, which is a 300 per cent increase. We have seen that and we have seen Fording Coal, which is the son of Cominco and its CPR investments, a smaller company, increase its profits from our natural resources from $1 million in 1974 to about $7 million after taxes in 1975.

While we have watched this, Mr. Chairman, we have seen the government opposite refuse to increase the coal royalty and return to the people of this province any amount of those excessive profits that are being made from the export of our coal. When we see that government taxing the people of this province, increasing ferry rates, increasing sales tax, increasing ICBC by 300 per cent, on the one hand using against the people of this province a heavy surcharge hand, and with the other hand in a lavish way contributing to the profits of international companies exploiting our natural resources, then we say that this minister is delinquent in his office, which should return to this province a share of our natural wealth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just interrupt you long enough to remind you that we are on an amendment? It is my responsibility to keep the debate strictly relevant to the amendment. I'm just weighing whether or not your line of reasoning might not better fall under the main motion.

MR. MACDONALD: This is all one piece of one fabric, Mr. Chairman. The bringing in of Jurgen Lau and other people to help in the drafting of the legislation is part and parcel of the total picture of what is happening to the natural resources of the province of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just ask you to keep the debate strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: And now we see something that gives us concern and reason to vote for the amendment to reduce the minister's salary and to vote no confidence, Mr. Chairman. I am very concerned that the minister who has charge of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., which is in his portfolio, is now receiving representations from major oil companies to do away with the incentive plan for natural gas in the north, to do away with the two-price system and to increase the return to the oil producers in the north.

We wonder, Mr. Chairman — and we have reason to wonder — whether, if this is the record of the minister in other resource fields, he will stand up for the public interest in the north in natural gas and safeguard for the people of this province the two-price system which gave them a break. Will he ensure that if additional amounts are paid to the oil producers of the north it should be by that incentive system whereby they do not receive the additional price without reinvesting it in the good earth of the province of British Columbia? It is because the minister's record does not indicate that he is prepared to stand up for the public interest that we have these concerns.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have seen that minister who has received this help in drafting legislation bring a proposal before this Legislature and state in his speeches that the mineral resources of the province of B.C. should be exported without any rent or royalty whatsoever, making the province of British Columbia the last banana republic in the whole wide world.

MR. BARRETT: To get skinned again.

MR. MACDONALD: We wonder and we should begin to know, Mr. Chairman, that in the last election on the 11th day of December, 1975, the people of British Columbia lost that election and the mining interests won that election, because we see a total lack of concern to return to the people of this province anything from their natural resources, and because we see, on the other hand, taxes and charges being piled one after the other upon the heads of the people of this province, that we cannot have confidence in this minister to stand up as he should have been standing up in the last few months for the public interest, for the public revenues, to lift the burden off the people of the province and safeguard them and their own heritage, which is their natural resources and not the property of the multinational companies, which have for so many years exploited this province of B.C. as if it were a banana republic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 2763 ]

MR. MACDONALD: So I intend — and I hate to tell you this, Mr. Chairman, because you have that nice smile.... It's because of this total picture that I intend to support the amendment.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman, at the risk of sounding like the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), I'm appalled!

AN HON. MEMBER: Aloha!

MR. KERSTER: I'm appalled at the level to which this assembly has been reduced in the past four days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KERSTER: That unruly bunch....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member that we are on the amendment?

MR. KERSTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate must be held strictly relevant to the amendment.

MR. KERSTER: I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking about that unruly bunch over there, the opposition…

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not on the amendment, Hon. Member.

MR. KERSTER: It's to the amendment.

…who should be filled with shame in bringing forward this amendment. Seriously, they should be searching their own consciences pertaining to the irresponsible approach, their attack, a vicious amendment, a totally political attack and amendment against an honourable minister and an honourable man.

AN HON. MEMBER: No politics in this House.

MR. KERSTER: The amendment to vote 130 is both mean and repulsive. The opposition knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, George.

MR. KERSTER: In an attempt to regain some credibility under the new leadership….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I know that all members of this House making their maiden speech are allowed to read that speech in its entirety, but after that, that privilege ends by the House rules, and I would draw that to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Hon. Member, I hope that you are using copious notes. Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Chairman, I am not making my maiden speech. I am using copious notes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: I would repeat that in an attempt to regain some credibility under their so-called new leadership, those in opposition have carefully staged this stupid performance of allegations that are — thank God — recorded in Hansard and will someday return to haunt you.

Mr. Chairman, in his piousness, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says he hates to see the House's time wasted by this type of debate.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Let's hear it for Mr. Peanuts.

MR. KERSTER: Yet he stands on his feet for 30 minutes or so on a 30-second subject. It's something that you're all very adept at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, I'm still trying to determine whether or not you are on the amendment.

MR. KERSTER: I'm on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. There's so much interjection coming from across the floor that it's very difficult for you, I think, to relate my remarks to the amendment.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says that we should investigate. The NDP members under their new coach display outrage and disdain at what they consider conflict of interest. Mr. Chairman….

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Oh! Rubber ducky, would you give him a banana.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have a little order in the House? Please proceed.

MR. KERSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that those charges against the most honourable minister and a most honourable man are total irresponsibility and nonsense in this amendment. They're contrived by the opposition to grandstand at the expense of a new minister's character and reputation. You over there on the

[ Page 2764 ]

opposition know very well that consultants are used all over the world by legislators, at least responsible ones, which we haven't seen for three and a half years around this province.

Interjections.

MR. KERSTER: It is to assure that expertise is lent to the achievement of the best possible legislation being brought to the floor of any government assembly. Now for the past two days you've disrupted this House, impugned the integrity of the members of the entire House in your attempt to impress the people of this province with your so-called false moralities. But you know what? Your hon. leader today admitted….

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: Well, I've run into that second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) before, and I believe he came in second.

He admitted though today that Mr. Lau was used as a consultant in the past by his former government. And you know, if you have any further aspersions to cast, I don't know why you guys don't put your money where your mouth is. That is, make your accusations of conflict of interest…. No. 1, make them out in the hallway. Accuse Mr. Lau of breaking his oath as a respected barrister outside the safety of this Legislature. Make them in the hallway. Don't make them in here where everything's safe and easy. You've had the easy way long ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Member, order, please! May I remind the hon. member…? May I ask the hon. member to address the Chair? It will assist us greatly in trying to maintain order at this early evening hour.

MR. KERSTER: Right, Mr. Chairman, I accept that direction. I would, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the opposition, suggest that they run from the refuge of this Legislature into the hall with these accusations; put their money where their mouth is rather than attempt any further to mislead the people of this province by innuendo.

Accept that challenge or withdraw that stupid amendment.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): The member from Whitechapel…. I beg your pardon, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (laughter) this afternoon asked about another member of the tax committee that I had set up and his interest in mining….

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Would the Chairman ask the member what it was he said when he stood up at the beginning — the member from where?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that's not a point of order.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, it is a point of order. It certainly is a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't even listening.

MR. LEVI: I was listening. Now get up and tell us, if you've got the guts, what it was….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I was saying that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard asked the question about what other members of this commission had an interest in mining. The only other member who was involved extensively in the mining business is Dr. Gordon Bell who is a professional geologist and consulting engineer — a professional engineer — and this member has no interest whatsoever in mining in British Columbia. He is a professional, as are the other people who are involved in this committee, for I felt that if you're going to have proper input into taxation of the mining industry then you must hire professional people, knowledgeable in the business, to give you professional advice. That's why the particular committee that was selected was selected.

I'm not going to carry on this debate, Mr. Chairman. I must reiterate, though, that there was no conflict of interest with anybody involved in this committee. There is no attempt to mislead this House. There are, however, a couple of remarks which I would like to make.

Some members this afternoon, and I can't recall who they were, but they cast a shadow of doubt upon my Deputy Minister of Mines, Dr. Jim Fyles. They attacked him personally in this House, in a place where he had no opportunity whatsoever to respond to it, and they implied that he was not doing a good job, was not acting properly on behalf.of the minister. Well, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this House, this dedicated, long-term civil servant has

[ Page 2765 ]

an impeccable reputation. He is a dedicated employee of the Crown and has been for some time. He has the highest professional ethics that anyone could hope to have, and his reputation is beyond reproach. I ask that the members who did cast some doubt upon this I gentleman's reputation, please, either here or privately, apologize to him.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, when the minister rose, he identified the member for Whitechapel. I sit across the floor. Mr. Chairman, I feel that that's a cheap religious slur, and I'd like the member….

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it is, and the member knows it. The minister knows it. Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to withdraw that.

MR. KING: Shocking!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please! The Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have had reference to the member for Hawaii, we've had references to the member from Jamaica….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, there was no attempt whatsoever to cast any political or religious connotations in this statement. As far as I know, Whitechapel is a part of England from which that member comes, just as the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) has been called the member for Hawaii. There was absolutely no attempt to cast any religious implications whatever, or any other references to that member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have to ask….

MR. BARRETT: We've asked for a withdrawal, not a speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, may I just ask the minister… ?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I cannot maintain order in this House as long as each individual tries to maintain his own order. I must ask the hon. minister: did he intend to impute any offensive word, language or indication of any kind, to any member in this House?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That's all we need.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: The normal method is not to question one way or the other, but to ask a member to withdraw. That is the method, and that is the request.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In answer to the statement of the Leader of the Opposition: it is practice in the House to withdraw if a word is unparliamentary. However, if another word, not unparliamentary, is used it is the practice of the Chair to ask whether or not it was the intent of the speaker who used that language to impute any improper motive to anyone, or to offend.

MR. BARRETT: In answer to this, Mr. Chairman, there are methods of saying things to people that aren't necessarily banned words, but the connotation is a matter of subject for withdrawal. That is what we are asking for — a complete withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the same point of order, the Premier.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the second member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, because he has just recently returned to the House, isn't aware that many times members over there have referred to the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), who beat him so badly in the election…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: …as the member for Hawaii.

Interjections.

[ Page 2766 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just a second….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman…as the member for Hawaii.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think that member does not take offence that he spent some time in Hawaii or came from Hawaii.

AN HON. MEMBER: No religious prejudice from that kind of person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, from time to time in the House it….

AN HON. MEMBER: Racist, that's what you are!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: From time to time, Mr. Chairman, in the banter in the House….

MR. KING: We've never implied any slur against anyone's race or religion. Never!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sure the people….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To me, whether you are from Hawaii, whether you are from the United States or whether you are from England is not a slur on anyone.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am surprised. I put it down to perhaps the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is just newly returned to the House and that perhaps….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: …there is a lot of sensitivity….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: But I assure you that this side has never taken any offence when the member for Coquitlam, who beat him earlier, has been referred to over and over as the member for Hawaii. It has never been offensive.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, may I…? Is it on the same point of order?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LEVI: You know, it's incredible — he makes statement saying "the member for Whitechapel." Whether he knows it or not, I am not from Whitechapel; I am from Birmingham. He made that statement as a direct anti-Semitic statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: That's in the same kind of tradition of that party previously — with Solon Law and his black word. That's the kind of slur he threw across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEVI: And he hasn't got the guts to back off on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, I have asked the minister whether any offence was intended by the statement. He has given his word of honour….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore that would close the matter.

MR. BARRETT: No, it does not. We want a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I was walking into the House one day we were talking about where the various members came from. We

[ Page 2767 ]

were talking about the member from Hawaii and the member from Jamaica. Someone….

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to withdraw?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you listen — just for a minute?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Someone mentioned that the second member for Vancouver-Burrard was from Whitechapel. I apologize if he is in fact from Birmingham. If he took offence at being referred to as the member from Whitechapel, then I am sorry. I meant no improper implications whatsoever in that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members. That concludes the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Give a reason, that's all.

MS. SANFORD: He hasn't given a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman….

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're getting downright silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. BARRETT: We are asking for a withdrawal, and that's the rule of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: He meant no offence with that — don't be silly! It's a deliberate attempt to stall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the only way anything intelligent can be accomplished in this room is if we have one speaker at a time. I suggest that we follow the standing orders to have individuals stand in their place, address the Chair, and the Chair will do his very best to recognize you one at a time. Now if we can follow that procedure I am sure that we can return to orderly business. I have recognized the second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I have taken offence at the minister's remark. I ask him to withdraw it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think that we can solve the matter very easily, although, in my opinion, sufficient has been done. But let's do it this way: hon. minister, would you withdraw the statement, because offence has been taken whether offence was intended or not.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, naturally no offence was intended. If the member was offended, I will refer to him as the member from Birmingham or the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, whichever he pleases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you would withdraw?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I took considerable offence today at some of the things and statements that were made about me, but I….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, a lot of the statements were not within the rules. However….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you….

HON. MR. WATERLAND: If that member was offended, I cannot understand why, but I withdraw the statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. minister. That concludes the matter.

[ Page 2768 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order, the member for Coquitlam.

MR. KERSTER: I would suggest that really this is a point of order relating to the former speaker's point of order and the hon. minister's point of order. We sometimes refer to "the member for Hawaii," as we refer to the member for Burrard as "the member for Jamaica." We take that in good humour, and it is accepted in that fashion. If we all accept it that way I think things will become much more amicable and we'll reach the solution to our problems tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is in order for the Chair to make a suggestion, before I recognize the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I think perhaps we should adopt the accepted method in the House of addressing each other by the constituency which we represent. If we do that I think we can avoid the kind of thing we have just experienced.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions for the minister. Towards the end of the debate yesterday afternoon, he indicated that the information which the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) had brought forward with respect to the meeting on May 13 was substantially correct. In going through that information he referred to much of the information which was contained in a memorandum summoning persons to that meeting.

I'll continue my remarks when I have the minister's attention, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. The rules of the House, Hon. Member, only require that I recognize the member when he stands to speak. There is nothing I can do to make people listen. I'm sorry.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. If the minister wants to cast his attention elsewhere that's just fine by me.

I would like to ask him if the minister had a copy of the memorandum, from which the first member for Vancouver Centre quoted, summoning people to that meeting on May 13.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In answer to the question from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, Mr. Chairman, no, I did not. I was not even aware the meeting was taking place. I f happened to be in Nelson that day, visiting the Kootenay Forest Products plywood and sawmill operations. I did not have a copy of the memo; I did not know the meeting was taking place at all.

MR. GIBSON: To understand that more specifically, the minister did not have a copy on the floor of the House yesterday.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I did not. When the member for Vancouver Centre read the memo I took him at face value, being an honourable member, which I hope he is, and that what he was reading was true. That was my first knowledge of the details of that meeting and of the fact that meeting was held at all.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would then follow up with another question.

We had here a case of a rather high-paid gentleman, I would imagine — Mr. Lau — doing continuous consulting work for the department. I would imagine that knowledge of this kind of consultation would be available to the deputy minister of the department. It is, after all, an expenditure which is of some consequence in the development of departmental legislation. I would ask the minister if he took the time during the debate we had on the floor of this House yesterday to ask his deputy if he was aware of the fact that Mr. Lau was engaged in the drafting of legislation — specifically Bill 57.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: While this debate was taking place yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I asked Dr. Fyles if Jurgen Lau had been involved in drafting the legislation, and he said he had been over on a consulting basis, working with the people. The actual drafting of the legislation is done by the legislative counsel and it appears that Mr. Lau assisted in doing this. Dr. FyIes told me that Jurgen Lau had been working with these people. I wanted to find out to what extent and in what detail he had been working with them. Was he actually involved in the drafting or was he working as a consultant, and what were the implications of what he had done? Was it a normal procedure? I was not aware of this. I found out since that it is a normal procedure; legislative counsel was quite in order to have Mr. Lau assist them in drafting he legislation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to understand this a little bit better. The minister's telling the House, if I understand him correctly, that his deputy told him, in response to questioning during the debate, that Mr. Lau was engaged in actual drafting of the legislation.

What I would like to know is why it took so long or the minister to admit that fact on the floor of the House. We were engaged in that debate, hot and heavy, for an hour and a half or so. Surely it didn' take the minister that long to consult with his deputy to learn that Mr. Lau had been engaged in the

[ Page 2769 ]

drafting of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important point, because it seems to me that this is the basis of the cover-up evidence — the fact that the information was available to the minister on the floor of the House and nevertheless he remained seated and did not afford the members of this House confirmation that Mr. Lau had participated in the drafting of the legislation until he was faced with the actual documentary evidence of a memorandum which proved that conclusively. That proves to me conclusively, Mr. Chairman, that there was a coverup.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I do take exception to the constant implications of coverups. There was no coverup. When a person is hired to consult on the technical aspects of a legislation drafting, where does the consultation area end and where does the actual assistance in drafting begin? It's a very ill-defined area, and, as far as I knew, Jurgen Lau had no part in the drafting. I was later proved to be incorrect because legislative counsel in fact had him working with the drafting of a technical portion of this legislation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: My deputy did not sit in on each and every meeting. He knew that there was consultation on the technical aspects of things. Where does consultation end and actual assistance in drafting begin? I don't know. It's a very grey area.,

I do take exception to the word "coverup." There was no coverup. There was no attempt to cover up. I did not have the information. I wanted to find the facts. When they finally came from the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) in a memo, I am more than happy to admit that perhaps he did, in fact, take part in the actual drafting. As far as I was aware up to that time, it was consultation on the technical aspects of the taxation legislation.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's been read from Hansard quite a number of times today the conflicting statements which the Minister of Mines gave to the House regarding Mr. Lau's involvement in the drafting of the Mineral Resource Tax Act. There was first of all a denial — an absolute, unequivocal denial — that the gentleman had been privy to the bill or had participated in the drafting in any way. Now the minister is asking us to accept his ignorance of who participated in drafting of the bill in the first instance and is indicating to the House that he only learned of the involvement of an independent non-government person at a later time. This calls into question a whole new area of the absence of ministerial responsibility.

If the minister charged with the bill is unaware of whose hands that bill has fallen into, either in draft form or final form, then that in itself, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, is grounds for censure against that minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just utter rubbish!

MR. KING: Utter rubbish indeed! When we have a tax bill, a budgetary matter, Mr. Chairman, that is being presented to this House in message form and should not be under scrutiny by anyone but the minister, his cabinet colleagues and his top-ranking officials — certainly those people sworn to secrecy in this province — the minister admits that he doesn't know who had the bill, who looked at it, who participated in the drafting even. I say this is an absolutely shocking revelation.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: By all means. By all means.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was consulted by your government and drafted message bills for you.

MR. KING: Well, I am quite aware, and I have made statements in this House, how I conducted the preparation of my legislation….

Interjection.

MR. KING: Be careful, indeed! I can assure the House of this, Mr. Chairman, that neither labour nor management in any way were privy to the drafting of any labour legislation in this province. We invited representation from both parties but never any involvement in the drafting of that legislation. They were never privy to any of the contents of that legislation before it was introduced in the House. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in that case we were not….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. KING: Listen to the Liberals getting exercised. Isn't it peculiar that the only people coming to the defence of the coalition minister are the Liberals? Those Liberals are all principle now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, perhaps if we moved back to the amendment we would have order.

[ Page 2770 ]

MR. KING: Well, the Conservatives are a dead issue. I don't think they have too much to contribute.

But the point is, Mr. Chairman, that labour legislation is one thing. It's not a budgetary matter. No one stands to benefit from windfall profits from labour legislation. But it's a clear parliamentary tradition that budgetary matters, taxation and so on, must be treated with the utmost confidentiality for fear that anyone in the private community should gain advance knowledge and be in a position to profiteer. It's not only a question whether, in fact, that kind of profiteering did take place. It's a question of the minister understanding, respecting and protecting the confidentiality of bills that are under his jurisdiction.

Now the minister is telling us…. He's changing his story again, Mr. Chairman, and he's telling us: "Well, I didn't know who was involved in drafting the bill. When I came to the House and was asked the first question I didn't know at the time."

It was apparently not after Mr. Lau confirmed to reporters that he had been involved in the drafting, but the minister became aware of who had drafted a message bill affecting taxation in the mining industry that he was responsible for introducing into this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, quite aside from the conflict of interest that obtained with the individual he selected, quite aside from the inconsistency and the great conflict in the statements which that minister has made to this House, we now have a whole new arena of his complete incompetence and his complete abdication of ministerial responsibility in admitting that he did not know whose hands that taxation bill had fallen into. Were there other people in addition to Mr. Jurgen Lau and Mr. Stekl? Were there others? The minister didn't know, apparently, when he came to this House. I don't know who he's consulted or whether he's relying on press reports that were initiated by the press gallery in this Legislature.

I think that we have a right to demand of that minister that he table all documents pertaining to the drafting and preparation of the mineral taxation act because, by his own admission, there could well have been other people involved.

What's more startling and shocking — frightening, indeed — is the fact that here the minister sits, apparently incapable of understanding that there is any impropriety or any conflict in allowing top executives of the mining industry to be privy to the preparation of taxation bills which will reduce the financial obligations of the mining industry and bring great windfall profits to that sector. Apparently he's completely incapable of understanding that there's anything wrong in this regard. It's absolutely incredible, and it's incredible that his cabinet colleagues don't seem to understand this proposition either.

What we have is the fox in the chicken coop. The mining industry is writing their own ticket exploiting the people's irreplaceable resources in this province under precisely their own terms and conditions of payment for that resource. This means that the public treasury of the province of British Columbia suffers. It means that additional tax burdens have to be heaped on the backs of ordinary working people, senior citizens, to pay for social services that should be funded from the mineral wealth of this province.

Here we have an irresponsible government and an irresponsible minister, Mr. Chairman, who sits there, defends the actions and admits he is not familiar with all of the people involved in the preparation of this bill, when it's clearly demonstrated that a senior mining company official with corporate connections to other large mining corporations in this province was actually involved in that drafting.

From where does this information come to the House and to the members? Not from the minister responsible. It has to be dragged out of him, literally, by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and by the investigative reporting of the press gallery in the Legislature. Then you get the facts. Only then, in grudging fashion, with great reticence does the Minister of Mines acknowledge that yes, the gentleman was involved in writing his own ticket in determining what the mining industry would pay in this province for exploiting the resources that belong to all the people of this province. It's absolutely incredible, and he has the colossal gall to sit there and try to justify this gross incompetence — at the best.

Mr. Chairman, there are other interpretations that could be put on the conduct.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put them on right now. Let's hear them.

MR. KING: All right — I'm always accommodating. It could well be — as one member said — that this was an election promise from the Social Credit Party, in return for the huge funds that the mining industry put into the Socred campaign coffers. It's a payoff to that industry. It's returning a favour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May we return now to the amendment?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that's an interpretation that could be put on it by a cynical mind. I know that the Education minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer) would qualify in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's incredible, and I think the minister should explain. If he finds all of his other activities, all of his abandonment of ministerial responsibility acceptable and proper, how can he explain and justify to this House that he was not even

[ Page 2771 ]

aware of that Mr. Jurgen Lau was involved in the preparation of this important tax Act in the mineral sector.

In light of his ignorance as to who had access and participation in drafting that bill, is the minister prepared to assure the House that there are no other individuals associated either with the mining industry or other corporate interests in this province who were also involved? Would he be aware, indeed? He is the minister having charge of the bill, and despite the technical drafting by legislative counsel, there is no way that the minister having charge of that bill can abandon his responsibility for the security of it. No one should participate in the drafting or have access to that bill without authorization from the minister having charge of the bill.

The minister has now admitted that he did not in fact have that control, did not in fact maintain that security of an important taxation bill. That in itself is grounds itself for passage of the motion that's before the House, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it's grounds enough for a new Premier, leading a new government, who is seeking the confidence of the people of this province, to replace that minister if he hasn't got the personal integrity to do the proper thing, which is to resign, Mr. Chairman.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with what the member for North Vancouver–Capilano said yesterday, and I think again today, that of course two wrongs don't make a right. But it is our unassailable position that no wrong was committed.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) usually doesn't stoop to this sort of tactic — I'm a little surprised. He would have us believe, Mr. Chairman, that statutes in this province — and please don't misunderstand this in any religious way — are brought to this House on tablets of stone from Mount Sinai, that they suddenly appear.

Mr. Chairman, let's examine the record. Auto insurance and ICBC were drafted with the assistance of Mr. Green, administrator of Saskatchewan auto insurance, while still in Saskatchewan, and Mr. Bortnick, who was not living in the province at the time but later became the general manager of ICBC. I don't see anything wrong with that. If I were going to draft insurance legislation, Mr. Chairman, where better to go but to a province that has government insurers, to find out how they do it? But the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that long before they were under any obligation to this House or under any obligation to the government of British Columbia, and living in Saskatchewan, they were drafting British Columbia legislation and were privy to it.

How about the Energy Act, Mr. Chairman? Great assistance given by a very fine British Columbian and public servant, but nevertheless at the time a professor at UBC, Dr. Andrew Thompson, and Mr. Martin Taylor, a lawyer for Davis and Co. I cast no aspersions whatever. Where better to go if they're going to draft an Energy Act than to people who are experts in the field? That's where they went.

How about the Land Commission Act? Where did they go for assistance to draw the Land Commission Act when they were the government, Mr. Chairman? They went to Mr. Bill Lane, who was the municipal solicitor in Richmond. Where did Mr. Lane go after the Act was drawn, Mr. Chairman? He became the chairman, the head of the commission.

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to cast aspersions, let them stand up and cast aspersions at a supreme court judge, because the person that they went to in the Ocean Falls expropriation was none other than Mr. Justice Hutcheon.

How about the Petroleum Corporation Act? Once again who do we see? Do we see legislative counsel having drafts of the legislation? No, once again Dr. Thompson and Mr. Taylor are back in the act; and I say rightly so. There's nothing wrong with that at all — any more than there was anything wrong with Mr. Jurgen Lau being involved with their mining legislation, Mr. Chairman.

How about the Public Service Act, which we alluded to earlier, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act? I repeat, Mr. Johnson — office of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Let's go to the Assessment Authority Act. A Mr. Gwartney later became the chairman. He was not related to the government when he was privy to the legislation.

The Coal Act and the Mineral Royalties Act. It seems to me we've heard this name before — Mr. Jurgen Lau. He wasn't a member of the government, was he? Was he legislative counsel, Mr. Member? You were here at the time. Was he sworn to secrecy? No.

Here's another one — the Strata Titles Act. Ruth N. Irving is a lawyer in Vancouver, daughter of the owner of Irving Oil in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Is she a member of this Legislative Assembly or in any way subject to it? Of course not.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission Act. Peter Stein later became the chairman. He's from Alberta. I repeat, Mr. Chairman — there's nothing wrong with this. He became the chairman, Mr. Member. He became the paid chairman after drafting the legislation, after being privy to the legislation. Was he sworn to secrecy? I ask the opposition — they ought to know. After all, my colleague is expected to know the contents of a memorandum that's six months old. Surely it's not too much to ask you whether these people were all sworn to secrecy. That's not too much to ask. What were the arrangements made with these people, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members opposite?

[ Page 2772 ]

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Were they promised jobs?

HON. MR. MAIR: Were they promised jobs? Was it at all suggested to them they might become chairman and presidents, things like that, if they assisted with this type of legislation — with message legislation, message bills? No suggestion at all, I am sure. Mr. Chairman, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Now let's put an end to this nonsense and let's get on with the business of the people.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby-North): I will try to get back to the amendment, because I found it very difficult, in listening to the last speaker, to see at any point at all where he was dealing with the amendment.

An opposition seldom moves a vote of non-confidence in a minister facetiously or without due consideration, although may I say, Mr. Chairman, I can consider a number of times during the past three years where I might attribute some facetiousness to some of the calls for resignation. But this one, I can assure you, has not been done without due consideration by the opposition. And the fact that the Liberal and the Conservative members also support the NDP in this call for non-confidence in the minister, I think, should be thought of very carefully by the members of the government.

There are two counts, two major points, why we support this motion of non-confidence. The first one is dealing strictly with the performance of the minister, because, after all, if you are dealing with a non-confidence vote motion, you have to deal with two areas: one is the performance of the minister; the second one is the policies for which that minister is responsible. If you have grave concern about either or both, I think it is only the duty of any opposition to bring forward a motion of non-confidence — which our opposition has.

First of all, when it comes to the performance of the minister, this has been documented over and over again by various members of the opposition. My own feelings on the performance of the minister point to two things: the minister has handled his estimates, particularly yesterday, in a most inept manner, and if it was not because of ineptness that we listened to such non-replies and poor responses to the questions, then I'm afraid we only have to look at the alternative — that if he is not simply inept, then he was purposely misleading the House. Either thing points to the basic incompetence in any minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just interrupt the member long enough to ask a question?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the member imputing any improper motive to the minister in her statement that he deliberately misled the House?

MRS. DAILLY: No, I wasn't. I simply said, Mr. Chairman, that the minister by his performance posed in the minds of the opposition the possibility that he was either inept or misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because if any improper motive was imputed….

MRS. DAILLY: No, I am simply telling what his performance left in the minds of the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: I would also like to point out that because of this ineptness or, what appeared to us, misleading of the House, we have very serious reservations about the ability of this minister to continue in his portfolio and to carry on in a responsible manner.

Aside from his performance, one of our major concerns is the policy which this minister has carried out since he came into office. We are very concerned that this minister is not dealing with his portfolio in the manner which is for the benefit of all people of British Columbia, but that this minister has shown, by a very apparent conflict of interest in the members who have been involved in the drafting of the bill, that he and the government apparently are more concerned with special vested interests in the mining industry of this province than in what is for the betterment of the people of this province on the whole.

The thing which concerns me most about this is that for two days now we have sat through this debate on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier of the province, who is responsible for appointing the minister, who is basically responsible for the policy which this government brings in, and particularly in the area of mining, which the Premier of this province spoke on very many times around the province — and we have seen the propaganda and the campaign literature of the former government which they used to promise the mining industry exactly what they were going to do…. The Premier is responsible for his minister; he is responsible for selecting the minister. Of course, if he is not satisfied by the performance of the minister, he of course knows what action can be taken. But the Premier of this province is basically responsible for the policy, the mining policy.

So I'm simply very concerned that the Premier of this province has sat in this House, has taken no opportunity to stand up and speak on behalf of the minister whom he appointed.

[ Page 2773 ]

He has sat in this House very seldom, very few times during this debate, and when he has been here, as he was this evening for barely 15 minutes, he spent most of his time heckling across the floor, particularly making rather facetious and ridiculous remarks about the Leader of the Opposition. So my point is that the minister is the topic of discussion tonight, because he's been given this portfolio. But I simply want to make the point that a vote of non-confidence in the Minister of Mines is a vote of non-confidence in the Premier and government of this province.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think that in discussing this amendment we've lost sight of what the issue really is. I think that we have lost sight of what the issue really is by a concerted effort by government to try and make us lose sight of what issue is before us.

Government members are now saying: "Well, the NDP had help to write their legislation also. So they're guilty like we are guilty." But that isn't the point and that isn't the issue. There are a number of issues that do not surround whether or not it is correct or not correct to get outside help to write message bills that appear before this Legislature. What the issue is here is whether or not, in this particular case, there was money to be made by the private sector for having preknowledge of what that bill contained, not whether or not, in fact, those people did make money but whether, in fact, there is the slightest possibility that they could have made money.

What the coalition government would have us believe now is that it doesn't really matter whether the Minister of Mines knew who handled that taxation legislation or whether he didn't know. They say it doesn't really matter whether the minister had complete control of a bill, a taxation bill, from the time of its conception to the time of its fruition. They say: "Never mind that." Never mind that a minister of the Crown had no idea where a taxation bill was up until the time it hit his desk, apparently.

Then that minister of the Crown brings into this Legislature a bill that he has no real knowledge of, obviously no understanding of, because the minister admits that he had no part in the drafting and that he had no part in the philosophy behind the drafting. In other words, the Premier said: "How about bringing in a bill on mining to fulfil our campaign promise?" The minister said to people from the mining industry: "Would you go out and do a report?" They said, "Right," and they brought back the report.

The minister then took the report, without understanding it, obviously, to the legislative counsel and said: "Will you take the contents of this report and make it into legislation so we can fulfil our campaign promise to take away the royalties on ore in the province?" Then, to do the technical drafting, the same people, as I understand it, who brought in the report were asked back to assist, consult the government and government staff and then to assist in the actual drafting — or at least one member was asked to do that, to assist in the actual drafting of that legislation.

At this point, as I understand it, the minister had lost track of the legislation. He didn't know who had it from time to time. He couldn't have known, not knowing where the bill was, what the bill contained. Yet the minister has the audacity to bring into this Legislature a piece of taxation legislation that was promised during the Social Credit campaign and ask the other members of this House to vote for it or have confidence in him. How can they do that, Mr. Chairman, to ask us to have confidence in a piece of legislation when the minister has no idea what is contained in that legislation and quite frankly admits it?

When asked if people in the private sector had taken a hand in drafting it, he didn't even know whether they had. Well, at first he said yes, he did know. He said: "No, no one had." He said: "Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation." Then, we find out that Mr. Lau did, indeed, take part in the drafting.

So what we have here is a piece of legislation that can only be described as blind legislation, as far as that Crown minister is concerned, because it is legislation which is going to be levied on the province of British Columbia for a campaign promise by a coalition government and a coalition party to get power. To get power to do what? Power to help their friends? Obviously. Who are their friends? It's easy to tell the friends of politicians. The friends of politicians pay for politicians' campaigns. The usual practice within any system is that the government, once taking office, pays back those people who paid for its campaign.

My party is no different. There is one difference. When my party, when it becomes government, no matter where in this country, has to pay back its friends for supporting it, it's paying back the working people, the ordinary people, the people who walk in off the street with $10 of their paycheque; $5 of their paycheque. They may sign over $25 a month, if they're making good money.

When we get to form government in this party, we have to pay back those people. There is nothing wrong with that. That is what politics is all about, and we're kind of proud of the fact that we represent the ordinary people and therefore have to bring in legislation that will represent the majority of the people in this province — the working people, the poor people and the elderly.

Who are their friends? Why was this legislation brought in? This legislation was obviously brought in because…. The minister didn't even know what was

[ Page 2774 ]

in it, why it was there, who drafted it. All it was was a blind campaign promise to pay for their debts, for their campaign, so they could win and take power to pay back their friends. We've seen an example in the last days of how they pay back their friends. They pay back their friends by removing the taxation from mining. That's how they pay it.

The issue is not whether or not people should be called in from private life to assist government. We all know that that is done and it is proper. What we are saying in this case is that it was not improper to call in private interests to help draft legislation, but it was improper to call in the executive of the mining industry to draft their own legislation that would affect them as an industry; and to further it, the minister didn't know anything about it — didn't know anything about it. Not even up until yesterday, after the minister had introduced that legislation into this House, did he know. By his own admission, he didn't know what that legislation was about up until yesterday afternoon. He may have read it, but he took no part in the philosophy that put that legislation together, and he took no part in the drafting.

Mr. Chairman, obviously if we were made up as a city council, as a municipal body — each member not bound by party policy, each member not bound by a partisanship in a political way, each member being free to vote as his or her conscience led them — this minister would have a vote of non-confidence passed against him.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I think the debate has certainly settled down a great deal since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) left the chamber.

MR. LEA: Do you think the public will pick that up if you keep saying that, Pat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has decided to drop in this evening, because perhaps he can answer a question, Mr. Chairman, that was asked earlier this afternoon of him. Why is it, if the gentleman in question — with regard to the drafting of this legislation, which has been standard procedure under many governments — why, if this particular individual is unreliable, was it that the NDP engaged him in the first place to draft their legislation?

None of the members opposite have made it clear to me at least why an unreliable individual, in their view, one who is paying off the mining industry, to use their words, would have been hired in the first instance — not by the Social Credit government, either present or previous, but by the NDP government. Why would they have hired this man as a consultant if it were so wrong, Mr. Chairman, for such an individual to participate in the drafting of legislation? Why was it, then, that the NDP engaged this man to participate in the drafting of three message bills that they introduced? Why, if this individual was being placed in a position to profit by whatever knowledge he may have had, and making use of whatever advantages he may have had, and paying no attention to whatever morals he may have had, why is it that that individual would have been so reliable under the NDP administration and yet unreliable under the present administration?

Why, Mr. Chairman, is the present minister to be the subject of a non-confidence motion of the NDP with regard to a meeting that he didn't attend, when the same individual, Mr. Chairman, was shown a message bill by the former Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition — the member who's insisting that the present minister resign? Why was it that he wasn't criticized for having shown that same individual a message bill before he and his Minister of Mines (Mr. Nimsick) introduced it into the House? Why is it that the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), the man originally responsible for hiring this consultant, the man whose office the message bill was produced for the benefit of this particular…? I'm referring to the mineral royalties legislation. Why, if the Premier and the Attorney-General should have made available to this particular consultant their message bill, why is it so correct that this procedure be followed in their hands and yet so incorrect if that same procedure, or one less sensitive, be followed in the hands of the civil servants and not in the presence of the minister?

What's consistent, Mr. Chairman, about the attitudes of the NDP and their remarks? Why is it that the former Highways minister (Mr. Lea) and the former Mines minister (Mr. Nimsick) were so reluctant to criticize their colleagues, the Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and the Premier (Mr. Barrett) when they were guilty of the very same transgression they are criticizing the present minister for — if it were a transgression at all? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is that no transgression was involved. The answer is that it's sheer and utter hypocrisy on the part of the present opposition. And to use the words most often used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett): it was nothing more nor less than cheap politics.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I enjoy the forays back into history by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) — the information they provided this House on who assisted in the drafting of legislation for various departments such as

[ Page 2775 ]

the Department of Human Resources and a few others. I hope those members aren't asking to rewrite the textbooks of this province, because they're a little bit shaky about the history they are providing us with tonight, Mr. Chairman. For one thing, those who drafted the Automobile Insurance Act had nothing to gain, owned no shares in automobile insurance companies, and had nothing to gain….

AN HON. MEMBER: Only the payoff of a job.

MR. SKELLY: Get back in your seat. They had nothing to gain from….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Oh, the payoff of the job….

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Williston?

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Williston and Mr. Bonner….

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I would ask the Premier to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Members….

MR. LEA: I would ask the Premier to withdraw that a senior civil servant, namely Mr. Bortnick, would take a job helping to draft legislation within this province to receive a job. That is what the Premier said, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, may I remind you that no reference was made here to any member of this House.

MR. LEA: I would ask the Premier to withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was no reference made to any member of the House, and so the Chair is powerless to ask him to withdraw.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) also suggested that Dr. Andrew Thompson displayed a conflict of interest when he assisted the government in drafting the Energy Act when Dr. Andrew Thompson had no shares in companies that stood to benefit by the drafting of that Act. That's what the Minister of Consumer Services said.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back a little farther into history, if we are permitted — a bit of a foray into the history of the drafting of mineral legislation in this province. I'd like to read another letter into the record. It's dated December 1, 1966.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh boy! History.

MR. SKELLY: Just hold it. We went back into history; we went back four years. We talked about the Energy Act. We talked about the Automobile Insurance Act. Well, this was the year before we presented an amendment to the Mineral Act and the Mining Tax Act. The letter is addressed to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, Prime Minister — as he was known as at that time.

"Province of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C."

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's when Dave was the MLA for Coquitlam.

MR. SKELLY: That's right.

"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

"This letter is to confirm your suggestion and my agreement for the provision by me of a letter o f analysis, summary and recommendation relating to taxation by the Province of British Columbia of the mining industry, and I will proceed as quickly as I can with this matter, and I hope to provide you with my comments by early January. I welcome the opportunity to do this in the role which you have designated for me as a public-spirited citizen.

(signed)

Jack Austin."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SKELLY: Jack Austin.

AN HON. MEMBER: The senator?

MR. SKELLY: Now a senator.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the member show how this relates to the…?

MR. SKELLY: Jack Austin has a few problems along the way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, Hon. Member, we are on the amendment. Please, I did the courtesy of not interrupting you.

MR. SKELLY: In 1967 he was an adviser to the Prime Minister on mineral taxation in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: "Well, what else did he do?" says the present Premier of the province, and son of the former Prime Minister. Well, at that time he was on

[ Page 2776 ]

the board of directors of Brameda Resources, which came crashing down around his partners after he had escaped to Ottawa. He was also president of Giant Mascot Mines.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Where have we heard that one before?

MR. SKELLY: They stood to benefit from mining tax legislation in this province.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: A fine old mining company — that's right.

He also was accused of using his office as private secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada to promote mining shares and to take advantage of tax privileges.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, this was somewhat later. This was when we had presented the Mineral Royalties Act, when Jack Austin was advising the Prime Minister of Canada and when, strangely enough, a ruling came down from the federal government that our mineral royalties would not be deductible from income taxes even though private royalties would be deductible.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: This happened at the time that the Mineral Royalties Act was presented in this province, and Jack Austin was a close personal friend of the present Premier's father. He was involved in mining ventures such as Brameda Resources, Brenda Mines, Giant Mascot Mines and many other fly-by-night mining operations in the province. He assisted the previous Social Credit government in drafting and commenting on legislation — a man who had something to gain from a foreknowledge of changes in the mineral taxation Act and changes in the Mineral Act that took place in the following year.

So if we're going back in history, Mr. Chairman, then we should go back into the previous Social Credit regime and find out who had an influence over the drafting of legislation that involved the mining companies at that time — the people who were involved in profiting from that resource.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: It may be the Social Credit policy to do that.

MR. SKELLY: What we're concerned about here, Mr. Chairman, is not a conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Jurgen Lau. What we're concerned about here is whether or not the Minister of Mines and Forests and various other things told the truth to this House. The reason that this motion is on the floor of this committee is that we are concerned that the Minister of Mines was either not truthful or that he was incompetent in drafting legislation and presenting it to the House.

Yesterday the Minister of Mines and Forests, the member for Yale-Lillooet, said Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation. He made a flat statement to this House that Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation. He must have known. He appointed Mr. Lau to his mineral taxation committee. He must have known. He had the senior members from his department who were involved in the drafting of that legislation and involved with Mr. Lau in the drafting of that legislation. He must have known at the time that he made a flat statement that Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation — and that's a quote from Hansard.

The minister allowed at least one person with interests in mining companies — possibly more people with interests in mining companies — to be involved in the drafting of a taxation bill…people who stood to benefit from the results of that legislation in advance of its presentation to this House. And for that reason alone, the minister should be required to resign forthwith. The Premier should demand his resignation forthwith.

MR. LEA: Or resign himself.

MR. SKELLY: If we had a Premier with any sense of moral obligation he would have demanded his resignation last night but not only did the minister and the Premier not feel any obligation to demand the minister's resignation when he revealed the tax bill to those who stood to gain from the results of that taxation bill, even after the evidence was presented to this House which demonstrated that the minister had, in fact, not told the truth to this House, even after evidence had been presented and the minister had been confronted with the truth, still he refused to resign and the Premier did not ask him to resign, as anyone with a sense of moral obligation would have done.

That's the reason this motion is on the order paper, not that the person who assisted in drafting the legislation, Jurgen Lau, is at fault. It is the minister who is at fault, and the minister refused to reveal the truth to this House until he was confronted by the truth in the form of a memo presented by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

So I, Mr. Chairman, have no other obligation but to vote against, or vote for the motion….

[ Page 2777 ]

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Start all over again.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I'll start all over again. I have an obligation to vote in favour of this non-confidence motion. I'm only sorry that we're not reducing the minister's salary in proportion as he's reducing the taxation on the mining companies in this province, in which case we'd be reducing it a heck of a lot more than $1.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman….

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Under standing order 37, I was….

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's only applicable, Hon. Member, if two members are on their feet at the same time, and the Chair recognizes the….

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Environment will….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I recognize the second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to defer to the Minister of Environment if he would care to speak now. If he would nod his head yes, I will sit down. He nodded his head yes. So I'll sit down.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the second member for Victoria. I can assure you I will not take much of the House's time.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) chose to delve into history by way of correspondence. I thought perhaps in keeping with this attitude towards this motion we might also offer to the House just a very limited amount of information from correspondence.

Interjections.

MON. MR. NIELSEN: No, not this time. It came by way, apparently, of a different route.

They were speaking about the propriety of persons involved in industry, particularly in the mining industry, of being privy to information which is or may be contained in a bill — specifically, a message bill — the thought being that such a person would have an advantage which he may take advantage of and possibly produce some wealth for himself, his friends or associates.

MR. LEA: You wrote through supper too, eh?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The persons who are privy to legislation prior to its presentation in this House…. It has been argued by some members of the House that it is standard procedure in jurisdictions elsewhere, and in this province, to consult with persons who have expert knowledge in specific fields, be it mining, insurance, energy or whatever. It has been suggested by members that in most instances — and it was suggested in all instances cited tonight — that these persons were either of such calibre, or were not involved at the specific drafting moments, or it would not be to their advantage, or their own ethics or professional ethics restricted this….

But getting back to the point of any person involved in an industry which may have a conflict in legislation to be presented to this House prior to it actually being presented….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have a letter addressed to a person who is very much involved with a mining corporation from a minister of the Crown of British Columbia, speaking to a peculiar problem in the industry in which this person was involved:

"We propose to present to the Legislature of this province, and to recommend its passage, legislation which will have the effect of providing new copper smelters with a sum equivalent to 2 cents a pound for each pound of copper actually produced from such new smelter for a period of four years from the date of the substantial completion of the smelter."

This letter is telling the person what is proposed to be brought in as legislation which would be brought in as a message bill.

It is from a minister of the Crown no longer sitting as a minister, the hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Hon. Gary V. Lauk, dated October 17, 1975, and addressed to….

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the man who started all this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is reading from a memorandum that was handed out at a press conference last October by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he was the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Hon. Member. Proceed, Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Just for clarification, I am

[ Page 2778 ]

not reading from a memo. The member is wrong again.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I will table this correspondence after committee rises to prove him wrong again. The letter is addressed to Dr. N.B. Keevil Jr., Teck Corp. Ltd., 1199 West Hastings St.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the date?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: October 17, 1975.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): "Signed, Gary Lauk."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That has been said, yes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The suggestion, Mr. Chairman, of impropriety on the part of a minister of the Crown relaying information prior to its presentation or, in the words of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), in advance of its presentation to this House, the attitude of those calling for the resignation of the Minister of Mines seems very strange when you consider such correspondence was forwarded from this building as late as last year. I leave that for them to consider.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is a very brief point of order. The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned in his recent debate — and I am sorry, it has taken me a moment to look up the references, which is why I am only bringing it up now — but he appeared to me to be criticizing the conduct of a member of the Upper House of the Government of Canada, which I think is not particularly useful in relationships between governments and chambers. I would ask the member to clarify if he was imputing any improper motives to Senator Austin.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. member for Alberni imputing any improper motives to a member of the Senate?

MR. SKELLY: No, Mr. Chairman, I was not. He was not a senator at the time; he was a consultant to a former Prime Minister of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, have you ever seen a new government lose public confidence as quickly as this one has?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): No.

MR. BARBER: Have you ever seen a new minister lose public confidence as quickly as this one has?

There are two major wrongs that concern us, and are the subject of this amendment. We believe, in the first place, that there is a substantial conflict of interest when we have the president of a mining company preparing legislation to the considerable advantage of mining companies and, indeed, when that legislation will be voted upon by 16 members of the coalition government who own shares in mining companies.

We believe, secondly, that there are grave conflicts between the statements variously made at various times by the minister himself, and between statements made by the minister and by Mr. Jurgen Lau. These are the two principal wrongs that concern us, Mr. Chairman, and any attempts to divert from that, any of the attempts that have been made today, will fail because we know what's going on; we believe the public does too.

MR. DAVIDSON: You're on the fruitloops again.

MR. BARBER: One of the things, though, that's yet to be talked about much in this Legislature is one of the most remarkable admissions we've yet heard from that coalition government, and from that Minister of Mines, about how they really work. Do you recall, Mr. Chairman, how in the last campaign and during their term in opposition they paraded themselves up and down the province of British Columbia as good, reliable, competent, first-class businessmen? They told all of us that. They were all first-rate businessmen, all of them.

The Minister of Mines was a first-rate businessman; they all knew how to run businesses. But in this debate 16 of them have stood up to say: "Well, when it comes to mines, we're not such great businessmen because we have to admit that every investment we've made is a dog."

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: This is an incredible conflict. These guys have paraded for three and a half years as a bunch of first-rate, first-class businessmen.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member over there has stated that 16 businessmen — or 16 men from this side of the House — have got mining shares, and I think he's making statements that these mining shares

[ Page 2779 ]

are in the province of British Columbia. I think if he checks, they are elsewhere. He's creating the impression that we're a bunch of crooks, and I think he should withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that may be a point of clarification which could be dealt with after the member finishes speaking.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the more they talk, the more they sink in the soup. Every time they open their mouths it gets worse.

MR. KING: Turkey soup! (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: It's quite remarkable, isn't it? Sixteen of the best businessmen in the province of British Columbia have invested in dog after dog after dog in the mining industry. What judgment they show!

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: What discretion! What competence! What sublime business ability these guys have — they have all invested in dogs — all these ministers, every one of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will be getting to the amendment?

MR. BARBER: That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BARBER: The minister himself tells us that he too has invested in a dog. Isn't that extraordinary? The man entrusted with one of the principal natural resources of this province is so inept in his judgment, so poor in his business that he too has invested in a dog. He's a mining engineer by profession — so he says.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: A mining engineer, of all people, has invested in a dog.

Now I can understand when the occasional car dealer, when the occasional land speculator, by mistake or on ill advice from a friend somewhere located, accidentally invests in one….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, will you kindly come back to the amendment, please? You are very confident; would you come back to the amendment?

MR. BARBER: But when the Minister of Mines himself, whose competence is called into question by this amendment upon which I am speaking, when the Minister of Mines himself, a professional engineer, admits that he too, like 15 of his colleagues, has invested in another dog, you've got to begin to think that these guys are giving dogs a bad name. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: His bark is better than your bite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Woof, woof!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. member proceed on the amendment?

MR. BARBER: I was just waiting awhile for the statement to sink in.

MR. BARRETT: Talk slower — it might help.

MR. BARBER: I've always talked too quickly — I've been told that for years.

So, first of all, we have the sight of this Minister of Mines, a professional mining engineer, confessing that he's invested in a dog, and 15 of his colleagues invest in dogs also — and all of their shares in mining companies are allegedly worthless. They are all worthless, every one of them. These are the businessmen who purported to be the competent managerial class, able to manage the business interests of British Columbia.

That is the first problem raised and suggested by this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This amendment clearly calls into question the competence of the Minister of Mines. His own statements call his competence into question even more.

Secondly, those statements are at substantial issue here. May I repeat — for the 400th time — that he said yesterday: "Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation." That's what he said.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): You're getting excited again!

MR. BARBER: Did he tell the truth then, or did he make a statement that he was not competent to make? Did he tell the truth yesterday, or was he speaking from ignorance? One can only conclude, because only one of those things can be logically correct — they cannot both exist simultaneously and be simultaneously and equally correct — that he either did not tell the truth or he was not competent to say anything. If he didn't know the answer, as an honourable and honest minister he would have said

[ Page 2780 ]

so. We would have accepted that. He would have taken that question as notice. He would have taken that line of argument as notice and said: "I'm sorry. I don't know, but I will find out for you. I won't mislead you by making statements that I'm not really competent to make and I won't tell a lie to you. I'll go and find out." And we would have accepted that. Any of us would have accepted that. But the man stood in this House and said: "Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation." That statement was contradicted totally by Mr. Lau himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blabbermouth!

MR. BARBER: Totally! Does the man know what he is saying, Mr. Chairman? Does the minister know what he is talking about? Or is Mr. Lau a liar? Has Mr. Lau made all this up? Is Mr. Lau at fault? Did he misinform the people?

You know, the Minister of Mines may not have known who drafted the legislation but The Vancouver Sun did as early as June 5. I wish to read into the record something that the minister should know, were he a competent minister. In a lengthy article in the Saturday edition of The Vancouver Sun, June 5, 1976, appearing on page 32, in which a substantial analysis of proposed mining legislation was carried out, these comments were written:

"Waterland said that though the immediate effect of the mining legislation will be a drop in government revenue…"

We all know that's true.

"…a steady increase can be expected over the next 10 years. 'We shouldn't just look at what we can get out of the mining industry today,' he said, 'we should plan for the future.'"

The article carries on, the article tells us what we knew to be the case and what we presumed any competent minister would have known to be the case. It was, after all, his legislation. On June 5 The Vancouver Sun knew who drafted the legislation. It said:

"A committee of four, three of them from outside the Mines department, drafted the legislation. They were Jim Fyles, Deputy Minister of Mines, Jurgen Lau, a lawyer with Bull, Housser and Tupper, Gordon Bell, and independent consultant George Stekl."

On June 5 The Vancouver Sun knew who drafted it. This minister comes in here yesterday and tells us he didn't know who drafted it. He told us that Mr. Lau did not draft it. "Mr. Lau had nothing to do with the drafting of that legislation."

Is the man telling the truth or not? Is he competent or not? Did he know who was drafting the legislation or not? On June 5 The Vancouver Sun knew who drafted the legislation. Yesterday the Minister of Mines didn't. What's going on here? This is the most gross neglect. This is the most gross incompetence. He comes into the House and he makes a flat statement that Mr. Lau did not draft the legislation. The Vancouver Sun on June 5 said he did. The minister, when confronted by the fact that Mr. Lau, an honest man, admitted he did, changed his story, altered the tune and tells us, yes, Mr. Lau….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you are becoming very repetitious. Would you kindly…. You have canvassed that point before.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: The fourth question raised by this amendment lies in that question of the minister's qualifications to hold the job he holds. I believe, if I may speak personally for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that the minister is a nice guy. I've been into his riding. I've corresponded with his constituents who have come to me to solve some of their personal problems, and I believe that the Minister of Mines is a decent man.

I also believe that he doesn't know how to swim. He's out of his depth. He's completely out of his depth. He's also the Minister of Forests and he talks….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, personal attacks are unparliamentary. Would you kindly deal with the amendment?

MR. BARBER: I said I believe he's a nice guy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Deal with the amendment, please.

MR. BARBER: The amendment calls into question the competence of the member for Yale-Lillooet to hold the portfolio of the Minister of Mines, and it is precisely that to which my remarks are directed.

The Minister of Mines, as the Minister of Forests, tells us that one of his qualifications is that he's lived in the bush for a number of years. He told us a few days ago that he spends 80 per cent of his time on the forestry half of his portfolio.

MR. LEA: He spent 80 per cent of his time in the bush!

MR. BARBER: It may be that the fact that he's only spent 20 per cent of his time — if we're to believe his statement about 80 per cent, and it, too appears in Hansard — is at least in part responsible for

[ Page 2781 ]

his total failure to exercise the duties of Minister of Mines seriously. But he is also the Minister of Mines.

Let me read a quotation. I wonder if someone in this House might recognize it.

"I became involved in politics to change the mining royalties and the ministerial discretion clauses in the mining legislation, and that's what I've done."

I take it the pounders in the back bench recognize the quote. I wonder if the minister does. It's his own quote. He said it himself. He came into politics to do what he's done, and that's straightforward enough. But when you look at how he's done it and when you look at who he did it for, you have to wonder whether or not the mining companies, the former employers of that particular gentleman, have received some quite remarkable consideration from that coalition government.

Is it possible that the minister was placed there by the mining companies? Is it possible that he's a kind of human payoff for the mining companies?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you're coming very, very close to imputing improper motives towards the minister.

MR. BARBER: The motives in question are those of the mining companies and the extraordinary, subtle, diabolical influence they have on the politics of this province and that coalition. The minister himself admitted that the immediate effect of the mining legislation will be a drop in government revenue, but to whose benefit is that?

It's pretty clear that the bill in question was out of this minister's personal control. Maybe he'll find out something tomorrow, but he didn't know tonight in whose hands the bill was, who drafted it, who prepared it or who was responsible for it. We know who was responsible for it. It's the Minister of Mines — first, last and always. The bill was out of his hands. Quicksilver-like, it slipped through his fingers. The president of a mining company ended up doing the job. The bill was out of his hands. He did not exercise control, and this is the grossest neglect.

We asked the Minister of Mines to file the list of shareholders of Barrier Reef, to file the list of shareholders of Bethlehem Copper, to file the report of three consultants and of the deputy minister, and to prepare for us a statement, chronological and exact, of who had that legislation in their hands. Who had it? When did they see it? We need a complete list of all of the mining company interests, including directorships and shares held by all of the members of the committee who drafted that bill. Otherwise we're never going to know who is responsible. We're only going to know that the minister wasn't.

The minister has exercised no discretion, has ensured no security and has taken no precautions.

The bill was not in his control. He didn't even know who drafted it. The Vancouver Sun knew, but he didn't know. The Vancouver Sun knew on June 5; he didn't know yesterday.

I wish to conclude by pointing out, Mr. Chairman, the really tragic and predictable outcome of this amendment: it will fail. The opposition will be defeated by the government majority. It will fail. The government majority will defeat the vote and the cover-up will succeed. We'll never find out through whose hands that legislation passed. We'll never find out who actually wrote it, but over the years to come, we'll find out day by day who benefits. It isn't the ordinary people of this province that benefit; it's the mining companies of this province that will benefit. That's the most tragic outcome of them all.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I understand the need for defence of a situation like this on behalf of the government. I understand the motives of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) standing up and reading a letter that was publicly released in mid-October — a letter from the Minister of Mines at the time (Mr. Lauk) to Afton Mines. Also he publicly released at the same time a letter from Afton Mines. Mr. Chairman, the interesting part of that smokescreen was the fact that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) in this province had said on a number of occasions that all of his files had gone missing. I would ask that this rather news-media-inclined person let us know where he found part of those files, or was he just reading something that was made public and certainly not part of any kind of a cover-up in any way, shape or form?

Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing this whole question for a good long time. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) can sympathize with the Minister of Mines, because to some degree his budget and his financial direction were also shared with others outside.

Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't be so hard for us to take, except that we all recall how the Minister of Mines moved around this province assuring the mining industry that all would be well. Not only did he assure them that all would be well, but he saw to it that they were involved. But, Mr. Chairman, this goes way beyond that. Let's not lose sight of the real basic issue, which is not a smokescreen. Let's not accept a smokescreen; let's accept the words in Hansard, Mr. Chairman, and that's really what our debate is all about. Mr. Chairman, the minister made conflicting remarks. The minister has led the committee into chaos, to the extent that for a good part of the day most of the cabinet disappeared. The front benches emptied, but they felt it best to come back in and do a job. I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has been

[ Page 2782 ]

conspicuous in his absence, also came in….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, please come back to the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I just want everybody to understand that all the smokescreen that has gone on is really irrelevant. Sure, some of the implications from the opposition have been off the track from what the real direction is. The real direction is that the minister has put us into a terribly embarrassing position in this House where we cannot support his tenure in a most responsible position in this province; a position wherein he makes the basic decisions that apply to the largest resource industries — not only mines, but forests. Mr. Chairman, how can we therefore do anything in good conscience but support a resolution put forward in the best interests of parliament and put forward in the best interests of this House? I hope the people in this debate will think it over and will support a resolution that will put this committee and this House in better stead than it has been heretofore.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 25

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

On vote 130.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on vote 130, yesterday we were having a debate about what mines and what mining companies may be assisted in this province. A number of members in the House indicated that they had shares in mines. As a matter I of fact, I'd like to bring attention to Charta Mines.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) got up and very piously talked about Charta Mines — it was in Alberta, and it had claims here, there and everywhere. Mr. Chairman, we said that B.C. was looking more and more hospitable to that company.

I just by chance today came across the directors of Charta Mines….

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. COCKE: Charta Mines — C-h-a-r-t-a, for the interest of Hansard. I found, Mr. Chairman, that one Charles Bawlf is a director of Charta Mines. I don't know what the relationship is, but I wonder if he's related to the member for Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: What if he is?

MR. COCKE: A Gary Anderson, Mr. Chairman, is another. Then we heard also from the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers); he was indicating that he knew something about Charta Mines. We also find on the board of directors of Charta Mines a C. Stephen Rogers. Mmm! Two out of three so far.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): No claims in British Columbia!

MR. COCKE: No claims in British Columbia — we're not talking about claims in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. What we're talking about is how hospitable is British Columbia to Charta Mines.

In Charta Mines we find strange name relationships: Charles Bawlf, Gary Anderson, C. Stephen Rogers, John S. Brock and, I believe, J. Pendergast. Well, we missed out on the last two, but, Mr. Chairman, strange bedfellows possibly.

Really, what we're talking about here is the fact that this government, by their own admission during the election campaign, moved around this province and said: "Mining corporations, support us, because if you do we will make British Columbia a place that you'll enjoy for ever and ever." Then while we took our vote a minute or two ago, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "Are you against the mining industry?" Mr. Chairman, a mining industry that will provide that this province and the people in this province receive their share of their heritage — no, we're not against. But we have witnessed in this country a mining industry that has grown fat with the ability to avoid tax, and the ability to put themselves in a preferred position that hasn't been enjoyed by any other industry with the exception of the petroleum industry.

The forestry industry has never been treated in Canada like the mining industry. So, Mr. Chairman, it s interesting to see that there are names we all know turning up in the strangest places.

[ Page 2783 ]

MR. SKELLY: I would like to talk about some things which were brought up during the time we were discussing the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and one of the things was that the Minister of Mines desires to do away with discretion in mining legislation. I'd like to talk about a piece of legislation that was on the books since 1970, called the Mineral Processing Act. It was placed on the books by, I believe, Tiger Richter, as he's affectionately known. I'd like to talk about some of the sections of that Act as they relate to the minister's abhorrence to discretion in the mining industry and discretion in mining legislation. It says in this Act, section 4:

"Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the minister may direct the owner or manager of a producing mine within the province to deliver a maximum of 50 per cent of the minerals produced by that mining operation to a processing plant, smelter or refinery. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the minister may, in notice by writing, direct the owner or manager or any processing plant to accept delivery of, process, smelt or refine such minerals, to be carried out within such period of time and at such cost to the producing mine as the minister may determine or direct. Failure to comply with the written directive of the minister is an offence and upon summary conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for each day that the contravention continues."

Was that passed by the former Minister of Mines who sought to usurp discretionary power over the mining industry of this province? That statement "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary" — did that come from the former member for Vancouver East who, we were told in this House over the last three years, didn't believe in the sanctity of contracts, Mr. Chairman? No, it was Tiger Richter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I just interrupt the member long enough to give you this caution?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SKELLY: Was that to join the Socred party?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to introduce at this time a caution that there are restrictions in what can be debated in Committee of Supply, and May at page 739 says that "the administrative action of a department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee of supply." That's just a caution. Thank you.

MR. SKELLY: Well, this Act, I believe, comes under the administrative purview of the Minister of Mines, Mr. Chairman. He has this discretion. He said he had an abhorrence to this type of discretion and the use of this type of discretion. He sought to repeal it, and he criticized the former Minister of Mines for placing this type of discretion in the Mineral Act. Yet in another Act that he hasn't touched at all — and okay, the Fair Sales Practices Act, but of course we're not discussing that minister's vote — this minister has the discretion to seize up to 50 per cent of the production of any mine, to direct it to any smelter or refining company to accept the production of the producing mine at any price he chooses to set. Now that's what I call ministerial discretion. In his abhorrence for ministerial discretion in the mining industry he hasn't repealed or proposed to repeal the Mineral Processing Act. In fact, it remains on the books.

I don't believe that the minister is concerned about discretion at all. I believe it was a sham, his abhorrence for discretion under the Mineral Act. I believe it was a sham, just a sham minister, and he was following the dictates of the mining companies when he presented that Bill 30 to this Legislature, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't have any abhorrence to ministerial discretion at all.

When he was interviewed by the news media he said that he wanted to cut down the powers of his office, to cut down those discretionary powers, and yet he leaves it in the Mineral Processing Act. I think it's typical Social Credit coalition legislation. They don't want to remove the discretionary powers of ministers. After all, they've left it in the Highway Act. They've left it in the trade practices Act. They've left it in many other Acts, including Acts under the jurisdiction of the present minister — heavier legislation, more Stalinist, statist type of legislation than was ever passed under the previous New Democratic Party government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind the member again that legislation or the need for legislation is not in order in discussion in committee of supply?

MR. SKELLY: Right, I'm talking about the Minister of Mines' administrative jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, it sounded like you were talking about legislation.

MR. SKELLY: Right. In any case, he has this discretion under legislation that still exists on the books of this province, and he has the power to seize and direct and allocate resources under this

[ Page 2784 ]

legislation. I ask the minister: if he really believes that he shouldn't have this discretion, then why has he left this legislation on the books — legislation that empowers him to seize minerals from free-enterprise mines operating in this province, and direct them to processing plants within this province, not with the permission of those people involved in the free marketplace?

Remember how they criticized the former minister of resources, Mr. Chairman, for interfering in the free marketplace. They criticized him. Yet this minister has the power under the mineral processing Act to seize minerals — up to 50 per cent of the production of any mine in the province — and to direct them to a smelting plant or a processing plant and to force them to accept those minerals and to process them at a price that he dictates. This is statist, Stalinist type of legislation that was put on the books by the previous Social Credit government.

The minister doesn't really believe that he shouldn't have this type of discretion. He's simply following the dictates of the mining companies and he doesn't really believe that he shouldn't have that type of discretion. He's a sham minister and a front for the mining companies. What did the mining companies say, when that legislation was presented, about the jurisdiction that this minister has over minerals within the province, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just remind you for the last time that we do not discuss legislation.

MR. SKELLY: But this is part of his administrative jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is legislation, Hon. Member.

MR. SKELLY: He has the power, though, under his department to direct minerals, to interfere in the free marketplace, to decide which mining companies should direct which minerals to which processing plant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion of legislation will be out of order.

MR. SKELLY: This is already on the books, though, Mr. Chairman. It was passed by the previous Social Credit government in 1970, and he still has that power. I'll steer clear of the legislation; I'll simply tell you what the reaction of the mining companies was. Oh, and here's another telegram, too:

PREMIER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL, MINISTER OF FINANCE, THE HON. WILLIAM ANDREW CECIL BENNETT, P.C., LL.D., DOCTOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, VICTORIA, B.C.

SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF BILL 40 MINERAL PROCESSING ACT THIS ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN FROM RESPONSIBLE MINE DEVELOPERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN FINANCING BRITISH COLUMBIA MINING VENTURES AS WELL AS PURCHASING COPPER CONCENTRATES FOR LOCAL MINES. JAPANESE INTERESTS APPEAR TO BE THE MOST CONCERNED OVER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL AS IT WOULD AFFECT THE PURCHASE OF COPPER CONCENTRATES IN THIS PROVINCE. IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY BEEN ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF LORNEX MINING COMPANY THAT FINANCING OF THEIR IMPORTANT LOW-GRADE COPPER-MOLYBDENUM IN THE HIGHLAND VALLEY AREA ASHCROFT IS IN JEOPARDY OWING TO THAT COMPANY'S INABILITY TO GUARANTEE SALE OF COPPER CONCENTRATES TO JAPANESE SMELTERS. IT WOULD APPEAR OBVIOUS FOR THE COPPER OUTPUT CANADIAN BANKS WILL NOT FINANCE LOCAL MINING VENTURES.

That legislation's still on the books.

WE RECOGNIZE YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DESIRE TO BRING ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COPPER SMELTER IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Well, they didn't have to worry about that because they recycled that promise several times over.

HOWEVER WE WISH TO URGE THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT CAREFULLY WEIGH ALL ASPECTS OF THE LEGISLATION BEFORE IT BECOMES LAW BEARING IN MIND THE FACT THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA MINERAL TRADE WITH JAPAN IS NOW VALUED AT SOME $200 MILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY WITHIN FIVE YEARS THIS TRADE COULD BE VALUED AT $500 MILLION PER YEAR. IT'S OUR OPINION THAT ANY ACTION THAT MAY BE TAKEN WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE FUTURE OF THIS MOST BENEFICIAL MINERAL TRADE WITH JAPAN AND WOULD BE MOST UNWISE AS IT WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE A VERY ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE GROWTH OF B.C.'S MINERAL INDUSTRY BUT WOULD ALSO SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE ECONOMY OF THIS PROVINCE. AS YOU ARE AWARE THE FUTURE OF MINING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA IS DEPENDENT ON LARGE LOW-GRADE DEPOSITS THAT ARE NOW BEING DISCOVERED AND DEVELOPED.

Sounds like I'm recycling a few Socred speeches from the last three years — but it's 1970.

TO PLACE, SUCH DEPOSITS IN PRODUCTION REQUIRES VERY SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF VENTURE CAPITAL MUCH OF WHICH MUST BE ATTRACTED FROM OUTSIDE FINANCIAL MARKETS INCLUDING JAPAN.

[ Page 2785 ]

RESPECTFULLY
THOMAS ELLIOTT
MANAGER
B.C. AND YUKON CHAMBER OF MINES

Mr. Chairman, that legislation is still on the books. This minister still has that discretionary power to direct minerals from one mine in the province to a processing plant in the province. This minister says he has an abhorrence to discretion in mining legislation and that he came to office out of a desire to remove that discretion from the legislation. Yet he's only removed it from part of the legislation which he administers, Mr. Chairman. And he's left the balance of it in there — kind of a Catch 22. And I am wondering just what the minister plans to do about the discretionary powers that he holds under certain other legislation in the province, legislation that was passed by the previous Social Credit government and legislation over which he has jurisdiction. What does he plan to do with that legislation?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, for the second time in as many days in committee there has been misleading information presented to the House concerning my holdings in Charta Mines and with respect to the question of whether Charta Mines in fact has any interests in the province of British Columbia. Yesterday the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) cited the Financial Post Survey of Mines, 1976 to the effect that Charta Mines does, indeed, have such holdings. I wish to correct that statement of fact that Charta Mines had a claim in British Columbia which lapsed March 27, 1975. In fact, Charta Mines has only holdings in the province of Alberta. The fact is that Charta is now moving into the toy business, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure will pose no threat to the…

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BAWLF: …sensitivities of the opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression we were going to have a statement from you about a matter raised earlier regarding a telegram.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement will follow in due course, but not this evening, Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: I was under the impression that it was today, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tables documents referred to in committee.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.